The Florida Center for Government Accountability reviewed a police report about Christian and Bridget Ziegler.
Christian Ziegler was recently ousted as chair of the Florida Republican Party after a woman told the police that he had raped her. They had previously had sexual relations, and Christian contended that the encounter was consensual. Also revealed in the investigation was that Christian and Bridget had had a threesome with the accuser, and the accuser expected to do it again, but not without Bridget.
Bridget Ziegler is a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, an organization that lectures everyone about family values, encourages book bans, and accuses public schools of harboring pedophiles. M4L is especially indignant about any recognition of students who are LGBT or about books that include LGBT characters.
Bridget Ziegler is a member of the Sarasota school board and was appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis to the board created by the legislature to take control of Disney World after the Governor engaged in a public dispute with Disney’s management. Disney spoke out against DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, and DeSantis retaliated by dissolving the Disney board that managed Disney World in Orlando.
Bridget has pushed many DeSantis-backed measures in Sarasota schools that have been widely criticized as discriminatory to the LGBTQ community and also helped formulate Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
Why would a woman who has engaged in lesbian sex devote her energies to demonizing LGBT students and teachers? It’s a puzzlement.
Michael Barfield of the Florida Center on Government Accountability began his commentary:
While Republican power couple Christian and Bridget Ziegler publicly pushed for “family values” and backed an agenda widely viewed as anti-LGBTQ, they were secretly on the “hunt” for threesome lovers and had prior concerns the woman who alleged Christian sexually assaulted her was too “broken” to properly consent to their advances, newly released police reports from the now-closed rape investigation reveal.
Among the startling evidence recovered from Christian’s cell phone, according to the report, was a list of women, including the alleged sexual assault victim’s name, with a one-word subheading: “Fuck…”
The report indicates that the couple first engaged in a three-way sexual encounter with the woman roughly three years ago, and it was on Feb. 19, 2021 that Christian texted his wife to “come home, stop, and pick up [the woman] to play again and be crazy,” according to the police report.
Hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hypocrisy and VERY Profound Power Wounds. All these folks are after is POWER in its most pathological manifestation. They don’t care how they get it. They don’t care who they drain it from. Children, Public Schools, Libraries, Border Migrants, Ukraine funding or scuzzy sex partners they pick up at the Quick Mart. It is all the same to them. It feeds their addictions. Hungry Ghosts trying to pass themselves off as human.
LikeLike
Yes, definitely hypocrisy. Just like Harvey Weinstein claiming to be a champion for liberal causes and feminism, while he was a serial predator. Or Oprah, Meryl Streep, et al knowing about Weinstein’s predations but never speaking up about him even though they had the stature to bring him down. Or Bill Clinton – the great male feminist – groping and assaulting numerous women he had power over, and taking advantage of a young woman who consented to his advances but still totally inappropriate behavior; left-wing feminists not willing to condemn that behavior in the 1990s because of Bill’s support for abortion rights.
One would never know it from reading this always hyper-partisan blog, but hypocrisy is committed all across the political spectrum, including by people who agree with you.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by to scold. It’s always a pleasure.
LikeLike
On every study of the happiest countries in the world, the ones on top are always Social Democracies. Socialist countries. Calling people here “hyperpartisan” is hilarious, given that. These are ordinary, typical views in countries where most of the populace is happy. But not in America, which is all about feeding the maws of the very, very wealthy at everyone else’s expense. Thanks for that, Repugnican Party.
LikeLike
The Repugnican Party is the party of hate. Hating strong women. Hating lesbians and gays. Hating immigrants. Hating homeless people. Hating the poor. And it is breathtakingly backward. No amount of vote fixing can rescue the Greying Old Party because the culture as a whole has moved beyond its prejudices and ingrained cruelty and hypocrisy. It’s gotten to a point where one EXPECTS Repugnican anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-trans crusaders to be closet cases.
