Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump”pic.twitter.com/6dGOyDZhXY
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) May 7, 2019
And this will sound political but...
May 8, 2019
How to talk when what you need to say is that what's in our political interest is to look like we'll do everything without regard to political interest.
And this will sound political but...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
67 comments:
That Pelosi face-freeze at the end of the video says it all.
A banal observation.
You mean she will refuse to accept the result of the election if her candidate loses? It’s almost like that stuff about Trump refusing to leave was all projection!
It's like she is suffering a perpetual stroke.
"Democrat Nancy Pelosi: 'we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump'”
For good or for bad, that's for the voters to decide.
The idea that the left care about The Constitution or our Constitutional Republic is a LAUGH.
Democrats care about democratic fascism.
Well, she couldn’t accept a first term either. So it’ll be more of the same.
Nancy Pelosi is psychologically incapable of being apolitical in public. She's been steeped in Democrat politics for so long that she's basically become a living manifestation of them. To paraphrase Obi-Wan, she's more machine now than woman; twisted and evil.
Slim Pickens has an extra seat on the atom bomb.
Shorter Nancy: We demand power and if we don't get it, it's a constitutional crisis. Strozk measures will betaken to ensure that power goes to the correct people.
For good or for bad, that's for the voters to decide.
Why should the Democrats start allowing the voters to decide now ?
If she vows she won't accept Trump's reelection, she should be impeached for sedition.
Nobody said...
You mean she will refuse to accept the result of the election if her candidate loses?
YES, that is EXACTLY what democrats mean. Consider Stacey
This is what she said on election night: “So let's be clear, this is not a speech of concession…Because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”
NO democrat, will EVER accept a democrat lose again; EVER! For democrats, democracy is through
It’s important for the left to say that Trump is only rich because daddy gave him money. It’s also important for the left to say that he is a lousy businessman, because he lost $1 billion in the ‘80s. What’s hard for them to reconcile is that now he is worth billions.
If you’re a fan of capitalism, though, the idea that entrepreneurs may fail repeatedly before finally succeeding is a commonplace.
There’s an argument to be made for the idea that an entrepreneur’s attitude to risk is not really what we want in a President, but that position is not hateful enough for the left to make against Trump.
The more they talk, the worse they make it for themselves.
Normal people who don’t viscerally hate Trump get turned off by talk like this - way too authoritarian. You’ll do what we want and you’ll like it!
Just go away and stop obsessing over yourselves.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi: 'we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump'
I was not aware that they had ever accepted a first term
"we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump"
So noted. But we knew the utter cynicism and hypocrisy of the Dems before she made it even more transparent.
Has Pelosi ever uttered any thought that wasn't "political"? That, you know, examined an actual issue on its actual merits in light of actual evidence?
She wouldn't do it without women having the vote.
How do you put a name on a bullet??
Asking for a friend.
Where man have an advantage over Althouse is that men can dismiss her structurally, where Althouse needs to go to cynicism.
In before Insty!
Shot: "Will Donald Trump accept the results of the election?"
Chaser: "We cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump"
Hahaha. Do I win another set of steak knives? I want them to match please.
If the democrats in Congress work together against Trump, is it collusion?
Nancy has been nothing but a joke for quite a while. Loved hearing her 4 or 5 supporters clapping their approval.
Anyone who supports the democrat party is an enemy of freedom.
If Democrats ever talk to a Russian again, is that illegal?
This is what Biden means when he says, “Our democracy is at stake,” in this election.
If you like your democracy, you can keep your democracy.
But only if you accept that you are no longer free to choose.
If Democrats ever talk to a Russian again, is that illegal?
Joe Biden says he's been governing on the side, regularly speaking to world leaders. Would he leave Russia out?
Well if the soccer moms get their shit together and vote a Republican house of reps back in, she won't have any worries about accepting Pres. Trump's 2nd term.
I remember well the attacks that Mitch McConnell drew for saying the obviously-true, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
McConnell is often incorrectly alleged to have said that at the beginning of the Obama presidency. In fact, it was about two years into his first term.
@Chuck,
Did McConnell then launch a campaign to drive Obama out of office, aided and abetted by the FBI and DOJ?
Chuck said...
I remember well the attacks that Mitch McConnell drew for saying the obviously-true, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
McConnell is often incorrectly alleged to have said that at the beginning of the Obama presidency. In fact, it was about two years into his first term.
That is so like the Mueller hoax investigation investigation and using several federal agencies to spy on political opponents.
Exactly like it.
Exactly.
I can see why democrats like you think they are the same thing and think that is a good argument.
You also have to be really stupid to think that is the same thing and a good argument. But democrats like Chuck are stupid.
ORANGE MAN BAD. Seditious Democrats good.
This woman can’t possibly be as stupid as she sounds. What is it? Dishonesty? Disingenuousness? Dementia? All of the above?
Blogger Robert Cook said... ‘"Democrat Nancy Pelosi: 'we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump'”
For good or for bad, that's for the voters to decide.’
Sure, Cook. The Democrats have distinguished themselves by their willingness to accept the voters’ decision to elect Trump to his first term. Right?
If we want a normal government again, re-electing Trump is necessary but not sufficient. The Democrats need to lose control of the house. I'm not a fan of one-party rule, but Democrats have made it clear that they have no interest in being the other party.
If They really wanted to put country first, they would dissolve and allow for the formation of another, more legitimate, alternative party.
We're witch hunters, but not witch hunters-hunters. It's a baby, but not a baby-baby. We'll hold a warlock trial if we want to.
I was not scandalized when a leader of the Republican party said, "I want the Republican candidate to win the next Presidential election." And I am not scandalized when a leader of the Democratic party says, "I want the Democratic candidate to win the next Presidential election." I am not shocked that the leaders pumped up their statements with rhetorical flourishes ("our most important job" "the constitution requires").
I'm not a fan of one-party rule
Split the Republican party along the center-right threshold. No Democrat Party needed for a vibrant contrast of competing interests and perspectives.
I don't want to go all Archie Bunker on Nancy Pelosi. But it is time for folks to say to Nancy "Stifle yourself". She's gone past tin foil hat into full out dingbat territory. Botox for brains and it shows.
2020 will be a referendum on Trump's first term. And I think Nancy will have a hard time accepting the results of the voter's choice. But then that's just the same old same old--she didn't like the voter's choice in 2026.
Chuck Channeling Schumer said... ‘I remember well the attacks that Mitch McConnell drew for saying the obviously-true, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”’
Right! And given the current behavior of the Dems and their minions, that aligns closely with Pelosi’s “cannot accept.” LOL. Or did Mitch actually say: “We will solicit federal intelligence and law enforcement officials, aided and abetted by the media, to frame the President for imaginary crimes.”
H: I agree that saying that the opposition is bad for the country or has dangerous policies is acceptable. These are normal political claims. But when someone says that electing the opposition is an affront to the constitution and is a constitutional crisis, it is another level and one that is dangerous. If Pelosi really believes that the election of Donald Trump in 2020 is an affront to the Constitution, what limits is she forced to recognize on action to prevent that from happening or to rectify it if is does. They all take oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. If she believes that the election of Donald Trump is destructive of the Constitution, she has morally every right to take any action, even ones outside the Constitution, to rectify the situation. See Lincoln's action.
This stance is the actual danger to the Constitution and that needs to be made clear. Maybe at least that will force the rhetoric to be toned down.
A good piece on the NY Times story about Trump and his taxes.
I had dinner with a real estate developer a couple of years ago. He told me his goal was to build a building and only have it 60% occupied. That way, he could take a gigantic tax loss. So, like most things Trump, this is all about nothing.
When you accept the challenge to become an entrepreneur or self-employed, you also accept the consequences of it. I have been self-employed since 1986. I have had losing years or negative income years. Plenty of them. In the years I have made money, I have done all I can to pay the least amount of taxes that I legally can pay. Who doesn’t?
The NY Times readers know nothing about taxes.
The NY Times readers know nothing about taxes
Same as NY Times writers.
Didn’t this business of the $ billion loss come out during the 2016 campaign? What’s news now?
What so hilarious about the NYTimes piece was the description of depreciation as a "tax shelter". It isn't- it is basic economic policy- taxes are on income, not revenue. If you want a revenue tax, rewrite the damned law.
To give an analogy that gets it to personal level we normal people deal with- you don't pay income taxes on the amount of your salary- you get to deduct the expenses that keep you alive and working. For most tax returns, this is the standard deduction and the dependent deductions, child credits, and EITC, but you can add itemization if it benefits you to do so.
Do you remember when is was "horrifying" that leaders didn't accept the results of an election? Good times.
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy; you ignorant ...
