Katie Britt Response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The million dollar question: did Katie Britt use IVF to have her children? Has anyone asked the soccer mom Senator from Alabama about this?

Not likely.
She’s 42 with middle school aged kids.
Unlikely she needed help getting pregnant.
It must be nice to have the money for childcare, and not have to put your career on hold.

cheap shot. These are petty reasons why GOP and “undecideds” exist.

Nah. Perfectly fair to criticize the party with no plans for childcare, besides telling women to stay home. It’s particularly galling for Katie to sit in her beautiful expensive kitchen and condescend to the rest of us, that didn’t have the luxury to focus on a career and simultaneously move forward with growing their family. Most Americans have to make a choice, because we can’t afford to do both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The shirt thing - it’s not actually about whether she showed too much skin - the idea was for her to appeal to the white males in the audience with the concept of an attractive white woman teasing them with buttons that almost go far enough and cause them to fantasize about her. It’s the Fox-ification approach to how Republicans like their women - non-white, unattractive, frumpy dressers need not apply.

What your post makes crystal clear is that it is YOU who is fascinated and titillated by an attractive woman wearing a completely normal blouse - the kind of blouse worn in workplaces every single day. Which is pathetic and embarrassing - for YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

We are not triggered. We just don't like liars that are so craven as to be debunked so roundly this quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

It's because they believe that Republicans are opposed to women's sexuality and see everything through that lens. So they reflexively sexualize Republican women out of retaliation. It's hypocritical but fits well within their worldview.

Precisely. And I'll add - I thought her speech was horrible, cringey, creepy - all of the things already discussed. I was really appalled by it, as were my Republican family and friends. However, this bizarre focus on her shirt, of all things, just makes it so evident that Democrats really are the misogynists they accuse everyone else of being. Imagine if this woman was a Democrat and people were tsk-tsking her shirt like that. This thread would have been locked by now.

[Anonymous]

The whole set-up was Republican misogyny. Sitting at a prop kitchen table, saying “Bless his heart”, constantly saying “Wesley and I” and kids names, as if a female U.S. Senator has no agency apart from her role as wife and mother, sobbing, emoting at every overdramatic point.

She was a long-time aide to Sen. Shelby. Did anyone ever ask him to give a speech from his kitchen table, mention his wife and kids a dozen times, cry and frown and make faces with each paragraph, and tell a dramatic story that was 20 years old and irrelevant? No one would ever suggest that any male Senator do that. They set her up to be an un-Senatorial prop because she is a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

We are not triggered. We just don't like liars that are so craven as to be debunked so roundly this quickly.

Then criticize her speech, and not on what she wore - which was completely appropriate, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

We are not triggered. We just don't like liars that are so craven as to be debunked so roundly this quickly.

Then criticize her speech, and not on what she wore - which was completely appropriate, btw.

This thread is almost entirely criticizing her speech. 1 post got weird about the shirt.
1 anonymous post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

We are not triggered. We just don't like liars that are so craven as to be debunked so roundly this quickly.

Then criticize her speech, and not on what she wore - which was completely appropriate, btw.

This thread is almost entirely criticizing her speech. 1 post got weird about the shirt.
1 anonymous post.

Oh, please. They've (hopefully) been deleted, but anyone with even a shred of honesty would admit that there were several unhinged posts about her "seductive" neckline and non-existent "cleavage."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

It's because they believe that Republicans are opposed to women's sexuality and see everything through that lens. So they reflexively sexualize Republican women out of retaliation. It's hypocritical but fits well within their worldview.

Precisely. And I'll add - I thought her speech was horrible, cringey, creepy - all of the things already discussed. I was really appalled by it, as were my Republican family and friends. However, this bizarre focus on her shirt, of all things, just makes it so evident that Democrats really are the misogynists they accuse everyone else of being. Imagine if this woman was a Democrat and people were tsk-tsking her shirt like that. This thread would have been locked by now.

Oh please, you have no idea who is posting about her shirt. Britt was horrible, her voice, the words, her LIES. She should apologize to survivors of sexual assault. And if you support her, that’s on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

It's because they believe that Republicans are opposed to women's sexuality and see everything through that lens. So they reflexively sexualize Republican women out of retaliation. It's hypocritical but fits well within their worldview.

