One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Good riddance, Sarah Sanders: Washington's worst communicator
Page <prev 2 of 11 next> last>>
Jun 14, 2019 19:50:25   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
rumitoid wrote:
Do you practice at sophistry or are you just a natural.


You amaze me.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 19:55:47   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
rumitoid wrote:
Do you practice at sophistry or are you just a natural.


Lol... Not sure if that’s a question, but, I’m a natural. Seriously though, your post is sophomoric at best.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 20:12:57   #
rumitoid
 
archie bunker wrote:
You amaze me.


Thank you. I thought I did.

Reply
 
 
Jun 14, 2019 20:18:20   #
rumitoid
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Lol... Not sure if that’s a question, but, I’m a natural. Seriously though, your post is sophomoric at best.


Funny. The word that immediately came to mind when I wrote my post was that response by you: sophomoric. Knew you would use it. It is a good way to weasel out of any actual reason to debate; why bother when the other is seemingly incapable of deep discussion? Yet good to note is that you are still attacking the messenger, having either no salient arguments against what was said in the thread or just following the Trump Handbook of personal attacks over substance.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 20:26:51   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
rumitoid wrote:
What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders?

For 94 days, the outgoing White House press secretary gave no press briefing in the press room just a few steps from the press office that she nominally ran.

But the press did not stop pressing.

For more than three years, Sanders made no meaningful news on behalf of a boss who considers it his presidential priority to make as much meaningless news as possible.

Yet the news did not stop breaking.

Related: 'It's astonishing': The demise of the daily White House press briefing
With all the resources of the federal government’s communications machine at her fingertips, Sanders was the least resourceful communicator in Washington: a hapless and hopeless observer to every crisis, real or manufactured by the man sitting in the Oval Office, just down the hallway from her own.

In other words, she was the perfect spokeswoman for a perfectly lazy president.

Sanders may have demonstrated few obvious qualities as a press secretary: she earned no trust from the media, possessed no information to share with the world and enjoyed no grasp of policy or even politics.
She had no special insights into Donald Trump’s thinking and no special relationship with him either. Other than this: her capacity to dodge responsibility and the truth were a polished mirror of his character.

Normal spokespeople would have been mortified by the revelations of Robert Mueller that, by Sanders’ own admission, she just made stuff up when she briefed the press.

Speaking the day after the president fired then FBI director James Comey, Sanders told the media that “countless members of the FBI” – representing what she called “the rank-and-file of the FBI” – had lost confidence in Comey. She claimed that this was the reason why Comey was fired, even though Trump himself would later tell NBC News that his decision was because of “this Russia thing”.

Sanders later admitted to Mueller that she fabricated the entire smear. “She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” Mueller stated in his report.

But who really needs credibility, a sense of shame or any degree of self-respect when you’re working for Trump?

Speaking to Fox News after the Mueller report destroyed what was left of her reputation, Sanders worked her way through a few more fabrications. “Look, I acknowledged that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word ‘countless’, but it’s not untrue,” she said.

That is some World Cup-quality lying. The single sentence includes at least three lies and there are only 21 words in it: an average of one lie for every seven words.

There was no acknowledgement of a slip of the tongue (lie No 1). It was no slip of the tongue (lie No 2). And she stands by the lie with the weasel words of a double negative about its non-untruthfulness (lie No 3 and quite possibly No 4).

You don’t get to lie as well as that by chance or amateur skill. It takes dedication and effort on the training ground to make it look so easy and natural.
What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders? br ... (show quote)


That's exactly what i said to obama and his cartel in 2016...

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 20:30:55   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
rumitoid wrote:
Funny. The word that immediately came to mind when I wrote my post was that response by you: sophomoric. Knew you would use it. It is a good way to weasel out of any actual reason to debate; why bother when the other is seemingly incapable of deep discussion? Yet good to note is that you are still attacking the messenger, having either no salient arguments against what was said in the thread or just following the Trump Handbook of personal attacks over substance.


I only took issue with your lack of a source and/or author. (Which seems to happen more often than not)

Deep discussion about Sanders leaving? Or the more than ninety percent of mainstream media being negative towards our president and anyone associated with his administration? The word that came into my mind was; droll. (And beneath you)

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 21:11:05   #
rumitoid
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
I only took issue with your lack of a source and/or author. (Which seems to happen more often than not)

Deep discussion about Sanders leaving? Or the more than ninety percent of mainstream media being negative towards our president and anyone associated with his administration? The word that came into my mind was; droll. (And beneath you)


I like droll. What is really funny, though, is that you state "ninety percent of mainstream media" is negative towards the president: it never seems to occur to you people that the Free Press is not negative towards the president but that many of his words and actions are negatively effecting and affecting our country. When a teacher marks a wrong answer on an exam, does he or she have a negative attitude towards the student? If your child makes a mistake, is correction reflective of a negative attitude for the child?

And have you considered that if 90% of the Press is "against" him, maybe it's for an obvious reason: he is that terrible.

The discussion about Sanders leaving does not have to be deep, and that is another clever way you guys avoid responding to topics. So let me ask you directly, in keeping with the subject you have avoided to attack me: was she good or bad or just right as Press Secretary?

And have you considered that if 90% of the Press is "against" him, maybe it is for an obvious reason: he is that terrible.

Reply
 
 
Jun 14, 2019 22:57:17   #
youngwilliam Loc: Deep in the heart
 
archie bunker wrote:
You amaze me.


