What was the context of what she said?Don't try to pull this nonsense here, please. You purposely cut off the second half of that sentence to mislead and alter what she said
What was the context of what she said?Don't try to pull this nonsense here, please. You purposely cut off the second half of that sentence to mislead and alter what she said
Here's a video:
The context is she wants a strong Republican Party that will not rubberstamp trump, that will stand up to him. She is saying that to trash the current GOP who is Trumps whipping boy.
Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President. Her father arrived from Jamaica in 1961—mother from India arrived in 1960
Neither parent was a legal resident for 5 years prior to Harris's birth, a requirement for naturalization
Kamala was raised in Canada
Don't try to pull this nonsense here, please. You purposely cut off the second half of that sentence to mislead and alter what she said.the said America needs a Republican Party that isn't a rubberstamp of Trump and stands up to him.
So what I hear is your only criticism of her isn't even something she said? Cool.
This is what she actually said:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426705-pelosi-tells-republicans-take-back-your-party
I mean, she is speaking to republicans in that speech. Would she saying "your party was never good" change much? It was a call to armsHere's a video:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1088170570813005826?s=20
Any supposedly progressive politician entertaining the myth that the GOP was once honorable is....alarming to say the least
Which candidates do you guys actually like? Too much negativity in this thread.
She didnt call them honorable *NOW* in how they are voting and acting. She told them to grow a spine and to stop Trump. She isn't praising Republicans and how they are acting now matter how many times you try to spin it that way. She is trying to get Republicans to override Trump to vote to bring open back the government.She literally says exactly what I posted in that link you posted. The idea that there are honorable republicans that need to resist trump is literally peak centrist, my god. She quoted Reagan recently too.
Here's a video:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1088170570813005826?s=20
Any supposedly progressive politician entertaining the myth that the GOP was once honorable is....alarming to say the least
She didnt call them honorable *NOW* in how they are voting and acting she told them to grow a spine and to stop Trump. She isn't praising Republicans and how they are acting now matter how many times you try to spin it that way. She is trying to get Republicans to override Trump to vote to bring open back the government.
Which is...s doing her fucking job.
She isn't being nice and praising them in how they are acting and voting. She is calling on them to grow a spine and stand up to Trump.Yes I'm sure the party that is almost always in agreement with trump will rise up to stop him because she was nice to them. It's incredibly naive. Republicans will never do anything meaningful to impede their guy.
That doesn't make it better, actually. It's the usual decorum nonsense and the belief that the GOP has gotten hijacked by Trump. It's the fable that Trump is an aberration. This is what the GOP are, the fetid deadspawn of rotten bigots in a death cult. The "taking back" part is just a call for a return to decorum, not a demand that they stop being bigots.The context is she wants a strong Republican Party that will not rubberstamp trump, that will stand up to him. She is saying that to trash the current GOP who is Trumps whipping boy.
It was her calling on Republicans to vote with Dems to override Trump and open up the government.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) during a speech at the Conference of Mayors on Wednesday night told Republicans in attendance to "take back your party."
"To the Republicans in the crowd, I say: take back your party, the Grand Old Party," Pelosi said at the annual gathering of U.S. mayors. "America needs a strong Republican Party, not a rubber stamp."
Pelosi's comments came on the 33rd day of the ongoing partial government shutdown, which became the longest in U.S. history almost two weeks ago.
Warren's campaign is DOA. The DNA thing was her Dean Scream. Her favorable numbers are pretty awful
Whats your solution to getting a clean spending bill passed with no wall funding with a veto proof majority if Trump continues to prefer just watching the world burn?That doesn't make it better, actually. It's the usual decorum nonsense and the belief that the GOP has gotten hijacked by Trump. It's the fable that Trump is an aberration. This is what the GOP are, the fetid deadspawn of rotten bigots in a death cult. The "taking back" part is just a call for a return to decorum, not a demand that they stop being bigots.
That doesn't make it better, actually. It's the usual decorum nonsense and the belief that the GOP has gotten hijacked by Trump. It's the fable that Trump is an aberration. This is what the GOP are, the fetid deadspawn of rotten bigots in a death cult. The "taking back" part is just a call for a return to decorum, not a demand that they stop being bigots.
How do you get a clean spending bill through congress without Republicans?This - thank you for writing it out better than I could. Anyone appealing to the decency of the GOP as if they are any different than trump is a dolt.
This. It takes both parties to open the government back up. Calling upon Republicans to pressure their elected officials to vote on reopening the government is a lot better than to do nothing.How do you get a clean spending bill through congress without Republicans?
Copying Trumps tactics of just crossing your arms and not doing anything is not an answer here.
The fact they have no alternate answer of how to re-open to the government without the wall without just sitting and doing nothing like Trump is doing and hope he changes his mind is very telling.This. It takes both parties to open the government back up. Calling upon Republicans to pressure their elected officials to vote on reopening the government is a lot better than to do nothing.
