What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Nancy Pelosi And Accusations Of Racism - WSJ (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
From Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. Clearly from a Conservative viewpoint:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-house-discipline-11562886550?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR3NXP50gW4yqHuQevgEGtHPxNCfB1GpxyV9qmWbkauBg3FH0Geu4SPFSa8

What do you think of how Pelosi handled this? 

Having spent so long defaming conservatives as racists, progressives can’t stop turning the accusation on each other. Two weeks ago Democratic presidential contenders all but called Joe Biden a segregationist. This week Nancy Pelosi got a taste of her party’s poison.

The House Speaker has lately criticized some of the most extreme progressives in her caucus for cultivating their own celebrity status at the expense of the party. Mrs. Pelosi had four of her caucus’s freshmen especially in mind: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

The four—in addition to trumpeting socialist measures, flirting with anti-Semitism and usingTwitter to criticize moderates in their own party—voted against last month’s emergency spending bill for the southern border. They did so even though three of them have compared what’s happening at the border to the Holocaust. Mrs. Pelosi told the New York Times that these Members “have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

That inspired a few testy remarks from the four. “The public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez explained in a tweet. Which in turn prompted a rebuke from the Speaker: “You got a complaint?” she reportedly said to Democratic colleagues in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday. “You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK.”

With that, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez decided to resort to her default defense. This “persistent singling out,” she told the Washington Post, has reached “a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

And there it is—the old accusation of racial animosity. We should have seen it coming.

We’re no fans of Mrs. Pelosi’s politics, but the suggestion that her criticisms had anything remotely to do with the color of these four women’s skin is preposterous.

Not that Mrs. Pelosi is above playing the color card herself. Last year the Speaker explicitly called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a racist. “When the Republicans took power when President Obama was President of the United States,” she said on MSNBC, “what Mitch McConnell said is, ‘The most important thing we can do is to make sure he does not succeed.’ If that wasn’t a racist statement. That is unthinkable.”

What Mr. McConnell had said in 2010 was, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President”—a partisan statement but not a racial one.

Mrs. Pelosi is exercising much-needed adult supervision over her caucus, as she also has in ducking impeachment. Perhaps she, and others, will also be less inclined to use race as a political weapon now that it has been used against her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The racist reaction to this situation by President Trump has superseded this entire topic IMO. The congresswomen were wrong to play the race card against Pelosi, but it’s minor compared to the actual racism expressed against them by President Trump this morning. 

 
We’re no fans of Mrs. Pelosi’s politics, but the suggestion that her criticisms had anything remotely to do with the color of these four women’s skin is preposterous.

Not that Mrs. Pelosi is above playing the color card herself. Last year the Speaker explicitly called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a racist. “When the Republicans took power when President Obama was President of the United States,” she said on MSNBC, “what Mitch McConnell said is, ‘The most important thing we can do is to make sure he does not succeed.’ If that wasn’t a racist statement. That is unthinkable.”

What Mr. McConnell had said in 2010 was, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President”—a partisan statement but not a racial one.
I think the WSJ editorial page is correct on these two points. Pelosi’s criticism of AOC et al. wasn’t racist, and McConnell’s statement is sufficiently explained by partisanship.

 
Trump's comments are being discussed in one of many threads about him.  No one seems to have an opinion on AOC's latest nonsense.
I don't really pay any much attention to new members of the House who don't represent me. I think it is a bad idea to create division in the party heading into the 2020 election. This core group of 4 women seem to be good at getting attention but I am not at all yet convinced that they will make good members of government, 

 
Its odd that some want to call what Pelosi did or said as racist.  And seemingly the same types that defend actual racist statements like we saw tweeted this morning.

I get that those 4 she talked about will use that...and maybe even feel its why they were singled out.  But Pelosi didn't talk of race, she talked of the actions of those congresswomen.

 
Its odd that some want to call what Pelosi did or said as racist.  And seemingly the same types that defend actual racist statements like we saw tweeted this morning.

I get that those 4 she talked about will use that...and maybe even feel its why they were singled out.  But Pelosi didn't talk of race, she talked of the actions of those congresswomen.
Much like I am saying in the Trump thread that the GOP would be smart to sit back and let the Dems tear each other apart, the Dems would be smart to do the same. Sit back and let Trump's ego and need for attention push him into unforced errors. Of course the GOP has  the big advantage of that they are a bit more unified than the Dems who seem to be going to multiple directions.  

 
Much like I am saying in the Trump thread that the GOP would be smart to sit back and let the Dems tear each other apart, the Dems would be smart to do the same. Sit back and let Trump's ego and need for attention push him into unforced errors. Of course the GOP has  the big advantage of that they are a bit more unified than the Dems who seem to be going to multiple directions.  
Yeah...though thats part of what has continued to push me further away from the GOP.  To where i dont think I can support any of them as long as they are complicit in what is going in and cintinue in their same oath.  It may be unified, but its in the wrong direction IMO.

