What the FUCK does she think it is?? This is like when the wing nuts all lost their shit last year (or maybe the year before) when NPR staged a reading of it on the 4th of July, and they accused them of being anti-trump.
They’ve played that reading every 4th for 20 or 30 years, and this morning they didn’t, they’re running scared. It is anti-Trump, indirectly, he’s done half the things Jefferson accused George III of doing, and everybody knows it when they hear the text.
I guess because of the (R) she thinks it's an outrageous claim? Because it was made by a Democratic Congressman it was an attack on Trump? It's just a really odd admission of culpability. Their go-to move is usually sneering condescension because this kind of hyper outrage just sounds weak. Delusion leads you to some strange places, man.
The thing that stands out for me is that she’s never read the Declaration and has no idea what it is (an indictment, in form and content, a criminal charge list against the British Crown). She has a vague idea it’s some kind of patriotic thing that’s very famous and sacred, and calling it an “indictment” sounds disrespectful.
She’s also a terrible person with a habit of accusing her exes of sexual assault but only when she’s inside the Capitol, in a floor speech or committee hearing. (She says she’s sent evidence to the SC attorney general but he denies it.) That’s what my ending is about, you have to click the link.
Yes, I'd forgotten about her batshit rape stories (it's hard to keep up these days) which your final link explains in detail. Doubling down on pure bullshit allegations is a pure distillation of Trump's political science. But her apparant shock that Jeffries presented the Declaration as an indictment means if she did read it (back in school) she sure didn't understand it. Reminds me of a recent 15 minute kerfuffle about Bondi offering some whack definition of a legal term in testimony to Congress. They just have their own definitions of things to manage the cognitive dissonance.
What the FUCK does she think it is?? This is like when the wing nuts all lost their shit last year (or maybe the year before) when NPR staged a reading of it on the 4th of July, and they accused them of being anti-trump.
They’ve played that reading every 4th for 20 or 30 years, and this morning they didn’t, they’re running scared. It is anti-Trump, indirectly, he’s done half the things Jefferson accused George III of doing, and everybody knows it when they hear the text.
One of the voices on that old reading of the Dec lives in our building, and got a shout out from a fan on our private listserve yesterday.
I did not realize NPR took a knee (in the trad bowing-to-sovereignty way)...
I didn't realize that's what it was until Bruce showed up.
I guess because of the (R) she thinks it's an outrageous claim? Because it was made by a Democratic Congressman it was an attack on Trump? It's just a really odd admission of culpability. Their go-to move is usually sneering condescension because this kind of hyper outrage just sounds weak. Delusion leads you to some strange places, man.
The thing that stands out for me is that she’s never read the Declaration and has no idea what it is (an indictment, in form and content, a criminal charge list against the British Crown). She has a vague idea it’s some kind of patriotic thing that’s very famous and sacred, and calling it an “indictment” sounds disrespectful.
She’s also a terrible person with a habit of accusing her exes of sexual assault but only when she’s inside the Capitol, in a floor speech or committee hearing. (She says she’s sent evidence to the SC attorney general but he denies it.) That’s what my ending is about, you have to click the link.
Yes, I'd forgotten about her batshit rape stories (it's hard to keep up these days) which your final link explains in detail. Doubling down on pure bullshit allegations is a pure distillation of Trump's political science. But her apparant shock that Jeffries presented the Declaration as an indictment means if she did read it (back in school) she sure didn't understand it. Reminds me of a recent 15 minute kerfuffle about Bondi offering some whack definition of a legal term in testimony to Congress. They just have their own definitions of things to manage the cognitive dissonance.
MY head, MY words!
Hearted for ", man"