LikeLike
How about addressing what I wrote rather than changing the subject? Or do you approve of hypocrisy when it’s committed by people you agree with? I condemn it no matter who does it.
LikeLike
If you are a long-term reader of this blog, then you have read the attacks here on people like Weinstein. NO ONE here approved. And many of us have commented negatively many times on Bill’s history. I wrote a long piece a few months back about him and Kennedy–Kennedy who would regularly fly off to Vegas to party with the Rat Pack and a bunch of prostitutes, who raped his underaged intern, who horribly mistreated Marilyn Monroe, who shared a mistress with a freaking head of a crime family.
LikeLike
Diane posted many times about the Me, Too movement and horror show figures like Weinstein.
LikeLike
Yet ,isn’t it the Republican Party that keeps banning books and promoting Anti-LGBTQ legislation while behaving otherwise. I often wonder if that is hypocrisy or projection. Most democrats like myself simply want you to stay out of my bedroom and mind your own business…
LikeLike
amen
And out of our freaking classrooms and libraries.
LikeLike
What’s purism is a new word in modern political discourse. It stems from political leadership focusing on how bad one’s opponent is instead of suggesting positive improvements. It is notable that the occasional writers who drop by this blog to whine about its liberalism never offer solutions to social problems, only whining aimed at groups that carry various names (socialists, communists, etc). Just once, I would like to hear a policy suggestion from someone on the political right.
LikeLike
Whataboutism not what autocorrect made it in that first line
LikeLike
And she and I have both observed time and time again that availing themselves of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific services was a bipartisan business.
LikeLike
Sorry, “Martha Raddich,” you don’t get invited into Diane’s living room so you can make a complaint about the host or her guests.
Who are you and all the recent other obnoxious “guests” working for? It’s like you were hired to come here every day and spew insults. Come on. Spill it. WHO SENT YOU?
LikeLike
Anyone else notice an influx of comments on this blog that accuse Diane of being “hyper-partisan?” I’ll bet it’s the same exact person changing their name each time. Diane can probably get some of the poster’s information. I wish they would find another term to use—aside from being predictable, IT’S GETTING OLD.
LikeLike
Martha,
The people who are most self-righteous in judging others are frequently hiding secrets. I don’t recall Bill Clinton getting on a high horse and lecturing others about morality and family values.
But Bridget Ziegler set herself up as a family values paragon of virtue. She co-founded a group that seeks to remove books from school libraries and public libraries because they portray LGBT people sympathetically or because they teach accurate history of racism.
Now that it’s a matter of public record that she and her husband participated in thresomes and she indulged in lesbian sex, she has revealed herself as a hypocrite. Especially because she helped draft Ron DeSantis’s noxious “Don’t Say Gay” law.
I will boldly say that Republicans are more hypocritical than Democrats because it’s always Republicans leading “morality crusades” and setting themselves as moral paragons.
Democrats are accepting of LGBT; I can’t recall a time in my life when Democrats led a campaign to prevent women from having abortions or a campaign to ban books or a campaign to criminalize same-sex relationships.
Hypocrisy in relation to moralizing seems to be a Republican thing.
LikeLike
Martha,
Why are you calling other people hypocrites when you haven’t yet condemned Trump and other Republicans?
Harvey Weinstein is in jail. Do you agree Trump should be in jail, too, or are you a hypocrite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is idolized by Republicans, some even claim him as their savior.
Trump is the most amoral man ever to sit in the Oval Office. We know he has had three wives. It’s a matter of record that he cheated on all of them. Remember the infamous Access Hollywood tape, where he bragged he could do anything he wanted to a woman. “Just grab ‘em by the p—-y.”
Jusst months ago, he was convicted of doing that to a woman named E. Jean Carroll, and she fought back. She told two friends what happened when it happened.
He claimed he never met her, she was not his type. Then someone showed him a picture of her and he thought it was his second wife Marla.
