General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSay what Nancy Pelosi?
Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)
On edit: Comments by Rep. Pelosi were taken out of context.
And Tribe has apologized for getting it wrong.
Link to tweet
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)This is TERRIBLE! Did she misspeak?
George II
(67,782 posts)....that one sentence was only part of everything she said, and it's misrepresented.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,398 posts)The linked article shows that Pelosi was just talking common sense. She's right in directing the focus on policy, not people. Leadership should focus on what needs to be done first, then focus on who will lead. I'm okay with that. BTW, Pelosi's influence DOES need to be challenged. The fact that Dem leadership is aging is an important consideration. Younger leaders are sorely needed, the sooner the better.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)The Democratic caucus just voted for her to lead again. That is their choice and they apparently like her and think she is a good leader. So people on DU or any other blog really don't get to change that.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.
Thats so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal, Pelosi said.
Better pay. Better jobs and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. And we have unity in our party. You saw it with the fight on the Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate."
CrispyQ
(36,112 posts)Put Al Franken, John Oliver & Jon Stewart in a room for an hour & you'll have a ton of better slogans to choose from.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)elleng
(129,772 posts)Tribe said what he said without knowledge of her full statement?
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)He's human and he made a mistake.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why is it so easy to absolve Tribe but not a long time DUer who afaik has never maligned a Democrat or said a mean thing to anyone here?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Why is it so easy to attack Democrats and let the abuse go on without check? If the poster seeks absolution, then perhaps he should take the corrective steps necessary to achieve it.
An apology and a retraction, otherwise, he stands here still maligning Democrats and saying mean things that are not true and which are right wing in origin. Not sure why it's not so easy for some to defend Democrats, but so easy for them to absolve reflexively anyone seeking to malign Democrats, particularly when they're female and in leadership roles.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:21 AM - Edit history (2)
I DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE APOLOGY OR HE BURNS!
You can't be too careful when it comes to suspicious tweets. There's no telling what he'll post next if he's allowed to make a mistake and isn't punished properly.
He might start subjecting us to more KITTEH PICS!
You guys are too much. Next I'll be hearing how the op turned Nancy into a newt. Because he hates Democratic women or some such nonsense. You know, because he posted a tweet from a respected Democrat who made a mistake. Or read some ridiculous long winded lecture about how a long time DUer could be a troll or a bot. The concern that loyal Democrats who've been here thirteen years could have been playing us all along is silly. I'll be certain to give it all the consideration it deserves.
Welp, I've had enough fun for one night, the Perseid meteor showers are calling so I'm done here. I have just enough synergie left for a short stargazing session. Bon nuit!
*Disclaimer: This is sarcasm, I don't think the op is a witch and I don't want to burn anyone. The FSM expressly forbids it. I also don't think he hates Democratic women. Again that is It's part of my religion, we have to express our frustration by being sarcastic at least 5 times a day.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)and the letter of the TOS. People who reflexively post tweets based on things they have not read or don't understand are no laughing matter, it's how RW fox produced propaganda is disseminated by those cackling in glee when Democratic women are attacked.
The trolls and the bots who engage in this abuse are far too much, but they do seem to amuse themselves greatly.
He made a mistake, and if he's supposed to be given the sacrament of absolution as was requested, then why, yes he should probably retract and apologize for attacking Democrats.
I don't know what all the religious tangents are about, but the absolution that's demanded requires a few things, and we as Democrats don't find these sorts of attacks on Democrats to be a laughing matter.
Subjecting us to Right Wing nonsense to attack the Right's favorite targets by using Fox distortions to do so is something that rational people who support Democrats should not have a problem with.
Makes one wonder why so much mockery and so much religiosity defends such an obvious malicious attack.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)About the first 50 responses were pointing out the error. The assumption was that he would want to know the actual quote. He chose not to correct or even acknowledge the error. Naturally people are going to wonder why, particularly when it departs from his previous practice.
Contrary to what you claimed in another post in this thread, correcting factual errors is not bullying, even if those facts are inconvenient.
George II
(67,782 posts)....hasn't.
elleng
(129,772 posts)maybe tired of being called upon so often?
