Social Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

Do you miss Kellyanne Conway?

Asked by elbanditoroso (30903points) February 22nd, 2017
74 responses
“Great Question” (5points)

It seems like she has gone silent for the last week, ever since her Flynn debacle and some other idiocies. And she won’t be invited onto at least one TV show because of her propensity to lie. And then there’s the Ivanka Trump commercial she did.

Has she been silenced? Is this punishment?

The one thing about Conway, to me, is that you could trust her.

Anything she said, the opposite was true.

Topics: ,
Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

Pachy's avatar

As much as I miss athlete’s foot.

LostInParadise's avatar

I heard she was taking a crash Trump University course on The Art of the Lie. There is a lot that Trump could teach her.

Mariah's avatar

Nah, fuck her and fuck Milo. I’m glad the world is wising up about the idiocy of some of these far-right assholes.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

NO. God, that woman. Could you imagine living with her? I would rather have a root canal every single day of my life.

These people Trump chose as his frontmen, jesuschrist. The media counselor to the president and White House press secretary are there to explain to the nation the decisions made in the White House, not to blatantly circumvent, obfuscate, divert, recriminate—christ, I’m running out of appropriate verbs—or to outright lie to the people.

This is a real scumbag outfit. I don’t think there is a precedent at all that anyone can refer to.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t miss her, but I disagree with a news outlet banning her.

Sneki95's avatar

Not really. I don’t even know who that is.

kritiper's avatar

I didn’t even realize she was missing until you mentioned it!

flutherother's avatar

It was quite reassuring that the person engaged to defend Trump should be so bad at it. I hope she isn’t replaced by someone competent.

rojo's avatar

Like a dose of clap.

gorillapaws's avatar

I think people from the radical right should get the same amount of air time as those on the radical left. I’ve never seen John Bachtell, the chairman of the American Communist Party, on network news. If there was a Communist for every Flat-Taxer, then people would have a better appreciation of the full political spectrum. New-Deal Democrats being Center-Left, Neoliberal Democrats being Center-Right and Republicans off the charts to the Right.

The corporate owned media has given a very loud voice to the most extreme on the right, but pretends that the most extreme on the left doesn’t exist. The result has been profit for the media and a media bias that favors big business.

Cruiser's avatar

@gorillapaws It is interesting that you make that observation about the alt left as I call them as I have been reading lately about how the DNC is saying they are going to have to adopt the Tea Party play book to regain the attention of the public who has largely ignored the message of their platform. Has the Democratic Party really gotten that desperate?

BellaB's avatar

Absolutely. American media standing up for truth is long overdue.

So tired of American media giving so much coverage to the right wing of the right wing.

Getting American news from non-US media is enlightening. Sometimes I think if i had a bazillion dollars I would block Americans from getting any US-media coverage.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@JLeslie “I don’t miss her, but I disagree with a news outlet banning her.”

Are they obligated to give her a platform on their dime?

tinyfaery's avatar

Hell to the motherfuckin’ no.

rojo's avatar

Trump should replace her with another general.

JLeslie's avatar

@Darth_Algar No obligation. I’m just stating my opinion. If I’m going to fight for free speech, a free press, and balanced journalism, I’m going to try to be consistent. I don’t think it’s a great idea to not allow a spokesperson for the president on TV. First, I don’t want Fox News doing that if the tables were turned, and second, her appearance gives the other side the opportunity to respond.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Cruiser There is so much wrong with your statement it’s hard to pick it apart. What you’re referring to as “alt left” is really Center-Left on the spectrum. The ideas of the New Deal Democrats are very popular politically when polled. The mainstream Democratic party (Clinton, Obama) has been Center-Right—in the political no-mans-land of the watered-down flavor of Republicanism (to the Right of Nixon). This brand of the Democratic party is the one that voters can’t stand. If people want Republicans, generally speaking they’re going to vote for a full-blown Republican over the imposter version.

There simply are no voices from the extreme left being broadcast. If you had a real communist for each Kellyanne Conway on the air, Center-Left voters like myself would be correctly framed in the political spectrum, we aren’t anywhere close to the extreme left as the Tea-party is to the extreme of the right.

The conversation is always incorrectly framed because of this.

