• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"He shredded the truth, so I shredded his speech."

Harshaw said:
What part of it is wrong?
Click to expand...

It's that version of cowardice known as bothsiderism used by people who either can't or refuse to see the difference between massive corruption (Filthy Donnie) and what's at most a mild expression of disapproval. What she tore apart was 80 minutes of lying.
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
It's that version of cowardice known as bothsiderism used by people who either can't or refuse to see the difference between massive corruption (Filthy Donnie) and what's at most a mild expression of disapproval. What she tore apart was 80 minutes of lying.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you didn't answer the question.

I said:

Harshaw said:
Or, another way of saying it is that she behaved just like Trump, and you think she's awesome for doing it.
Click to expand...

You claimed my statement was a lie:

digitusmedius said:
Well, that's another way of lying about it, yeah.
Click to expand...

So which part of my statement is untrue?
 
Again and again, Republicans have taught us all, how completely irrelevant good taste or class is, as long as you control the news cycle. I keep telling you guys that Dems learn from the example set by Republicans. What you do to win, we will copy. What you trample on to win, we learn to walk all over as well. If cheapening the institution of Congress and its traditions is to be seen as a victory against some deep state/ establishment tool, then cheapening the institutions of both Congress and the Presidency must be interpreted as an even greater victory.



Its all about a reality show mentality which means its all about the owning the news cycle, not about substantive impact of what you do to own it. She sure caught the news cycle and undermined efforts to promote the content of the speech. Nobody will remember the actual speech at all. What its writers wanted to communicate to the country was obliterated by debates on a handshake, and torn paper. She turned the august moment into nothing more than a prop that she exploited for melodrama that no longer centered on Trump. You guys have been fantastic at teaching us how to apply modern propaganda techniques to modern communication methods.

I think Trumpsters should be proud of her.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
Again and again, Republicans have taught us all, how completely irrelevant good taste or class is, as long as you control the news cycle. I keep telling you guys that Dems learn from the example set by Republicans. What you do to win, we will copy. What you trample on to win, we learn to walk all over as well. If cheapening the institution of Congress and its traditions is to be seen as a victory against some deep state/ establishment tool, then cheapening the institutions of both Congress and the Presidency must be interpreted as an even greater victory.
Click to expand...

You understand that the most flattering interpretation of what you say here is that the Democrats are soulless reactionaries with no moral reasoning of their own?
 
Harshaw said:
You understand that the most flattering interpretation of what you say here is that the Democrats are soulless reactionaries with no moral reasoning of their own?
Click to expand...

No. The accurate interpretation is that after four years of dealing with this man and his party ( this all started in 2015, not inauguration day) we have given up a hopeless fight to protect values too many just don't care about, until we can find some folks on the other side of the aisle who will work to do so. We can't do it alone. If you can't beat em, join em at least for now. The high road has been abandoned and we might as well face it and learn to maneuver better on the low road as long as it takes us to the right town. on this occasion the low road is going to do us just fine.
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
High bothsiderism at work there. Pffffft.
Click to expand...

I always expect one side or the other to make excuses and defend their side's actions. Nothing new there. Childish actions is childish actions. The only difference is perhaps everyone is aware of Trump's childish actions, now Pelosi joins the crowd or should I say Trump in acting Trumpism.
 
Here's the real reason...
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1581037006789.webp
    FB_IMG_1581037006789.webp
    35.3 KB · Views: 16
btthegreat said:
No. The accurate interpretation is that after four years of dealing with this man and his party ( this all started in 2015, not inauguration day) we have given up a hopeless fight to protect values too many just don't care about, until we can find some folks on the other side of the aisle who will work to do so. We can't do it alone. If you can't beat em, join em at least for now. The high road has been abandoned and we might as well face it and learn to maneuver better on the low road as long as it takes us to the right town. on this occasion the low road is going to do us just fine.
Click to expand...

Then the interpretation you take is "others abandon the high road, so we will too, and be just like them . . . but blame it on them. We have no moral agency of our own."

You do it because you want to, not because you have to.
 
Harshaw said:
Then the interpretation you take is "others abandon the high road, so we will too, and be just like them . . . but blame it on them. We have no moral agency of our own."

You do it because you want to, not because you have to.
Click to expand...
The high road was not winning as many congressional seats. We have constituencies who depend on us. Take it up with the voters that reward the low road.
 
btthegreat said:
The high road was not winning as many congressional seats. We have constituencies who depend on us. Take it up with the voters that reward the low road.
Click to expand...

Then you confirm what I said:

Harshaw said:
Then the interpretation you take is "others abandon the high road, so we will too, and be just like them . . . but blame it on them. We have no moral agency of our own."

You do it because you want to, not because you have to.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Then you confirm what I said:
Click to expand...
I already picked my words, to reflect my thoughts. You can feel free to quote them in posts 78, 82, and 89. But I don't need you to pick a different set of words consistent with your agenda. Mine are there.

