Sarah Huckabee Sanders Version of Covfefe

[candygirl200413]

But like what benefits with the lies? Cause like not everyone believes said lies, I guess that's what truly confuses me with this administration.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, candygirl200413 said:

But like what benefits with the lies? Cause like not everyone believes said lies, I guess that's what truly confuses me with this administration.

I do wonder why they even bother. Do they think that coming out and spewing shit and lies counts as being transparent? Because they have a press briefing, they're communicating with the public? Obviously she has to do something, she's making a ton of tax-payer dollars. I'd rather she just come out and read the ingredients off of Dumpy ten-gallon container of ice cream. But she'd probably get in an argument with somebody over that too.

[onekidanddone]

Can't wait for Sarah Shut-up-a-bee has to say in today's press lair liar pants on fire lecture press conference.

[fraurosena]

Well... this is what she said:

 

Wow, that she can say all that with a straight face... 

Wait, she said more:

 

Now, this is funny... I posted a Seth Abramson twitter-thread in the Russian Connection thread, and one of those tweets is this one:

SHS's statement is demonstrably false. In this list you can see his name at the very top of the foreign policy advisors.

Edited October 30, 2017 by fraurosena
more info

[onekidanddone]

3 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Well... this is what she said:

 

Wow, that she can say all that with a straight face... 

I ...I.....I  oh fuck it.  Is there really a response to this? 

[GreyhoundFan]

5 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Wow, that she can say all that with a straight face... 

Maybe she's had Botox to keep her face in her normal scowl.

[fraurosena]

2 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I ...I.....I  oh fuck it.  Is there really a response to this? 

I just added to my previous post... she's a demonstrable 

[AnywhereButHere]

For someone who grew up in an "All About God" environment, she does realize she sold her soul to the devil here. Right?

[GrumpyGran]

36 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

For someone who grew up in an "All About God" environment, she does realize she sold her soul to the devil here. Right?

As you and I both know, she's a member of the Church of the Echo Chamber. God will forgive her because what she is trying to do is really for the better good because it's important that this and that, blah blah, whatever we say to justify marginalizing people. "It's in the bible, of course it is, I haven't actually read it myself but my pastor tells me it's in there!"

She's a good example of what your mother used to tell you: keep making that face and it will get stuck like that.

[apple1]

1 hour ago, AnywhereButHere said:

For someone who grew up in an "All About God" environment, she does realize she sold her soul to the devil here. Right?

She sold her soul to the devil a long time ago.

 

ETA: Wow, @GrumpyGran "She's a good example of what your mother used to tell you: keep making that face and it will get stuck like that." Isn't that the truth. Wish I had thought of that.

Edited October 30, 2017 by apple1

[AmazonGrace]

 

[onekidanddone]

9 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Dear Rufus! These reporters must need a drink, several drinks, after having to listen to her

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow, I'm guessing she didn't major in history at the SOTDRT.

[AmazonGrace]

It's probably a good thing for my liver that I'm not a White House reporter. 

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/925811764356411393

[candygirl200413]

As a Christian, I spend at least 5% of my day thinking about how God will shut those gates up above.

[GrumpyGran]

55 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

It's probably a good thing for my liver that I'm not a White House reporter. 

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/925811764356411393

Do you think she doesn't listen to the questions? Because she has to know what flaw means. She has to. Or she's talking in code. She literally said his flaw is being president. A president does have to deal with the press everyday. So his flaw is having the job that requires dealing with the press.

Is she actually working against him? She sure isn't helping him.

[AmazonGrace]

49 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Do you think she doesn't listen to the questions? Because she has to know what flaw means. She has to. Or she's talking in code. She literally said his flaw is being president. A president does have to deal with the press everyday. So his flaw is having the job that requires dealing with the press.

Is she actually working against him? She sure isn't helping him.

If that's what she meant I would agree... running for president and getting elected was probably his biggest mistake.

But personally my opinion of Sarah Sanders is low enough that I think she knew exactly what she was being asked and responded to rudely attack the reporters. Now see here, folks, Dear Leader ain't got  no freaking flaws, it's just you people who keep making them up. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Donald Trump Jr., Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the chain-email presidency"

Spoiler

“This story has been floating around on the Internet for a while” is a line that rarely inspires confidence.

Nevertheless, that’s how Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked off Monday’s White House press briefing. The press secretary spent nearly five minutes reading from the lectern a lengthy and convoluted allegory about 10 reporters splitting a $100 bar tab, apparently to explain the logic behind the Republican tax plan. It was baffling. Later research by skeptical reporters revealed that the story has been circulating in and out of inboxes since at least 2003. It’s even been investigated by urban legend website Snopes.  