LostInParadise's avatar

@Cruiser, The political strategy adopted by the Tea Party can be used without compromising one’s integrity. What the Tea Party did was to focus on local politics in the beginning, like showing up at town hall meetings. There is nothing wrong with this strategy, and I am glad to see the Democrats making increasing use of it. Trump has energized the Democrats like nobody has since the Vietnam War.

filmfann's avatar

How can I miss her when we have Melissa McCarthy Sean Spicer?

Cruiser's avatar

@LostInParadise The same can be said of the Republicans and I say even more so. I have never seen the Republicans so tightly together. Trumps entire cabinet was near unanimous support from the GOP. Even I did not expect to see that.

@gorillapaws Your assertions I would say are more correctly defined and probably put more thought into your assessment of the spectrum than I ever will. Your comment made me realize something about my leanings as well. Anytime I take those Lib/Con spectrum quizzes I almost always am center near dead center and my mark is always touching the center mark. That said I will probably give different opinions on matters from a personal POV versus my political point of view. From a personal POV I share common ground with more than a few liberal ideas. From a political perspective I have little to no common ground the liberal agenda.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@JLeslie

She’s not a spokesperson for the president, she’s an advisor to him. It’s not her position to speak on behalf of the president. The White House has a liaison to the press, and Kellyanne isn’t in that role. Beyond that, she’s proven herself to be a compulsive liar and she’s openly hostile to the press. She has no right, then, to expect the press to give her airtime.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I do grudgingly miss her, and wonder if she decided on her own to back away from the limelight. She’s too valuable to be benched. I frankly cannot remember anyone as adept at rationalizing the absurd or defending the indefensible. The woman is actually rather brilliant in her performance of what is at bottom a hopeless job.

johnpowell's avatar

“I serve at the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn’t matter.”

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/831566360153042944

flutherother's avatar

She is a brilliant propagandist operating well behind enemy lines. The ‘alternative facts’ phrase will dog the Trump regime forever and pretending to endorse Ivanka’s ‘stuff’ perfectly highlighted the nepotism and conflicts of interest that prosper within Trump’s cabinet. Sheer genius.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

^^LOL. If only that were true. She has done a ton of damage to the Trump admin, for sure. But his psychophants still aren’t getting it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t agree. She is very effective at painting Trump’s psychotic behavior as normal and even Presidential to the “converted”. Trump fans, particularly the huge low information contingent, listen to her dish out that swill, and have no idea that it’s vacuous pap. She is an absolute master at gold plating bullshit, and is ready at the drop of a hat to pull up some example of past Presidential actions supposedly mirroring any Trump fkup the Donald bungles into. And if you know nothing, it’s all too easy to swallow the smoothly delivered snake oil. She should be in the ministry, and if Trump had any sense, she would be his press secretary.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

^^Yeah, she’s so good at it, Trump had to put her in Time out for a week LOL. She ain’t done yet.

I’m waiting for the flying monkeys.

@johnpowell The Gifs and pics on that Twitter thread you posted were hillarious.

Cruiser's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Kelly AC IMO is a YUGE reason Trump is our President. 24/7 she was ironing out the wrinkles of his incessant verbalizations of his panderings to those desperate to an antidote to Obama and a vaccine for Clinton. Kelly did the heavy lifting on air and yes she stumbled as of late and may be in the penalty box because of it or cut from the team. Not sure…but she has not been seen or tweeted for a while now. I just bristle at how desperate many are for an easy target like Kelly these days.

Update: Kelly will be on with Hannity tonight at CPAC….I will bet zero of you will tune in to see her side of the story.

rojo's avatar

@Cruiser I will be watching Samatha Bee on Full Frontal. A much more educational and informative thirty minutes.

Cruiser's avatar

@rojo Thanks for validating my comment~

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser. I plan to record the Kellyanne performance for later viewing. She’s too good to miss. It’s the sort of thing you’re not going to see too often in a lifetime. You have a dodo bird hosting a master saddled with the task of defending the devil.

rojo's avatar

@Cruiser De Nada.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Bah. @Cruiser why do you keep defending these people? This goes way beyond a businessman’s desire for a for a more business-friendly environment. These people are dishonest to us and themselves—blatantly so—in a big, big way. Up until she landed this gig with Trump, she was getting on Teevee by being one of his biggest detractors. That was only last May.

My God, the woman makes the Whore of Babylon look virginal. I can’t believe you are this cynical. This admin doesn’t even make a pretense of telling the truth or admitting to telling lies when caught red handed. Conway and Spicer just avoid and deflect and keep right on truckin’.

I mean really. If you went out in front of your employees and countered their grievances with, “I understand, but you people aren’t taking into account the alternative facts.” LOL. You’d end up in that scene in Frankenstein where the Baron is surrounded by torch carrying villagers.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@JLeslie Morning Joe is just one television program. She hasn’t been completely banned from any news outlets, except maybe by the White House. Free speech doesn’t require giving every lunatic a platform (which they all have thanks to the internet anyway), disinviting her from a single show doesn’t impede freedom of the press in any way, and balanced journalism doesn’t mean giving equal time to blatant liars. It doesn’t even mean giving equal time to everyone who sincerely believes something. We don’t put Humbert Humbert on TV every time a pedophile gets arrested so that he can make the case for child rape no matter how truly he believes it is okay. So there’s no inconsistency in saying that the news media—whether it’s MSNBC or Fox News—is not just within its rights, but actually performing its professional duty by ignoring people like Conway and giving her time to people with something more relevant to say.

blackbetty's avatar

I do. She reminds me of Cornholio.

Oh how I miss Cornholio.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Look at this She is being banned because she won’t answer interviewers’ questions.

She may be a presidential advisor by title, but she has been functioning as the presidential spokesperson since the Trump victory. And she won’t answer questions. So, why have her on your show? She’s become a frustrating waste of expensive airtime. She only lasted as long as she did because it was entertaining to watch. But the joke has got old. The viewers are demanding answers, not evasion. Nobody wants to interview her anymore and that includes senior FOXNews anchor and political commentator Chris Wallace.

The signal to Trump is that he needs to assign a person who will answer questions.

Cruiser's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Apparently we live in diametrically opposed worlds. I have a company I now own that has been pummeled 4 ways to Sunday for the last 8 years by Obama’s regulations, healthcare and taxes at the forefront. This has affected not only me but my employees, my customers and anyone I am aware of I do business with including family and friends. I have given more than my fair share of my hide because of these oppressive Democratic policies and frankly I am at a loss to see how they has benefited our country as a whole. If you possess info that can enlighten me how our country…not just a particular persons are better off…I am all ears.

JLeslie's avatar

@JeSuisRickSpringfield I know it’s not all shows, or some sort of complete ban on her. Sure, they have the right to put on TV, or not, whoever they want. Morning Joe happens to be the show I watch the most when I watch politics in the morning.

Cruiser's avatar

She’s baaack!

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@JLeslie “Morning Joe happens to be the show I watch the most when I watch politics in the morning.”

Then you should be happy that they’ve guaranteed you’ll never have to sit through such a bad guest.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie I used to really like M-J but they have jumped the shark as of late and Mika really went over the edge with this comment the other day…

BRZEZINSKI: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser I have to agree that the show has taken a turn. Years ago I felt it was the most balanced political show on TV. Now, it’s leaning way left.

I don’t know about that quote, Something seems worded poorly.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie watch for yourself… at the very end.

kritiper's avatar

Yeah, I saw her on some TV broadcast, assuming it was true and factual. She was at some big shindig. I thought she was walking funny, like her tail was stuck between her legs. After all, she was in the woodshed for quite some time…

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

Also from Brzezinski: “Today I said it’s the media’s job to keep President Trump from making up his own facts, NOT that it’s our job to control what people think.”

Spoken language is never as precise as written language. And even in the best of circumstances, communication can be difficult. That’s why it’s important to accept people’s clarifications. If we don’t, we become the unreasonable ones.

Cruiser's avatar

@JeSuisRickSpringfield Double speak from the Dems is what cost them near 1,000 state and local seats to the GOP….they apparently have not learned from this very costly lesson and keep making the same mistakes. From where I sit the GOP is equally vulnerable assuming they are in control….can you say cage match?

rojo's avatar

@Cruiser how exactly do you beat gerrymandered districts that give the Republicans control? Interested to get your perspective. It has much, much more to do with Republican dominance than so-called doublespeak.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@Cruiser Misspeaking—or being misinterpreted—is not doublespeak. Have you never in your life said the wrong word, said words in the wrong order, or had some bit of grammatical ambiguity get in the way of someone understanding what you meant? That last one is what happened here. Insisting on your misinterpretation just because it suits you politically is despicable.