Skydragons must be fed:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/07/un-species-extinction-report-is-enviro-loon-hysteria/?fbclid=IwAR3iD1h2o-d0T12TWDdatzMJrQ7ERyeEzAvQq8FbRZ22rScUS2pDoZ7ULQ4
NO democrat, will EVER accept a democrat lose again; EVER! For democrats, democracy is through
Nah dude, Democracy is just fine with them, because you can keep voting over and over until you get the result you want. Then it will be through. See Brexit.
Poor Nancy is getting too Alzheimery to even do projection well any more. The fear of the week (last week) is that Trump won't accept the next election result, not us, Nancy. Not us!
Such tepid applause. Even Dems have a hard time pretending they believe in their own nonsense.
"...we have to make sure, the constitution wins the next presidential election."
Like it did the last election.
Chuck: "I remember well the attacks that Mitch McConnell drew for saying the obviously-true, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
H: I was not scandalized when a leader of the Republican party said, "I want the Republican candidate to win the next Presidential election."
Oh give it a flippin' rest, you two. She didn't say "we want to achieve" or "I want the Democratic candidate to win". She said "we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump”, backed up with insane flaming bullshit about Trump's presidency lacking constitutional legitimacy. Any honest fluent English speaker of normal intelligence understands how that differs from what you trot out above.
And one knows perfectly well that you'd both be losing your minds if Trump had said what Pelosi said.
They barely accept a first term.
How late am I to the joke?
Just short of 6 hours late.
I remember well the attacks that Mitch McConnell drew for saying the obviously-true, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
What’s your point? That’s an entirely different thing than saying that you can’t accept a second term. Why are you defending Pelosi anyway, is it true what they say that you are a “Nancy boy”?
Well, she couldn’t accept a first term either. So it’ll be more of the same
Kubler Ross says! She’s stuck in denial.
I'm getting whiplash.
One day she's fussing that President Trump might not accept the results of the election, if it doesn't go his way.
The next day she's preemptively announcing that she won't accept the results if it doesn't go her way.
Possibly the important part of what Pelosi was saying was: we must win in the court of public opinion or we won't win the election of 2020.
Meaning - we must not run a socialist and we must not run as the Khmer Green, i.e., We must not say that if we come to power we will take away your gun, your truck, your furnace and air conditioner, your doctor and your money. We must not say that we will stop all farming in Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and South Dakota, since it is factory farming. We must not say that we'll stop all ranching in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota since eating meat is bad and cows fart which is also bad. We must not say that we'll close down Ford, GM, Honda in the US - the auto and aircraft industry - all must go, but we must not say it. We must not say that if you don't like the Khmer Green program then Google will silence you and then the Greenies will force you to live in a very large city and no one will ever find you again, you filthy Christian misogynistic scum; and your fem-traitor wife will be somewhere else, peeling grapes for Bill Clinton.
Pelsoi seems to think that this is a platform that will lose in the court of public opinion. And that this is a platform that will re-elect Trump. But why?
Yet another installment in Althouse's regular posts where she needlessly attacks those charged with holding Trump accountable while pretending that she's not just shilling for Trump.
Did McConnell then launch a campaign to drive Obama out of office, aided and abetted by the FBI and DOJ?
John Boner tried to sue him for allegedly breaching his executive obligations but that didn't work either.
Any president who's indignant at the idea of accountability esp. to the law doesn't deserve the office.
You do realize that your last two sentences contradict each other. Oh, Obama never needed to be accountable... I get it now.
Okay, I watched the clip. Is the woman crazy?
What does it mean to say that "We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump if we are going to be faithful to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States"?
Under the Constitution of the United States, it is the voters who will make the decision. That is the democratic way to do it, surely?
Have they all gone flat nuts?
Max, yes, she and the Democrats are nuts. If she wants to be faithful to the Constitution and democracy, she damn well better accept it if Trump wins again.
Oh, Obama never needed to be accountable... I get it now.
WTF evidence did he go to the lengths Trumpling goes to to hide?
Oh that's right. None.
You just like people who not only act guilty, but are cocky enough to think they should get away with it. As long as they have enough power and hatred in their heart.
WTF evidence did he go to the lengths Trumpling goes to to hide?
Were you so high during his presidency that you never read the news?
Here, google Fast and Furious, executive privlege, google how he never appointed an Inspector General to the State Department while Hillary was there. Google how he fired an inspector general. Google how his DoJ simply overlooked and forgave Hillary for defying Congressional oversight of her stint as SoS.
You do realize when you make stupid claims like this you look like a moron.
Obama never had to try hard to hide anything because the press flew air cover for him.
Post a Comment