Not to be outdone in the “email forwards from an elderly uncle” department, Donald Trump Jr. the next day tweeted a picture of his 4-year-old daughter in a Halloween costume, ostensibly to illustrate the downsides of alternative economic systems. “I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to [sic] early to teach her about socialism.”

That particular analogy has also been making its way around the Web for some time. Most recently, it appeared on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s Prison Planet website the day before Trump Jr. tweeted his own version. Econ lessons from a Pizzagate truther’s viral video: trustworthy! 

And then, of course, there’s President Trump himself. The president appears to get all his news and policy advice from “Fox & Friends,” a morning show that traffics in unsubstantiated rumor and echo-chamber thinking. On Twitter, he retweets bogus crime statistics and memes from alt-right message boards.  

We’re in the era of the chain-letter administration. 

Instead of justifying policy through facts and data (which are being deleted from government websites as we speak), the administration and its allies rely on viral stories and dubious parables to inform the public. And while allegory, anecdote and analogy can be useful in explaining complex policy issues, this administration uses them in all the worst ways. 

For one thing, the stories are often just wrong. In his tweet, Trump Jr. used the word “socialism” to describe being forced to share the fruits of your labor (broadly defined, considering how trick-or-treating works) with a stranger. Except, that’s not socialism. The term has a specific meaning: government control of the means of production and of the distribution of goods and services. It’s not the same thing as coerced sharing.  

Sanders’s bar tab analogy went similarly wide of the mark. Her tale was of a wealthy, generous beer drinker forced to abandon his nightly draft because of the loud complaints of his poor, overly entitled companions. But the story conveniently elided both the mathematics of income distribution and Trump’s original promise that tax reform would focus on helping the middle class rather than the wealthy. 

Of course, the point of these fables was never to provide an accurate explanation of policy issues. Rather, the Trump team uses chain-email fabulism to advance its own agenda and promote a skewed interpretation of reality. 

Trump Jr.’s socialism tweet is meant to darken the public perception of any sort of redistribution, associating it with stealing candy from babies rather than undergirding a functioning health insurance system or social-welfare programs to help the less fortunate. Sanders’s beer story was less an explanation of how taxation works than an attempt to garner sympathy for the wealthy. The end goal is to persuade anyone listening in from the middle class not to grumble when the tax cut for those in higher brackets is larger than for them. 

These stories would fall apart if anyone questioned their premise. The slightest bit of research would provide a more accurate explanation of how taxes and socialism work and poke holes in the misinformation issuing from the White House. But the success of these well-worn analogies relies upon and entrenches the lack of critical thinking that’s become all too common since Trump’s political career began.  

That’s what makes this brand of storytelling so pernicious — and what makes these tales seem more plausible than ever before.  

When all news is fake and all reporting is leaks and lies, people still need to be informed. That vacuum is filled by folk wisdom shared by family and friends, or rumors and information shortcuts circulated by those who seem as though they’re in the know. And there’s no reason to spend your own time searching for truth when you’ve been informed by a reputable-enough source who happens to confirm your biases perfectly. 

But the “wisdom” emanating from the White House these days comes from those who aren’t wise at all. That’s what your delete key is for.

I didn't realize the Halloween crap that junior posted was from Alex Jones. Lovely, just lovely. And, as far as SHS goes, well, SHE needs to go.

[GreyhoundFan]

SNL's Aidy Bryant does a great job as SHS:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

So.Freaking.True: "Trump built a wall. Her name is Sarah."

Spoiler

When White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked the press corps Monday to preface their daily briefing questions with a statement of thankfulness, reporters obliged.

Or, should we say, obeyed.

For this, no doubt, Sanders was grateful.

Yet again, she controlled the crowd, though this time by candy-coating her usual condescension with faux fellowship.

I’m thankful I wasn’t in the room.

My first impulse when someone asks me to share is to not-share. This isn’t because I’m not a sharing person — you can have my cake and eat it, too — but because sharing, like charity, should be voluntary. For a press secretary to require professional journalists to essentially beg for their supper, surrendering their adversarial posture like a dog commanded to Drop The Bone, is an infantilizing tactic. The effect is to neutralize the opposition.

Yes, I said opposition. The press, by definition, is oppositional. As Mr. Dooley, the turn-of-the-century fictional bartender created by columnist Finley Peter Dunne, is often paraphrased: “The newspaper’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Yet, from the interplay between the media and the Trump administration, one would think reporters were supposed to be taking dictation. Seen and not heard. Sanders, whose persistently arched brows convey an air of constant disapproval, routinely brushes reporters’ questions aside. During any given news briefing, one is likely to hear words to these effects:

“I think he’s addressed that pretty thoroughly, yesterday,” she’ll say. Or “We don’t have any announcements on that.” Or my personal favorite, which came in response to a query about White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly’s controversial remarks about Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica S. Wilson, “If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that’s something highly inappropriate.”