In the recently concluded trial for defamation, he defamed her again and again within earshot of the jury.
Carroll was asking $10 million in damages (she had previously been awarded $5 million.)
But the jury decided that the only way to shut up this vulgar blowhard was by hitting him in the wallet and they awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages.
He hasn’t attacked her on social media since then. She has said if he does, she will sue him again.
The next jury will have to up the ante.
So, Martha, the next time you talk about hypocrisy, look at all the Republicans embracing a con man, a liar, a philanderer, a man who paid a porn star for sex while his wife was recuperating from childbirth…a man who has gone through multiple bankruptcies , a man who had to pay $25 million for defrauding students who enrolled in his phony “Trump University.”
Am I hyperpartisan? No. I am reasonable. Unlike Trump, I have studied history. I am very sad about the collapse of the Republican Party. I worked in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. I regret that the GOP today is a cult of personality devoted to a man who has no principles, no morals, no goal other than money and ego.
LikeLike
I saw an interview years ago of Donald Trump conducted by Barbara Walters, who asked Trump about the affair he was conducting with Marla Maples while married to his first wife, Ivana. Trump told her that he was a very rich man and that his wife had had babies and “ruined” her body and that he could afford to find better. THIS IS HOW HE SPOKE OF THE WOMAN WHO HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO HIS CHILDREN, in this degrading, derogatory way where he should have had respect and honor and gratitude. I thought at the time that this filth, this Trump, was doubtless the most lowlife POS I had ever encountered. What absolute vermin.
He has only decreased in my estimation since. He is the lowest of the low.
LikeLike
Martha Raddich you make an accusation about various people and what they knew, how much they knew, when.
they knew it. And their lack of action.
I heard a lot of rumors about you as well! I can’t remember where.
There is a tremendous difference between hearing an unsubstantiated rumor vs a personal account and not acting on it and attacking other people for the very behaviors that you yourself are engaged in. As the Zeiglers Schlapp and numerous other Right Wing Republicans have done.
We see this repeatedly in the Republican Party, the party of closeted homosexuals and child molesters. Who seek to excise their demons by attacking others.
LikeLike
Joel, you said it better than I. I found an account on Twitter by a Protestant cleric who keeps a running record of Republican elected officials who have convicted of sex crimes. The list is 1,200+ and growing. What we see, I think, is projection. They try to suppress their desires and accuse others of their guilty sins.
LikeLike
Gross.
LikeLike
What better cover for deviance than public abhorrence for deviance? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Well, obviously.
LikeLike
Nothing deviant about the three-way They were consenting adults. But the rape and the hypocrisy–well, . . .
Come to think of it, those are not a deviation from the standards in the Repugnican Party either, are they? After all, THE LEADING REPUGNICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT WAS DETERMINED IN A U.S. COURT TO HAVE COMMITTED RAPE, and this is, among Repugnicans, just hunky dory.
LikeLike
Way to take the excitement out of the three-way, Bob.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but threesomes are not very common in our society, thus qualified under the definition of deviance as I understand it. Perhaps not in certain subcultures that institutionalize cruelty, sanction exploitation, and worship domination.
LikeLike
“not very common”
A recent study said that 32 percent of men and 29 percent of women had had at least one threesome. According to a 2016 study, 20 percent of singles in the US have attempted some form of consensual non-monogamy at some point of their lives, such as polyamory or open relationship. And the percentages for these are on the rise.
LikeLike
So, if this is deviant behavior, it’s pretty darned widespread “deviance.” LOL. And it’s probably underreported. The numbers are actually MUCH HIGHER than for gay and lesbian sex, and you would not refer to those as “deviant.” Because they aren’t.
LikeLike
You need to move out of Tennessee, Roy. In California, people do such things and then post about it on Instagram and TikTok. Here in Florida, people say they are shocked by such things but then do them anyway.
LikeLike
Bob: I guess I am an old timer. Someday I will be thought of as a monk.
LikeLike
And this completely changes my reading of a three way tie for first
LikeLike
Another self help movement. It’s an article in The Atlantic….so behind a paywall….but I believe that a few articles can be viewed as a trial?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/polyamory-ruling-class-fad-monogamy/677312/
LikeLike
I subscribe to The Atlantic but I didn’t read that article. It seems to be a response to a new book about a couple in Park Slipe, Brooklyn, who have an open marriage. The book is very explicit in its sex scenes, I read. To turn this one book into a “em ruling class fad” sounds to me like a stretch or PR for the book
LikeLike
Just read the article. I get an inside scoop on some of this stuff because I have a kid in college and on social media. I get an earful!
To me this Polyamory thing seems like the 60’s when Hugh Hefner, wanting to get his jollies on, convinced lots of young women that walking around in bunny suits, living in his mansion and having orgies was sexual freedom for women and part of the feminist movement. Give me a break! Just look at all the “celebrities” who have hit the news lately that have multiple children with multiple women. It’s just another PR stunt for the rich getting to do what they want and having people accept it as “normal”.
LikeLike
It’s not always or even commonly one man with more than one woman. I have a very good friend who has been in a polyamorous relationship with two men for some twenty years now. These are consenting adults. They can choose to live in this way. It’s no one else’s business.
LikeLike
People are free to get their freak on, but I just don’t want to hear about it. Open marriages, swinging etc have been around forever and they have their own codes of conduct. It is not mainstream! What we have now is misogynistic and gaslighting of women by the people at the top of the food chain who wish to do what they want by trying to “normalize” it for everyone. I have a son(!) and my job is to make sure that he respects women and doesn’t get himself into any sticky situations that can land him with a bad reputation for the remainder of his life……so that’s why I listen for the undercurrents before the tsunami hits.
LikeLike
You are absolutely right, Lisa, that the so-called “sexual liberation” of the 1960s came with a very heavy dose of sexism and manipulation of women and much worse. Abominable. But I do not think that that’s what’s happening now. Instead, I think that we are seeing a new birth of freedom, culturally, predicated on the notion that people can choose to shape their own lives in ways not in accordance with traditional strictures in this particular culture. They can, for example, have a spouse of the same sex, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s worthwhile taking a much, much wider perspective on these questions, an anthropological one, which recognizes that there are many ways of organizing private life. Have a look, for example, at the lives of the Mosuo people of Lugu Lake, China. VERY DIFFERENT from here, but quite healthy.
BTW, the American nuclear family, if not dead, is on life support, according to a recent analysis from the Pew Research Center. In 1970, nearly 70% of American adults ages 25 to 49 were living with a spouse and at least one child. As of 2021 — the most recent year for which they have data — that’s fallen to 37%. And that might well be a good thing. Going back as you did to the 1960s, remember how mind-blowingly constricted and crazy-making the life of a 1960s nuclear family housewife was–the subject of such books as Betty Friedan’s seminal feminist work The Feminine Mystique and Levin’s novels Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives, as well as of the truly ground-breaking film Diary of a Mad Housewife.
There are many ways to put together a life.
LikeLike
I cynically think that the article was part of a PR campaign for a new book. But I haven’t read the article. I did read two reviews of the book and my reaction was “yuck”.
LikeLike
I do not think it is a secret that there are two sets of rules today.
Republicans are not guilty of anything, ever, even when found guilty in court.
But Democrats are always guilty of everything even without evidence or a trial.
LikeLike
Democrats are guilty based on “appearance”. And unfortunately, too many Democrats help push the narrative that “appearance” (which we are brainwashed to believe means whatever makes the far right outraged) is enough to condemn them.
Too many self-described Dems start out by conceding that the right wing narrative that totally demonizes the Democrat is true, BUT they should be supported anyway.