Precisely. And I'll add - I thought her speech was horrible, cringey, creepy - all of the things already discussed. I was really appalled by it, as were my Republican family and friends. However, this bizarre focus on her shirt, of all things, just makes it so evident that Democrats really are the misogynists they accuse everyone else of being. Imagine if this woman was a Democrat and people were tsk-tsking her shirt like that. This thread would have been locked by now.

Oh please, you have no idea who is posting about her shirt. Britt was horrible, her voice, the words, her LIES. She should apologize to survivors of sexual assault. And if you support her, that’s on you.

Can you even read?? *You* should apologize for sheer stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the cleavage. The point isn't that she was showing cleavage. It's that she was intentionally doing so as part of the whole strange caricature she was presenting. It's just one small obviously contrived aspect of an obviously contrived presentation that screamed inauthenticity.

+1 The cleavage isn’t too weird, alone. The kitchen isn’t either. The panting line delivery is weird, but it’s the altogether that is bizarre.

But there was no cleavage. Literally. None. Just a woman and her neck and upper chest. You cannot see the line between her breasts, which is what cleavage is.

I suspect the people saying this don't speak English as a first language. Cleavage specifically refers to the space between breasts. It isn't the larger area-- neck, chest, shoulders-- that a word like décolletage refers to. The English word cleavage refers to something that you cannot see on Sen Britt in this video.

+1
Thank you. Amazing how triggered Democrats are by a woman in a completely normal v-neck blouse showing zero cleavage at all. It's almost as if... they're hypocritical misogynists!

We are not triggered. We just don't like liars that are so craven as to be debunked so roundly this quickly.

Then criticize her speech, and not on what she wore - which was completely appropriate, btw.

Did you...read the tweet?

[Anonymous]

NP... I don't give a crap about what she was wearing but the kitchen-table setting was absolutely ridiculous and insulting. Less than 0.1 percent of America watched the SOTU from their fricken kitchen table. Her, responding "from her kitchen table" and a sterile and lifeless kitchen as it was, was complete BS, no doubt coming from some conservative focus group - though I'm sure not even Frank Luntz would own up to that farce.

But that's not even the worst of it. The WORST of it was her ridiculous performative emoting and drama, the fake smile at the beginning, going into that quavering voice as she then began to play out over-the-top fear porn about what a woman told her about hwo she was trafficked and raped WHICH A.) DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN IN THE US, and B.) DIDN'T HAPPEN UNDER BIDEN'S ADMINISTRATION, and C.) IN FACT HAPPENEND UNDER AND AS A RESULT OF REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and D.) SHE LIED ABOUT HAVING SPOKEN TO THE VICTIM. I mean, holy lying-yer-ass-off Batman. Absolutely disgusting. If the Republicans actually had some real and significant points to make they wouldn't have had to lie like that.

This whole performative Britt thing was a complete dumpster fire. And any Republican who thinks it was "great" or "speaking truth" needs their head examined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole set-up was Republican misogyny. Sitting at a prop kitchen table, saying “Bless his heart”, constantly saying “Wesley and I” and kids names, as if a female U.S. Senator has no agency apart from her role as wife and mother, sobbing, emoting at every overdramatic point.

She was a long-time aide to Sen. Shelby. Did anyone ever ask him to give a speech from his kitchen table, mention his wife and kids a dozen times, cry and frown and make faces with each paragraph, and tell a dramatic story that was 20 years old and irrelevant? No one would ever suggest that any male Senator do that. They set her up to be an un-Senatorial prop because she is a woman.

Are you saying the Britt doesn’t have agency over what she does? Is she a pUppeT???

She is a grow a ss woman who can say yes to what she does. She delivered her speech with passion. Was she ill advised? Yes. But that performance was rehearsed. No one forced this Stepford Handmaiden fiasco on her but herself. She wanted to be VP. Now she’ll just be Veep.

[Anonymous]

ScarJo! 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ScarJo! 😂

OMG she SLAYED!

Katie Britt is a JOKE!