You sure about that?
I guess we’re agreed that it wasn’t racist, then.
Yeah, except septimus. He seems quite disgusted with all of us.
Sounds nice. Let’s both try that next time
I already have been thanks, so whenever you want to join in is fine. Can you point out one question that I asked in this exchange that you answered? Just one? I believe I answered all of your questions.
Annoying I can’t quote what you quoted, but, anyway, if anyone is confused as to what all I am replying to, if you click the arrow next to HD’s name, it’ll take you right up to the whole posts.
Anyway, you are apparently making “assault on constitution” a synonym to “violation of the constitution”?
Okay, under that definition, that claim was made, but under that definition, there was a violation, so, I’m not sure how that follows. Drag dog upthread defined assault, and that sounds pretty good definition of what the admin is doing, they are threatening it.
Also, someone else has defined assault in such a way taht more than covers sander’s statements, and it would be highly inappropriate to get in a debate with him.
It can be done, but it’s generally a PITA that involves multiple windows and copying and pasting. Generally not worth the hassle.
I think that between “assault on the constitution” and “trying to weasel out of constitutional responsibilities” it’s a fair summary to say that drag dog has claimed a constitutional “violation”, but I recognize he didn’t use that precise phrase.
This “all of us” thing. Does “all of us” include me? Because I would hesitate. I am reluctant to join, will not be drafted.
I will agree that it is poorly phrased, but if your job is to stand in front of the press, who is doing it’s constitutionally protected and endorsed job, and you are weaseling out of questions by saying that those questions are highly inappropriate to ask, due to a person’s military rank, I can understand how that phrasing, while imprecise, captures the essence of what she is doing.
I would not agree with dd’s phrase, though with the sentiment, and would rather phrase it as, “She is obstructing the constitutionally protected and endorsed job of the press by insisting that there are those that are those who are beyond reproach, beyond the reach of the constitutionally enabled and endorsed press to ask questions, while also attempting to create a chilling effect of further constitutionally protected and endorsed questions about the administrations actions, policies, and stances.”
Drag dogs’s does have the distinct advantage of being shorter, if more colloquial.
It wasn’t criticism. It was lying about a congresswoman from the White House pulpit. Taken in context it’s a little rich to say she was responding to criticism.
A relentless sentence that drags the reader over the rocks and through the cactus. It trudges wearily on, seeking the rest and solace of a period, but finding only commas, commas…
Close enough for rock 'n roll, but this part.“…create a chilling effect of further constitutionally protected and endorsed questions…”? Shirley, that “of” was meant to be an “on”, declaring the subject being verbed upon?
Thanks. I’ll let you do the latin and I’ll do the anglo saxon.
I expect the press secretary to behave as if she were speaking for the president at all times. If she isn’t, I think she should be replaced. The president has constitutional jobs and duties. She is serving him.
We are paying her a salary to do this. If it goes to things which are not in the public interest, she should go immediately.
But this habit of acting authoritarian in that room, to see how far you can push it, in front of our american press, or attempting to alter the relationship of the press and the white house, is an assault on the constitution, and the country.
Well we are in the biggest petri dish in history right now.
I do wonder how the attempt for the US to keep it’s servants honest could be enforced. The lying is beyond what we could have conceived a year or two ago.
Is there any law covering this aspect of our lives at all?
Which she’s absolutely allowed to do, by virtue of that very same constitution.
True, and Drag dog’s was certainly more compact, while communicating the same general essence, but there are those who like to see it all spelled out in pedantic glory.
And you are probably correct, about “of/on” but I can hear it both ways.
When your best and only defense is that your behavior is not explicitly outlawed by the constitution…
She could stand up there and make hand puppets. She could do stand-up, or just make fun of the reporters for their looks. She could stand up there and give a racial tirade that would make r. spencer blush. Those are all things that the constitution allows her to do.
The question is, is she doing her job that the taxpayers are paying her for of having communicating the administration’s policies and actions? Or, is she using the position afforded her to bully the institutions that are supposed to act as a check upon the gov’ts power, and to communicate effectively with it’s people as to what the gov’t is doing?
I get that she is not violating the constitution, as I said, if trump sent federal marshals in to shut down CNN, that would still be something he could do, by virtue of the constitution. The FF’s didn’t lay out every possible way that people can abuse their power. They expected future generations to exercise some level of critical thinking and judgment.
A post on a message board saying that she shouldn’t say it is not a violation of the constitution. A law saying you shouldn’t say something is a violation. A government official or representative of an official is possibly a violation.
Thank god we only have to worry about constitutional violations. Imagine the law enforcement workload if we had other rules, laws or guidelines for behavior. (I mean for politicians, not black people.)
On a serious side there are many things besides citing "CV"s to enforce norms in a democracy. Just like anywhere else.
Given that the administration she’s representing takes delight in engaging in verbal combat with the media, I suspect she’s pretty much acting on the administration’s position. ETA: and I don’t understand what some of your’s obsession is with her paycheck. If Trump doesn’t think she’s doing her job, he’ll fire her and she won’t get a check anymore. As long as he’s satisfied with the work she’s doing, she’ll continue to collect a paycheck.
I’m actually pretty sure the Constitution does not authorize a president to ‘[send] federal marshals in to shut down CNN’ (assuming we’re not in some weird edge case universe where CNN was in open rebellion to the country or something like that).
With great power comes great responsibility.
We don’t trust trump to do the right thing in his hiring any more than in any other area of public life. We are concerned when it’s our dime. Excuse us.