The Republicans never concede anything. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, or incite an insurrection, and the Republicans reject entirely that there is anything wrong with that. And the same complicit Democrats who immediately jump to legitimize the right wing attacks on Democrats hypocritically twist themselves into knots to exonerate Republicans. To them, it is perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to allow insurrectionist Trump on the ballot and it is perfectly okay for a right wing Republican “independent prosecutor” to dine and travel abroad (at taxpayer expense) with Bill Barr who wants to influence their prosecution for political gain, but it is a huge conflict of interest for a prosecutor to hook up with another prosecutor in their office!
It’s a double standard, but too many Dems – especially in the news media but I have also seen it here – have been brainwashed into the Orwellian belief that giving credibility to false right wing narratives proves they are “unbiased”.
LikeLike
NYC,
You won’t see that coming from me. I have the same standard for everyone. People who lie, cheat, and steal from others should not be in office, regardless of party.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem with your argument, NYC PSP:
Consider any proposition, p.
Whether proposition p is true has nothing to do with whether it reflects well or not on Republicans or Democrats. It’s truth rests, rather (and tautologically and solely), on whether it is true.
In other words, one does not judge the truth of any proposition, x, based on how it reflects on Republicans or Democrats, which is irrelevant to its truth.
If we must accept those propositions that are true and reject those that are false, then whether a given proposition, p, reflects well or not on Republicans or Democrats is as irrelevant a criterion for acceptance of the proposition as is, say, whether the proposition was uttered standing up or sitting down (assuming that it is not a proposition about whether one is standing up or sitting down).
LikeLike
There’s a reason why the truism “Never say never” has persisted in the oral tradition. It’s because hyperbole is a red flag for such logical fallacies as overgeneralization and the either/or fallacy (aka the false dilemma fallacy). So, for example, conceding that x is true of some Democrat, where x is something negative, does not “totally demonize” that Democrat or Democrats in general. And if someone expresses an opinion held by many Republicans, this does not mean that he or she holds all the opinions held by all Republicans.
To be committed to truth means not judging propositions on what one might humorously call their “Democraticity.” LOL. Gee, Bob, you’re showing low Democraticity there. ROFL.
It’s ideologues who insist upon toeing the party line about everything rather than judging questions on their merits.
LikeLike
“The Republicans never concede anything.”
That’s hardly a standard we should emulate. Let them be the ideologues. Let them be the party that judges a proposition on whether Trump says it’s so, on whether it is in accordance with the party line, on its Republicanicity, rather than on its truth.
NOT BEING LIKE THAT should be what sets Democrats apart from these goosesteppers, from these Fascist ideologues (sorry about the redundancy there). Should we approve the immigration compromise? I don’t know, what does Donnie say? That’s what passes for thinking in the brain of a Mikey Johnson, boy Christian.
So, President Biden just gave a speech to announce that he was going to bomb the militias responsible for or allied with those who sent the drone that killed American service people. Then, the next day, he started bombing them. It seems to me that it’s a terrible mistake to telegraph BEFOREHAND that you are going to do this. Where were the joint chiefs to tell him, bomb first, then give your speech?
But I guess that the Democraticity of that statement is too low. I must belong to those bad pseudo-Democrats. My leader right or wrong! Hail Glorious leader!
LikeLike
Diane, I wasn’t referring to you.
There is a double standard. Republicans (or those in favor) get passes for doing things that are significantly more problematic than what Dems (or those in favor with Dems) get condemned for.
John Durham accepts free trips to Italy and multiple luxury meals from Bill Barr, when he is supposed to act independently of Barr, and it barely makes a ripple. Durham is not disgraced for his corruption and immorality, or even condemned for being too stupid to know about how important “appearances” are. There was no amplification of the narrative that it doesn’t matter if what Barr and Durham did wasn’t as corrupt as it looked, because it “appeared” corrupt. They were not publicly condemned in 1000 headlines and disgraced for their stupidity.
But some folks on “our” side couldn’t wait to legitimize the dishonest Republican narrative that it is an obvious “conflict of interest” for Fani Willis to hook up with another prosecutor and the “appearance” of wrongdoing is in itself disgraceful.
Gay committed plagiarism, which a couple folks here characterized as a terrible, inexcusable and disgraceful crime until a privileged white scholar with a rich husband was found to commit plagiarism that was much worse, in which case punches were pulled and discrediting the plagiarist and amplifying that the plagiarism raised questions about her even being a legitimate scholar was no longer something that needed to be done to plagiarists.
No one is immune when “our” side legitimizes the right wing narratives.
Sometimes we don’t. When Bernie Sanders’ wife was found to have financially benefited from running a bankrupt college, “our” side didn’t rush to legitimize the narrative that what mattered was “appearances” and condemn her for being either very corrupt or very stupid. We shut up and let it die. There was nothing “wrong” with us doing that, Bob.
But a few folks on “our” side certainly jumped in to demand the resignation of Al Franken. “Our” side said we were just trying to make sure we didn’t have a double standard when we joined in the harsh condemnations of Al Franken and demanded his resignation.
“Our” side gets brainwashed into making a false equivalency between real wrongdoing and human failings again and again. The Republicans hold fast to defend their candidates from the most serious charges. We say that we have to amplify the right wing narrative in the name of “truth” and help demonize our own as corrupt or untrustworthy for their human failings.
Every time we amplify the Republicans’ false narratives to demonize Democrats in the name of “truth”, we have done just the opposite. We have presented a false reality where a human Democrat is a corrupt or untrustworthy very stupid person.
We didn’t do that in 2020, when Biden was being accused of sexual harassment. We didn’t that in 2020 when the Republicans were pushing narratives about Hunter’s and Biden’s corruption along with the “Joe Biden is corrupt or at best, he is too stupid not to know that the appearance of his corruption is just as bad” and we didn’t condemn Biden and amplify the narratives. We knew better.
There was nothing wrong with that.
And had we jumped in to condemn Biden, that wouldn’t make us truth-seekers. It would have made us just like the so-called liberal media reporters who believe that legitimizing and amplifying every right wing charge against a Democrat makes us “fair and balanced” and better than Republicans. It doesn’t. The truth isn’t an out of context narrative exaggerated into something that paints a person a corrupt and immoral and untrustworthy.
We didn’t let ourselves be played in 2020, but it looks like we are heading that way in 2024.
People here will say it was RIGHT that we didn’t jump on the bandwagon to condemn Bernie and his wife and stepson for the things that the right wing presented as corrupt and improper. I AGREE. It didn’t matter that some facts were technically “true”, because the narrative surrounding those facts was false. It was right that our side did not help amplify the false narratives and condemn Bernie for “appearances”.
So I know that everyone gets it, because they get it when certain politicians are targeted and victimized.
Every misstep by a Democrat is NOT corruption or improper or problematic. You don’t have to join in the condemnations and help to undermine the Democrat in the name of being fair and balanced and “truth”. Remember that you didn’t join in the condemnations of Bernie Sanders and accept that doesn’t make you a bad person. It means that you understand the difference between amplifying false narratives and being truthful.
LikeLike
Bob,
My short reply to all that you wrote:
AOC. She isn’t afraid to criticize Democrats.
But she is way too smart to help the right wing Republican party push their false narratives to demonize the Democrats. She was often set up by the news media to do just that, and she recognized it for what it was.
So does Pete Buttigieg. When he was campaigning in the primary, he could criticize without demonizing and helping amplify the right wing’s false narratives.
If you can’t tell the difference, that’s on you.
LikeLike
All these terrible narrative amplifiers! And some of them think that they aren’t racists, too! Horrible people. ROFL.
