Nancy Pelosi Tells Meet The Press: No Compromise With Trump On The Wall

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Frank Underwood, May 1, 2017.

  1. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Once again, Leader Nancy Pelosi exemplifies Democratic leadership with strength and resistance.

    During Sunday’s Meet the Press interview, Chuck Todd asked Leader Pelosi how she felt about giving into Trump’s border wall in exchange for the continued functioning and funding of Obamacare/ACA. Pelosi explained to Todd there is no compromise on the wall, adding Trump’s wall is a sign of his own weakness.

    Chuck Todd: Let me ask you, since you are coming from a state that might be impacted by a border wall: Is there any scenario that you will support, or that Democrats will help keep the government open, if there is money designated to build the wall.

    Nancy Pelosi: The Democrats do not support the wall. And I think the Republicans on the border states do not support the wall. The Republicans have the votes in the House and the Senate and the White House to keep government open. The burden to keep it open is on the Republicans.

    The wall, in my view is immoral, expensive, unwise and when the President says, ‘Well, I promised a wall during my campaign.’ I don’t think he said he was going to pass billions of dollars of cost of the wall onto the taxpayer.

    Chuck Todd: Well, let me ask you this, though. Look, the Budget Director of the United States said, ‘Hey elections have consequences — Republicans are in charge, as you just pointed out. But there are some Democratic spending priorities you want to push for, including that to help make sure that while Obamacare is still law, it is fully functioning.

    Here’s where Todd goes off the charts baiting Pelosi with a stupid question that starts with, “What’s wrong with...”

    Chuck Todd: What’s wrong with giving the president his money for a border wall in exchange for a priority that is not his — keeping Obamacare fully functional and funded as a priority that’s important to you? What’s wrong with that kind of horse-trading in Washington?

    Rather than calling Todd out on the ridiculousness of the question, Pelosi stays on point.

    Pelosi: What is wrong with it, that scenario... is the wall. The President talks about how tall it is; who’s going to pay for it and all the rest of that. But you have to understand this part of the country. There’s a community with a border going through it.

    The President, I think, talking about this wall, is expressing a sign of weakness, saying, ‘I can’t control our borders. I have to build a wall.’ We certainly would like to — we have the responsibility to control our borders. Building a wall is not an answer, not here or any place.

    Thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for working and speaking for the people — the way all lawmakers should.

    #NoBanNoWall

    Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/...-she-slams-while-calling-out-Trump-s-weakness
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, but she's spot on about the wall.

    And seriously, what's with these so-called "lefty" journalists at MSNBC? When did the answer to Trump become giving in to his demands? The rest of the MSNBC crew just beats the drum for war with Russia and blames Hillary's loss on Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein voters, and activists. They're part of the so-called "liberal media," yet this is the same network that fired Phil Donahue for speaking out against the Iraq War.

    They're just tools of the establishment like all corporate media.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle

    Message Count:
    3,946
    Trophy Points:
    5,636
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +5,128
    Member Since:
    September 2000
    Correct. And where was the "liberal news media" when one made up accusation and bogus investigation after another haunted Bill Clinton during the first 6 years of his presidency, the media chasing every new, preposterous allegation with naked abandon (and doing a very poor job of informing the public when the Clintons had been exonerated of this-and-that) until they finally settled on the Lewinsky affair which, though absurd, was at least technically true...?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Exactly. For all my complaints about the Clintons, I do admit they were the subject of many witch hunts.

    The real liberal media exists on the Internet these days.
     
  5. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    Just because Todd was clearing out a blockage in his brain with that particular question in that particular segment on NBC's Sunday show, doesn't mean MSNBC is compromised.

    I don't see any 'giving into Trump's demands' in this MJ banter last week where even Republican Scarborough compliments Pelosi on her MTP appearance and the crew points out the desperation and incompetence of scrambling to score a win, any win prior to the 100-day mark:



    What are you talking about? Same thing in your Chomsky thread. How is getting to the bottom of the Russian assault on American elections = drumming for war with Russia?

    That homicidal rancid c*** Putin is the one who started this mess and if any American citizens aided him - they all need to get exposed and go to jail with no immunity deal.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Oh, you'll get sensible discussions now and then. But when they fire an anti-war pundit, criticize an actress for not voting for Hillary, and suggest Democrats should compromise with Trump, they've lost credibility with me.

    Getting to the bottom of possible collusion between Trump and Russia is one thing. Making that your primary focus and referring to it as "international warfare" like Rachel Maddow has is another.

    Is war with a nuclear superpower really something we want? And if election meddling is considered "warfare," when does the Middle East get to bomb us for what we did to them?

     
  7. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    Rachel is great. Not everyone has the patience to sit through her lengthy 'storytelling' segments before she makes her point (not my case, I'm entertained by her approach), but she's one of the few people on TV really going after all the nefarious threads of this complex and disgusting story.

    The network investigating Russian collusion with Trump & infiltration of the US government will trigger nuclear war? Really? I can't even think what they'll do if Comey comes along with those indictments. Hey, why don't you just put out a welcome mat for the Russians in 2020?

    You just hate every single mention of Russia and want to minimize what they did, because you can't stand the idea Hillary Clinton might not be the only one responsible for what happened in November 2016.

    Now you sound like Trump in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Bill O'Reilly with his 'Putin's a killer? You think we're not killers?' comments.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    While referring to it as an act of warfare and giving little coverage to anything else going on in the world.

    This is the same person who espoused the establishment narrative of Jill Stein, sexists and Russia being responsible for Hillary's loss, rather than being based on bad policy or the inability to connect with workers.

    When you refer to election meddling as an act of international warfare, it sure gives the impression that you've got war on the brain.

    Minimize what they did? Cyber meddling is child's play compared to what we do around the world. Bush is a war criminal who illegally attacked Iraq, so where's his indictment?

    The Democratic establishment is more concerned with email hacks and fake news than they ever were over actual warfare. Hell, many of them are behind the military actions in Afghanistan, Syria, and even Iraq. I've mentioned a million times how Hillary is on tape saying we should have prevented elections in Palestine unless we could control the outcome, and nobody has responded to it once. And while I'm being accused of minimizing Russia's actions, it's clear to me that everybody else is minimizing what Hillary and the DNC have done. Perhaps because they cant stand the idea that Hillary Clinton lost due to corruption and failed policies.

    I believe the Trump administration should be held accountable if guilty of colluding with Russia, but not to the extent that I'm willing to minimize the more direct measures both parties use around the world.

    Except I'm not minimizing what Putin is. I know he's a murderer, and I've never said otherwise.

    But when people are more infuriated with fake news and emails than they are with bombs, guns, and drone strikes, it says a lot about their priorities. When we interfere in foreign governments, it's much more messy.
     
  9. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    You seem to be obsessed with the way people refer to things and take things literally. There is an effort on the part of the Trump team to dismiss the Russia story as fake news, so yes - it's necessary to remind people Russia assaulted the US.

    But, Maddow's supposed 'warmongering' triggering world war 3? Utter nonsense.

    As for Maddow's coverage - you obviously don't watch her show at all. She covers the Trump administration, which is what most news outlets in the US do today (even though some people would rather have them bang on about Hillary who is history at this point).

    For example, last night Maddow happened not to mention Russia at all - instead covering the effect of poor staffing on administration performance, their weak competence, removal of EPA data and Trump's seeming love of dictators.

    Your priorities are completely messed up. Impractical to the core. No wonder you voted for the spoiler candidate. I just don't see how you have the nerve to complain about Trump.

    That sounds like one of those embarrassingly worn out "I'm not racist, but..." statements. You obviously don't find treasonous activities of US citizens and an assault of a foreign power on your own country all that important at all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I'll take the "spoiler candidate" over your corporate sell out war monger any day. Democrats don't like Trump? Try running someone who isn't a corrupt neoliberal next time.

    As for Maddow's coverage of Russiagate, I'll direct you to this tidbit from The Intercept: Maddow has acknowledged that allegations of Trump-Russia collusion are unverified. But she has ignored claims that cast them in a more skeptical light. For instance, James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told NBC News on March 5 that U.S. intelligence has “no evidence” of collusion between Trump and Russia. On March 15, former CIA Director and Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell said “there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.” Those statements have gone unmentioned.

    She even speculated that Trump might withdraw troops from Russia (he didn't) because he's a Russian puppet. For someone who's not trying to trigger World War 3, she sure sounded against deescalation.

    But why would she give up red baiting when it has given her some of her highest ratings since 2008? I'll post a link to the full article from The Intercept, which shows how much coverage she's given to Russia stories vs. non-Russia stories: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12...ussia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/

    Posts like this just demonstrate the desperation of the establishment left. You can't defend what the DNC did. You can't defend Hillary's "public and private" positions, her neoconservative record, or her advocating election tampering in Palestine. You can't pretend we don't bomb the hell out of the Middle East and are directly responsible for regime change. All you can do is tell me that my "priorities are completely messed up" because I believe our actions are a bigger threat to humanity than cyber attacks could ever be. Even though I've said those actions shouldn't be condoned and that collusion is treasonous, it's not good enough because I believe there are worse things happening in the world. For what it's worth, I think your priorities are every bit as messed up as you believe mine are because you simply regurgitate the narrative of the establishment.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  11. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    @BD Calhoun The Intercept?!!! Are you kidding me? You might as well post links from Sputnik and RT. Putin's playing you like a fiddle with his propaganda machine, isn't he?