We have a high moral agency secondary to our duties to represent our constituancies. It is the voter that decides what moral standards it wants applied to conduct by rewarding some conduct and punishing other conduct. Those standards change as priorities change. You need to take your concerns to the voters who voted in Mr. Trump and rewarded the Sleaze-in Chief with a Senate that protects and defends that standard. We are obliged to adopt the standards that the voters tell us it wants in its political partys and candidates. The Republicans set the standard. The voters reward or punish the standard and we apply the lessons. The voters want a reality show experience in public service because they rewarded one. That's what they get, so we can push for changes that reflect our constituency needs.


You can decide you like the high road better, when you nominate someone who travels on it. there will be a traffic jam on the low road until you can figure something else out. .
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
No. The accurate interpretation is that after four years of dealing with this man and his party ( this all started in 2015, not inauguration day) we have given up a hopeless fight to protect values too many just don't care about, until we can find some folks on the other side of the aisle who will work to do so. We can't do it alone. If you can't beat em, join em at least for now. The high road has been abandoned and we might as well face it and learn to maneuver better on the low road as long as it takes us to the right town. on this occasion the low road is going to do us just fine.
Click to expand...
Obama pretty much took the low road throughout his presidency. We won and get back in line democrats as Obama told us to do in 2010.
 
btthegreat said:
I already picked my words, to reflect my thoughts. You can feel free to quote them in posts 78, 82, and 89. But I don't need you to pick a different set of words consistent with your agenda. Mine are there.

We have a high moral agency secondary to our duties to represent our constituancies. It is the voter that decides what moral standards it wants applied to conduct by rewarding some conduct and punishing other conduct. Those standards change as priorities change. You need to take your concerns to the voters who voted in Mr. Trump and rewarded the Sleaze-in Chief with a Senate that protects and defends that standard. We are obliged to adopt the standards that the voters tell us it wants in its political partys and candidates. The Republicans set the standard. The voters reward or punish the standard and we apply the lessons. The voters want a reality show experience in public service because they rewarded one. That's what they get, so we can push for changes that reflect our constituency needs.


You can decide you like the high road better, when you nominate someone who travels on it. there will be a traffic jam on the low road until you can figure something else out. .
Click to expand...

I'm not a Republican, so I'm not going to be involved in whoever they nominate.

But you are saying, unambiguously, they behave terribly, so we should, too.

Better people . . . act better.
 
Resolution to condemn Pelosi for ripping up Trump's speech tabled in the House - CNNPolitics

The president refuses to shake the speaker's hand. The speaker rips up the president's speech. The president's party introduces legislation to condemn the speaker. The speaker's party kills it. Everyone is outraged about everything as if the other person or other side just murdered their dog, brought it back to life, and then murdered it again.

What a nightmare.
 
Pelosi wouldn't know truth if it hit her in the face like a bag of nickels. She might look better, though.:lol:
 
digitusmedius said:
That's how much Pelosi fears, must less gives a **** what the Cult of Dirtbag thinks. She's got more balls than the entire Republican Party of Sheep.

Pelosi unloads on Trump in private meeting after SOTU standoff - POLITICO

Another gem:
Click to expand...

It's no bold move to pander to her minions in a private meeting after the SOTU. She was classless and the entire country knows it, saw it if they were watching. She has been trying to get rid of Trump with made up accusations for years and she just keeps losing. The problem with the democrat party starts at the leadership and their TDS fixation. You are going to loose another Presidential election so just get ready. Your crazy BS rants and accusations of the Republican's because they will not got along with your shenanigans is embarrassing.
 
Ikari said:
She certainly went low-road, it is rather embarrassing. I do not believe that this sort of lowest-common-denominator politics is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I think it was inevitable. Most politicians wanted to take the high road over Trump. The Republicans gave up and acquiesced, were expelled, or died. The Democrats are now doing things like Pelosi did. Trump is fundamentally transforming American politics and society and not for the better. The economy is good. But it will get bad again. Then good again. Regulations come and go. Budget priorites and taxation will also shift. But the way that we talk to each other and treat each other might be damaged in ways that can't be undone for a long time.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not a Republican, so I'm not going to be involved in whoever they nominate.

But you are saying, unambiguously, they behave terribly, so we should, too.

Better people . . . act better.
Click to expand...
No I am not saying that and I did not say that. That quote is not in any post listed above. There are plenty of sentences in those posts I referenced for you to pick from to use as evidence . There is no need for you to create your own words with their own connotations , and put them down as mine while extracting the words I chose and the context I put them in. Every word I wrote had a purpose. Respect that purpose by respecting the words.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
No I am not saying that and I did not say that. That quote is not in any post listed above. There are plenty of sentences in those posts I referenced for you to pick from to use as evidence . There is no need for you to create your own words with their own connotations , and put them down as mine while extracting the words I chose and the context I put them in. Every word I wrote had a purpose. Respect that purpose by respecting the words.
Click to expand...

You said:

We are obliged to adopt the standards that the voters tell us it wants in its political partys and candidates. The Republicans set the standard. The voters reward or punish the standard and we apply the lessons. The voters want a reality show experience in public service because they rewarded one. That's what they get, so we can push for changes that reflect our constituency needs.
Click to expand...

"They behave terribly, so we should, too."
 
bradt99 said:
She will care when he's reelected for another 4 years. What is she going to do impeach him again? LOL, please do and get ready for Ivanka Trump in 2024.
Click to expand...

Sure, cultist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom