-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nancy Pelosi mocks AOC & left-wing opposition to Border funding bill: “They have their public whatever and their Twitter world”
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
How is it not? I don't get how it's difficult to understand. This isn't about convicting trump, convicting him during his term is the real long shot. In the end, that's not the most important thing. The most important thing now is to manage the narrative. Make it more difficult for republicans and republican outlets to keep on with their gish-galloping, and make it easier for leftists by allowing them to go deep on specific subjects, instead of needing to output quality on a billion different subjects.
The theater is hugely important, it's the most important thing in politics, that should be obvious.
It ties in as it is marketing for your narrative. You can keep the focus on the bad things trump has done / how bad trump is, plus how bad the republican party is for supporting it. There are so many opportunities for it. The trials will also serve to legitimize the narrative.
Really though, all this is just basic marketing shit, I don't understand why I need to explain this - it should be obvious.
Doing nothing works 100% in your disadvantage because the GOP then has won on the narrative front - nothing is being done officially, so the narrative of trump impeachment can't be legitimized from that angle (and it's an important angle)
The reason why it's not easy for Democrats to do, is because most of them don't want to do it, as it was perfectly put in Rupetta's post.
Last edited:
AOC needs to tweet that she hates impeachment. That should get Nancy to do something!
Since you have more answers than other people here itchthyosaurus, how are you putting them into action to put an end to the camps and can you share your resources so we can get this done quicker?
She'll have done her constitutional duty and he'll have to carry the stain of impeachment for the rest of his presidency, as he should.
He won't be indicted, we know that, but at least the Dems can say they stood up to the most corrupt President in history to the best of their (at the time, limited) abilities.
Not pursuing impeachment means setting a precedent that a sitting President can get away with anything that Trump did, because there were no consequences in his case.
It's so infuriating arguing with people who choose to cheer Pelosi on ignoring her duties as Speaker and the role of Congress as a check on the executive branch. Why the hell would anyone willingly shill the Democratic establishment when it's proven time and time again it's absolute trash and only better than the Party of White Supremacists on a surface level?
The other insane part is people doing calculus as if impeachment wouldn't bring any new information to light, or do anything to shift momentum or perapective on Trump. As if, should impeachment be invoked, the senate would have a vote the very next day and exonerate Trump.
Pelosi is being a political and moral coward, not to mention derelict in duty, and she should be raked over the coals for it.
Pelosi is being a political and moral coward, not to mention derelict in duty, and she should be raked over the coals for it.
From the outside, it seems like the Democratic Party in the US is the conservative party, and the Republicans are modern-day Nazis. It really sucks that it's such an oligarchy where money determines everything and that there is only two parties, both of them tied to capital and racism.
I've given you my answers. What's sad is that you've hit a brick wall and rather than work with me on it you're taking it on me for having more understanding of this issue than you do.
I've heard again and again that the left are better than "moderates," that when they're in charge they'll change this country for good and do things those moderates can't. But when given an opportunity to prove this the answers you give me is that it's ok to vote against keeping what minute support those poor people in the concentration camps have to survive a while longer, impeachment and nothing. No plans to get ICE throw in prison, no plans to do better then Pelosi at putting Trump in chains and no plans for helping those immigrants put their lives back together.
The left have their own academics, political strategists, activist leaders and politicians - what are they saying which fill in these gaps?
Nuh uh, 4-d Democratic chess champion Pelosi is a master of strategy.
Let's get real, republicans would impeach for jaywalking if it was a Democrat president.
There's a built in fix for this. I suggest using it. It makes threads like this better.
Still can't understand that these people are still defending the blank check cut by Nancy and Chuck.
I mean how naive are they?
Then they turn around and tutt-tutt justice Democrats for not doing anything.
I swear the spinn this fucker has is stoooopid.
I can't really comprehend how they can stab for funding of concentration camps.
Honestly I don't see how some posters up in here with their walloftext replies.
That's why I always say in these threads: DO YOUR FUCKING JOB NANCY!
They have the power to do something about this right now yet she chooses not to do anything and when they lose the house next year, then they really won't be able to do shit. The sooner Pelosi and the old guard are voted out and people like Cortez take positions of power the better off the country and the party will be.
Get these relics of an age that died in November of 2016 out of here!
