Strange Republican response

No, but a Capitol guard has been killed in Trump’s name. I also remember a gallows erected in anticipation of Pence’s hanging at Trump’s “pleasure”.

How about Nancy Pelosi’s husband having his brains bashed in by a stranger acting in the name of Trump’s MAGA party.

This party is set on establishing aTrump dictatorship and are heavily armed with AR15 weapons of war specifically designed for mass killing of “enemy combatants”, not for hunting.

Mark my words. This is not over yet. The threat of Trump being imprisoned before he is elected president, and gaining the only way to immunity, is an existential threat, and he will not hesitate to kill to avoid incarceration during his"one day" dictatorship, where he will declare himself president for life, just like Putin and the other dictators that don’t hesitate to kill any opposition.

1 Like

Well, let’s not think about the deaths that happened Jan 6th.

Move along nothing to see here.

You are getting downright cruel

You say that, but her delivery is simply kind of wooden. It is similar to most youngish female politicians, so why the fuss about her? It can only be one thing obviously, which is her stereotypical femininity.

Lausten already did the work for you by saying it’s about her delivery.

I’m not an expert on youngish girls, but I generally see joy, and maybe a little drama. When Britt started, it reminded me of the hushed tones, near whisper, of a traditional woman who volunteers in the church kitchen. It’s a practiced voice that indicates submissiveness. Then, she actually did whisper, “we hear you, we see you.”

The almost crying voice started after that until it pretty much was crying. If what she was saying was passionate or a personal touching story, I would have accepted the genuine tears. But she crying her talking points.

But as he points out, it also had to do with the substance.

Although the most important question is why does she and her Republican Party depend so much on lies and that abiding disregard for honesty?

She was just a weekend side show - here’s what most people saw:

Damn, she is actually better looking than Scarlett Johansen. And her voice is less annoying.

As for substance, she made a few mistakes with the sex trafficking story but the conservative values she cares about – or pretends to care about, is enough substance for her supporters.

Pretty much all female politicians that are say, under 50, have “submissive” sounding voices. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez comes to mind right away. She has a very girlish voice which can make it easy to dismiss what she says, but she’s on the left so the media doesn’t make fun of her.

Sometimes you remind of Archie Bunker.

That is actually the problem. Too many people are happy with a talking point that appeals to there baser nature and aren’t interested in thinking past that.

1 Like

That’s like a college freshman offering a critique of the professor’s summation on the year.

Her speech was written before Biden and had nothing to do with Biden’s State of the Nation speech.

These people have not a clue how to run a government. They can’t even run themselves.

1 Like

There is nothing wrong with a girlish voice and sometimes, if you dismiss a woman with a girlish voice, you find out that was a mistake. Never underestimate the power of a woman.

Good point, indirectly. Progressives do see family and community as “base”; as things to overcome.

I don’t understand this gibberish, but this was about her delivery.

And I suppose you agreed with the content of her speech.

This is the definition I meant:
adjective,bas·er, bas·est. morally low; without estimable personal qualities; dishonorable; meanspirited; selfish; cowardly.

Family and community require putting aside selfishness. They require considering the needs of others. It takes courage and sacrifice.

1 Like

That’s what you seem to believe, and sure her delivery turned the thing into comedy routine - but it’s the substance of what she said that mattered most.

The rest was simply salt for the wound.

Or perhaps I should say lack of substance, but some won’t accept that.
Some prefer clinging to their nice and neat stereotypes.

Take it up with OP. He made this thread to discuss the delivery.

We see exactly that from the Right because they care about those things. Progressives do not.

For the most part, I do.

Hmmm.
Seems to me this is what the Right Wing stands for

Project 2025 - Wikipedia
The development of the plan is led by the The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA led by Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America led by former Trump-appointee Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller.[8][9]

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice(DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.[10]

Brought to you by Heritage Foundation leaders in public brainwashing

Charted: Trump world allies sentenced to prison - AXIOS

  • Ivana Saric
    The big picture: A striking number of people closely associated with the former president have been sentenced to prison for an array of crimes that include contempt of Congress and campaign finance violations.

Of course denying science when inconvenient to profits is another real strong point for Republicans.