Because Trump & MAGA are the archetypal “useful idiots” to them. Same reason lots of other foreign people and groups support them.
But why couldn’t she simply say “no” before starting to lecture Kennedy? He’s actually right – she doesn’t seem to be able to say “no, I do not support Hamas/Hezbollah.” She veers off into talking about Iran. I know he’s an idiot and a bigot, but why give him the fuel to make her seem weaselly?
I was thinking the same thing. Why not respond with “No, I do not support Hamas, and I resent the fact that you asked me that question.”
Because then the Honorable Senator wouldn’t have been reduced to telling her to hide her head in a bag after lying multiple times about the words she said on camera 2 minutes prior.
Note that right after she literally says “No”, she is accused of not being able to say no. Followed by
SHE ALREADY FUCKING SAID SHE DOESN’T SUPPORT HAMAS, YOU TOAD-HEADED HALFWIT.
Republicans have trouble understanding when a woman says no.
That’s why she should have clearly said the word “no” at the beginning of each response:
-
Do you support Hamas? No I do not, but I’m actually glad you asked that question …
-
You support Hezbollah, too, don’t you? No, I do not support Hezbollah either, and I find this line of questioning …
Then he looks even stupider when he says, You just can’t bring yourself to say no, can you?
I thought she came across as evasive, frankly. Just fucking say no.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders jabs Kamala Harris for not having biological children
Even one of Trump’s senior campaign advisers called the remark “offensive.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/18/sarah-huckabee-sanders-harris-children-00179800
Keep fuckin’ that chicken!
The fact that the advisor was later seen walking outside with a cardboard box full of his desk supplies and his underwear pulled up around his ears was just a coincidence.
Why should she treat a racist question as if answering it was the sole reason for her testimony?
Because not answering a yes/no question with a yes or a no comes across as evasive. And she absolutely could have pointed out the bigotry of his questions (as she did) while still starting each answer with a clear “no.”
It seems to me that the main reason she didn’t start of her response with “No” was obvious.
If she had responded with “No,” she wouldn’t have even gotten to the “o” before he fired another question at her. By responding with anything else, she forces him to listen. Sure, he’s going to ignore whatever she says and read from his script, but at least she gets some words in.
He said “I got your answer and I appreciate it.” 1 second before completely ignoring her answer as part of his next question.
His entire point was to say the words “you support Hamas”, “you support Hezbollah” and “you support Iran” as many times as possible during his allotted time, because repeating a lie makes it the truth.
There’s a part of me that would want to bluntly say “no” to that question, but I also can see why she answered the question in the manner that she did. Senator Foghorn Leghorn was clearly just using these proceedings to bait and attempt to humiliate her, nothing more. In that instance, I can understand wanting to phrase your response in a way that will allow you to call the asshole out on what he is clearly attempting to do.
Please keep blaming her for being too polite to an ignorant, boorish bigot. Clearly she brought the abuse down on herself by remaining civil and giving complete answers. I’m sure that if she had just started every sentence with “No” we certainly wouldn’t be talking about how defensive and argumentative she was instead.
< checks forum >
Oh, and fuck you.
I’m not blaming her for being too polite. I’m blaming her for giving him the ammunition to call out her lack of clarity.
Your words, not mine.
Really? For suggesting that someone was only about 80% as effective as they could have been in answering obnoxious questions from an idiotic bigot?
Have a nice day.
She was perfectly clear. Also, why are you blaming her at all?
Yes they are, in the same way that your words are that she was “evasive” and had a “lack of clarity”.
My point is that if she’d done what you think she should have done, she’d still be getting criticized for something, a view that is more than amply borne out by this thread.
For repeatedly blaming the victim of racist bullying? Yes, “fuck you” seems about right.
You have a nice day too.
I don’t believe she was as clear as she could have been. But you’re right, this isn’t about blame. It’s more accurate to say I’m faulting her.
No doubt, but less so by me.
Respectfully, I feel like you’re blowing this way out of proportion by using the language we use to talk about assholes dismissing rape. All I’m saying is that she could have responded differently and been even more effective at making Kennedy look like a bigoted fool. I never said nor meant to imply that she “had it coming.”
YMMV.
I think that in retrospect, that may or may not be true, but at the time she answered the questions, she gave well reasoned, intelligent responses which should have been enough. And as others have pointed out, answering a straight “no” may not have worked with people set on discrediting her either.
Agreed. What I failed to make clear in my previous replies is that it’s obvious Kennedy was going to bully her with racist bullshit no matter what she said or did. Her responses didn’t bring that on.
My only critique was that, by not answering each question with an immediate, clear and unambiguous “no,” she gave me the impression of evasiveness.