    You took the spoiler candidate and you got Trump. Congratulations.

    Yes, they are messed up. Because your vote accomplished one big fat nothing. You can posture with your "I'm above both parties" attitude and put that hideously misguided equation mark between Clinton and Trump all you want - what you did was help elect this disaster of a president.

    If everyone came along and voted against the establishment... Blah, blah, blah... Well, genius - they didn't. And with about 45% of the vote each party's candidate gets - it was impossible. But you'd rather live in your squeaky clean fantasy bubble land.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    "Propaganda machine," while Rachel Maddow only tells one side of the story and suggests any attempts at deescalation with a nuclear superpower is an indication of being a Russian puppet.

    Yes, such a shame that I didn't vote for a pro-Wall Street, pro-TPP, anti-single payer health care candidate who supported the Iraq War, the Partiot Act, DOMA, and a policy that exploded the prison population. Trump would never have been able to use a term like "super predators" and get away with it. Bush was heavily criticized for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and conservatives aren't let off the hook for their anti-gay positions.

    But call yourself a Democrat, and you'll find so-called leftists who will let you get away with anything. I recall you saying Trump supporters have a "primitive football fan mentality," but many Democrats clearly do as well.

    Well, genius, it's not up to me to tell another person how to vote anymore than they can tell me how to vote. If they want to choose between two of the shittiest candidates of all time, that's their choice.

    You can call my take on Trump and Hillary "hideously misguided" all you want. The fact is I saw two corrupt candidates willing to sell out the public in pursuit of power. No way in hell was I going to make a choice between the "lesser" of two evils. Whether or not Trump is "worse," the fact is Hillary would still have been bad for workers, foreign policy, and little would have been done to help the 29 million people still uninsured under the ACA.

    While I fully recognize what incredibly evil bastards Trump and the GOP are, I'm choosing to focus on a winning strategy to beat them instead. And that sure as hell isn't more neoliberalism.
     
  13. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    The Intercept, Russia Today, Sputnik, Jullian Assange & WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden, etc. = the Kremlin propaganda machine. To claim otherwise is either being complicit or gullible.

    Murderer Putin invaded and annexed sovereign Ukrainian territory and continues to eye other ex-USSR territory. He's recently tried to stage a coup in Montenegro to prevent it from joining the NATO. He's meddled in the US elections and possibly fixed its outcome and continues to meddle in democratic processes across Europe. A dangerous piece of filth like that needs to be kept at bay.

    And you can ridiculously call your approach a "winning strategy" all you want. You have accomplished nothing. You don't get to wash your hands of both candidates. There were only 2 electable choices whether you like that or not. By voting for a candidate with a miniscule following you ultimately vote for one of the 2 principal candidates.

    100+ days into this White House horror show and you still say "whether or not"? Your hatred of Clinton has made you completely delusional.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I can't speak to any hidden agendas they may or may not have. The fact is Wikileaks released Hillary and DNC emails showing corruption, Snowden provided transparency into the NSA's surveillance program, and the Intercept revealed Maddow's preference for Russia-themed stories lacking in skepticism from the intelligence community. There was also her suggestion that deescalating tensions with Russia would be a sign of collusion.

    When it comes to the substantive nature of that information, I'm most certainly glad it's out there. Even if some of it was obtained through nefarious means, it still revealed that the targets were also nefarious.

    I actually agree. But outside of going to war, what exactly should our response be to Russia's election meddling?

    My winning strategy is so "ridiculous" that Bernie gets cheers, while Tom Perez is booed. That's why rural hoodwinked Trump supporters tell Bernie he cares more about them than Mitch McConnell.

    What good is electability without sound policies? The people who "accomplished nothing" are the ones who conspired to make Hillary the Democratic nominee and the people who voted for her in the primaries.

    Maybe you should rethink that whole "electability" premise.

    The people who are delusional are the ones who purposely turn a blind eye to Hillary's quarter century support of policies associated with neoconservatives. A valid argument can be made that Trump's policies are even more extreme and harmful. With policies like the wall, the travel bans, and a proposed health care plan that would leave 25 million more people uninsured, I would agree. But what Democrats seem incapable of understanding is that people are tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. They practically forced this corporate shill war monger on us and said "Vote for her or you'll get Trump," and the people said "No."

    If your attacks on my principles make you feel better about yourself, more power to you. I voted my conscience. Regardless of how you frame it, I'm not responsible for how the rest of the country voted.

     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  15. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle

    Message Count:
    3,946
    Trophy Points:
    5,636
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +5,128
    Member Since:
    September 2000
    Congratulations President Perez, President Sanders and President McConnell.

    Or the ones who seem to think The Sins of Hillary trumps everything else 24/7.

    No one is actually attacking your principles. Just your blind vanity about them in contrast to the mess we're in now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    And you don't seem to be interested in them, either. Which makes you susceptible to being just another little pawn in this international crime syndicate's scheme.

    Maddow is nefarious in her editorial choices uncovering malfeasance of the Trump team and its aides? You hate her support of Clinton, so you've happily jumped on The Intercept train. Next stop - Moscow.

    Certainly not lifting the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration and enabling Exxon to put more billions into Putin's pockets. Thanks to the outcry of people like Maddow (or as your video would suggest "hysteria"), that's just a tad more difficult to pull off in this climate.

    What good are sound policies without electability? We were discussing the November 2016 elections. Bernie is great, but he wasn't one of the 2. He could have continued to have impact with either candidate in the White House. So, why enable that orange man-child to make a mockery of the US and cause greater damage? Oh, that's right. You don't see him as worse than Clinton.

    I'm stating an opinion about the said principles in a public discussion. How that makes me feel about myself is irrelevant.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Riverdale
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    And Clapper just testified he was not aware of the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign associates' possible links to Russia until James Comey confirmed its existence to the House Intel Committee in March, two weeks after Clapper's statement to NBC. The investigation that began in July 2016!

    Obviously, Clapper had not provided definitive information to NBC in early March. Not to mention the fact that any such evidence would be classified at this point and no one is allowed to discuss it in the media. Hence all the "no comments" including one from Sally Yates when asked directly about it today.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    You do want a Democrat to reclaim the presidency, right? That's why I'm actively paying attention to how the public responds to various politicians, both positively and negatively.

    The Democrats shot themselves in the foot in 2016, regardless of Russian interference.

    Right, because the sins of Hillary Clinton and the DNC had nothing to do with ushering in Trump. The DNC actually worked to elevate Trump to a serious candidate because they though he would be the easiest to beat!

    Do people ever stop to think that rhetoric matters, whether genuine or not? You have one candidate deriding free health care and college while supporting the TPP, and another saying he will protect entitlements, end the TPP, and introduce a health care plan that gives coverage to every American. That same candidate campaigns to the working class, while the other ignores them. I wonder why I harp on about the sins of Hillary so much.

    And much of the "mess we're in now" can be traced back to the failed policies and campaign strategies of the Democrats. When you sell out your base, you make it easier for a con man like Trump to win.

    That's something I'm hoping will change as progressives start to primary the corrupt incumbents. It's going to take grass roots activism to beat Trump, not establishment politics.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  19. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle

    Message Count:
    3,946
    Trophy Points:
    5,636
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +5,128
    Member Since:
    September 2000
    Non-sequiturs are delicious.
     
  20. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +493
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Agendas aside, what I'm interested in are the facts such as the content of the emails. I already told you I'm not swayed by fake news like "pizzagate," so how am I "susceptible" to being a pawn?

    Next stop- Moscow? I see why you like Maddow so much since you're both fans of hyperbole.

    That said, I wasn't referring to her when I referred to the nefarious ways of obtaining information. That was in regards to how Snowden exposed the NSA's activities, and how Wikileaks obtained the emails through Russia.

    I agree with that.

    People were aware of the allegations that Trump colluded with Russia before Maddow's over the top coverage of it.

    I vote for a platform, not a party. Other people can do the same if they're so inclined. The two major parties only represent a fraction of the ideas that exist, and I don't believe we should be resigned to just two choices.

    If the Democrats were in favor of a platform supported by Sanders or Stein, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But instead of taking stock of their losses, the establishment is choosing to stay the course.

    I don't? That's funny, I thought I said "A valid argument can be made that Trump's policies are even more extreme and harmful. With policies like the wall, the travel bans, and a proposed health care plan that would leave 25 million more people uninsured, I would agree. That said, I still recognize how the establishment forced Hillary on us while she talked about having a public and private position and expected voters to turn out.

    Nice to know everything about you is irrelevant as you deride me for voting for the "spoiler candidate" while questioning how I even have the nerve to complain about Trump.

    Next time I cast my vote or complain about someone, I'll be sure to get your approval first.

    That's fine, as long as we're getting every angle of the story as it's released. For example, Trump's recent firing of Comey just made him look even more guilty.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017

Share This Page