 
The four—in addition to trumpeting socialist measures, flirting with anti-Semitism and using Twitter to criticize moderates in their own party—voted against last month’s emergency spending bill for the southern border.  They did so even though three of them have compared what’s happening at the border to the Holocaust. Mrs. Pelosi told the New York Times that these Members “have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

This is an extremely disingenuous paragraph.  None of them flirted with antisemitism.  None of them compared it to the Holocaust.  The people they're criticizing aren't moderates- there is nothing moderate about funding prison camps for children.

WSJ's characterization of their vote against the "emergency spending" bill as spiteful to migrants isn't really fair.  What Pelosi did in effect is hand the wardens $4.6 billion dollars to make life more bearable for their prisoners.  But that's not how the system works and it never will be.  How long before they need more money and Pelosi gives it to them again?

 
From Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. Clearly from a Conservative viewpoint:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-house-discipline-11562886550?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR3NXP50gW4yqHuQevgEGtHPxNCfB1GpxyV9qmWbkauBg3FH0Geu4SPFSa8

What do you think of how Pelosi handled this? 
She complains about people using Twitter to make valid criticisms of their own party- which is what principled people do when their party fails- to Maureen Dowd in a NYT opinion piece. The irony is incredible.  

I think she's being ridiculous.  I think she should be ashamed of herself.  I think these four are at least trying to force a dialogue about some uncomfortable realities in our system, which is a darn sight more than most members of Congress can say, and Nancy Pelosi is a handmaid to far right extremists.  I think she should resign from office in disgrace, or failing that, get primaried by someone with basic human decency and a spine.  

 
She complains about people using Twitter to make valid criticisms of their own party- which is what principled people do when their party fails- to Maureen Dowd in a NYT opinion piece. The irony is incredible.  

I think she's being ridiculous.  I think she should be ashamed of herself.  I think these four are at least trying to force a dialogue about some uncomfortable realities in our system, which is a darn sight more than most members of Congress can say, and Nancy Pelosi is a handmaid to far right extremists.  I think she should resign from office in disgrace, or failing that, get primaried by someone with basic human decency and a spine.  
I don't subscribe to the WSJ but I saw the magic words Maureen Dowd and came in to defend my best morning friend and testy lefty du jour apres cafe. 

 
 None of them compared it to the Holocaust.  
You don’t think that AOC’s use of the phrase “never again” after referring to the border detention facilities as concentration camps was a Holocaust allusion?  Why else would you use that phrase in that context?

 
You don’t think that AOC’s use of the phrase “never again” after referring to the border detention facilities as concentration camps was a Holocaust allusion?  Why else would you use that phrase in that context?
Let’s be very clear here. When AOC referred to concentration camps and used the phrase “never again” she was clearly comparing them to the Nazi death camps. And she clearly knew that 99% of the public, when they hear the term “concentration camp”, think of Auschwitz or Dachau. They don’t think about the Boer War and AOC wasn’t either. It was an over the top extreme remark, and it deserved more condemnation that it got. 

It amazes me that some defenders of AOC attempt to use the same weak arguments that defenders of Trump often use. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let’s be very clear here. When AOC referred to concentration camps and used the phrase “never again” she was clearly comparing them to the Nazi death camps. And she clearly knew that 99% of the public, when they hear the term “concentration camp”, think of Auschwitz or Dachau. They don’t think about the Boer War and AOC wasn’t either. It was an over the top extreme remark, and it deserved more condemnation that it got. 

It amazes me that some defenders of AOC attempt to use the same weak arguments that defenders of Trump often use. 
You mean like the 400 historians and various experts when they said she was right? Or do you mean all the American Jews that agreed with her and have demonstrated using the phrase never again?

 
AOC was very clear when asked if she thought Pelosi was racist.  She said no unequivocally. So that's just made up outrage. Now the attacks on her by the official DNC Twitter? Those were kind of racist. And yet where is the condemnation of that by Pelosi? Kind of has a bad look don't you think? As for this editorial it's slant is so obvious that it shouldn't really be used for anything but bird cage liner as it's just red meat to a Republican base that looks worse by the minute. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing about never again is being vigilant of it's beginnings. The Holocaust started long before the first Jew was murdered in a camp. It started with attacking people for their race. It started with dehumanizing people. It started when we ask reporters what their racial background is when we don't like the question. That's what never again is about. It's about stopping it long before the final solution. 

 
She complains about people using Twitter to make valid criticisms of their own party- which is what principled people do when their party fails- to Maureen Dowd in a NYT opinion piece. The irony is incredible.  

I think she's being ridiculous.  I think she should be ashamed of herself.  I think these four are at least trying to force a dialogue about some uncomfortable realities in our system, which is a darn sight more than most members of Congress can say, and Nancy Pelosi is a handmaid to far right extremists.  I think she should resign from office in disgrace, or failing that, get primaried by someone with basic human decency and a spine.  
Pelosi's job as speaker - literally the most important function of being the political leader of a caucus - is maintaining solidarity in order to maximize power.  I tend to reflexively agree with AOC's hot twitter takes and her general position on most issues, but making progress isn't about winning the moral high ground on twitter, it's about getting good legislation passed and blocking bad stuff.  Pelosi is unquestionably a master at that art, and I while I hope AOC's squad continues to advance the national discussion progressively, I can certainly understand why the manager of the team would prefer teammates settle their differences internally in furtherance of higher goals.

