Conway: I have Secret Service protection because of the media

Let's be clear.

Violence, threats of violence, and the like should lawyas be a no go when ciriticzing the administration. It is unwarranted, illegal in most cases, and morally wrong.

Now, on to Conway's claim.

Man, in a moment of utter passive aggressiveness, trying to control the situation by claiming victimhood, Conway claims she has secret service protection because of......the media.

Indeed, while speaking on the friendly climate of Hannity, she claims to be getting packages at home containing white powder and it is the media's fault.

Not the fault of some nutjob, if the claim is real, but the media. I would assume it is because the media, which she seems fond of appearing on and in, accurately portrays her ridiculous comments, in context.



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/kellyanne-conway-secret-service-protection-234092


The pool report was quickly corrected and the reporter apologized, but Conway and others have suggested that motives behind it might be more nefarious, part of a strategy to portray Trump as racist. On “Hannity,” Conway said she would not name the reporter behind the pool report in order to protect him from the type of harassment she said she has become subject to.

“I don't say his name publicly because I don't want him to get attacked like I do. Because of what the press is doing now to me, I have secret service protection,” she said. “We have packages delivered to my house with white substances. That is a shame and yes I hold him to account for it.”

 

The media has a large part to play in much of the violence occurring lately. It's exactly what happens when the media purposefully lies and twists facts, doesn't fact check, and posts biased headlines designed to appeal to people's emotions and anger.

 

She could have just said because of the left's radical message, that way she hits all the right button's without singling out the media. But whatever.

 

Personally, w/the exception of the POTUS/family, of course - I think anyone and I don't care WHO they are - if they accept a job that they think might put them at risk, they should pay for their own protection. The taxpayers should not have to pay for the secret service protection for someone who never ran for office.

Obama gave his pal and Chief of staff, Valerie Jarrett, secret service protection and, from what I understand, a rent-free apartment in the WH.. that kind of crap that's costing the taxpayers should absolutely not be allowed....

When a POTUS leaves the WH, everyone of them are millionaires. If they want to have protection, they should pay for it themselves, but as it is, they & family gets free protection for the rest of their lives........that's bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!

 

Why do you think Valarie Jarrett lived at the WH? Do you have any proof at all of that?

 

Without the media those "nutjobs" wouldn't have a clue who she was, so her claim was not incorrect.

 

She would not have SS protection if the claims were not valid.. Perhaps these "nutjobs" would not be doing this without the media peddling this constant hate.

 

Thats a foolish opinion.

Its our duty as tax payers to help protect those who are serving us. You can pretend its not, but luckily you will be required to pay your portion anyways.

Feels good.

 

The media wants a story, they provoke, prod, leak falsehoods, whatever it takes to create viewership.

And with that there needs to be an acute awareness of that from Trump, Kelly Ann, Sean Spicer, etal that the best way to handle this is to ignore it, for the most part.
Although I agree with the urge to "fight back", set the record straight, etc.
It will be a losing cause in the end. The media will soon learn which buttons to press to evoke responses that
serve their narrative.

A simple "That's just a stupid question and we don't respond to stupid questions or rumors" would be and should be a standard response to the trivial or outright lies regardless of level of importance otherwise.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Blaming the media and not the person, is like saying we need to due away with the 2nd amendment

 

No its not in anyway shape or form the same thing. Only in the liberal mind does something have to be that radical. Black and white is all you see in, but there is actually a grey area.

 

Are we blaming the cameras or something?

You clearly didn't think that analogy through.

 

No we said media, the analogy stands.
Who said camera, a camera is just the tool, as is a gun.

 

Liars and scum like Conway should not be protected on my dime.

 

The media ARE the people

They are the ones writing the stories, and the ones we're blaming. We're not blaming the typewriters or the TV which is what people do when they attempt gun control.

Your analogy is wrong, sorry.

 

The person or people that are threatening, are not media. Gun owners say blame the individual not the gun, to which I agree. So to you I say blame the individual not the media.

Blaming the media for people's ignorance only mean that the one doing the blaming is to lazy to do their research. That's only me sometimes.....lol

 

It's occurring because the people in the media write stories stoking the flames of the violent. Laughing and making jokes about plane crashes, stories on what happens if the president gets assassinated on his way to the inauguration, and claiming the MLK bust was removed from the WH.... they are inciting others through violence via their actions and words.

No one is blaming the tools they use to do their jobs, we're blaming the actual tools writing the stories with an agenda in mind.

 

I don't think they get SS protection after they leave the WH.

 

Forcing migrants back to Mexico, taking away a woman's right to an abortion, cutting planned parenthood because of theocratic lunatics, destroying peoples land by fracking/oil drilling, re-igniting the drug war, ALL things that directly harm people. Seems like it's their policies getting the into trouble, not the media, not the left.

 

Of course, none of what you just said is truthful, but don't let that stop you....you're on a roll.

- - - Updated - - -

OH yea, they do.

 

So if someone writes a story I don't like and I shoot them, its there fault?

 

No, it would just make you a progressive liberal.

 

Also I noticed you didn't mention anything from the other direction, like Hillary being a child molester and trafficker.

 

Which of those policies is NOT true? Name one.

 

What difference, at this point, would that make?