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)He just didn't click on the link.
The question comes at the end of the interview, and it is clearly directed at finding out whether she thinks she'll be chosen Speaker again. (A few minutes earlier, he had been suggesting that she was too old and that younger leadership might be more effective.)
He gave her 30 seconds to answer the following "if so" question:
"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"
elleng
(129,772 posts)and Tribe should have too.
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)But, yes, it is especially surprising when someone like Tribe does that.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)This is ridiculous.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)tblue37
(64,855 posts)was unimportant:
PELOSI: Its so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)pnwmom
(108,914 posts)who watched the interview and heard his question in context.
First, he asked her whether she and the other Democratic leaders weren't too old for their positions.
Then he asked her to take the last 30 seconds to speculate on the odds that the Dems would win in 2018 and "if so" would she be Speaker. And she replied that that wasn't important -- that she wanted to talk about ISSUES.
After telling her she had 30 seconds left he asked her:
"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)mid-terms were unimportant...she said not such thing.
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)I would remind you that Nancy Pelosi is a Democract. We support Democrats.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Pelosi: 'Unimportant' to win midterm elections: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/344552-pelosi-unimportant-to-win-midterm-elections
still_one
(91,807 posts)win in 2018 was bullshit, and it was MORE important to actually WIN on the issues, instead of playing estimating games.
This is the same distortion and bullshit they did to Hillary
Will those that did that, congratulations, you gave us trump, and a republican congress
tblue37
(64,855 posts)PELOSI: Its so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.
still_one
(91,807 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)they want to win? One wonders.
countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)spooky3
(34,228 posts)Poorly written article by The Hill, and disappointing that Tribe wasn't more careful.
spooky3
(34,228 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)was referring to WASTING TIME estimating the chances of Democrats, and instead focused on winning on the issues.
It is really getting f**king tiresome this Pelosi bashing bullshit, that will go out of the way to take things out of context and distort exactly what she said and meant.
Gee, where did this happen before? Oh, I remember, the bullshit how bad Hillary was, and there was no difference between trump and Hillary, and the same old ad nauseam bullshit:
"During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.
Thats so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal, Pelosi said.
Better pay. Better jobs and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. And we have unity in our party. You saw it with the fight on the Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate."
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.
Thats so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal, Pelosi said.
I thought she was ignoring the first part and only addressing the part I bolded about her running for speaker or becoming speaker again. I think she was saying whether she is or not isn't important.
I seriously doubt she thinks it's 'unimportant' for Democrats to win midterms.
still_one
(91,807 posts)intentional distortion is really garbage, and the same crap was done to Hillary
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)Disgusted and pissed off, yes, surprised, no. Some just can't seem to, or care to, overcome their 'narrow' and antiquated mindset.
lapucelle
(18,016 posts)and if they win, will you run as speaker?" was the Fox News host's actual query.
Pelosi was side-stepping Wallace's demand for a prediction about her personal future. That prediction is what's unimportant. Laurence Tribe should be ashamed of himself for repeating The Hill's distortion of the question she was answering. I thought he was supposed to be smart. And The Hill needs to be called out for its inaccurate clickbait headline
Here's the full exchange, as per the Fox News Sunday transcript:
WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?
PELOSI: Its so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/30/conway-on-white-house-operations-health-care-reform.html
still_one
(91,807 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)those who want to harass her.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)Makes you wonder why?
WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?
PELOSI: Its so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And thats what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/30/conway-on-white-house-operations-health-care-reform.html
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)Edited to include this or deleted.
Tactical Peek
(1,202 posts)Fox News transcripts are a PITA to find usually.
I think one needs a transcript to be able to evaluate what people actually say and what it's about.
She was just pushing Wallace's fishing pole away and getting back to her mission of talking about the D message addressing issues confronting Congress that will lead to the next election battles.
The Hill had some damn poor editing if you ask me.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I follow him on twitter and he's usually level headed.
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)Context matters. This headline was misleading. The misogyny against her is at a ridiculous level right now.
lapucelle
(18,016 posts)from the Republican side given Pelosi's masterful performance in leading her caucus throughout the last six weeks. Of course they want her out or marginalized.
