• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pelosi sets the Donald off live.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I switched to the Fox Sirius station on my drive in this morning and you're all wrong, Trump schooled those snowflakes! According to them Pelosi bumbled incoherently, and Chuck sat with his head down wishing he was half the man DJT is.
 
nOOky said:
I switched to the Fox Sirius station on my drive in this morning and you're all wrong, Trump schooled those snowflakes! According to them Pelosi bumbled incoherently, and Chuck sat with his head down wishing he was half the man DJT is.
Click to expand...

Did they say anything about that mannequin that was propped in a chair next to Trump?

Maybe it's just me but I swear I saw that thing move a couple of times.
 
I also don't think it's as great a win for Dems as most believe. Chuck was almost cowering, and Pelosi kept getting interrupted, not very forceful which they have to be.

Also, WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK WHY MEXICO IS NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL STRAIGHT TO HIS FACE?!! IT WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY!!
 
thilanliyan said:
Chuck was almost cowering
Click to expand...
Look at these pictures again.
105621303-1544550178329rtx6i4q1_600x337.jpg
181211121922-02-trump-pelosi-schumer-1211-large-169.jpg
That is not cowering, that is trying hard not to laugh. He knew they were rolling President Trump and that Trump didn't realize it and he was trying hard not to give the game way.



and Pelosi kept getting interrupted, not very forceful which they have to be.
Click to expand...

Yes, Trump was very rude and kept interrupting her. Trump being desperate to try to stop her from saying things he didn't want to have to address. She managed to anyway. She was for the most part polite and let Trump say what he wanted to say, and then got her word in anyway. She won that confrontation. She got Trump to say exactly what she wanted him to say. She played him, hard.

Also, WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK WHY MEXICO IS NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL STRAIGHT TO HIS FACE?!! IT WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY!!
Click to expand...

It would have derailed the goal. This has little to do with the wall. This was about who takes ownership of the coming shutdown. This was about if the Democrats would have to work with Trump to find some compromise or if they could afford to let the government shut down and wait for the new Democratic House be seated before they deal with it. They won, huge. Now the Republicans have to either work with them or let all the blame fall on Trump's head, and then still have to work with them when they take the majority in the House next year. Trump just gave up what leverage he had. He is going to have to now negotiate with Democrats from a much weaker position
 
^I hope you're right, but I don't think everyone will see it that way, especially the people that actually need to be convinced. There are some who will just see Trump as being very forceful and fighting for what he promised (which they like) and the Dems as not.

IMO, what Chuck said in the presser afterwards is what he needed to say to his face.
 
BAMAVOO said:
he owned them both.
Click to expand...

...would be what delusional supporters probably think, sure. The kind of morons who believe the "Totally clears the president" tweet, hook like and sinker. Sad, I believe is the term.

But everyone else saw that for what it was: a confused, woefully unintelligent bully throwing a fit, and getting bitchslapped by people quite tired of his imperious yet infantile bullshit.

You should definitely keep trying to polish that orange turd though, it'll start winning any day now.
 
thilanliyan said:
I also don't think it's as great a win for Dems as most believe. Chuck was almost cowering, and Pelosi kept getting interrupted, not very forceful which they have to be.

Also, WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK WHY MEXICO IS NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL STRAIGHT TO HIS FACE?!! IT WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY!!
Click to expand...

Pelosi and Schumer had no idea this was going to be televised, in fact Pelosi kept asking him to dismiss the press so they could talk privately as it was originally arranged. Afterward at the presser, when asked why she wanted it to be private she said that she didn't want to embarrass the dumb fuck we have for a President because he was pulling the figures out of his ass. Since the private meeting wasn't going to happen they proceeded to tag team the moron and beat him with intelligence. Poor Chuck was damn near doubled over trying to keep from laughing at pResident tRump.

It doesn't matter what it looks like because Pelosi and Schumer won that match. He tried to baffle them with bullshit and they beat him with brilliance.
 
I must retreat on my previous stand, you know that when even Fox gives grandma the win, then its not a split decision.
 
Another side to this is discussed in this editorial I just read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.e58beb52e2bc

He says that the dems have in effect cancelled their leverage with Trump by refusing to provide wall funding under any circumstances. This is the meat of it here:

It would be one thing if Trump were demanding that Democrats make some great moral compromise. But he is not. Democrats say they are for border security. They may think that a wall is a costly and inefficient way to secure the border, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a wall. In 2006, 26 Senate Democrats — including Charles E. Schumer, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which required the Department of Homeland Security to build two layers of reinforced fencing along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Is there some profound moral difference between a fence and a wall? No.

So why not give Trump his wall in exchange for something they want? They could give Trump the $5 billion he is asking for to begin construction of the wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for the nearly 2 million “dreamers” — mainly illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own. Trump would negotiate on this basis in a heartbeat.

Then, when Democrats take the majority next year, they could offer him the remaining $15 billion to $20 billion he needs to finish the wall, in exchange for legal status for the other 11 million people here in the country illegally. The wall could buy legal status for every illegal immigrant living in the shadows — a longtime Democratic priority.
Click to expand...

So, have the dems decided that it's actually better policy wise to deny $5 billion to start wall construction than to legalize 2 million dreamers? Or have they, instead, decided as a political calculus that it is better to prevent Trump from delivering on his signature promise, so that they can nail him over it in 2020? If so, arguably it looks like GOP obstructionism under Obama.

I'm opposed to the wall, but I'm starting to think they should cut a deal for the dreamers here. Even if you just want to look at this cynically as pure politics, who do you think these dreamers are going to be voting for once they're legal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top