Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

War On Women Alive And Well


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> War On Women Alive And Well Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 8:18:25 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11234
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: online

Fairly typical of leftists

They cannot for the life of them argue a legitimate point so they (out of their sheer frustration on their part) are forced to constantly rely on ad hominems that are frequently at odds with the values they pretend to hold dear:

Liberal Columnists Attack Sarah Sanders For Her Weight, Southern Accent


Two male, liberal columnists this week launched personal attacks against White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.

Los Angeles Times columnist David Horsey mocked Sanders’ appearance, saying she “looks more like a slightly chunky soccer mom who organizes snacks for the kids’ games.”

“Rather than the fake eyelashes and formal dresses she puts on for news briefings, Sanders seems as if she’d be more comfortable in sweats and running shoes,” Horsey wrote on Wednesday. “Yet, even if Trump privately wishes he had a supermodel for a press secretary, he is lucky to have Sanders.”

Another columnist, the New York Times’ Frank Bruni, similarly went out of his way on Friday to bash Sanders for her personal characteristics, in this case her way of speaking.

Bruni wrote that Sanders is “serving a function other than communication, which turns out not to be her forte.” (RELATED: Kellyanne Conway Speaks Out After Congressman Said She Looked ‘Familiar’ On Her Knees)

“To listen to her pronounce ‘priorities’ is akin to hearing the air seep out of a flat tire, and she leaves half of the consonants on the curb,” Bruni added parenthetically, mocking Sanders for her Southern accent.

MORE

_____________________________

Thought Criminal
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:16:33 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
Sanders is only the third female Press Secretary to ever have the job, and the second in a Republican administration. I think she's quite well spoken, much better than Spicey. And her weight has nothing to do with her job or her abilities. And I say this believing only a fraction of what she says.

Trump may not have many women in official positions, but having Sanders as Press Secretary gives the administration the appearance of it.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:22:04 PM   
ServiceSubinCali


Posts: 15
Status: offline
I like when he, President draft dodging bone spurs, attacks the bleeders and gold star widows, live on the telly.

And,

Trump says sex harassment claims are fake news, but there are corroborators

“All I can say is it’s totally fake news. It’s just fake. It’s fake. It’s made-up stuff, and it’s disgraceful, what happens, but that happens in the world of politics.”
— President Trump, remarks to reporters, Oct. 16, 2017


Jacqueline Alemany of CBS News: “Obviously, sexual harassment has been in the news. At least 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them throughout the course of the campaign. Last week, during a news conference in the Rose Garden, the president called these accusations ‘fake news.’ Is the official White House position that all of these women are lying?”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Yeah, we’ve been clear on that from the beginning, and the president’s spoken on it.”
— exchange on Oct. 27

As Alemany noted, 16 women have accused Trump of sexually harassing them. While the president dismisses this as “fake news,” the problem for the White House is that some of these women have produced witnesses who say they heard about the incident at the time — long before Trump made his political aspirations known.

Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chances that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the “she said” side of the equation. Often, a sexual assault will happen behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean the allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.

Below is a summary of the corroborators provided by three of the women who have accusations, drawn from a fact check written during the presidential campaign. That fact check also detailed the witnesses who backed up claims of sexual accusations against former president Bill Clinton — who, like Trump, insisted the women accusing him were not telling the truth.

Readers can judge for themselves.

Kristin Anderson
Her allegation: While at a Manhattan nightclub in the early 1990s, Trump slid his fingers under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear.

Corroborators:

Kelly Stedman, a friend. She said she was told about the incident at a women’s brunch a few days later. The women found themselves “laughing at how pathetic it was” on Trump’s part.
Brad Trent, a New York photographer. He says he heard the story from Anderson at a dinner in 2007. “It was just girls saying stories about how they got hit on by creepy old guys,” Trent said of the conversation around the table.



Natasha Stoynoff
Her allegation: While interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue down her throat. He then said they were going to have an affair.

Corroborators:

Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall.


Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.

Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”

Liza Hamm, part of a “tightknit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.

Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.



Rachel Crooks
Her allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.

Corroborators:

Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her immediately about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”

Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”


As we all know President Trump has the utmost respect for women bleeders tidy bints. And if he offended thewomen bleeders tidy bints then I am sure he in no way embarked on a massive public smear campaign against them ,and in no way reduced his daughter to tears, nor did he parade out “Randy Bill’s alleged victims on national TV, or his women to tell the baying mob he (trump) is an utter gentlemen with the women bints.

Trump defends crude language from 2005 as "locker room" talk

Donald Trump's comments about daughter raise eyebrows

Trump is very strange with his daughter


(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:25:11 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
get off the forums and get the help you seriously need

(in reply to ServiceSubinCali)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:25:53 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
There were corroborators against Clinton as well, and most were discredited.