What's troubling is that a number of non-Republicans are stoking the anti-Pelosi talking points.
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)I expect it from the GOP but we can't be eating our own. We have to unite.
demmiblue
(36,712 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...we'd see that she was referring to her running for Speaker if/when Democrats gain control of the House.
Context is everything.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Gets a president who rules through 140 characters.
Docreed2003
(16,793 posts)Cadfael
(1,291 posts)The enormous drawbacks of Twitter when trying to have substantive policy discussion. It's really only conducive to whipping up a frenzy....
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Why?
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Please don't question my allegiance to the party.
still_one
(91,807 posts)hunter
(38,240 posts)It's one of those words like "tolerance."
I live a zero tolerance life, I do not tolerate those who merely "tolerate."
And I've allegiance to no man or human institution. (Raised as a Jehovah's Witness and then Quaker, human allegiances will buy a person a first class ticket to hell... I was the weird kid in class sitting out the Pledge of Allegiance.)
I've never voted anything but Democratic for no other reason then it was the right thing to do. I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first presidential election.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Your link is to an article in which Pelosi said her own leadership position wasn't as important as the party's focusing on issues. By now you know the Hill title and your post is misleading because a dozen or more people have told you what she actually said.
So what is your concern?
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I put it out for discussion. I posted his tweet. The discussion was excellent. Go away now.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)You just told Bains to..."Go away now."
Your comment is dismissive to a female member of DU. Please apologize.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)You apologize to me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sheshe2
(83,128 posts)Wow, I thought you were different. I was wrong.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)of a poster because she was a woman. You don't know me or know what I am thinking. Yet you made that accusation. I suggest you do a search of my posts for the last 13 years to find out the truth.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)That was wrong and dismissive, sorry yet it was.
You also did not post Pelosi's full quote. It is sad that you took what she said out of context. Words have meaning.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He didn't leave anything out or take it out of context.
How about you stop unfairly accusing long time posters of having some sort of ulterior motive and being sexist?
This is beyond absurd. The op has been here longer than most and to my knowledge has never maligned Democrats. He doesn't deserve to be attacked for reposting a tweet and asking a question.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)miss ya!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #110)
Post removed
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)That article is the context.
Those who took on the arduous task of reading even the first 200 of those 500 words immediately saw the title was misleading. It's unfortunate Tribe did not.
For some reason the OP has refused to acknowledge the error, and for some reason you demonstrate no concern with the subject matter.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It has to be, that's the only explanation. In that case some applause is in order.
Very well done! Bravo! Encore!
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)and truth. There is a certain segment of the population for whom that still matters.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They should really show more concern. But not too much.
Kind of like the three bears, not too much concern or too little.
No, what we need here is just the right amount of concern.
Otherwise people will be concerned.
How's that? Did I pass the test? Am I concerned enough?
Let me know, because I can act more concerned if necessary.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)segments of the population. The rest, apparently not so much.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)to suggest they do there either.
Note that in those other discussions, the context we were expected to understand was not in fact there, whereas in this case posters have provided the actual quote as rebuttal.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)reality. This is an actual mis(quote), and we're expected to swallow it because some Dems can be smeared for sport.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Trump and those who voted for him take to it like a fish to water.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)part. But I see it here in this thread, too, as you noted also.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I post tweets like that every day, multiple times a day. You should alert on it if you think it was wrong. You are making a huge mountain out of a molehill here.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's not a badge of honor to post tweets that are factually incorrect and which attack Democrats.
Tribe made a mistake here, and it's one that anyone who clicked the link and read the article learned pretty quickly. Why dig in and not just retract?
betsuni
(25,060 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Females don't get special treatment. That would be sexist.
Response to tkmorris (Reply #147)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
melman
(7,681 posts)Apparently the poster was unable to answer it.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)Translation: first things first -- then she gives examples of what's important.
His tweet is just click / flame bait-- Establishment bad mumbo jumbo.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...which was NOT in the tweet.
"Say what Nancy Pelosi?"
That's not just "putting it out for discussion"!!!
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)That's putting it out for discussion.