And like @rojo said, gerrymandering cost the Democrats a lot more than verbal slips. It’s been shown time and time again that people exempt their local representatives from their feelings about Congress or the two major parties in general. Survey after survey has people saying they hate Congress, the Democrats, and the Republicans, but still like their representatives. That’s what happens when we let representatives choose their voters instead of letting voters choose their representatives.

Cruiser's avatar

@JeSuisRickSpringfield dou·ble·speak
ˈdəbəlˌspēk/
noun
noun: double-speak
deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language.
“the art of political doublespeak” is exactly why Dems have been hemorrhaging seats to the GOP and precisely why Hillary lost the election. I will admit I zero basis to understand how Republican efforts in redistricting affected the outcome for Dems to lose over 1,000 seats…that claim seems overly ambitious to me as IMO Dems work equally as hard and AFAICT are very successful at drawing boundaries in their favor. At least in my state they are.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@Cruiser I know what doublespeak is. What I’m saying is that Brzezinski didn’t engage in doublespeak. She either misspoke or was misunderstood because of some ambiguous syntax. There’s a difference. And by the way, I don’t think anyone is saying that gerrymandering lost the Democrats all 1000 seats. A few seats change hand all the time, and the Republican surge probably would have gotten them a few more than normal. The claim is that the number is so high in part due to gerrymandering.

And yes, of course both parties gerrymander as much as they can. But that doesn’t mean the Republicans didn’t do it or that they haven’t been overall more successful at it (even if it’s not happening in your backyard). Here is just one of the many articles written about the Republican Party’s successful attempt to seize power in precisely the right spots at precisely the right time to protect themselves despite flagging popularity. Whatever else one thinks of the Republicans, they’ve always been the better strategists.

Cruiser's avatar

@JeSuisRickSpringfield I might wholeheartedly agree with you about Repubs being good strategist and think it very generous of you to say so but the Republicans blew it big time with McCain and Palin in 2008, blew it again with Romney in 2012 and REALLY blew it in 2016 by putting up 16 candidates that got steamrolled by Trump. Republicans SUCK at campaign strategy. Trump is lethal at controlling the message something both the Democrats and Republicans are assuredly studying each play he made with a microscope.

Giving the Key Stone cop Republican any credit is to continue to deny just how clueless the Democrats are towards what ordinary Americans really want and that is jobs. Free healthcare and free college won’t amount to a hill of beans if a man cannot have a decent paying job to support his family. The Dems need to wake up from it’s hibernation.

kritiper's avatar

I think both the Republican and Democratic party platforms are showing their extreme age and difference. The Republicans, with the ultra right tea baggers have gone too far right and the Democrats too far left. The whole system, in my opinion, is ripe for a third Moderate party, one that holds some Republican and some Democrat views but is neither. Like a see-saw that has too much weight at either end and breaks in the middle. That time may have finally come, and I, for one, welcome it with open arms. Otherwise this country, as a republic, is finished.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The idea that the Democratic party is far left is fucking laughable. In pretty much any other country they’d be considered right-of-center.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Darth_Algar I completely agree. The Democratic Party is to the RIGHT of Nixon for fucks sake.

IMO we’re too far left when people are talking about abolishing all private business, equalizing everyone’s wage, etc. Advocating for.a progressive tax structure, a strong safety net, guaranteed healthcare, protections for workers, a living wage, and protections for our shared resources like the environment, is not very extreme at all. In fact it’s fantastic for the economy.

Cruiser's avatar

@gorillapaws Government safety nets are great to strengthen the moral fabric of a country but IMHO enabling and encouraging people to not fend for themselves I would argue is detrimental to an economy.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Translation: “I got mine so screw anyone else.”

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar I got mine because I worked my ass off to get it and never once asked for any Government cheese. I lived below the poverty level for the first 5 years out of college. I never gave up. Took me 35 years but I finally got the brass ring. IMO if a fuck up like me can do it….anyone can do it. Stop making excuses for other people!

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@Cruiser
360 Million social democratic Europeans prove you wrong every day.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Because the only people who might need public assistance are just lazy, right?

Cruiser's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Our 330 million hard working Americans present a valid and solid counterpoint to your European social experiment that is currently collapsing under it’s weight.