(in reply to ServiceSubinCali)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:27:10 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
have said this before---I have a crush on dana perino

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 12:46:29 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
I still believe it's more important to have the right person for the job than to worry about gender or race.

But if you have every fair hiring practice possible in place, once you have all the jobs filled, and there's an overwhelming white male majority, then you need to ask why, and what can be done to create more opportunities for women and minorities.

How long will it take to have the first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 1:11:29 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
that's a good question and I think there's a good parallel going on with title ix and athletics. the radical feminists and their supporters believe, more or less, that boys and girls and men and women are the same when it comes to interest in athletics and all that is required to redress the imbalances is some government force to level the playing field---that is, give the females more opportunities.

that occurred---more opportunities were given, and roughly speaking, because there were indeed many injustices, rightly so. but despite decades of harming males and promoting females, the latter still do not participate at the same level as do the former, and if one buys into the notion of that the genders are NOT the same, they never will.

im bringing all this up to say, I suspect the same is true in politics/high profile public service. there will always be more men and if one wants to create more opportunities for women, hopefully it'll be done without harming the opportunities for men, and not flying in the face of general biological differences.

the bummer is---if a woman gets picked for anything, there's always going to be a question as to whether or not she's qualified or an affirmative action pick.

that all said however, I do think gender matters when it comes to a position like press secretary and id rather see a soft spoken female---second choice what be a very comedic male.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 11/4/2017 1:16:07 PM >

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 1:21:11 PM   
ServiceSubinCali


Posts: 15
Status: offline
No one likes you on here you should ask around - go on bone spurs or did your quack write you a note for cowards 5 times over?
All else that follows is your rampant jobbies you are utterly apathetic sick wreckage dogshit44 Imagine the headcases and nutters who would enable an it like you?



(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 5:57:30 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ServiceSubinCali

I like when he, President draft dodging bone spurs, attacks the bleeders and gold star widows, live on the telly.

And,

Trump says sex harassment claims are fake news, but there are corroborators

“All I can say is it’s totally fake news. It’s just fake. It’s fake. It’s made-up stuff, and it’s disgraceful, what happens, but that happens in the world of politics.”
— President Trump, remarks to reporters, Oct. 16, 2017


Jacqueline Alemany of CBS News: “Obviously, sexual harassment has been in the news. At least 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them throughout the course of the campaign. Last week, during a news conference in the Rose Garden, the president called these accusations ‘fake news.’ Is the official White House position that all of these women are lying?”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Yeah, we’ve been clear on that from the beginning, and the president’s spoken on it.”
— exchange on Oct. 27

As Alemany noted, 16 women have accused Trump of sexually harassing them. While the president dismisses this as “fake news,” the problem for the White House is that some of these women have produced witnesses who say they heard about the incident at the time — long before Trump made his political aspirations known.

Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chances that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the “she said” side of the equation. Often, a sexual assault will happen behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean the allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.

Below is a summary of the corroborators provided by three of the women who have accusations, drawn from a fact check written during the presidential campaign. That fact check also detailed the witnesses who backed up claims of sexual accusations against former president Bill Clinton — who, like Trump, insisted the women accusing him were not telling the truth.

Readers can judge for themselves.

Kristin Anderson
Her allegation: While at a Manhattan nightclub in the early 1990s, Trump slid his fingers under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear.

Corroborators:

Kelly Stedman, a friend. She said she was told about the incident at a women’s brunch a few days later. The women found themselves “laughing at how pathetic it was” on Trump’s part.
Brad Trent, a New York photographer. He says he heard the story from Anderson at a dinner in 2007. “It was just girls saying stories about how they got hit on by creepy old guys,” Trent said of the conversation around the table.



Natasha Stoynoff
Her allegation: While interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue down her throat. He then said they were going to have an affair.

Corroborators:

Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall.


Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.

Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”

Liza Hamm, part of a “tightknit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.

Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.



Rachel Crooks
Her allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.

Corroborators:

Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her immediately about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”

Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”


As we all know President Trump has the utmost respect for women bleeders tidy bints. And if he offended thewomen bleeders tidy bints then I am sure he in no way embarked on a massive public smear campaign against them ,and in no way reduced his daughter to tears, nor did he parade out “Randy Bill’s alleged victims on national TV, or his women to tell the baying mob he (trump) is an utter gentlemen with the women bints.

Trump defends crude language from 2005 as "locker room" talk

Donald Trump's comments about daughter raise eyebrows

Trump is very strange with his daughter



When you post so much it takes me an extra second to scroll down to the hide button.