One peers into Sanders’s fantasy movie, where the reporter, abashed, shrinks into the folds of his trench coat, muttering, “What an impudent, incompetent fool I am!”

If Sanders isn’t evading, she’s scolding. Like a parent weary of her 3-year-old’s constant “why?,” her tone and expression telegraph: “Because I say so, case closed.”

Sanders’s sudden shift from press secretary to minister’s daughter a few days before Thanksgiving coincides with her apparent image evolution from a woman unconcerned with vanity to a more polished version. One can almost hear the hive of consultants discussing how to imperceptibly adapt this no-frills yeoman to the shallower requirements of a visual medium.

If one were Sanders’s employer, meanwhile, one surely would be pleased. She’s everything a terrible person — or, say, an unpopular president — could hope for in a public relations artist. She says nothing; gives away nothing; looks fierce and dutifully repeats falsehoods as required. Her resistance to flinching or blinking is state-of-the-art.

Yet, even as Sanders declines to enlighten the press corps, she manages to inspire admiration for her toughness and effectiveness — from a certain perspective. To President Trump’s base, she’s the a la mode on a slice of apple pie, the pom-pom and confetti at a freedom rally, or, perhaps, the elfin princess who can read and direct a person’s thoughts by hypnotizing them with her magic pearls. Her daily humiliation of the press, making them seem like churlish children, is a booster shot of “fake news” animus that also apparently inoculates against viral truths.

To the media, she is the wall Trump promised to erect and, increasingly, it seems, we are the swamp he seeks to drain. Out with the media, out with free speech, out with facts! For these purposes, Sanders is perfectly cast. Where there is the prolonged car alarm of “fake news,” there is bound to be a fake news officer. Such is not always the case. In fact, the most successful press secretaries were journalists first.

Jay Carney, formerly of Time magazine, comes to mind, as does Tony Snow, previously of Fox News. Both men were well-known, respected and liked by their media peers before crossing over to the Dark Side. They also understood what reporters needed and tried to provide it. When they couldn’t, they were at least self-effacing and seemed sincere in regretting limitations imposed by the job. Most important, they fully understood and appreciated the sanctity of the First Amendment, without which all freedoms fail.

To this testament, a note of personal gratitude. Today, not just on our national feast day, I’m thankful for the freedom to speak without (undue) fear of retribution.

Let’s not let the turkeys whittle it away.

I think this is a pretty fair assessment of SHS.

[onekidanddone]

Tell me Sarah, how did that whole SOTDRT work out for ya?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No big surprise that she'd lead off with this: "White House: Trump's immigration policies could have prevented New York attack"

Spoiler

The White House on Monday said President Donald Trump’s immigration policies against so-called chain migration could have prevented a suspected terror attack in New York City, blaming Democrats in Congress for blocking his plans.

Authorities in New York identified 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, an immigrant from Bangladesh who entered the U.S. in 2011, as the suspect who detonated an improvised explosive device on Monday morning near a Port Authority bus terminal, injuring four people. Authorities said the suspect suffered burns and lacerations as a result of the explosions. Three bystanders reportedly sustained headaches and ringing in their ears.

“The president is certainly concerned that Congress, particularly Democrats, have failed to take action in some places where we feel we could have prevented this,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters. “Specifically, the president’s policy has called for an end to chain migration, and if that had been in place that would have prevented this individual from coming to the United States. So the president is aggressively gonna continue to push forth responsible immigration reform, and ending chain migration would certainly be a part of that process.”

Chain migration is the process through which people from the same town or area migrate to a new place. The White House has used the term to refer to people sponsoring family members to come to the U.S. Citing confirmation from the Department of Homeland Security, Sanders said the suspect was admitted into the U.S. in 2011 after presenting a passport with an F-43 family immigrant visa.

“We know that the president’s policy calls for an end to chain migration, which is what this individual came to the United States through, and if his policy had been in place, then that attacker would not have been allowed to come in the country,” Sanders said, even though the suspect came to the U.S. six years before Trump took office.

“That’s why the president has pushed for not one part of immigration policy but a responsible and total immigration reform. And that’s why we have to look at all sectors and do what we can to make sure we’re doing everything we can within our power to protect the American people.”

In her opening statement at Monday’s briefing, Sanders praised the police and first responders for their heroism. She also touted the administration’s gains against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, in addition to calling on Congress to pass immigration reform.

