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

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, we'll just just let you think that it is an imaginary would where a Press Secretary, whose responsibilities are collecting information about actions and events within the president's administration and issues the administration's reactions to developments around the world. The press secretary interacts with the media, and deals with the White House press corps on a daily basis, generally in a daily press briefing. Must agree with everything that office communicates.

So basically you are admitting that you don't have a single scrap of evidence that SHS ever disagreed with anything Trump proposed.

If all she did was repeat exactly what the WH said there would be no need for a press secretary.  What she does is actively defend his policies to the press.

The mental gymnastics you guys go through are amazing.  Goebbles wasn't really a Nazi either, was he?

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 04:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's most likely because you confusing speaking for with endorsing.

That would explain why Hillary didn't get any flak for defending that rapist in court.

[Dill]

(06-25-2018, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only in your imaginary world where she has disagreed with Trumps policies and where Trump hires people who don't agree with him to defend him from the press.

He does seem to make a point of demanding, not only personal loyalty, but public enthusiasm.  This goes well beyond the usual (and understandable) expectation that staff and cabinet speak to the public with one voice.

Many leaders value people who question them and speak their mind, at least behind doors. Trump seems to abhor that, preferring rather to appoint or otherwise collect people who, if they don't agree with him, will keep that to themselves--even behind closed doors.

Given Trump's penchant for lying and changing his mind from day to day, the demand for personal loyalty has to be pretty stressful. Previous press secretaries have never had to lie so blatantly and on a daily basis the way Sanders does.  Commentators who say that she is really peforming for an audience of one are likely right. She has to gaslight daily.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 04:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you are admitting that you don't have a single scrap of evidence that SHS ever disagreed with anything Trump proposed.

If all she did was repeat exactly what the WH said there would be no need for a press secretary.  What she does is actively defend his policies to the press.

The mental gymnastics you guys go through are amazing.  Goebbles wasn't really a Nazi either, was he?

Which press secretary hasn't done that?  As I've said I don't recall a press secretary ever going against the admin.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2018, 04:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's most likely because you confusing speaking for with endorsing.

Or maybe it's just because those are my principles. Working on an elected official's staff means you are working to advance their agenda. If you don't agree with their agenda, then why would you do that to yourself? One of the few things we truly own in this world is our labor, how we choose to spend our time and energy. Why would I choose to spend my time and energy advancing an agenda I don't agree with? Why would anyone?

[Dill]

(06-25-2018, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Which press secretary hasn't done that?  As I've said I don't recall a press secretary ever going against the admin.

Ziegler stuck by Nixon to the end, even urging that he fight impeachment rather than resign.

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Which press secretary hasn't done that?  As I've said I don't recall a press secretary ever going against the admin.

And that is because Presidents hire people who agree with them to defend them to the press.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 04:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you are admitting that you don't have a single scrap of evidence that SHS ever disagreed with anything Trump proposed.

If all she did was repeat exactly what the WH said there would be no need for a press secretary.  What she does is actively defend his policies to the press.

The mental gymnastics you guys go through are amazing.  Goebbles wasn't really a Nazi either, was he?

Yes Fred I have no scrap of evidence that SHS disagreed and really have no desire to look; as I have already stated that to agree or disagree (at least publicly) is not her job. You have no way of knowing if she personally agrees with his every decision.

There's absolutely 0 mental gymnastics on this end. Just folks trying to explain why it was OK to kick this woman and her family out of a restaurant for doing her job.

Bur i see you got Nazi in there, good work.

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes Fred I have no scrap of evidence that SHS disagreed and really have no desire to look; as I have already stated that to agree or disagree (at least publicly) is not her job. You have no way of knowing if she personally agrees with his every decision.

There's absolutely 0 mental gymnastics on this end. Just folks trying to explain why it was OK to kick this woman and her family out of a restaurant for doing her job.

Bur i see you got Nazi in there, good work.

The only thing I have to judge Sanders on are the words that come out of her mouth.  She does not just repeat direct quotes from the WH.  She actively defends everything they do.  Even when she does personal interviews she supports everything Trump does.

The only logical conclusion for me to draw is that she agrees with everything Trump says.  That is why he hired her.  That is why she keeps her job.

Again, according to your logic Geobbles should not be considered a Nazi, but instead of addressing the logic in my comparison you just dance and dodge.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes Fred I have no scrap of evidence that SHS disagreed and really have no desire to look; as I have already stated that to agree or disagree (at least publicly) is not her job. You have no way of knowing if she personally agrees with his every decision.

There's absolutely 0 mental gymnastics on this end. Just folks trying to explain why it was OK to kick this woman and her family out of a restaurant for doing her job.

Bur i see you got Nazi in there, good work.

Ehh, don't abortion doctors get shot for "just doing their jobs?"  Doing some jobs makes you rather unsavory to some people, so be it. I guess I don't what is so insane about this. Doing some jobs get you discounts and pats on the back, and doing some jobs get you thrown out of places and/or killed.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

This thread is fantastic!