(in reply to ServiceSubinCali)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 5:58:36 PM   
Wayward5oul


Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline
Exactly.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:24:26 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

When you post so much it takes me an extra second to scroll down to the hide button.


And then you quote him so we all feel your pain? :P

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:30:50 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
what a maroon, but then the thread is a maroon. And ironic

sarah sanders is not all women
Snide comments about womens looks, size and "worth" to some men is part of the problem. not a partisan thing,
What Sarah looks like is immaterial compared to her lies.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:36:11 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's a good question and I think there's a good parallel going on with title ix and athletics. the radical feminists and their supporters believe, more or less, that boys and girls and men and women are the same when it comes to interest in athletics and all that is required to redress the imbalances is some government force to level the playing field---that is, give the females more opportunities.

that occurred---more opportunities were given, and roughly speaking, because there were indeed many injustices, rightly so. but despite decades of harming males and promoting females, the latter still do not participate at the same level as do the former, and if one buys into the notion of that the genders are NOT the same, they never will.


How have male athletes been harmed by Title 9? What has been taken away, where? And don't get me started on college sports or the NCAA.

quote:


im bringing all this up to say, I suspect the same is true in politics/high profile public service. there will always be more men and if one wants to create more opportunities for women, hopefully it'll be done without harming the opportunities for men, and not flying in the face of general biological differences.


If there are 10 jobs, there are 10 jobs. We don't need to create special positions for women, we just need to make sure that there is potential for a woman to be the most qualified at some point for any of the current jobs.

quote:


the bummer is---if a woman gets picked for anything, there's always going to be a question as to whether or not she's qualified or an affirmative action pick.


As opposed to being one of the good ole' boys, or a crony.

quote:


that all said however, I do think gender matters when it comes to a position like press secretary and id rather see a soft spoken female---second choice what be a very comedic male.


Ideally, it would be an outgoing person that is comfortable talking to people. Gender isn't an issue either way. Ability & personality are much more important.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:38:28 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what a maroon, but then the thread is a maroon. And ironic

sarah sanders is not all women
Snide comments about womens looks, size and "worth" to some men is part of the problem. not a partisan thing,
What Sarah looks like is immaterial compared to her lies.



But such opinions, coming from journalists of respectable institutions, is damnable.

That some kinda Joan Rivers shit.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:51:00 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
consider the source.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:56:17 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:


the bummer is---if a woman gets picked for anything, there's always going to be a question as to whether or not she's qualified or an affirmative action pick.


As opposed to being one of the good ole' boys, or a crony.


Its more likely to be said she slept her way to the top, rather than focus on her credentials

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 6:59:13 PM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11234
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what a maroon, but then the thread is a maroon. And ironic

sarah sanders is not all women
Snide comments about womens looks, size and "worth" to some men is part of the problem. not a partisan thing,
What Sarah looks like is immaterial compared to her lies.



But such opinions, coming from journalists of respectable institutions, is damnable.

That some kinda Joan Rivers shit.


You are missing howler Lucys point. She is trying to point out that leftist extremists have no real principles. There is nothing that they really believe in deep down in their souls

If a woman dares disagree with leftists then even threats of rape are on the table. A woman's weight, her accent, breast size, sexual orientation, skin color, the size of her ass... Attacks on her young children... Nothing will be held back

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 7:02:00 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
its interesting to read what the NYTimes piece by Bruni says. apart from her accent and looks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/opinion/sunday/sarah-huckabee-sanders-kelly.html?_r=0



It hit me this week, around the time when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was blithely seconding Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Civil War revisionism, that I missed Sean Spicer.

I missed the panic in his eyes, which signaled a scintilla of awareness that he was peddling hooey. I missed the squeak in his voice, which suggested perhaps the tiniest smidgen of shame.

He never seemed to me entirely at home in his domicile of deception; she dwells without evident compunction in a gaudier fairyland of grander fictions. There’s no panic. No squeak. Just that repulsed expression, as if a foul odor had wafted in and she knew — just knew — that the culprit was CNN.

True, she hasn’t told a lie as tidy as Spicer’s ludicrousness about Donald Trump’s inauguration crowds. But her briefings are breathtaking — certainly this week’s were. For some 20 minutes every afternoon, down is up, paralysis is progress, enmity is harmony, stupid is smart, villain is victim, disgrace is honor, plutocracy is populism and Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia if anyone would summon the nerve to investigate her (because, you know, that never, ever happens). I watch and listen with sheer awe.

With despair, too, because Sanders doesn’t draw nearly the censure or ridicule that Spicer did, and the reason isn’t her. It’s us. More precisely, it’s what Trump and his presidency have done to us. Little more than nine months in, we’ve surrendered any expectation of honesty. We’re inured.