Lol. Yeah it was either fund the kapos' overtime or THE CHILDREN WILL STARVE!!
This is probably the silliest take in a thread full of them.
What is Ichtyosaurus's education, career, and general background? When reading someone write with a resigned condescension for having to educate rubes, as is frequently their posture in any thread discussing anything tangentially related to big-D Democratic politics, I prefer to know if there's anything warranting such an attitude.
I went back to read all of your replies to me and the only thing you've said to me is that I wasn't giving enough attention to McConnell and Republicans for authoring the bills, that I should be upset at Schumer more than Pelosi and that I don't understand how congress works. Every one of these points is erroneous considering the work that I'm actually doing to help . Understanding the academic viewpoint and Pelosi's strategy doesn't make it good enough. I'm asking what are your proactive actions? Not what you are discussing online but what you are doing to help the communities affected directly so that if you have groups that are better we can direct more attention to them.
Yes being alive is better than being dead. If you're going to give the people that are responsible for the death more money with no direction of where it will go other than the discretion of the assholes already responsible, you will have a lot of survivors with needs that won't be addressed both currently and in the future. That's assuming that we actually know for certain the number of those that have already died. Also assuming that without such oversight the people in the camps will have access to professionals to assess what resources they need in the future. How does this bill help those that have been harmed already and will be harmed in the future other than keeping them alive? What sexual assault survivor resources does it offer them? How will the passage of this bill help the children that have had their development severly and possibly permanently hindered? Was a mechanism put in place to track those that die from complications afterward? What future groundwork has been laid to help democrats mitigate suffering in the event that the Republicans maintain or increase power in the next election?
Last edited:
He's very good at posting I guess, he has double the posts of either of us and yet he's been here less than a year and he goes on 10 hour plus posting sprees every single day without fail lol
He doesn't have a real answer because politics is entirely online for him, not a thing that affects real people and I'd bet any amount of money he hasn't actually gone to a protest or organised in real life with like minded people, how could he when has to keep upping his absurdly high ERA post count (seriously guys click on his profile, he's made 200 posts in like two to three days alone.)
Last edited:
I haven't read and probably don't agree with everything this person has said, but the "Yo, this person posts a lot" insult is lame as all hell.
Maybe I'm wrong, and just to say I think the bill could have been better, but this doesn't seem to be a blank check. The money here is allocated to specific departments who have requested it for reasonably specific reasons.
I'm pointing it out because it's very indicative of their character, they're always complaining about how the left doesn't have solutions or plans and won't take action, meanwhile they spend literal hours posting on a videogame forum about politics, it highlights the disconnect between their views and actions.
Plus it's a bit of a warning to others because Dino will never ever let you get the last word, he'll ignore any points you make to pedantically focus on one part of your post or just change the subject to something else, it's quite absurd.
Oh they've been on that list for months. I've seen enough of their shitposting in Israel/Palestine & Ilhan Omar threads to know that those posters aren't arguing in good faith.
I don't know if this person argues in bad faith or not. I just think people, in general, should focus on the arguments made and not the people behind them because at the end of the day we don't really know anyone here. However, I recognise that your argument seems to be less flippant than I immediately thought.
If that's a literal statement, if they're genuinely advocating for posters here to be more involved personally in political systems (protesting, canvassing and whatnot), then I think it's reasonable to ask what they've done in their life. I may have missed something, but I didn't see a literal statement like that. However, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
I mean that's what I figured but I'll be generous and say maybe there's a good reason they can't participate outside of the forum. The condescension could be from that.
But this makes it annoying even it there is a legit reason. I have a friend with severe anxiety that wanted to join me at some of the events I've gone to but just can't once the time comes and that's ok. They don't yell at other people about how little they're doing or care though.
My opinion is they're not sincere with the arguments at All.
He tut-tutted the kids who protested Diane Feinstein and then when Feinstein locked her ford the next day, he said that they should have expected this. Ichthyosaurus wants people to be engaged in a very specific way which doesn't threaten the status quo. He even said that he sides with the status quo.
I can't really get a read in Ichthy, but kirblar is a very committed neoliberal (and I do mean that in the more narrow, academic sense, I.e. supportive of using markets as a means to provide many/most basic services, but with a safety net, not the "anything I don't like" sense it often has now). I think he's rather wrong and too plugged in/committed to the system as it is, but I don't think he argues in bad faith, just with different priors.