Some lady gets asked to leave a restaurant and everyone and their mothers are freaking out about it, lol.

It's the same for every thread in P&R and it's great.

How long before someone on the extreme left or right decides its high time to start murdering those they disagree with and succeed?

I miss the days of "The President is held to a higher standard" and "What a President does in his private life should stay private"

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2018, 05:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, don't abortion doctors get shot for "just doing their jobs?"  Doing some jobs makes you rather unsavory to some people, so be it.  I guess I don't what is so insane about this.  Doing some jobs get you discounts and pats on the back, and doing some jobs get you thrown out of places and/or killed.

I think folks have me confused with someone that thinks this business did not have every right to ask SHS and her family to leave, They did and it seemed to be professionally done by both sides. It's just those in the past that suggest a business doesn't have the right to refuse service because of difference in beliefs are trying to say "this is different"

You've got Matt saying it's different because it's not about politics and you've got Fred saying it is different because it is about politics. It's no different; and like any free citizen I can chose if the business's actions make me want we to frequent the establishment or avoid it. I will chose to avoid the Red Hen is every given the opportunity. I hear chick-fil-a has abetter chicken sandwich anyway. 

[GMDino]

(06-25-2018, 04:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I couldn't be on an elected official's staff at all, let along being a spox, without agreeing with them on most positions. I can work in agencies and what not, but being in a Representative's, Senator's, or White House staff would require much more from me.

Maybe I'm not typical of our society, these days.

I can agree with that.

I guess that was part of the thought process I had when I included "until something crossed a personal line".

If I agreed with Trump on his "policies" I'd still be unable to defend his lying about the border policy being the Democrats fault.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2018, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will chose to avoid the Red Hen is every given the opportunity. I hear chick-fil-a has abetter chicken sandwich anyway. 

Well, probably, because The Red Hen is farm-to-table fine dining and I've never seen a chicken sandwich on their menu.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is because Presidents hire people who agree with them to defend them to the press.

Agree with them in general.  It would be nearly impossible to find someone who agreed with someone else entirely.  But her job is to advance the White House line whenever she speaks in public.  Like every other press secretary in our lifetime.  

[Millhouse]

(06-25-2018, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or maybe it's just because those are my principles. Working on an elected official's staff means you are working to advance their agenda. If you don't agree with their agenda, then why would you do that to yourself? One of the few things we truly own in this world is our labor, how we choose to spend our time and energy. Why would I choose to spend my time and energy advancing an agenda I don't agree with? Why would anyone?

Either she supports Trump and a lot of what he says. Or two she is doing this for a serious career advancement move once she leaves to make big bucks. Maybe even write a book someday to cash in. She's doing it for one of those two reasons, maybe even both. I dont know her personally, so I have no clue as to which.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2018, 05:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, probably, because The Red Hen is farm-to-table fine dining and I've never seen a chicken sandwich on their menu.

Now who looks stupid?  No chicken sandwich at a place called the Red Hen.  The Hungry Heifer may have served Bef instead of beef, but it was a reasonable facsimile.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2018, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think folks have me confused with someone that thinks this business did not have every right to ask SHS and her family to leave, They did and it seemed to be professionally done by both sides. It's just those in the past that suggest a business doesn't have the right to refuse service because of difference in beliefs are trying to say "this is different"

You've got Matt saying it's different because it's not about politics and you've got Fred saying it is different because it is about politics. It's no different; and like any free citizen I can chose if the business's actions make me want we to frequent the establishment or avoid it. I will chose to avoid the Red Hen is every given the opportunity. I hear chick-fil-a has abetter chicken sandwich anyway. 

Isn't it different because they are asking a specific individual to leave rather than someone who fits a label or group membership that applies to numerous people?  

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's just those in the past that suggest a business doesn't have the right to refuse service because of difference in beliefs are trying to say "this is different"

It's no different.

It is different.  People who understand the law know it is different.

Race, religion, country of origin, and sex are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.  Disability and age have also been protected by subsequent laws.  You can not discriminate against a person just because they are a member of one of these classes.

Sarah Sanders is not a member of a protected class, Republicans are not a minority or an oppressed group that need protection under the law.  But even then there is no proof that this restaurant discriminates against all Republicans.  Instead they specifically disagree with the policies that Sanders defends regarding discrimination against gays in the military.

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2018, 05:48 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Either she supports Trump and a lot of what he says. Or two she is doing this for a serious career advancement move once she leaves to make big bucks. Maybe even write a book someday to cash in. She's doing it for one of those two reasons, maybe even both. I dont know her personally, so I have no clue as to which.

She defends and promotes Trumps policies in public.  That is where the damage is done.  So that is why they refused to serve her.

It does not matter if you personally agree with an anti-gay policy if you fight to get it implemented.  You are still helping to do the damage.

You could just as well argue that Goebbles was not a Nazi, but his propaganda helped the Third Reich murder millions of people.  So he deserves to be judged by what he did.  Same with Sanders.