Former White House Press Secretary Carney still considering Apple PR role, Bloomberg says

167891012»

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 230
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    ...it’s simply a bad design in this modern world of near instant communication.

     

    Hmm. I disagree, but for reasons too lengthy to expound on here.

     

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

    Has there ever been even one presidential press secretary who hasn't lied constantly?   That's their job.

     

    It terrifies me that people who believe this are allowed to vote.

  • Reply 222 of 230
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    I would love for Apple to hire a PR person connected to Bush, only to see the laughable and hypocritical liberal reactions to it.

     

    But I am smart enough to know that it would be a terrible idea and it would be an extremely stupid business decision for any company to hire somebody who is guaranteed to cause controversy. 


     

    I'm probably what you would classify as a liberal (even thought I'm not really, by definition) and I'd have no fucking problem if Apple hired a Bush PR flack. You know why? Because I trust that Apple has the context, information, reasons, and tools to make a more informed decision than my opinion could ever be on the matter.  I have enough humility to admit that some are in a better position to have the right answer than I do at times. 

  • Reply 223 of 230
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    They have to pass an executive litmus test, at least. He wouldn’t be an executive.

     

    I rather think much of the problem with him is his congenital lying.


    What a weird word to throw in there.  Do you have any proof that he has been a liar since before he was able to speak?

  • Reply 224 of 230
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,490member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    OT: I'm not a fan of the two-term system. Too much of that time is spent weighing action against what it might cost you in the next election and the direct time spent in rerunning. I propose a single 6 year term. You get in you work your ass off and then you leave.

    I only wish it were easier to eject a president or Congress or Senate member. For blatant disregard of the Constitution (such as those offenses committed by Bush and Obama), a political figure should immediately be shown the door. The impeachment process should be non-partisan, fast and efficient...perhaps it should be handled by a SCOTUS-like board of constitutional scholars, elected by lottery.
  • Reply 225 of 230
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    I'm probably what you would classify as a liberal (even thought I'm not really, by definition) and I'd have no fucking problem if Apple hired a Bush PR flack. You know why? Because I trust that Apple has the context, information, reasons, and tools to make a more informed decision than my opinion could ever be on the matter.  I have enough humility to admit that some are in a better position to have the right answer than I do at times. 


    It's my impression that in the modern age that's more a skill position than a true-beleiver slot so I'd agree (and also from a more leftward position).

  • Reply 226 of 230
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I only wish it were easier to eject a president or Congress or Senate member. For blatant disregard of the Constitution (such as those offenses committed by Bush and Obama), a political figure should immediately be shown the door. The impeachment process should be non-partisan, fast and efficient...perhaps it should be handled by a SCOTUS-like board of constitutional scholars, elected by lottery.

    :D

     

    it's easy enough: all it takes is actual offenses that meet The Founder's criteria found in, oddly enough, the beloved "Constitution". So you want to ignore the Constitution in order to "protect" it?

     

    Good one.

  • Reply 227 of 230
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    I only wish it were easier to eject a president or Congress or Senate member. 

     

    It should be easier (read: possible) to eject a member of Congress, particularly if there is illegal obstruction preventing the removal of a higher or other figure.

     

    The impeachment process should be non-partisan, fast and efficient...


     

    No, that’s the opposite of what it should be.

  • Reply 228 of 230
    jessejjessej Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

     

    Obama's current approval rating is 42% (Gallup July 7-13).   It's 79% among Democrats, 36% among Independents and 9% among Republicans, so I think you'd have to agree that he does have strong approval ratings with his base (stronger than I would have thought).   Obama also does better with younger people:   49% approval from people 18-29, 46% 30-49, 38% 50-64 and 35% ages 65+.    But another thing you have to remember is that the far left is also unhappy with Obama for some of the reasons that you point out, so that hurts his numbers.   It doesn't mean that those people would vote Republican in the next elections.

     

    I do disagree that Obama "protects and defends Bush...and all Iraq War architects..."     Obama got us out of there, for better or worse.   He's not going to prosecute the former administration, if that's what you're thinking.    That would rip the country apart far more than it already is, Congress would never go along anyway and it would set a precedent that would turn the U.S. into a third world country like Egypt.  

     

    Congress' approval rating is only 15% (Gallup July 7-10).  I think people who still support Obama realize that he's been totally screwed by the House, which won't let him get anything done, which is why they cut him some slack.

     

    Having said that, and as a supporter in general, Obama certainly has major faults - permitting spying on U.S. citizens being one of them.    IMO, he should have spent four more years in Congress before running for President, but I have a feeling that he never expected to win.


     

    Post the link to that Gallup poll data. I want to see where it specifically says "79% among Democrats". Then I'll reply to the rest of your comment.

     

  • Reply 229 of 230
    jessejjessej Posts: 29member

    Why was my first comment to this thread (YouTube links to former Obama supporters, and also YouTube links to 9/11 Families) deleted by a moderator? What gives?

  • Reply 230 of 230
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,230moderator
    jessej wrote: »
    Why was my first comment to this thread (YouTube links to former Obama supporters, and also YouTube links to 9/11 Families) deleted by a moderator? What gives?

    What in that description has anything to do with the thread topic about Jay Carney working at Apple? These articles always seem to end up getting diverted into general politics but some people do it worse than others. Your posts are the furthest off-topic.

    There's really very little need to mention the US president and what each government party is doing, especially outside of an involvement of Jay Carney or Apple.

    If there's nothing more to say about Jay Carney or Apple, there's nothing more to add to the thread. If you have some political discussion that you need to vent, the place to do it is in one of the many threads here:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/f/17/politicaloutsider

    I noticed your mention about a post count of 100 being required to post there but you'll hit that post count eventually. Don't worry about not being able to express your feelings immediately, the political discussions are pretty much exactly the same year after year.
Sign In or Register to comment.