“This attack underscores the need for Congress to work with the president on immigration reforms that enhance our national security and public safety,” she said. “We must protect our borders, we must ensure the individuals entering our country are not coming to do harm to our people and we must move to a merit-based system of immigration.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"White House briefing room descends into chaos over ‘fake news’"

Spoiler

All the conditions were set for a brush fire in the White House briefing room on Monday afternoon: Over the past two weeks, ABC News and then CNN made grand mistakes in their coverage of the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia. In both cases, the initial reports suggested scandalous dealings that, upon closer inspection, simply didn’t bear out.

The media-White House tension continued over the weekend, after President Trump criticized The Post’s David Weigel for a tweet commenting on crowd size for a Trump event in Florida:

... < tweet >

Weigel later apologized for the tweet and deleted it from his personal account.

In Monday’s briefing, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked whether Trump differentiates between a situation such as Weigel’s tweet — a mistake followed by corrective action — and genuine disinformation campaigns of the sort managed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Sanders responded that Trump was “calling out” a “false accusation,” arguing that it reflected “nothing more than an individual trying to put their bias into their reporting.” Nor was this an isolated instance, argued Sanders: “A number of outlets have had to retract and change and rewrite and make editor’s notes to a number of different stories — some of them with major impacts, including moving markets. This is a big problem, and we think it’s something that should be taken seriously.”

This thing was just getting started.

Jim Acosta of CNN, a network accused of “fake news” on repeated occasions by the president, strove to make a distinction: “I would just say, Sarah, that journalists make honest mistakes, and that doesn’t make them ‘fake news.'”

That’s a plea that journalists have been making, to little effect, for the year-plus since “fake news” shifted to the center of a national debate on the durability of American politics. Whereas the term started out as a designation for deliberately false stories, it has mutated to a new descriptor of any news report that turns out to be faulty.

In any case, Sanders and Acosta continued jousting:

Sanders: When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.

Acosta: They do.

Sanders: Sometimes, and a lot of times you don’t.

[Crosstalk]

Sanders: I’m sorry, I’m not finished. There’s a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people. Something that happens regularly —

[Crosstalk]

Sanders: I’m not done. You cannot say that it’s an honest mistake when you’re purposely putting out information that you know to be false. Or when you’re taking information that hasn’t been validated, that hasn’t been offered any credibility and that has been continually denied by a number of people including people with direct knowledge of an incident.

[…]

Acosta: Can you cite a specific story that you say is intentionally false, that was intentionally put out there to mislead the American people?

Sanders: Sure, the ABC report by Brian Ross, I think that was pretty misleading to the American people, and I think that it’s very telling that that individual had to be suspended because of that reporting. I think that shows that the network took it seriously and recognized that it was a problem.

With that, Sanders appeared to allege that Ross’s report — a claim that fired national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that Trump had directed him to contact Russia during the campaign — was a deliberate exercise in misinformation on the part of ABC News. Though the network did suspend Ross for four weeks, correct the story and apologize for it, it has never gone so far as to say that there was anything purposeful about it. The mere fact that it corrected the story should annul any argument that it was seeking to mislead, but as we’ve seen, logic doesn’t always find a foothold at the White House lectern.

ABC News tells the Erik Wemple Blog that it has “nothing to add” in light of Sanders’s words.

Perhaps unintentionally, Sanders was leading the briefing room through an exercise over which every major-media editor has been agonizing for the better part of two-and-a-half years. That is, how to view the thousands of falsehoods uttered by President Trump on Twitter, in speeches and in interviews? Are those falsehoods intentional and, thus, lies? Or are they more innocent, serial mistakes? Some outlets have adopted a more liberal standard of presidential mendacity, while others just won’t go there.

However high the bar, Trump falls immeasurably short of the standard set by Sanders herself, which is that when people make honest mistakes, they should “own up” to them. Trump simply doesn’t do that. Media organizations look like a model of biblical rectitude vis-a-vis that guy.

It takes a lot for media organizations to issue corrections and retractions. They tend to clamber toward any available rationale to avoid the ignominy of a bolded correction. Broad reaction to the recent screw-ups — that they’re evidence of “fake news” and a purposeful campaign to deceive — threaten to further suppress this very important activity. If the issuance of corrections is used as evidence of “fake news” intentions, why bother with them?

She makes me angrier than Spicey did. She's a nasty witch.

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

However high the bar, Trump falls immeasurably short of the standard set by Sanders herself, which is that when people make honest mistakes, they should “own up” to them. Trump simply doesn’t do that.

So, by her own standards, his "mistakes' are intentional, or he doesn't measure up to her standards. Someone should ask her at a briefing if she is being harassed, bullied or forced to work for someone who doesn't meet her standards. If not, why is she taking the taxpayers' money, and quite a bit of it, speaking for a man who has on multiple occasions misspoke and then not "owned up" to it.