…
Please describe the sexism, as you perceive it.
Banning someone from your restaurant is a pretty bold statement, which one can defend if it does not violate the constitution, the consensus appears to be here. Why do we not hear of male members of Trump’s administration being banned from places? Was SHS targeted because she’s easier pickings? It would be sexism if she was barred because she’s a female member of Trump’s team as opposed to being simply a member of Trump’s team. Surely she’s not the only person deserving of a good shunning.
She’s by far the most public face. And she defends the entire administration, not just the workings(or destruction of) a particular agency.
Perhaps others did but didn’t whine about it on twitter?
What evidence do you have that she was targeted due to her sex and not simply her role? Do you have any evidence that she is a particularly ‘easier’ target?
Sean Spicer quit before some of the more embarrasing moments - and on appearance alone, seemed to have atleast some struggle dealing with the ‘alternate facts’ - He also wasn’t quite so beligerant with the press as SHS is.
IOW - While Spicer certainly had the same job - SHS has taken it to a new level ++ she is the ‘face’ of the admin during a particularly ugly and damning humanitarian crisis creaated by the Trump administration.
Hmmmm. That’s your description of what you perceive to be sexism?
Were you being ironical when you posted this?
:dubious:
The reason I ask is because you got nothin’. Well, you got “Sarah Sanders is a woman and not a man”, I’ll give you that. If you want, I’ll also grant you that “things are happening now that didn’t happen before”, but I expect you to give some ground on “this happened because she’s a Republican not because of her actions”, okay?
Which it does not.
Maybe it has happened and just hasn’t been in the news.
First racism now sexism. Instead of just tossing these accusations out there to see what sticks, how about defending them. No matter how you phrase it, what the restaurant did wasn’t illegal. And if you feel it was, you’ll have to back it up, not just say it and hope others agree with you and find cites for you.
A business kicking someone out because ‘they deserve a good shunning’ doesn’t mean other businesses have to follow suit.
At this point you’re just saying things that have nothing to do with anything. You might as well suggest they kicked her out for being part of some other protected class.
Scapegoat much?
And again:
That little observation certainly seems to bother you, now that you’ve repeated it a number of times. Interesting.
How is that scapegoating? She actively twists the actions of the Administration to attempt to whitewash the clusterfuck. She refuses to actually answer questions ( or claims to not have any information). She knows the statements she makes are lies. She belittles the press.
As was pointed out upthread, she was an adviser during the campaign. She knows what’s going on.
So do hundreds of others, and yet she is the sole target of your vitriol. Interesting.
Like I said, she’s the most public face and does the most public covering up.
What’s so interesting? That I hold accountable someone who’s complicit in the way this Administration presents itself?
…its a reflection on the fact that all of your arguments have been shot down in this thread, so after 10 pages and several posts you’ve decided to go with the “sexism card.” You’ve just randomly chosen something to continue the argument. You can’t actually back your argument up.
There isn’t any evidence that sexism was at play here. Because we know exactly what happened. And the only way you can play the “sexism card” is to completely ignore the facts of what actually happened. We are in conspiracy theory land now. You are no longer debating. You are witnessing.
No. That you hold one person, who happens to be female, as the sole representative of this Administration. That’s exactly what scapegoating is—one person (or animal) shall bear the sins of everyone. I’m certain there are many more who should also be held accountable. Sarah too, but not only Sarah.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Who is holding only Sarah responsible?
Your point? Arguments evolve. As do posters.
The person I was talking to, Mr./Ms. Helper.
I haven’t seen any posts to suggest this.
I take it you’ll grant that, if Sarah Sanders returns to that restaurant, she’ll again get turned away, right? If so, then let me ask you this: do you think they would also turn away Donald Trump — or, for that matter, Donald Trump Jr? Do you think they’d turn away Mike Pence? John Bolton? Jeff Sessions?
I think the answer to each of those questions is ‘yes’. Do you?