When Josh Hawley is talking sense and the academic he’s questioning is talking unmitigated bullshit:
3/ Why in God's name do you want to endlessly feed them this sort of ammo? There are a million answers you can give that would accomplish your political goals without making you sound like a Bill O'Reilly wet dream.https://t.co/1DvPcBW6gr
So we have two options now? Either women go to jail for having abortions, or people (women or men) that day to say “men can’t get pregnant” get gagged in the name of preventing violence?
I just watched this clip, and I can’t believe the tone and affect this woman is using in a formal setting–or really anywhere, who’d want to be on the other end of that kind of snide, smirking condescension? That won’t play well anywhere. She’s not convincing anyone that Hawley’s questions ‘lead to violence’, and quoting an irrelevant made-up statistic makes her sound even dumber. Not a good look.
I actually had to cut it short because of her super annoying non-sequiturial lurch into irrelevant dubious dire statistics to completely ignore what was frankly a reasonable question. This whole refusal to understand the meaning of women crap seriously makes you look objectively dumber than climate change deniers. And all just to coddle fantasies.
Gawd, she sounds like a bratty twitter activist, with ‘clapbacks’ in place of argument. And right as there is a crisis for American women, these smug prima donnas are abandoning women in favour of displaying their trans activist cred.
Bridges’ response is in deference to the cult. She HAS to state that his question is transphobic, or she could be accused of giving his question legitimacy.
Well of course she doesn’t literally have to. She would be called names if she defied the cult, but that doesn’t mean she has to obey it. At any rate her enthusiasm looks real.
Oh, it is VERY real, Ms. Benson. She is very much a member of the cult, a true believer. She has the gnosis. I was just pointing out that what she is doing is a big part of the religious practice of the cult, and why she has to do it.
I don’t much care for Hawley; he’s smug and condescending, and–on all evidence–on the side of the insurrectionists. But getting snarky with a United States senator is hardly ever constructive.
I really have to wonder about the committee staff who got her on the witness list. Usually that slate is hammered out between Republican and Democratic members of the committee staff, and 15 years ago at least the Senate process for that was fairly collegial. Would not be a surprise if it had. But even then, it would have been on the Democratic staff to make sure that the selections for their point of view would not make life difficult for Democratic Senators by walking into loaded questions like that. Smart Republican staff were probably delighted to wave her through.
Just off the cuff, that appearance is a liability for Warnock in GA (Ossoff being one of the members). In terms of Justice D-members facing election, Leahy is retiring, but VT is safe. Blumenthal in CT , Padilla in CA probably don’t need to worry. But on the potential gains side, you can bet the GOP will be running ads with that in NC.
This is so infuriating. I just watched the thing.
So we have two options now? Either women go to jail for having abortions, or people (women or men) that day to say “men can’t get pregnant” get gagged in the name of preventing violence?
Can’t we have a third option please? Please?
TRAs regularly ask questions like “If people like Josh Hawley agree with you, doesn’t it occur to you that you’ve got to be wrong?”
My reply is “ But if I’m not wrong, haven’t you just given power & credibility to people like Josh Haley?”
I just watched this clip, and I can’t believe the tone and affect this woman is using in a formal setting–or really anywhere, who’d want to be on the other end of that kind of snide, smirking condescension? That won’t play well anywhere. She’s not convincing anyone that Hawley’s questions ‘lead to violence’, and quoting an irrelevant made-up statistic makes her sound even dumber. Not a good look.
Isn’t she just infuriating? The smugness.
I actually had to cut it short because of her super annoying non-sequiturial lurch into irrelevant dubious dire statistics to completely ignore what was frankly a reasonable question. This whole refusal to understand the meaning of women crap seriously makes you look objectively dumber than climate change deniers. And all just to coddle fantasies.
Gawd, she sounds like a bratty twitter activist, with ‘clapbacks’ in place of argument. And right as there is a crisis for American women, these smug prima donnas are abandoning women in favour of displaying their trans activist cred.
@Sastra,
I’d respond, “So if Hawley says the earth is a sphere, must we all become flat earthers?””
You know who else believed that 2+2=4? Hitler!!!!
Q.E.D.
Bridges’ response is in deference to the cult. She HAS to state that his question is transphobic, or she could be accused of giving his question legitimacy.
Well of course she doesn’t literally have to. She would be called names if she defied the cult, but that doesn’t mean she has to obey it. At any rate her enthusiasm looks real.
Oh, it is VERY real, Ms. Benson. She is very much a member of the cult, a true believer. She has the gnosis. I was just pointing out that what she is doing is a big part of the religious practice of the cult, and why she has to do it.
I watched the clip. It was pretty cringey.
I don’t much care for Hawley; he’s smug and condescending, and–on all evidence–on the side of the insurrectionists. But getting snarky with a United States senator is hardly ever constructive.
I really have to wonder about the committee staff who got her on the witness list. Usually that slate is hammered out between Republican and Democratic members of the committee staff, and 15 years ago at least the Senate process for that was fairly collegial. Would not be a surprise if it had. But even then, it would have been on the Democratic staff to make sure that the selections for their point of view would not make life difficult for Democratic Senators by walking into loaded questions like that. Smart Republican staff were probably delighted to wave her through.
Just off the cuff, that appearance is a liability for Warnock in GA (Ossoff being one of the members). In terms of Justice D-members facing election, Leahy is retiring, but VT is safe. Blumenthal in CT , Padilla in CA probably don’t need to worry. But on the potential gains side, you can bet the GOP will be running ads with that in NC.