George II
(67,782 posts)"Say what?" is an implication of "I don't believe you said that". But of course I don't want to tell you what to post.
Urban Dictionary for "Say what?":
Short for: "What did you say?"
Usually used when hearing something unpleasant.
Goodnight.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)That I hate Nancy Pelosi? What? This is a huge nothing in the long run even if she did say it ( which I agree was taken way out of context) because no one will even remember it in 2018.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A term used when a person wishes for a surprising or astonishing statement to be repeated, or simply to show their surprise at said statement. To accurately model the timbre of the phrase, omit a high pitch during the last portion of the phrase in addition to stretching the "what" as long as deemed necessary by the user: Say (In high pitch) Whaaaat?!!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=say%20what
I'm sure that was just an oversight. Right?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)Thank you.
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Won't do a damn thing to correct it?
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I was going to take it down but after these attacks I will not. If you don't like the post---alert on it. Tired of this shit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're one of the most loyal Dems on this site. Just ignore the personal attacks.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)All I can say it Jesus Christ, WTF is going on here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seems to be almost instinctual at this point.
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #68)
Post removed
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)What the hell are you talking about? It was a simple OP. Get over it. Or alert on it.
Waiting now for attacks on my puppy/kitten threads in the Pets section.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm going to have to check out those threads, can't be too careful these days...
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)You were it going to take it down because you knew it was misleading and incorrect ...
Talk to Lawrence Tribe about that.
I was going to take it down but after these attacks I will not. If you don't like the post---alert on it. Tired of this shit.
yet leave it up because people called you out and said it was wrong. Oy!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sheshe2
(83,128 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sheshe2
(83,128 posts)first you made up the word demand... which I did not do. Yes I spoke for BB directly to his response...yet I spoke directly to King...yet here you are speaking for King...indirectly. See the difference?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's why I used a question mark and a shrug emoji.
Like so:
Speaking for someone would have looked like this:
Note the missing question mark and shrug emoji - that makes it a statement and not a question.
And you're right, you did speak for BB, glad you can see the difference.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)Got it. Twas a suggestion by you speaking for King, not to or by the King just your incredible input with a shrug emoji'
Keep spinning beam on my demand!!!
And yes, you did speak for BB and demanded an apology, glad you can see the difference.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're welcome, glad I could clear that up for you, she.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)...
have a good one, she!
Nighty nite, gotta go. Twas fun...
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)You got it just right. Thanks again.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was going to stay out of it but when everyone started piling on I had to say something.
It's like Lord of the Flies all up in here tonight.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I do not dispute that Tribe was wrong. It was discussed without insults in this thread. Well at least by most posters anyway.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I knew you weren't accusing Pelosi of anything and figured others would put it in context.
I mean what the hell, you weren't even given a chance to explain, it's like you murdered the baby Jeebus.
How many of us have read something and run right back here to post about it?
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)My friends usually give me the benefit of doubt though. It would be nice if everyone took a step back and breathed before getting out the long knives.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)And that upsets me.
That's pretty bold.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,082 posts)You've just restated your 'concern'. You've told a DUer to 'go away', as if you get to control a thread you start. Now you try and disown it with "talk to Lawrence Tribe". Lawrence Tribe can't shut down this thread. Putting Lawrence Tribe right won't get DUers to actually read and think before starting shit threads like this one.
You started "this shit". If you're tired of it, then take this as a lesson. Don't start shit, and you won't get tired.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,082 posts)You are just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la, I'm not listening". You even seem smug about the way you've helped spread a load of anti-Democratic bullshit.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Thanks for the input.
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)pnwmom
(108,914 posts)Laurence Tribe clearly misread it but you repeated it anyway -- with NO clarifying comment.
She was asked two questions, and she was obviously responding to the second. She doesn't think we should be concerned about who is Speaker in 2018, when there are important ISSUES right now that need our attention.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I highlighted nothing. Once again--I posted a tweet by a highly respected Democrat , saw his concerns and asked the question in short form. I accused no one of anything.
I have never attacked a Democrat on this or any other forum.
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)And you highlighted his tweet here with no comment. Why?
Why was his mistake worth repeating here except as an attempt to make Pelosi look bad?
