Easy answer; I wouldn’t. I still have my soul in tact, and I’d like to keep it that way, thanks.
Deflecting every relevant question and trying to derail every discussion is no “proof” of any wit or cunning on ANY of his staff’s part; it’s a con game, and one that isn’t being performed very well.
Just because some people have willingly accepted being ‘marks’ doesn’t make a bad con any better.
I disagree.
ETA:
The way I see it, her job is to show unwavering support for 45, no matter how insane or implausible his antics and ideas get. No matter how obvious the bullshit is, it’s her job to cheerfully eat a heaping spoonful, smile and declare; “It’s delicious!”
I think it kind of depends on what you think her job is. Is it:
A) Trying to make trump’s incoherency coherent?
B) Trying to argue for “common sense” in the face of a hostile media?
C) Somehow, specifically, out of some kind of grudge or I-don’t-know-what, actually trying to give me, personally, a stroke out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
Because on A and B, I’m pretty much torn. On point C, she’s doing a wonderful job.
Me neither! But “ineptude” implies inefficiency at one’s job, not morals.
Exactly! You can’t be inept if your job is to mud the conversation and you are an expert on that.
About that horse, a last word on my part: it isn’t dead until people learn the lessons of the campaign. In 2020, when they choose another unpopular bureaucrat, prepare for 8 more years of Trump.
That some people let “the conversation be muddied” by someone who so clearly sucks at misdirection is more of a reflection upon the ineptitude of our society than it is any reflection of her “prowess” at manipulation.
Frankly you give the woman too much credit.
That is NOT what this conversation is about. If that’s the topic which you wish to discuss, you should either split off the post or find one of the countless threads where that is actually the subject being discussed.
I’m not saying she’s a master of argument or some kind of genius, but she surely knows who she’s talking to. I don’t believe we should say that the fault of “some people” should be understood as a “ineptitude of our society”, cause it kinda gives the liberal media a free pass from criticism.
I’d say it’s more a matter of she knows whom she’s performing for; an audience of ONE.
Everything else is secondary to securing her place as the number one ass-kisser.
No matter how horrific any leader has ever been, there have always been people who would cozen up to them; that’s just a sad part of reality.
Lastly, I’m not even going to address that bit about the “liberal media” you tossed out there, for the second time now; that’s yet another poor derailment attempt, and I’m not biting.
Thanks for the conversation, but I’m moving on now.
Start a thread to discuss the topics you wish to talk about and please refrain from sending me any more private messages.
For someone to display competence in public relations, they would need to be faced with a variety of situations and show appropriate tactics to deal with each. If all you do is get in front of cameras and say daft shit, you haven’t displayed an ounce of competence, even if it worked out.
Where does it stop. If he’s doing the smart thing by saying stupid stuff, then why not just say Trump was doing the smart thing by saying stupid stuff to begin with? Apparently he needs someone to deflect from how awful he is. Sean Spicer needs people to deflect from how awful he is. If people need people to deflect from how awful they are, then who is deflecting from how awful Conway is? Why hasn’t she suffered consequences for being awful, and why hasn’t she consistently shown up to save Trump every time he faltered?
America was vulnerable to this kind of idiocy. That doesn’t make the idiocy anything other than idiocy. The flu virus doesn’t know anything at all but it still makes you sick. Just because a tactic is successful doesn’t mean it has any thought or intelligence behind it.
Microwaves / Wikileaks are a distraction from the wiretapping.
The wiretapping is a distraction from the Russian meetings.
The Russian meeting are claimed to be a distraction from something else…
I had this same problem with the last Canadian Conservative government. They launched character assassination attacks against Stephane Dion and people said, “Going negative works, they are political geniuses.” Then they launched character assassination attacks against Michael Ignatieff and people said, “Going negative works, they political geniuses politics.” Then they launched character assassination attacks against Justin Trudeau and got absolutely crushed.
So from geniuses to 2 out of 3 ain’t bad?
They weren’t geniuses, they were just assholes who didn’t know how to do anything but insult people. Canadians just wanted to vote for a bunch of assholes.
(Also, I’m going to go home tonight and watch some Key and Peele. I don’t even know what’s going on in that skit and I’m laughing at it)
Agreed that something very similar has happened here in the US;
45 & Co (and everyone who enabled them) are not “geniuses” or “masters;” they are just opportunistic, incendiary assholes, and a little too much of the American populace wanted to vote for the assholes because “reasons.”
The argument against investigating Russian interference in the election was that there was no hard proof. (Did they expect a wire running from the DNC direct to the Kremlin?)
Now people are supposed to waste time on Trump’s wiretapping brainfart without anything at all?
And takes away from the surprise of seeing it on SNL this weekend. (Seriously, at what point do they have to start giving members of the trump administration writing credits on the show?)
