I just called Van Orden's office (my congressman, unfortunately) to ask that he does not support rump's talk about using military to control Greenland and the Panama Canal. She said she hadn't heard anything about that. I said, "Have you seen The Guardian or the New York Times today?" The staff member laughed and I said, "Are you laughin…
I just called Van Orden's office (my congressman, unfortunately) to ask that he does not support rump's talk about using military to control Greenland and the Panama Canal. She said she hadn't heard anything about that. I said, "Have you seen The Guardian or the New York Times today?" The staff member laughed and I said, "Are you laughing because you think it's funny that we are talking about using the military to take someone's property or are you laughing because you think I'm a stupid, powerless constituent?" She said "I'm laughing because you think I don't know what's going on in the world." Ohhh kay!
Clearly, this staffer does know what is going on in the world and one best not speak a word that would displease Dear Leader // lest you pay the price!
Ann - the staffer, by indicating they DID know what was going on in the world, provided a 3rd option to your question: they laughed in that (possibly nervous) "oops, ya got me" way (see: kid caught with hand in cookie jar).
"I haven't seen/heard it" has been standard Republican congress person response since early in Trump's 1st term. Obviously preposterous unless they have been in a coma, but reporters seem to shrug it off and move on. Your staffer isn't used to being called on it, but unlike most journos your access doesn't depend on playing nice.
Good on you for challenging her, a good lesson that constituents are NOT to be bullshat (not sure if there's correct tense but you catch my drift). I suspect will take repeated lessons.
He's my rep, as well. He just sent out that he's on the Armed Forces committee in the House and my first thought was to write and tell him that he would best serve our country if he opposed any use of the military at protests. It's not clear to me that he will have the Armed Forces act in the best interests of the country.
I just called Van Orden's office (my congressman, unfortunately) to ask that he does not support rump's talk about using military to control Greenland and the Panama Canal. She said she hadn't heard anything about that. I said, "Have you seen The Guardian or the New York Times today?" The staff member laughed and I said, "Are you laughing because you think it's funny that we are talking about using the military to take someone's property or are you laughing because you think I'm a stupid, powerless constituent?" She said "I'm laughing because you think I don't know what's going on in the world." Ohhh kay!
Clearly, this staffer does know what is going on in the world and one best not speak a word that would displease Dear Leader // lest you pay the price!
Ann - the staffer, by indicating they DID know what was going on in the world, provided a 3rd option to your question: they laughed in that (possibly nervous) "oops, ya got me" way (see: kid caught with hand in cookie jar).
"I haven't seen/heard it" has been standard Republican congress person response since early in Trump's 1st term. Obviously preposterous unless they have been in a coma, but reporters seem to shrug it off and move on. Your staffer isn't used to being called on it, but unlike most journos your access doesn't depend on playing nice.
Good on you for challenging her, a good lesson that constituents are NOT to be bullshat (not sure if there's correct tense but you catch my drift). I suspect will take repeated lessons.
He's my rep, as well. He just sent out that he's on the Armed Forces committee in the House and my first thought was to write and tell him that he would best serve our country if he opposed any use of the military at protests. It's not clear to me that he will have the Armed Forces act in the best interests of the country.