Cruiser's avatar

@Darth_Algar Yes…Near 95,000,000 Americans not in the labor force are surviving some how and I am sure only a small percentage are disabled and why Trump got elected….people want jobs so they can eat something other than Government cheese. Get a clue already!

Darth_Algar's avatar

Alright. Be sure to go up to, say, a veteran who was over in Iraq, risking his life on your behalf, that his wife and kids back home were dealing with public assistance because he is lazy.

Cruiser's avatar

Geese Lousie @Darth_Algar If a clue was the size of an elephant you would still miss seeing it! WOW! I will spell it for you then…. J…O….B…S. I can’t tell you how many times in the last 10 years how many Vets told me…just give me a decent job….something that equals the task they were trained to do. Plus people make life choices and are free to make them…what makes this country so fucking great!

gorillapaws's avatar

@Cruiser One can set moral arguments completely aside to justify social safety nets. There is a genuine economic case to be made there.

For example picture the small business owner that gets a nasty (but treatable) disease/condition Her insurance tries to avoid paying stretching out treatment for as long as possible, raising premiums.She’s not able to work, the business starts to fail. She can’t afford the premiums, the policy gets canceled from lack of payment. Her employees are out of work, her debtors can’t get paid so that hurts their bottom line, all of that tax revenue that would be coming in is now being paid out as unemployment/welfare. Perhaps a desperate former employee has to turn to crime to pay for necessary medication, that further harms the victims of the crime. He gets caught and now there are costs to the court system and prison system. It creates a negative feedback loop that destroys wealth for lots of people, not just the original one.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

That’s real fucking ironic coming from someone who routinely goes out of his way to avoid the point or context.

Cruiser's avatar

@gorillapaws That is why we have that really super special safety net called chapter 11 and chapter 13 to name a few. Something 45 customers of mine took advantage of the last 10 years. Thankfully I was able to write off those losses…unfun none-the-less.

@Darth_Algar I see you are calling the kettle black again. You apparently cannot make an intelligent point if your life depended on it…sheesh!

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar I meant too far left of where they should be. How far left and what it means to you is moot.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser that safety net is the only thing standing between today’s America and the misery of the 30s. Moreover, all of those lovely bankruptcy chapters favor the business community, but at the behest of the banks have been ratcheted down to inflict severe difficulties on any individual compelled to run the gauntlet. The standard line about the government dole as the great motivation for freeloaders is in the main bullshit foisted by those benefitting most from the very conditions forcing recipients’ humiliation. The public is beaten incessantly from the right with the demonstrably false lie of public benefits as the refuge of shirkers. The chant is taken up by conservative dupes who should know better, but are too dumb to understand. Instead of erecting ever more barriers and tiger pits in front of access to these benefits, perhaps it would be more productive to ask why a few of us (percentage wise) are allowed and ENCOURAGED to rake in billions through the expedient of FORCING the rest of us onto the dole.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly I know you are smarter than that comment. Give me just 2 examples of how America 2017 is in any way similar to America circa 1920–1930??? The pressures and opportunities of the 30’s are IMO no way comparable to what people today face. It’s like attempting to say the Romans had the same challenges as the cavemen. Come on now!

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course opportunities differed in 1929 from those of 2007. What I am saying is that the only reason the suffering from our latest and ongoing downturn does not exceed the miseries of the 30s is that an extensive net of social buffers has been erected in the interim. Those “government handouts” which conservatives so deplore, are the only separation between the fate of today’s unemployed, indigent, disabled, elderly, etc. and those suffering through the 30s. And the 2 epochs are strikingly similar when you consider that the diversity in opportunities is irrelevant. The cogent point is that in both periods, the opportunities (jobs) DISAPPEARED! And if you want the second similarity, those “opportunities” vanished for EXACTLY the same reasons.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kripiter

The Democrats aren’t left at all.

rojo's avatar

I am looking to the Justice Democrats, Working Families Party and the Brand New Congress parties to express my liberal left socialist leanings. There is a lot of overlap among them so I hope they will all come together to form one party and that some, like Sanders and Warren, will defect from the Democratic Party. I would hope for some Republican crossovers too but I don’t think that even the most liberal of them is still further right than the vast majority of Democrats so that wouldn’t happen.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`