Well.....Well....Well...

[*PhilHos*]

(06-25-2018, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All she does is defend him to the media.  She is the queen of catch phrases and sound bites used to defend everything he does.

Out of curiosity, can you list the Press Secretaries who did NOT defend their president?

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 03:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Gotta love whataboutism, right?

Well he did use his personal account to post it. Seems that's deciding factor on if something is an ethical violation. So he's good to go on this one.


But if I'm to be serious. I find this much worse that what SHS did regardless the devise.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2018, 03:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Gotta love whataboutism, right?

More Trump hypocrisy and lack of ethics in this case. (His personal account is used to state policy more than his official one.)

"whataboutism" would be citing people complaining about Trump places being dumps and dirty in order to defend someone who as treated "unfairly" there.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 03:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Out of curiosity, can you list the Press Secretaries who did NOT defend their president?

It's almost like Trump is harder to defend than most presidents, or something.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2018, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wait, what?  Are you suggesting the Press Secretary believes everything POTUS does?

No. I am saying, though, that choosing to be in that role requires a significant level of "buy-in" to what the POTUS stands for.

(06-25-2018, 03:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A general reflection, but they have no idea what her opinion on transgender people in the military is.  I would have to think that no press secretary is 100% on what a president says.  

They didn't change anything on transgenders in the military until the end of Obama's admin.  So can we assume there was a lot of banning going on at the restaurant over that for all the previous admins? 

Has she banned politicians for dishonesty before?

She should just be honest about why she did what she did.   Otherwise she may be banned from the Red Hen.  

You're really just making the case for this being more about the individual than a political intolerance, which has been my stance all along.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. I am saying, though, that choosing to be in that role requires a significant level of "buy-in" to what the POTUS stands for.


You're really just making the case for this being more about the individual than a political intolerance, which has been my stance all along.

It's personal and political with a touch of grandstanding (she knew this would get out). Just quit making up shit about your standards or whatever.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. I am saying, though, that choosing to be in that role requires a significant level of "buy-in" to what the POTUS stands for.

I'll have to re-look the job description. I'll get back with you.

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So is that a Yes from you?

Absolutely. She works too hard to defend everything he says.   That is the only conclusion possible for me. 

At least until you can find a quote where she claims to disagrees with anything he says.  

[*PhilHos*]

(06-25-2018, 03:38 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's almost like Trump is harder to defend than most presidents, or something.

Maybe so, but I find it funny how people are seemingly upset that SHS would dare do her job and defend the president and the president's policies and statements.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll have to re-look the job description. I'll get back with you.

Can you really do that?  When Trump is involved you throw out all the boring bureaucratic job descriptions and strap yourself in for a ride.  WOAOAHAHAHAHHAAAAHHHH!!!

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Absolutely. She works too hard to defend everything he says.   That is the only conclusion possible for me. 

At least until you can find a quote where she claims to disagrees with anything he says.  

I don't recall a press secretary ever disagreeing with anything.  I can't sear it hasn't happened, but no incident comes to mind.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 03:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Maybe so, but I find it funny how people are seemingly upset that SHS would dare do her job and defend the president and the president's policies and statements.

What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?

-some crazy middle eastern guy

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 03:38 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's almost like Trump is harder to defend than most presidents, or something.

IDK, I'm sure Joe Lochhart had his hands full, but at least he bought into it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Absolutely. She works too hard to defend everything he says.   That is the only conclusion possible for me. 

At least until you can find a quote where she claims to disagrees with anything he says.  

Regardless what you have been told in this thread it is not her job to agree or disagree. Her job is to share communication from the Executive Branch.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 03:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?

-some crazy middle eastern guy

"But for Wales?"  

[GMDino]

(06-25-2018, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Regardless what you have been told in this thread it is not her job to agree or disagree. Her job is to share communication from the Executive Branch.

She rarely even does that to be honest.

A lot of "I can't speak for..." and "That speaks for itself..." and "You will have to ask them...."

She really diverts more than agrees.

But when she does agree she goes all in.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, I'm sure Joe Lochhart had his hands full, but at least he bought into it.

He was just following orders!

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2018, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Regardless what you have been told in this thread it is not her job to agree or disagree. Her job is to share communication from the Executive Branch.

Being a spokesperson requires a high level of agreement. You have to defend whoever or whatever you are speaking on behalf of. If you don't buy-in to it then you are not going to be adequately able to do your job. This isn't a low-level paper pusher in State or Ed where you just do your job and it doesn't matter who is in office.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a spokesperson requires a high level of agreement. You have to defend whoever or whatever you are speaking on behalf of. If you don't buy-in to it then you are not going to be adequately able to do your job. This isn't a low-level pencil pusher in State or Ed where you just do your job and it doesn't matter who is in office.

My ears are burning!

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a spokesperson requires a high level of agreement. You have to defend whoever or whatever you are speaking on behalf of. If you don't buy-in to it then you are not going to be adequately able to do your job. This isn't a low-level pencil pusher in State or Ed where you just do your job and it doesn't matter who is in office.

You're the Government expert, but I'll just disagree with being a spokesman requires a high level of agreement. I've always considered them as someone that speaks for.

I do know I disagree with a number of Hillary's stances but if she wins in 2020 and wants to pay me $173,000 a year to talk to the press and be her mouthpiece to the press I'm, there and will defend her to the best of my abilities. I don't doubt there will be a population that suggests bfine believes everything Hillary does.

WTS, we have gone too far down this tangent and you guys are getting silly with the Press Secretary's duties. SHS got kicked out of a restaurant because of the Politics of the person she speaks for; regardless how nuanced folks want to suggest it is in an effort to excuse this intolerance.