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)I post tweets here every day almost--and multiple times a day. And many with no comment. Look it up.
Maybe you can just put me on ignore?
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)have known was not true. And now defend your post which is incorrect. What are we to make of this?
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)I agreed with the statement that issues are the most important think to talk about, not estimations of winning or losing.
I do think that the OP being posted without the OP making a comment on it, will have the tendency to jump to the wrong context from the OP ironically
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)And 993/4% of it is about the atrocity that is Trump.
still_one
(91,807 posts)important 2018 is, and winning is critical
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)For refusing to read the article, even after a dozen people have told you the headline is false?
The quote is in the second to third paragraph. It's not like your or Tribe have to read a whole seven paragraphs to see that the article's title is misleading.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)unblock
(51,920 posts)herding cats
(19,545 posts)Sure, they're decent occasionally, but other times they're stirring the pot for clicks. Which now that I think of it is good advice in general, no matter the source.
DURHAM D
(32,580 posts)More chaos.
More chaos.
More lies.
More lies.
still_one
(91,807 posts)mcar
(42,179 posts)Does this mean it's slam Pelosi week again?
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Couldn't bother to read to the second paragraph of an article he tweeted.
George II
(67,782 posts)Kind of like the old gasoline lines during the oil embargo - odd days Harris, even days Pelosi.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)dsc
(52,117 posts)by saying that her being Speaker was the most important thing on planet earth. I am sure those who are denigrating her answer both in this thread and in the real world would have loved that answer. The fact is she gave a perfectly sensible answer to his dumb question.
George II
(67,782 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)DU members did a good job in making their points. Do not tell me what to post.
George II
(67,782 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Was he wrong? Looks like it.
George II
(67,782 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)based on an inaccurate tweet?
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Under the assumption that members like to keep their posts accurate. You seem to prefer that such assumptions not be made in your case, so I for one won't be doing so in the future.
Some of us still have our feet in the now outdated political culture where facts mattered. It isn't so easy for us to adjust to the post-fact world.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,082 posts)Ironically, you are consistently telling other people in this thread what to do, and then complaining when deficiencies in your posts are pointed out.
lapucelle
(18,016 posts)Laurence Tribe is being given what for on Twitter for repeating The Hill's distortion.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #59)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Taken out of context or not, the word "unimportant" was a poor choice.
George II
(67,782 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)And lots of politicians remarks sound bad even in context, yet they are routinely defended here.
Perhaps you should sent Pelosi a list of words that she isn't allowed to utter? Then you can tell us if that list applies to any one else.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Get a grip. This is much ado about nothing. However, spending time explaining the context of a quote is never time well spent. Giving your opponents a talking point is best avoided. That's not to say one can always predict when a quote will be twisted, but one certainly can see that it occurred in hindsight. And in hindsight it probably wasn't the clearest response. The fact that we're having this conversation establishes that.
betsuni
(25,060 posts)Anything can be twisted into propaganda. Spending time explaining the context of a quote is time well spent.
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)But then I don't dislike Nancy as those defending this post seem to.
betsuni
(25,060 posts)Fixed headline.
sheshe2
(83,128 posts)betsuni
(25,060 posts)California_Republic
(1,826 posts)" that's so unimportant "
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)She is not giving up the midterms by a long shot.
She is saying issues are more important than party races.
Bradshaw3
(7,448 posts)The Hill reporting tonight.
Yes one of the top Dems, a longtime leader who got the public option passed through the house among her many other accomplishments, poo poos the midterms. Good grief, some people.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)So I seriously doubt she meant winning the house is unimportant. That tweet quotes one word and makes a new sentence around it. The question was asking about the odds and whether she would run again. Not the importance of winning.
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)wasn't important.
She said that it wasn't important to speculate on the ODDS that the Dems will take back the house, and IF SO, whether she would be speaker.
At the end of the interview, Wallace asked her to answer the following in 30 seconds:
"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"
And her answer was that she didn't think it was important to talk about that and she wanted to talk about ISSUES.
Caliman73
(11,666 posts)It is fun for feuds and people making funny statements, but it is relatively useless for in depth discussion, which is what is necessary for politics and public policy.
Here we are having a breathless debate over what someone said she said on Twitter, rather than examining the issue from the source and then maybe having a more balanced and nuanced debate.
JHan
(10,173 posts)A cursory look at the actual interview shows she meant her leadership position is not as important as discussing the dem platform, and she never said winning midterms was unimportant.....because we wouldn't want to spread "fake news" now would we?
SIGH.
betsuni
(25,060 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)Garbage in, garbage out.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)this deliberate distortion of what Leader Pelosi is unfair, untrue and pure propaganda as befits the place where the distortion happened, Fox News.
So, how about actually paying attention to what she said and not what insane and deliberately dishonest people claim she said?
I know that attacking and abusing Democratic women seems to be very popular among a certain faction here on the supposedly Democratic Underground, but it's really getting old and tiresome, and it doesn't belong here. Let the Right wing attacks remain on their own websites.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)going to say that winning elections is unimportant. It's just too absurd for words, and of course it was bogus.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I guess anything that attacks Democratic women tickles some people. Thought this site was supposed to be for supporting Dems not those rolling on the floor laughing at those attacking them?
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)is more about post removed, so to speak. Fits a pattern.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Her point is that our people are in the house to do the peoples' business, or try to. It's not a game.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)tweets like this that were clearly made in error, to attack Democrats, particularly female ones.
People really do need to check things before they start disseminating things and then digging their heels in. Even if the article was too much, any of the hundreds of replies would have shed some light on the matter.
This whole blind jingoism of simply "trusting" people who are attacking the people that some wish to attack is not really passing the smell test.
This level of attack is something that the right feeds on, we need to call it out when they engage in this, not give it a platform, and be playing games for ones own amusement. I'm disturbed by the level of animosity coming from the OP and his defender. It was a mistake, Tribe made one too, accept it, acknowledge and move on, why must it be this toxic and who insists on making it so? And why are they allowed to?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Well stated.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)stonecutter357
(12,678 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Into a little pile of bullshit. Interesting. Not something we see a lot of these days.
Demsrule86
(68,217 posts)give up bashing this fine talented woman.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Lawrence Tribe's ridiculous reaction AND probable failure to read past a headline
OR
Pelosi's defenders claiming that Nancy Pelosi was talking only about whether she would run for speaker.
The next sentence reveals that she was indeed talking about retaking the House. Her running for speaker has nothing to do with whether we have a lively debate of the important issue she described.
HOWEVER
What she said was politically brilliant.
Here, we cheer things like taking back the House and shutting down Trump - as we should. Outside, the Republicans are salivating over nationalizing the House races and turning them into "Nancy Pelosi vs. Donald Trump," or "The California liberal (sic) vs. the heartland." They are waiting for the first time a national figure utters the word "impeachment" so they can claim "A vote for a Democrat in your local House race is a vote to make Nancy Pelosi the next President of the United States."
What she said - in a hostile environment by the way - immediately turned the discussion back to Democrats fighting for the issues that people care about - issues which the House is not even talking about as they scheme behind closed doors to erase Obama's legacy - and away from just stopping Trump.
I am not a Pelosi fan. I would not be upset if she did not run for Speaker. I would not be upset if she ran for Speaker and was defeated.
BUT
Anyone who missed the message in her response because they were tying themselves in knots with agenda-driven knee jerk reactions to what Mr. Tribe said in a tweet, missed a magnificent maneuver by an immensely talented politician.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Renew Deal
(81,774 posts)The choice not to do so shows lack of courage and foresight by House Dems. Replacing her with Steny Hoyer is not the answer. We need fresh leadership.
leon8822
(82 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)would run for speaker. It is right there at the end of the interview:
TooStrong
(16 posts)Although, it should be concerning for all if she thinks there is unity in the party.
spooky3
(34,228 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)Don't know you and don't want to know you. Don't know what the hell your deal is but you mean jack to me. OP was edited hours ago.
George II
(67,782 posts)Laurence Tribe Retweeted
Misled by the headline, I hope @NancyPelosi will accept my apology: all she actually called "unimportant" was whether she'd run for speaker.