White House: ESPN host should be fired for calling Trump a ‘white supremacist’ - Polidicks

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/13/white-house-espns-jemele-hill-should-be-fired-for-calling-trump-a-white-supremacist/?utm_term=.787807df0a36[/url] [quote]White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday struck back at ESPN host Jemele Hill for referring to President Trump as a “white supremacist,” calling the comment “outrageous” and saying she should lose her job. Asked about Hill's tweets Monday evening, in which the sportscaster also said Trump's rise was “the direct result of white supremacy,” Sanders responded: “That's one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN.” ESPN scolded Hill, who is African American, in a public statement distancing the network from her remarks, but it has not suspended her from her co-hosting gig on “SportsCenter.” The network, which has been accused by far-right conservatives of being too openly liberal with its politics, called Hill’s tweet “inappropriate” and noted her comments do not “represent the position of ESPN.” In her tweets, Hill wrote that “Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime.” She said his “rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period,” and that he is “unqualified and unfit to be president. He is not a leader. And if he were not white, he never would have been elected.”[/quote]

I mean, Hill isn't wrong here. And she's not actually calling Trump a white supremacist, just calling him ignorant and a result of white supremacy.

First Amendment is a wonderful thing sometimes. But I bet they'll circumvent it because she was talking about someone who needs his ego protected.

Also is it just me or is the white house really eager to go after anyone who says bad words about the don? Did this happen under any other president?

"DELETE THIS" -Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House Press Secretary

She didn't say anything offensive so wouldn't firing her be agreeing with her? Like "I think he's unfit to be president and has used the support of supremacy groups" isn't an illegal idea or anything. If she made a bad joke or flamed him or something I could see getting fired for it...

Of course there were president's who got upset at certain media personalities, not sure if the white house themselves called to fire the personality... so Fragile Ego Trump is a first

[QUOTE=MedicWine;52681020]She didn't say anything offensive so wouldn't firing her be agreeing with her?t Like "I think he's unfit to be president and has used the support of supremacy groups" isn't an illegal idea or anything. If she made a bad joke or flamed him or something I could see getting fired for it...[/QUOTE] People get fired for their politics all the time if there is enough backlash. This is the society we've created. People seem to be fine with it.

The most interesting part about this is that Trump himself made some tweets calling out Obama as "racist" (among other things, didn't find any uses of "black supremacy" or "black supremacist" though.) during his time as president, and he also happened to have a TV program at the time. [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/253581368087437312[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/256410856051593217[/media] Is Sanders aware of these tweets at all?

It's not libel if it's true. Trump has proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that he personally and politically supports the ideology of white supremacists.

Wait an ESPN host said that? Color me surprised.

[QUOTE=PeejsterM;52681235]The most interesting part about this is that Trump himself made some tweets calling out Obama as "racist" (among other things, didn't find any uses of "black supremacy" or "black supremacist" though.) during his time as president, and he also happened to have a TV program at the time. [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/253581368087437312[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/256410856051593217[/media] Is Sanders aware of these tweets at all?[/QUOTE] Oh, the glory of having a president without a filter.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52681255]Oh, the glory of having a president without a filter.[/QUOTE] Or a brain. Yeah, I'm with Hill that Trump's ties with supremacy is becoming increasingly evident. Sanders is just trying to scream foul and get her canned, but it only comes off as really desperate and childish.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681056]People get fired for their politics all the time if there is enough backlash. This is the society we've created. People seem to be fine with it.[/QUOTE] So you wouldn't classify the White House doing this as being different than you know, anyone else who isn't the highest office in the land...?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52681307]So you wouldn't classify the White House doing this as being different than you know, anyone else who isn't the highest office in the land...?[/QUOTE] Regardless if the white house said anything or not, I've always been against someone getting fired for spouting their political beliefs, but I'm just pointing out that it's the reality today. It's the monster we have created.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681322]Regardless if the white house said anything or not, I've always been against someone getting fired for spouting their political beliefs, but I'm just pointing out that it's the reality today. It's the monster we have created.[/QUOTE] The difference is when it's a company or individual calling for the firing of someone over their political beliefs, it's not a violation of the First Amendment. When it's the government calling for punishment over someone's political beliefs, that's government censorship. Trying to scare media into not talking negatively about the government is literally the exact scenario the First Amendment was written to prevent.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;52681495]The difference is when it's a company or individual calling for the firing of someone over their political beliefs, it's not a violation of the First Amendment. When it's the government calling for punishment over someone's political beliefs, that's government censorship. Trying to scare media into not talking negatively about the government is literally the exact scenario the First Amendment was written to prevent.[/QUOTE] The government themselves punishing someone for their political beliefs is a violation of the first amendment. The government saying that someone SHOULD lose their job is not. The government isn't taking any action, or forcing anyone to do anything. Not the same thing.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681322]Regardless if the white house said anything or not, I've always been against someone getting fired for spouting their political beliefs, but I'm just pointing out that it's the reality today. It's the monster we have created.[/QUOTE] So you're against people getting fired for spouting the political beliefs, but you first response to the Whitehouse (who are, in theory, supposed to set an example) encouraging it is to be dismissive of the whole affair?

[QUOTE=Rufia;52681580]So you're against people getting fired for spouting the political beliefs, but you first response to the Whitehorse (who are, in theory, supposed to set an example) encouraging it is to be dismissive of the whole affair?[/QUOTE] No, I think it's just as bad in this case. But people who love to see others fired because of their political views shouldn't see a problem with this.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681602]No, I think it's just as bad in this case. But people who love to see others fired because of their political views shouldn't see a problem with this.[/QUOTE] I don't love to see people get fired over their political views. A company has a right to choose who they associate with, right? If you owned a large business, would you not want that right? Or are you suddenly not a small government conservative? There's so many more layers and elements to this than what you posit it is, it just seems dishonest how you characterize it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681602]No, I think it's just as bad in this case. But people who love to see others fired because of their political views shouldn't see a problem with this.[/QUOTE] I see what you are trying to do here but it really doesn't apply. The problem isn't that they are asking for him to be fired for his politics; the problem is that the official White House stance has singled someone how who think they should be fired. It's below the office of the presidency.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52681620]I don't love to see people get fired over their political views.[/quote] Then you don't apply???? [quote]A company has a right to choose who they associate with, right? If you owned a large business, would you not want that right? Or are you suddenly not a small government conservative? [/quote] They do have that right. It's not about what businesses can and can't do. It's about the environment and society we've created where it's not only a possibility, but something that more and more people are starting to find acceptable. It has a chilling effect on society and discourse. People will eventually just stop talking altogether, which means that we'll be in an even worse situation than we are now. Also, I used to think of myself as a small government conservative, but that's changed a little over the years of reading and debating on these forums. I'm more liberal, I agree with some progressive view points, and I'm not for a stupidly small government, just not one that's in every facet of our lives. [QUOTE=Raidyr;52681637]I see what you are trying to do here but it really doesn't apply. The problem isn't that they are asking for him to be fired for his politics; the problem is that the official White House stance has singled someone how who think they should be fired. It's below the office of the presidency.[/QUOTE] Well, I guess that's the difference between you and I. This administration has done so much shitty stuff that honestly, this is like a grain of sand on a beach in my eyes. It's still wrong, but not something worth getting overly worked up about. ESPN isn't even going to listen. He doesn't have as much influence as he thinks over these companies, and he would be slapped down by the supreme court if he even tried anything. If ESPN does listen to the white house though and fires her, I'll admit I was wrong about that, but I don't expect it. I mean, in all honesty, Trump himself is below the office of the presidency.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52681056] This is the society we've created. People seem to be fine with it.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ikRhVUT.png[/IMG] you might not be wrong

one has to be deliberately lying for it to be libel so sarah huckabee should probably stop slandering der gropenfuher's image

I just want to ask how someone can laugh about people who utilize safe spaces to deal with traumatic experiences and call them snowflakes and laugh about how their feelings don't matter, while simultaneously supporting the biggest screaming pissbaby the world has ever seen

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;52694197]I just want to ask how someone can laugh about people who utilize safe spaces to deal with traumatic experiences and call them snowflakes and laugh about how their feelings don't matter, while simultaneously supporting the biggest screaming pissbaby the world has ever seen[/QUOTE] Easy, because the pissbaby is paying their salary. All of Trump's staff are playing their part in undermining the country for salaries roughly equivalent to some Java developers.

[QUOTE=srobins;52694508]Easy, because the pissbaby is paying their salary. All of Trump's staff are playing their part in undermining the country for salaries roughly equivalent to some Java developers.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the Public not on his payroll

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52681237]It's not libel if it's true. Trump has proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that he personally and politically supports the ideology of white supremacists.[/QUOTE] Right, just like Obama personally and politically supports the ideology of socialists. In both cases, the president in question supported specific policies that those groups agreed with, but split in extremely key ways. Obama didn't want to take away private ownership of the means of production and Trump doesn't want to take away the rights of minorities.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52695033]Right, just like Obama personally and politically supports the ideology of socialists. In both cases, the president in question supported specific policies that those groups agreed with, but split in extremely key ways. Obama didn't want to take away private ownership of the means of production and [I]Trump doesn't want to take away the rights of minorities[/I].[/QUOTE] He sure isn't keen on protecting those rights though

[QUOTE=sgman91;52695033]Right, just like Obama personally and politically supports the ideology of socialists. In both cases, the president in question supported specific policies that those groups agreed with, but split in extremely key ways. Obama didn't want to take away private ownership of the means of production and Trump doesn't want to take away the rights of minorities.[/QUOTE] The big difference here is Obama practically never did anything that appealed specifically to socialists, inadvertently or not, and there wasn't a surge of far-left crime after either of his elections. Don't even try to equate the two. Nazis and white supremacists have said it themselves that trump saying there are bad and good people on both sides is what they want. Do you really think that that statement didn't embolden them?