She works for the man who is, imho unfortunately, my president. I feel that she speaks with authority when she speaks. I feel that she implies consequences for acting inappropriately. Those consequences are left, intentionally, ambiguous, as leaving consequences for unapproved actions is more athoritative than listing the specific code of law to be followed.
If I asked you if you wanted to burn this flag with me (in protest, as there are plenty of times when burning the flag is the most appropriate thing you can do with it), and you replied that you thought it was “highly inappropriate” I would take that to mean that you do not want me to do this. As a civilian with no authority, and not speaking for an an authority in charge, I am free to ignore you.
If a police officer walked up to me, as I stand with flag an lighter and flag in hand, and says, “I think burning that flag would be highly inappropriate”, while I know that he can’t legally stop me, I also know that going against the wishes of the authorities can have consequences.
For instance, if a mod says…
Even when not acting in official mod capacity, I feel that that line of questioning has become inappropriate, and feel that there may be consequences if I were to pursue it further.
While “shall not” implies there will be consequences, and spells them out, “should not” implies that there may be consequences, and leaves them ambiguous.
Let’s say that particular religious fundamentalist had a gun and a badge.
I’m going to guess that YES! was not when it was your ass on the line. More like when you were at the florist one day or something.
Isn’t it a little much to say that we can ignore the WH? Ignorance and/or attention aren’t measures of how we agree with him. We are watching him, because he needs to be watched.
Even taking the double-hop through his press secretary out of it, virtually no one who’s not in the military or in direct employment by Donald Trump feels bound to do what he says. Not Kim Jong Un, not Senators McCain or Flake, not Colin Kaepernick, and not CNN. If you guys feel so intimidated by his press secretary saying “I think ____ is highly inappropriate” that you no longer feel free to do it, or that it was some sort of a mandate to cease and desist, I feel a great swell of pity for you. I encourage you to take a page out of virtually anyone else’s playbook and “resist!”
It seems like silly grasping at straws to get bent out of shape about Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying “I think _____ is highly inappropriate”. If this “ZOMG!!! he’s telling us what we can’t do” attitude is heartfelt, there are much more direct examples to spend your time on:
I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s mild horror in general that the WH is just fine with the idea that military leaders shouldn’t be questioned. That’s a philosophy that’s lead to a lot of suffering in human history, and it’s quite reasonable to be very concerned if we’re taking baby steps towards it.
You know, its possible that the accusations of racism are misplaced. The bereaved may have thought she was treated so poorly because Trump doesn’t care about black people, when the truth is he doesn’t care much about people. period.
“…Makes me want to holler, throw up both my hands…”
Reaction to the Huckabee woman is not based on intimidation :smack: but on sadness — sadness at the extent to which the great office of Press Secretary has fallen. Recall Pierre Salinger, who insisted on being informed of crises so he needn’t lie to the public. Contrast him with Huck-Sanders who offers nothing but bald propaganda, regurgitation of the President’s lies, and new lies of her own.
As with many Trumpettes, scatological metaphors come to mind when one tries to characterize this woman.
This is from an administration that has said it would like to pull licenses, sue papers, and jail reporters. The spokesman for the legal side of the administration has explicitly said that he would not pledge to not put reporters in jail for doing their jobs. He said, ““Well, I don’t know that I can make a blanket commitment to that effect. But I will say this, we have not taken any aggressive action against the media at this point.” Which implies that if the media doesn’t behave, if the media does continue to act in highly inappropriate ways, that sessions will go ahead and do the administrations bidding of jailing reporters for doing their jobs. That’s a bit of a chilling effect. The administration is sending the message that it does not respect the press, and will do what it can to shut them down.
Will you, unlike sessions, pledge to condemn this administration should it start jailing reporters for doing their jobs? Or will you find another excuse, follow the reasoning led out to you by the authoritarians in the administration to accept that next little step towards fascism as a reasonable and necessary step?
I’m committed to fighting against every step towards fascism. How close to it do we have to be before you are willing to?
I shouldn’t feel that the press secretary of the white house speaks for the white house? WTF is her job then?
So, you are saying that she has no authority whatsoever, doesn’t speak for the president? Her opinion on matters is no more or less relevant than yours or mine?
Look, I get that you guys think that this is so funny and hilarious. I get that you find amusement in watching your political opposition express concern over the direction that this administration is going. But it’s not really worth it. Some jokes and some brief moments of feeling superior are not worth defending the steps that he is taking. Every time he pushes that envelope a bit further, we warn that he is taking another step towards implementing an authoritarian regime, the reaction is always enjoyment that he is pissing off the liberals, or accusations that we are only expressing these concerns because “our candidate” lost.
This is not the case. If Pence or Kasich were president, we’d be debating about tax policy or healthcare (which we are doing as well), but we would not be concerned about either of them threatening the press for doing their jobs.
This is not normal, stop treating it as such. This is an existential threat to the very values that this country was built upon. It’s not a game, it’s not just silly words being bantered about, this is the time when we stand together and say that these steps towards facism are unacceptable, or when you just stand there and watch. We do need to fight against every step towards tyranny. By the time you realize it’s a tyranny worth fighting, it’s too late. You’ll be joking about how that reporter got tossed in the clink, probably even with a, “Well, it’s not like the administration didn’t warn them that that was highly inappropriate, hehe.”, one day, and by the time you get over your laugh and find that the rights that you had held so dear are gone, it will be too late.
Democracy requires vigilance. You are treating it like a sit-com.
The press secretary doesn’t have any authority over you. She doesn’t set policy, cannot command the military or federal marshals, and her statements about what is and is not appropriate have no more weight than yours or mine.
It’s worth it to me.
Chicken Little is not generally considered a tragic hero.
The Trump administration is being filmed before a live, studio audience. I am the laugh track.
So you say that she doesn’t speak for the administration then? Can you explain to me what her job is? Is she just some random person that wandered in off the street, and they let her stand behind the podium out of pity?
Duly noted that you put personal amusmeent over country.
Good to know where you stand. Off to the side, laughing, as your country (which you claim to have lots of pride in) is taken over by those who don’t give a shit about it or its people, just what they can personally profit.
ETA: your metaphor for yourself is actually telling. You say it is in front of a live studio audience, but that you are the canned mechanical laughter that always repeats itself, incapable of changing, learning or reacting to the different circumstance.
If you could read thru the rest of my post, you might notice where I explained why you need not tremble in your boots at the specter of a press secretary.
It remains to be seen which you will wind up most resembling.
I’m not sure you are clear on who, exactly, is being laughed at.
I did read your post, and it was utterly irrelevant to what I said. I did not claim that she sets policy, I said that she speaks for those who set policy. If you don’t think that she speaks for the trump administration, what is her job?
And if you would like to say in my post where I am trembling in my boots, that’d be great. I am just pointing out that her comments were highly inappropriate.
We can all hope that I am a chicken little, as that story had a happier ending for all involved.
Oh, I get it, you are laughing at the systematic destruction of our democracy. Ha ha, he he. My point was that, unlike a live studio audience, you are better compared to the laugh track, as you seem to react to every new step towards fascism with the same amused response, canned laughter, that’s what a laugh track is, and you intentionally compare yourself favorably to it.
I support jailing reporters for doing their jobs. . . .
. . . if, and only if, ‘doing their jobs’ involves violation of a valid criminal law, and the government can prove each and every element of that crime to a finder of fact at a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt.