this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
430 points (96.1% liked)

politics

18996 readers
2290 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

That was one of the more interesting SOTU addresses I've seen. Personally, I think he said most of the things that needed to be said, and he said them reasonably well. I'm sure he's going to get some flack for attacking Trump directly (though not by name), but I was frankly glad to see it. Doing otherwise makes it seem like it's just your typical election/political disagreements, but we're past that now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL 78 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Congressional Republican leaders showcased one of their newest lawmakers through the State of the Union rebuttal, hoping to make a generational contrast with Biden. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, the youngest Republican woman elected to the Senate, painted a picture of a nation that “seems to be slipping away” and one where “our families are hurting.”

“Right now, our commander-in-chief is not in command. The free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader,” Britt said, speaking deliberately in an address from her home kitchen.

Dithering and diminished? You just got your clock cleaned by an old guy and you're stumping for the convicted fraud who can't remember who is currently the President? The one who thinks magnets are somehow turned off by water? The one who declares loudly they'll change the state name of Pennsylvania if he doesn't get enough votes? That one?

Katie Britt, I didn't have any expectations - never heard of you before - but whoever wrote that for you stuck you in the woodchipper. Do better. Stop supporting a demented rapist. Stop destroying the rights of women to their own bodies.

[–] Hoomod 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Apparently that's just how she is. She's a lawyer, married to a retired football player

If you watch her speech it's disturbing

[–] kromem 9 points 7 months ago

It was so creepily stepford wives-y.

She did the Hannibal Lecter "not blinking" thing while alternating between smiles and rage that both never reached her eyes.

Also, kind of ballsy to ask "are you better off than you were four years ago."

Like, yes, my life could be better, but I at least have toilet paper.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Absolutely the least disturbing thing about that speech was the content, when it is contrasted with the delivery of said content. Supes creepy lady.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 3 points 7 months ago

Her breathy desperate whispering of half the speech was like the auditory version of crazy eyes.