Like, we all know that Republican voters are culpable for this mess. I'm curious as to what people think she should have done/said instead.
Can't stand this guy. It's like he's living on another world separate from reality.
The fact they have no alternate answer of how to re-open to the government without the wall without just sitting and doing nothing like Trump is doing and hope he changes his mind is very telling.
She needs a 2/3rds majority to override Trump's veto. Trump's poll numbers are crashing.This - thank you for writing it out better than I could. Anyone appealing to the decency of the GOP as if they are any different than trump is a dolt.
Compromising, Conceding??There's already pressure mounting on the republicans. Appealing to the sense of decency of those people is a lost cause (and alarming to see from an OPPOSITION LEADER). Don't concede anything and let the public opinion continue to turn on the republicans. They will only break with trump if things get really bad for them with their base, and that's what has started to happen. Compromising when you have all the leverage is moronic.
Compromising, Conceding??
What the hell are you talking about.
She hasn't given an INCH on the wall. She called on Republicans to grow a spine and agree to their bill.
Do you have any idea what the word compromise or conceding even means? She has stood firm on not a penny for the wall.She's reinforcing a sense of decorum and the myth of the hijacked GOP that she doesn't need to.
YupBernie and Warren. Theyre the two I would enthusiastically support instead of just sorta grumbling about it.
Do you have any idea what the word compromise or conceding even means? She has stood firm on not a penny for the wall.
Appealing to their sense of morality isn't going to do it; they don't have one.Whats your solution to getting a clean spending bill passed with no wall funding with a veto proof majority if Trump continues to prefer just watching the world burn?
You fail to leave out the fact that not one penny of that is for the wall. Democrats have never been opposed to any border security, they are opposed to a big fat ugly wall that is a symbol of racism.Apparently they're willing to offer 5 billion for border security and the government isn't even open, which me and others have gone over ad nauseum in the other thread. Not to mention she's an opposition leader willing to buy into the bullshit respectability angle of the opposing party. Excuse me for not having faith in someone like that to lead for any meaningful change
Ok, how do you get their votes then for a veto proof majority?Appealing to their sense of morality isn't going to do it; they don't have one.
The same way we get to a 50%+1 primary majority by using barely veiled epithets against everyone who doesn't share fully 100% of our views, since trying to whip votes up in any way is apparently off limits: Fucking MagicOk, how do you get their votes then for a veto proof majority?
So you and the Democrats are opposed to "symbols of racism", but fine with money going towards "border security" and the not at all racist things that Trump will be able to do with that money, like funding more child concentration camps?You fail to leave out the fact that not one penny of that is for the wall. Democrats have never been opposed to any border security, they are opposed to a big fat ugly wall that is a symbol of racism.
I'm excited the California primary is earlier this year and has a chance to have some sway.Once more candidates have declared I would love it if they all would collectively boycott Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for hijacking the democratic process. It's so unfair that these 3 states (you could include Nevada too maybe) always go first and effectively end up choosing the nominee. If people want equal rights and voting for all they should call out the bullshit that these states pull. I can't believe no other states have tried to fight them on it either.
All the ones who have declared already are campaigning in them, too late.Once more candidates have declared I would love it if they all would collectively boycott Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for hijacking the democratic process. It's so unfair that these 3 states (you could include Nevada too maybe) always go first and effectively end up choosing the nominee. If people want equal rights and voting for all they should call out the bullshit that these states pull. I can't believe no other states have tried to fight them on it either.
Iowa/SC are actually good states to have up first, they're on the smaller side and are representative of crucial demos within the party and with swing voters.Once more candidates have declared I would love it if they all would collectively boycott Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for hijacking the democratic process. It's so unfair that these 3 states (you could include Nevada too maybe) always go first and effectively end up choosing the nominee. If people want equal rights and voting for all they should call out the bullshit that these states pull. I can't believe no other states have tried to fight them on it either.
No, it's not. White midwestern voters are a critical swing demographic for winning the general, Black southern voters are a critical Dem demographic for winning the primary.LOL no those are bullshit explanations they decided on long after the system was in place. Having the same states go first every single year is un-democratic. It's probably too late for 2020 already since Warren and Harris and others are already fellating voters in Iowa and NH but it'd be nice for someone to have some balls and call it out for what it is.
Which candidates do you guys actually like? Too much negativity in this thread.
I like Bernie. But We have pretty good candidates. Beto and Kamala aren't terrible compared to the rest of the party.Which candidates do you guys actually like? Too much negativity in this thread.
Kamala Harris seems to be drawing the most fire and ire from the extremes and she's handling it well. She had a difficult and controversial job and the way she handled it is not only acceptable but commendable. Being President in 2020 and going forward is not going to be easy. Her interview with Maddow was too brief but was good. Although, it's her professional conduct that I'm looking at, not how casual she can act. I'm looking forward to longer interviews.Which candidates do you guys actually like? Too much negativity in this thread.