Not in a good way, right.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:02:35   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
rumitoid wrote:
I like droll. What is really funny, though, is that you state "ninety percent of mainstream media" is negative towards the president: it never seems to occur to you people that the Free Press is not negative towards the president but that many of his words and actions are negatively effecting and affecting our country.

Better than ninety percent of the things he says or does warrant a negative “Free Press”?
Another word just came to mind; absurd.
Quote:
When a teacher marks a wrong answer on an exam, does he or she have a negative attitude towards the student?

If the teacher added little notes next to the grade using phrases such as ”a hapless and hopeless observer”? Yeah, a sure sign.
Quote:
If your child makes a mistake, is correction reflective of a negative attitude for the child?

Suppose it depends on how it’s done.
Quote:
And have you considered that if 90% of the Press is "against" him, maybe it's for an obvious reason: he is that terrible.

The obvious reason is, if you’re not part of the resistance, you’re not invited to the party, it’s almost cult like.
Quote:
The discussion about Sanders leaving does not have to be deep, and that is another clever way you guys avoid responding to topics.

You accuse me of something but don’t say what it is, and you’re using words like “you guys”.... I’m only one person, and while “clever” may be accurate, there’s nothing to avoid.
Quote:
So let me ask you directly, in keeping with the subject you have avoided to attack me: was she good or bad or just right as Press Secretary?

For what the White House/administration has been up against... I’d say she was just right. I found it admirable that she owned up to her mistakes.
Quote:
And have you considered that if 90% of the Press is "against" him, maybe it is for an obvious reason: he is that terrible.

Is this a talking point you’re trying to stress...

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:09:25   #
rumitoid
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Is this a talking point you’re trying to stress...


Wow. Thoroughly impressed. Answering and not answering. Affirming and denying. In awe. You are very good. Sarah has a replacement.

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:10:39   #
EmilyD
 
rumitoid wrote:
What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders?

For 94 days, the outgoing White House press secretary gave no press briefing in the press room just a few steps from the press office that she nominally ran.

But the press did not stop pressing.

For more than three years, Sanders made no meaningful news on behalf of a boss who considers it his presidential priority to make as much meaningless news as possible.

Yet the news did not stop breaking.

Related: 'It's astonishing': The demise of the daily White House press briefing
With all the resources of the federal government’s communications machine at her fingertips, Sanders was the least resourceful communicator in Washington: a hapless and hopeless observer to every crisis, real or manufactured by the man sitting in the Oval Office, just down the hallway from her own.

In other words, she was the perfect spokeswoman for a perfectly lazy president.

Sanders may have demonstrated few obvious qualities as a press secretary: she earned no trust from the media, possessed no information to share with the world and enjoyed no grasp of policy or even politics.
She had no special insights into Donald Trump’s thinking and no special relationship with him either. Other than this: her capacity to dodge responsibility and the truth were a polished mirror of his character.

Normal spokespeople would have been mortified by the revelations of Robert Mueller that, by Sanders’ own admission, she just made stuff up when she briefed the press.

Speaking the day after the president fired then FBI director James Comey, Sanders told the media that “countless members of the FBI” – representing what she called “the rank-and-file of the FBI” – had lost confidence in Comey. She claimed that this was the reason why Comey was fired, even though Trump himself would later tell NBC News that his decision was because of “this Russia thing”.

Sanders later admitted to Mueller that she fabricated the entire smear. “She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” Mueller stated in his report.

But who really needs credibility, a sense of shame or any degree of self-respect when you’re working for Trump?

Speaking to Fox News after the Mueller report destroyed what was left of her reputation, Sanders worked her way through a few more fabrications. “Look, I acknowledged that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word ‘countless’, but it’s not untrue,” she said.

That is some World Cup-quality lying. The single sentence includes at least three lies and there are only 21 words in it: an average of one lie for every seven words.

There was no acknowledgement of a slip of the tongue (lie No 1). It was no slip of the tongue (lie No 2). And she stands by the lie with the weasel words of a double negative about its non-untruthfulness (lie No 3 and quite possibly No 4).

You don’t get to lie as well as that by chance or amateur skill. It takes dedication and effort on the training ground to make it look so easy and natural.
What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders? br ... (show quote)

You won't like the next one, either. We get that.

Reply
 
 
Jun 14, 2019 23:29:13   #
rumitoid
 
EmilyD wrote:
You won't like the next one, either. We get that.


Not sure but can it be worse?

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:39:19   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
EmilyD wrote:
You won't like the next one, either. We get that.


You are probably right, Trump is bound to try to find the best liar he can find, if he picks an honest one though...

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:44:54   #
EmilyD
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
You are probably right, Trump is bound to try to find the best liar he can find, if he picks an honest one though...

So who, if not Trump, do you think should choose the next Press Secretary??? Jim Acosta?

Reply
Jun 14, 2019 23:55:15   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
EmilyD wrote:
So who, if not Trump, do you think should choose the next Press Secretary??? Jim Acosta?


I love how you assume that I watch CNN. If not for OPP, I doubt I would even know the name. I have cable, yes, I don't watch cable news though. There is much greater competition for viewers for cable news than regular over the air news. The battle for ratings tend to drive the news shows further towards the extremes in order to get the ratings to drive the advertising dollars. To be honest, I prefer print news and I prefer internet based over delivered newspapers, much easier to read, larger print and great contrast.

As for who should pick the person that deals with the press... Since the current administration has the power to hire and/or fire, it is entirely hopeless, we will be stuck with liars. If one were to choose not to lie, I guarantee Trump would send them packing.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.