“I’ve not commenting on his abortion comments”
“Maybe you should”
And then…she never does.
How in the world do you go on CNN as a surrogate and not be prepared to comment on THE story of the day concerning your candidate?
To put it in a context she might understand…you show up for class and tell the professor s/he can’t give you a grade on the midterm because you haven’t taken it yet…to which they response by giving you a zero and flunking you.
Hmm. I wonder if the Trump supporter is the Black One or the Stepford One?
Once a choker, always a choker…
Who cares about what either of these people think.
“You aren’t concerned about Donald Trump when he says women should be punished for having abortions and changes his mind three times later after two hours when he got in trouble for it,” Setmayer said.
A. Consider yourself asked.
B. I fail to see how this puts “words” in her oral cavity.
As a spox, your “job” is to either defend or translate the BS. Instead she plays the victim card. Did she even see his comments? Think about it? Ask another ranking staffer how she might respond? Unprepared, unqualified, unemployed.
Yet he did, therefore his values are different than his supporters.
Gotta love spokescritters who go on TV and get all emotional when they try to defend the indefensible.
I always wondered exactly what an “air head” was. Trump’s spectacle has finally shown me so many examples of “air head” that I am now an expert!
I think they were all recruited out of the one and only chapter of Pole Dancers for Trump.
Proof that it’s not the size of the cat in the fight, but rather the size of the fight in the cat. =)
“I can’t answer your question because I haven’t been asked about that.”
This is how a spokesperson talks? It doesn’t even make any sense.
What DJT actually meant no longer matters. Mathews’ rapid fire hypotheticals had
DJT reeling. DJT does NOT think abortions should be banned. But his inept
answers were fatal. Sad that the media, GOPe, Dems, corporations, foreign
countries declared war on the one person who could upend both corrupt
establishments. Now USA is headed inexorably to a 3rd world welfare police state monarchy. All evidence that US government is corrupt, incompetent & unaccountable doesn’t seem to bother those who want to give federal government more control. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th amendments & 3 branch separation of power are toast. Why in the world could anyone think it is more righteous to have the federal government rather than private individuals in control of economy. Read up on Russia, Cuba, Venezuela & ever other dictatorship
in history.
I don’t know but the KayLeigh woman was a babbling, rambling mess. That was one hell of a lot of blah blah babble babble blah blah…load of crap. Wow, just dreadful .
The Tara woman smoked her like a cheap cigar.
Thank you, I thought that too…Kayleigh…really? Good grief!
Yeah, having some problems with the sexism inherent in the headline.
You should read up on tin-foil headwear.
Exactly. Kayleigh’s claim that this was a he said/ she said is false: it’s a he said/ she said plus video. And the video backs her up. Kayleigh’s attempt to evade the recognition of Corry’s actions by claiming that naming it assault is defamation is the type of slipperiness that gives lawyers a bad name. A third year law student knows or should look up the elements of assault and battery before commenting on this matter and undoubtedly knows that truth is a defense to a charge of defamation. This was just an attempt to shut down discussion of Corey’s actions.
That said, when most lay people think of assault, they probably think of someone taking a swing at somebody else. But for assault you need only put someone on fear of an unwanted contact. And for battery you need only an offensive touching. So yanking on someone’s arm clearly qualifies, whether or not you leave bruises. So a better approach for Kayleigh might be to say something along the lines that "when people hear that someone is charged with assault they think that something pretty bad happened but with Corey while I am not to talk about the technical definition the law will use, it’s clear he never had any intention to hut anyone – he was just trying to get the reporter out of his candidate’s way.
Tara was not acting like him. Tara was objecting to Kayleigh’s objecting to her use of the word defamation when there were so many outrageous statements from Trump that Kayleigh hadn’t objected to. I was able to watch the video and the non-question form was perfectly appropriate in the list of things Kayleigh never objected to. Indeed Kayleigh promptly confirmed she had not said anything about that.
Would you like dressing with that word salad? Maybe some Bundy Ranch?
Can I hire a Trump surrogate if I want to get my Trump on for the evening but am not quite rich enough, important enough, or am “sadly not a 10” enough for the real thing?