Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Nancy Pelosi thread


timschochet

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, zftcg said:

 

So let's extend the hypothetical. Say that prosecutors produce evidence that, in your view, satisfies the Potter Stewart test, but Republicans still refuse to act. What should Democrats do in that scenario?

Use the Republican refusal to try to win a decisive majority in the next election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Can you show me an example of anything a republican has done in the past two years that would lead you to believe this?

My whole point is that in the past two years Trump has done nothing that OBVIOUSLY warrants his removal from office. That’s the key to my disagreement with The Commish and others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I believe Comey was fired because Trump was irritated by the continued investigation into Russian collusion.

Isn't that the very definition of obstruction of justice? I'm not sure how that leaves any uncertainty about whether Trump obstructed justice.

You could maybe argue that obstructing a counterintelligence investigation into electoral meddling by a foreign adversary isn't a big deal. But it very literally amounts to obstruction of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

A few months ago I was convinced that the firing of James Comey, and the warning to James Comey to “let the Flynn matter drop”, were acts of obstruction of justice, but I’m less sure of that now.

wat

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hey Commish- I mention this only because you made the same mistake twice: the word you want is “tenet”. “tenants” are people I have to deal with in property management. 

i know...on my phone and didn't pay attention to autocorrect.....sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Use the Republican refusal to try to win a decisive majority in the next election. 

Doesn't that require Dems impeaching him and sending the case to the Senate? How else can you prove GOP refusal unless you actually put them on the spot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Well that’s literally true per the summary. It states that he is not exonerated from obstruction charges. That’s a direct quote I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Barr’s summary said:

“The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."”

It takes about 5 minutes to read the summary for yourself, or you can just continue to look foolish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Well that’s literally true per the summary. It states that he is not exonerated from obstruction charges. That’s a direct quote I believe. 

Not just obstruction charges, but also “collusion.” Barr quotes the Mueller report as saying that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

That’s saying something, but there’s a whole lot it’s not saying. Even If Mueller found irrefutable proof that (1) Manafort illegally coordinated with Deripaska to help Trump win the election, and (2) Trump made a deal directly with Putin that he’d get to build Trump Tower Moscow If he weakened the NATO alliance during his presidency, those things wouldn’t contradict anything in the Barr letter.

I don’t think those things happened. I’m just cautioning that, strictly speaking, the Barr letter doesn’t say that those things didn’t happen. Until the Mueller report is released, let’s not read more exoneration into the Barr letter than is actually there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering it is nearly impossible to prove you didn't do anything especially in a conspiracy type accusation, this is the best we are going to get.   Fortunately we live in a country where the burdon of proof is on the prosecution.  You can argue obstruction, but without substantial evidence of the real crime, people don't care.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

She also just said that Trump simply wasn’t prepared to say where the infrastructure money was coming from, that “perhaps he just isn’t capable of figuring stuff like that out”, and added “I wanted to say this because we in the House of Representatives are not going to be held responsible for the President’s incompetence.” 

Damn. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/politics/2019/05/23/nancy-pelosi-house-presser-trump-intervention-sot-vpx.cnn

She is truly goading him now. After questioning his competence, she is now publicly urging Trump’s aides and family to “stage an intervention.” 

Lolol

If only the Speaker of the House had some way to hold Trump accountable for his various crimes and misdemeanors besides witty repartee.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You think so? I disagree. I think there is a method to her madness. 

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, squistion said:

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

I get your excitement but actions speak louder than words.  Words of a politician mean almost nothing without action to back the words up.  But that is just my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

God I hate CNN.  it is the worst "news" organization out there that I can reference.

I dont ever go to Fox news so I can't say if they are just as bad....but CNN is just so childish, unprofessional....I hate them with a passion.  Shade?  Really? Multiple times? Shadytown?

And yet, I still check out their website.....I can't look away.

 

Oh and also, why is Pelosi getting credit for having 5 kids in six years....How is that some kind of achievement? She had sex and got pregnant?  We should celebrate that somehow?

Edited by supermike80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Oh and also, why is Pelosi getting credit for having 5 kids in six years....How is that some kind of achievement? She had sex and got pregnant?  We should celebrate that somehow?

That indicates that she is experienced in dealing with toddlers and, by extension, an adult who has the temperament of one.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

That indicates that she is experienced in dealing with toddlers and, by extension, an adult who has the temperament of one.

Maybe..I considered that after I went on my tirade.  It wasn't written like that, but then again, this "writer" used "shade" like 8 times in her piece.

Journalism is soooo dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You sound like the Virginia GOP while dealing with their mess.  Well done.

We've been over this. Nancy Pelosi is not standing still. Her policy at this time is to continue to have the committees investigate, to issue subpoenas, and to win court battles. That will take months, not years. At the end of that time if she doesn't start impeachment proceedings then I will agree with your criticism. But right now it's still premature. She needs to get some of these people to testify publicly in order to change public opinion.

I think this is wise strategy. It's not going to satisfy anyone looking for immediate impeachment. It calls for patience. But it's not like your comparison, because she's not shirking from her duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

 

Journalism is soooo dead

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO.  CNN (the online articles), the New York Times, the Washington Post, have all been stellar during the Trump years. I've never been more impressed by the media, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

His old, tried and true, project his deficiencies on his opponent schtick. So pathetic. More pathetic that people lap it up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Maybe..I considered that after I went on my tirade.  It wasn't written like that, but then again, this "writer" used "shade" like 8 times in her piece.

Journalism is soooo dead

You’re just old. I feel the same way when I watch a commercial and say to my wife “wtf was that?” I must not be in the 18-35 demographic that they advertise to anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great. :lol:  Pelosi really is getting under his skin.

Here is a 7+ minute video, from ABC, of Trump calling on multiple senior aides to defend him and vouch for his 'calm' demeanor in the infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Nancy Pelosi said that he'd had a temper tantrum.

ABC News Politics  

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1131658573300359169 (video at link)

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Kelly O'Donnell‏ @KellyO 1h1 hour ago

“She is a mess” @realDonaldTrump on @SpeakerPelosi in what has devolved into serious personal attacks

Take that, Mr. President:

Nancy Pelosi‏ @SpeakerPelosi  11m              

When the “extremely stable genius” starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, squistion said:

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

The old I'm rubber you're glue riposte.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

You sound like the Virginia GOP while dealing with their mess.  Well done.

We've been over this. Nancy Pelosi is not standing still. Her policy at this time is to continue to have the committees investigate, to issue subpoenas, and to win court battles. That will take months, not years. At the end of that time if she doesn't start impeachment proceedings then I will agree with your criticism. But right now it's still premature. She needs to get some of these people to testify publicly in order to change public opinion.

I think this is wise strategy. It's not going to satisfy anyone looking for immediate impeachment. It calls for patience. But it's not like your comparison, because she's not shirking from her duties.

None of what you type here has anything to do with my response to your quote above which is essentially the exact same argument the GOP is making in the Virginia debacle, thus you sounding just like them :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, shader said:
1 hour ago, ericttspikes said:

The old I'm rubber you're glue riposte.  

Two old people taking pot shots at each other.  How wonderful to watch.

This is a good -- albeit unintended -- illustration of why Pelosi needs to be very careful with the words that she chooses, because it allows Trump to create a false equivalency.

Because I think most people would agree that "Crazy Nancy" and "she's a mess" are in much different league than "maybe it was a lack of confidence" and "have an intervention". But the subtleties of Pelosi's observations just get dismissed as "potshots" as soon as Trump goes nuclear. The net effect is that Pelosi's comments are made to seem much worse than they really are, while Trump's comments are simultaneously downplayed and normalized.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, squistion said:

This is great. :lol:  Pelosi really is getting under his skin.

Here is a 7+ minute video, from ABC, of Trump calling on multiple senior aides to defend him and vouch for his 'calm' demeanor in the infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Nancy Pelosi said that he'd had a temper tantrum.

ABC News Politics  

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1131658573300359169 (video at link)

I can only guess the folks behind him were there for some decent reason unrelated to his getting slavish paeons from his underlings.

George Conway’s insights on Trump’s mental state is really telling and on point especially consider who he lives with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...