Sarah Huckabee Sanders Memorable Moments Defending President Trump | The New York Times Video by The New York Times
Sure, every administration indulges in self-serving narratives and laughable spin. But this administration takes both to perverse summits, and Sanders is its mountaineer extraordinair

“General Kelly was simply making the point that just because history isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean it’s not our history,” she said on Tuesday with an impossibly straight face, utterly ignoring Kelly’s “compromise” comment and his gauzy eulogy of Robert E. Lee.

She added that journalists’ refusal to brush off those tangents was the truly “outrageous and absurd” development. Thus she aced her favorite trick: the moral inversion of the universe.


Other press secretaries demonized the media, but not as ambitiously and artlessly as she. On Wednesday, she was reminded of her recent statement that all leaders have flaws, and she was asked to name one of Trump’s.

She needs a vocabulary lesson. The bloat of Trump’s ego is a flaw. The plunge of his necktie: also a flaw. Being answerable to a skeptical news media may be an inconvenience — or, for someone as thin-skinned as he is, an absolute torment — but it’s not a flaw. It also happens to be a vital component of democracy, should she and her boss care to reacquaint themselves with that.

When her boss does something execrable, she validates it at greater length and with more passion than most paid sycophants would muster. She chalked up that tweet of his about Mika Brzezinski (“bleeding badly from a face-lift”) to a laudably bold retaliation against a merciless adversary, and she used it as a springboard to swoon over him anew. “I think the American people elected somebody who’s tough, who’s smart and who’s a fighter,” she said. “And that’s Donald Trump.”


She zealously parrots his contention that there’s no evidence of anything untoward between his campaign and Russia, dismissing his hapless namesake’s infamous meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian emissary as “pretty standard campaign operating procedure.”

She edits out the revelation that George Papadopoulos — once named by Trump himself as an important adviser to the campaign — was trying to coordinate with Moscow. When that news broke on Monday, she said that it had “nothing to do with the president.”

So began an audacious week when she came into her mendacious own. She asserted that Trump had not politicized the deaths of eight people in Lower Manhattan because the immigration complaints that he almost instantly raised were ones that he had bellowed about before. So he was — what — grandfathered in? Well, then, so are gun-control advocates who react to yet another mass shooting by repeating their observation that this nation is drowning in firearms.

Jim Acosta of CNN asked her why, at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump called the American justice system “a joke” and “a laughingstock.”

“That’s not what he said,” she shot back — it’s like a reflex with her — and later added, “He said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughingstock.” Wow. Huge difference. Small problem: Acosta’s description of Trump’s remarks came closer to his verbatim words than her tortured, wishful version did.

She’s awful at this, but that makes her an excellent fit for an administration in which mediocrity, inadequate experience and nepotism run rampant.

Besides, she’s serving a function other than communication, which turns out not to be her forte. (To listen to her pronounce “priorities” is akin to hearing the air seep out of a flat tire, and she leaves half of the consonants on the curb.)

She’s a bogus message to Middle America that Trump’s White House is really a homespun, family-values kind of place. Hence her repeated references to being a working mom and managing a boisterous brood at home. Hence her invocation of religion — she’s the daughter of a rather well-known pastor — when asked during one briefing how she’d explain Trump’s worst behavior to her own children.

“When it comes to role models, as a person of faith, I think we all have one perfect role model,” she answered, characteristically using a non sequitur as an evasion. “I point to God. I point to my faith. And that’s where I would tell my kids to look.”

But if they’re to look away from Trump, why does she so willingly look up to him? And how does she square her faith with the purveyance of so much gobbledygook? Maybe she tells herself that there’s no contradiction. That would be her grandest fiction of all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/opinion/sunday/sarah-huckabee-sanders-kelly.html?_r=0




_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: War On Women Alive And Well - 11/4/2017 7:05:31 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what a maroon, but then the thread is a maroon. And ironic

sarah sanders is not all women
Snide comments about womens looks, size and "worth" to some men is part of the problem. not a partisan thing,
What Sarah looks like is immaterial compared to her lies.



But such opinions, coming from journalists of respectable institutions, is damnable.

That some kinda Joan Rivers shit.


You are missing howler Lucys point. She is trying to point out that leftist extremists have no real principles. There is nothing that they really believe in deep down in their souls

If a woman dares disagree with leftists then even threats of rape are on the table. A woman's weight, her accent, breast size, sexual orientation, skin color, the size of her ass... Attacks on her young children... Nothing will be held back


as you have been attacking female posters and liberal women for ten years or more, for their looks, age, size, weight, orientation, skin colour and ass size.
I will agree on one thing
you have no principles.
thats why its so ironic you should post a fucker carlson trash piece.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> War On Women Alive And Well Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096