 
Pelosi's job as speaker - literally the most important function of being the political leader of a caucus - is maintaining solidarity in order to maximize power.  I tend to reflexively agree with AOC's hot twitter takes and her general position on most issues, but making progress isn't about winning the moral high ground on twitter, it's about getting good legislation passed and blocking bad stuff.  Pelosi is unquestionably a master at that art, and I while I hope AOC's squad continues to advance the national discussion progressively, I can certainly understand why the manager of the team would prefer teammates settle their differences internally in furtherance of higher goals.
Here's the thing we have to have more than a pinkie swear the money is used for the right thing. Immediately after this was passed it was announced that in a direct screw you to Congress 3 more centers were opened secretly. The Squad was right and their no votes were the right votes. Pelosi and Schumer caved again and made Democrats look weak and feckless. That doesn't win many elections. 

 
Here's the thing we have to have more than a pinkie swear the money is used for the right thing. Immediately after this was passed it was announced that in a direct screw you to Congress 3 more centers were opened secretly. The Squad was right and their no votes were the right votes. Pelosi and Schumer caved again and made Democrats look weak and feckless. That doesn't win many elections. 
I disagree.  I understand the Squad's principled stance, and yet we all agree that there is immediate additional funding needed to better the conditions and processes of those seeking asylum.  IMO, it worked out almost exactly as it should have - the spending package, while far from ideal, was better than no additional spending package, so passing it was the right decision, while allowing the Squad their protest votes. 

 
Here's the thing we have to have more than a pinkie swear the money is used for the right thing. Immediately after this was passed it was announced that in a direct screw you to Congress 3 more centers were opened secretly. The Squad was right and their no votes were the right votes. Pelosi and Schumer caved again and made Democrats look weak and feckless. That doesn't win many elections. 
This statement names no sense. How did you expect them to relieve overcrowding? 

How do you secretly open a new center?  

 
This statement names no sense. How did you expect them to relieve overcrowding? 

How do you secretly open a new center?  
They were told by Congress they couldn't open any more camps without getting approval from Congress so they could make sure they met minimum standards. They opened them anyway without telling Congress. That's how you do it in secret.

 
They were told by Congress they couldn't open any more camps without getting approval from Congress so they could make sure they met minimum standards. They opened them anyway without telling Congress. That's how you do it in secret.
Sounds like it's not much of a secret.

It's out.

 
They were told by Congress they couldn't open any more camps without getting approval from Congress so they could make sure they met minimum standards. They opened them anyway without telling Congress. That's how you do it in secret.
This language is in the bill? 

 
They were told by Congress they couldn't open any more camps without getting approval from Congress so they could make sure they met minimum standards. They opened them anyway without telling Congress. That's how you do it in secret.
The only source of this i can find is AOC. I cant find any record of "congressional orders" about this and it was not in the bill. 

 
Pelosi's job as speaker - literally the most important function of being the political leader of a caucus - is maintaining solidarity in order to maximize power.  I tend to reflexively agree with AOC's hot twitter takes and her general position on most issues, but making progress isn't about winning the moral high ground on twitter, it's about getting good legislation passed and blocking bad stuff.  Pelosi is unquestionably a master at that art, and I while I hope AOC's squad continues to advance the national discussion progressively, I can certainly understand why the manager of the team would prefer teammates settle their differences internally in furtherance of higher goals.
She's not maintaining solidarity with anybody by caving to Trump.  Unless you're talking about solidarity with Mitch McConnell maybe.  This was the one time Pelosi should have stood her ground, and she failed.   

Originally the House bill had carved out protections and better treatment for migrants in the detention camps.   All of this was gutted from the Senate version, and the Democratic House passed it anyway.  But at least she passed it with a "Battle Cry".  Revolting.  

 
Today I learned that Nancy Pelosi is the handmaid of right-wing extremists and is in solidarity with Mitch McConnell.

In related news, putting flouride in the water supply is a communist plot to break our national spirit.

 
"These detention centers are just like concentration camps because they're so over-crowded."

Opens more centers, creating more space.

"OMG more concentration camps!"
Look NCCommish, you see?  They built more child prison camps.  The children will be so pleased.  🧐

 
 No.  It’s not in the bill.  I’m not sure where he’s getting this from.
It appears he is getting it all from AOC and mother jones. 

Mother jones printed an article that stated this.

When members of Congress reached a bipartisan deal to end the government shutdown in February, they gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement a simple instruction: Stop detaining so many people.
AOC has now turned that into a talking point to suit her narrative of being right for trying to shoot down funding.

I found this article from back in february about the deal and it says. 

The funding deal encourages ICE to detain fewer immigrants
That is actually a pretty good article. Not the greatest source, but if we can just willy nilly post mother jones crap and twist it I think that article is more than fine. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top