There are no prohibitions in the passed bill preventing the white House from unilaterally using the funds in any way they want. It's a blank check.
He thinks that we need to take our time and maybe, just maybe, in around 2 decades we can do something. He thinks the long game is president over all else. He blatantly said that he doesn't care that I have a non-zero chance that I will die by the end of this year because of healthcare costs because he thinks the long-term is infinitely better than the short term. My death, or the death of anyone along the way have already been calculated as "thoughts and prayers", but necessary "thoughts and prayers". Hell, the probably like it that way since as a statistic, they can do whatever they want rather than a voice that contradicts them.
Is that so? Intuitively, that doesn't seem correct to me because it would be such a huge loophole, but I am ignorant in this area so you could be right. When I read the bill, it says that it allocates money in specific departments for specific things. However, can the white house just take that money and, for instance, build the wall, or allocate all that money for more guards or straight up not use it? This just seems weird to me, given that the bill, at times, is super specific about how it's money should be used, for example:
"None of the funds made available in this Act under the heading "Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families—Refugee and Entrant Assistance" may be obligated to a grantee or contractor to house unaccompanied alien children (as such term is defined in section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2))) in any facility that is not State-licensed for the care of unaccompanied alien children, except in the case that the Secretary determines that housing unaccompanied alien children in such a facility is necessary on a temporary basis due to an influx of such children or an emergency"
"Pelosi aide Drew Hammill emphasized to HuffPost that when Pelosi talked to Trump before the border bill passed, the president really was rattled by bad press and claimed he was open to humanitarian concessions."
LMAO.
How many dimensions of Risk is this where the strategy is "we believed the President was being honest"
It's OK Itchy will be here soon enough to provide 1,500 words on why trusting the vagaries of Trump's current mood is the smart thing to do and why idiot leftists that don't trust Trump's claims are the reason why he'll win in 2020.
Well Trump will win because all the Bernie Bros will vote for Trump again, and Russia, and my feet hurt.
"Trump sounds open to concessions when we have him alone and then instantly reverses the second Miller or anyone else gets to him" has been happening the entire fucking presidency.
Hmmm, I don't know. You may know more than me, but I would have to do more reading to see how easy that would be to declare an emergency and if that has any congressional oversight. And, even then, in this case, I wouldn't use that to categorize the entire bill as a blank check. To me, "You can use a slightly different process in the context of an emergency (even if the process of emergency can be abused)" is different than my understanding of a blank check which is "you can do anything".
A White wealthy pathological liar still gets the benefit of the doubt that he's going to keep his promises, this time!! Trump won y'all.
This is besides the point of this thread but I can't help it. When has that or, "I'm pretty intelligent" ever been said confidently and it turn out to not be overestimated?
It would be a massacre for the Democrats if they started the impeachment procedures now. Surely you can see that.
All she is trying to do is stall the cry for impeachment (from a minority of people). And rightly so. The Mueller testimony is everything. If that doesn't change the public opinion then it is over. If Mueller comes out and says things like he wanted Congress to make a decision and he, therefore didn't. If Pelosi then hesitates then she is weak. If she would act then she played it smartly.
But they (Pelosi and Schumer) made a huge blunder with those concentration camps.
And she is not handling the balancing act of moderates and progressives in the party very well, but that is not a simple thing to do as well.
I mean, Mueller has pretty much already said these things. The dude went on national television and basically told congress to do their fucking job already.
Pelosi was like "nah we shouldn't impeach"
It would not. It would do nothing but good even if it wasn't ultimately successful. It's also the morally right thing to do, and her job.
They also can't do anything to stop the concentration camps because by not impeaching they're telling Trump he can break any laws he wants and they will do nothing. He could put the citizenship question on the census tomorrow. What are they gonna do? Comment how they hope the voters vote him out?
maybe they'd have a nice laugh about how stupid he is for basically self-impeaching as he continues to destroy our democracy
It's pretty simple not to undermine/attack/insult the colleagues in your party.
Have Nancy and Chuck followed up on any of the subpoenas that have been ignored? Pathetic.
That had zero impact.
We need specific answers from the man itself regarding.
Mueller did you wanted Barr to make the decision about Trump?
Why didn't you interview Trump?
Why didn't you let Junior and others go?
There are many questions that are important.