Reply to Pam Bondi's "testimony" is reading off-topic insults as prompted by her handlers

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Pam Bondi's "testimony" is reading off-topic insults as prompted by her handlers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No wonder she is twice divorced and a third marriage was cancelled the day it was scheduled (lucky guy). She likes being a shrew.[/quote]

There's plenty to take issue with regarding her job performance. This kind of rhetoric hurts women in general. Please don't. [/quote]

I don't know. The problem with her right now is that she 100% played to the rhetoric and stereotype; it was a bad look. The kind of thing that gets you to question her legitimacy. Does she deserve her job title? How did she get there? What sort of DEI did she benefit from? How many lap dances did she perform to get where she is? Did she earn her chops? What is wrong with women in the Republican Party? Who, or what men, are deciding that these women need to be let through the gate? Is it an extension of their pattern of picking illegitimate presidential candidates, defaulting to candidates who can be easily manipulated by the back-office-in-charge boys?

Everyone lauded her as being a good pick. But was she? Or has her entire career been stage-managed? Was she propped up by a team of talented back-office boys and girls who did the actual work. Talented and intelligent folks of questionable character who didn't have the right look, boot-licking ability, or lap-dancing abilities to be the figurehead?

I watched not just the sound clips but the actual live hearing, and it was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in real life. How could a reportedly seasoned, intelligent, powerful, and accomplished woman conduct herself that way? She came across as weak, pathetic, criminally dishonest, an attack dog, and a mean girl who was way out of her depth.

And for what, a decrepit old rich guy, and his perverse buddies? Power? I didn't see power yesterday. Power adjacent, perhaps. Desperately, power hungry, definitely. I mean, she's 60; a 60-year-old woman can be a powerful force precisely because, at least I want to believe. Because if she's still relevant, it's because she had the brains, talent, and guts to stick it out. A relevant and powerful woman at 60 will have sacrificed and fought harder than anyone to get to where she is and to stay there, not by lying on her back with legs akimbo, but by grit, force, brains, grace, and talent. But maybe I didn't factor in the women who they let through because they can be controlled and are useful.

What I saw was a woman screaming and preening for the camera. Digging through her 5-inch white slam/burn binders, refusing to make eye contact with sex abuse victims, and democratic and critical republican lawmakers.

Unlike an older woman with power, she sat there like a 20-year-old, an old man's darling. Preening and stroking her hair, and cheerleading for Trump, a convicted criminal and sex offender, who, even at 60, and long past sex object age, brought to the table nothing of value other than her ability to pretzel herself for powerful bad men. A has been a sex object, batting vacant, over botoxed eyes, opening her mouth in two modes only, fawning for likes, or spewing vitriolic stupidity, both modes managing to master smallness and weakness in total subservience to men in power. For what? Literally defending and ducking and dodging for billionaires who rape kids, and a powerful executive branch that abuses and terrorizes people without power. With her silly slam/burn books and all.

Things that stood out for me, her beaming and triumphantly looking around the room after Congresswoman Balint left; she literally was searching the room like a newly house-trained mutt, waiting to be patted on the head for taking its first sh**t outside. Yuck, gross. Who is this woman?

How the men treated her: Rep. Garcia almost made her cry. Rankin told her, with authority, to shut her mouth, over and over again, and she responded by consulting her slam book, shrewishly and shrilly. A roomful of Reps laughed at her when she interjected, "But what about the Dow, it hit 50,000 dollars?" her looking generally miffed, stomping her foot with the demeanor and logic of a 6-year-old, " Stop laughing at me! Wah, wha!!! And all the men in the room managed to do it without looking like brutes because she was that awful.

Whether she truly is out of her depth, or if she's faking subservience for power, does it matter? What I saw yesterday was a 60-year-old woman who acted like a petty, silly, stupid, shrill, mean girl, who sacrificed her character, dignity, and self on an altar built by and for the benefit of the patriarchy of the most rich and powerful. Those least in need of protection.

She is doing a disservice to all women; she has power, given through the stroke of a pen, what luck, and she is throwing it away for what? Yesterday, she managed to be a monkey shining, 3-ring circus, of one. On its surface, it was highly amusing to watch, wow, look at her go... but it was also painful. What chance do women have when she represents what power for a woman looks like? Who let this buffoon through the gates?

Don't forget she is the attorney general of the US, and she's proved herself, but yesterday, to be no more than a silly little plaything, performing stupid tricks for powerful men. Call her out and condemn her for what she is. A small woman who flew too close to the sun with predictable results. A cautionary tale. Don't be like Pam! [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics