Do we really want Jo Blow as the intermediary between the president and the press? Is that considered a positive?
Call me crazy, but I’d much rather see an academic or a respected journalist in that position, considering that their wording is paramount and transparency is currency. I’d like to know that Joe Blow has enough comprehension and integrity to be clearly understood.
I think George W. Bush is a great example of why “I’d have a beer with that person” is a terrible metric for political positions.
davad@lemmy.world 2 days ago
IIRC, she claimed to be a lawyer, but she’s never passed the bar exam. If she didn’t claim to be a lawyer, it wouldn’t be a thing.
andrewta@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Not to be nitpicky, but you can be a lawyer without passing the bar. But to be an attorney, you have to pass the bar. Yes there is technically a difference. But here’s the thing most people aren’t going to understand that difference you’re claiming to be a lawyer, a lot of people interpret that to be claiming to be an attorney.
But she also claimed that she did work and in order to do said work you have to be an attorney. And that’s where a big problem because there’s no record of her passing the bar.
Better explanation