LikeLike
Brilliant reply. Impossible to argue with the thoughtful arguments you made to support your opinion. If you don’t understand why AOC and Pete’s way of criticism WITHOUT legitimizing false narratives is different than your description of “ideologues who insist upon toeing the party line about everything rather than judging questions on their merits”, then arguing with you is as pointless as previous discussions about the word “hospice” NOT being an appropriate term to describe centers that provide “residential and vocational programs for atypical, neurodiverse individuals to help them grow, learn and thrive”.
I get it — you will be snarky and discourteous because I’m not some right wing troll who just launched a personal insult at someone you also don’t like. Then you seem to find your courtesy.
It’s not worth my time to argue with someone who resorts to insulting and demeaning those who disagree with them, whether it’s about whether “hospice” is a correct word to describe a place that helps train neurodiverse individuals in how to live, or whether it’s about whether it is possible to criticize without amplifying false narratives like AOC does. So this is my last attempt, which will probably elicit another snarky and discourteous reply.
Bob, I really thought you understood. There was a point where you quite frequently referred to Biden being too old in a way that reinforced the right wing narrative that being too old meant that having a too old Biden in office would be a serious problem. Then, you stopped. That didn’t mean you had to lie about Biden’s age or lie and say that Biden was exactly as energetic as he was at 55. You didn’t lie. You just stopped connecting a true fact – that Biden was certainly going to be an old president – with a right wing narrative — that Biden was TOO old to be president because his age meant that he suffered from dementia and was unfit and untrustworthy to be in office.
Truth is saying Fani Willis had a recent affair with a fellow prosecutor the year after she hired him, she is human. Right wing narrative is saying “this is a serious conflict of interest and demonstrates that she is corrupt or at the very least is so incredibly stupid”.
Truth is saying Bernie Sanders paid his stepson $100,000 to run the Sanders’ Institute. Right wing narrative is saying “this could very well be a corrupt way to funnel cash to his unqualified family members and the Republicans are correct that this needs a needs to be investigated stat, since it does appear there is something corrupt here, and at the very least this demonstrates Bernie’s hypocrisy and no matter what, shows that Bernie was incredibly stupid.”
Truth is saying that some of the DEI material used by teachers get is stupid and silly and a waste of time. Right wing narrative is saying “DEI is harming our children and teaching them to hate themselves for being white.”
Biden is old, but his age has given him experience and wisdom as proven by the fact he has done a darn good job and actually accomplished some good things under extremely difficult circumstances during his first term.
That’s not a lie. It’s a truth. The right wing narrative that Biden’s age makes him unfit and a dangerous president is the lie.
AOC gets it. She was on Meet the Press and was pitched questions designed to elicit some helpful right wing narrative fodder. She didn’t bite. She also didn’t lie.
LikeLike
It’s impossible to argue with that so here’s my argument. LOL.
LikeLike
Biden is old, but his age has given him experience and wisdom as proven by the fact he has done a darn good job and actually accomplished some good things under extremely difficult circumstances during his first term.
That’s not a lie. It’s a truth. The right wing narrative that Biden’s old age makes him unfit and a dangerous president is the lie.
LikeLike
NYC
Thank you for the arguments you made in response to an earlier post.
Bob’s screeds of ridicule e.g. “Can’t you read?,” and, the peculiar lengths he has gone to, to avoid admitting he’s wrong while simultaneously charging others with, “beating a dead horse,” are demonstrations of his character.
It’s unfortunate that his frequent, personalized attacks can’t be separated from how the blog is perceived. And, evidently, he doesn’t care.
LikeLike
In other news. Trump staged a fake photo-op with fake union members for Trump. This is just like the fake Blacks for Trump and Latinos for Trump that he pays to stand up front at his rallies.
LikeLike
I’d say, “He’s a pig”…but I actually like pigs.
So: “He’s Donald Trump” pretty much sums it up.
LikeLike
The spin machine can make Satan look like God.
But the flip side to disinformation is information. And the almighty “Word of Mouth”.
The lies will eventually come back to haunt you.
LikeLike