Nancy Pelosi Tells Meet The Press: No Compromise With Trump On The Wall

[Frank Underwood]

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

Thank you President Snarky.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Agendas aside, what I'm interested in are the facts such as the content of the emails. I already told you I'm not swayed by fake news like "pizzagate," so how am I "susceptible" to being a pawn?

You're not, if you had been planning to vote for Stein prior to the emails release.

Otherwise, you did exactly what Putin wanted you to do. It's irrelevant if he got there by what he most recently tried to pull in France, or by disseminating actual fake news. At the end of the day, he accomplished his goal.

Next stop- Moscow? I see why you like Maddow so much since you're both fans of hyperbole.

The only hyperbole here is your erroneous description of a TV show you don't actually watch.

People were aware of the allegations that Trump colluded with Russia before Maddow's over the top coverage of it.

I said "people like Maddow", i.e. I was referring to the overall focus on/coverage of Russia, which you described as "hysteria" and likened to Benghazi.

Trump demonstrated this week he will not hesitate to pull all stops to shut down the Russia investigation. It is only thanks to what you described as "hysteria" that he hasn't been able to get away with it. For now anyway.

If everyone took your approach, this whole matter would've long been dead and buried.

The two major parties only represent a fraction of the ideas that exist, and I don't believe we should be resigned to just two choices.

I completely agree. Of course you shouldn't be. But you are. Or, at least, you were in November 2016. That's the reality you refuse to accept. You didn't get to wash your hands and be special. It was still going to be one of the two.

And with Stein getting in some states that carried Trump more votes than the gap between him and Clinton, a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump.

I don't? That's funny, I thought I said "A valid argument can be made that Trump's policies are even more extreme and harmful. With policies like the wall, the travel bans, and a proposed health care plan that would leave 25 million more people uninsured, I would agree. That said, I still recognize how the establishment forced Hillary on us while she talked about having a public and private position and expected voters to turn out.

LOL, even when you criticize Trump you have a way of softening it with phrases like that, keeping Clinton as close to him as possible.

As if his horror mockery of the high office hasn't been so painfully obvious as to bang everyone on the head from the second he descended down that escalator in 2015. As if Clinton with all of her flaws would've been anything close to this unbearable travesty.

Next time I cast my vote or complain about someone, I'll be sure to get your approval first.

I must've hit the nerve to elicit that sarcasm. Regardless, I won't be doing that anymore. I'm getting bored and tired of banging my head against the brick wall.

 

[Frank Underwood]

You're not, if you had been planning to vote for Stein prior to the emails release.

Otherwise, you did exactly what Putin wanted you to do. It's irrelevant if he got there by what he most recently tried to pull in France, or by disseminating actual fake news. At the end of the day, he accomplished his goal.

Hillary's militarism, social conservatism record, and anti-universal health care rhetoric already had me leaning towards Stein. The emails were simply the final nail in the coffin. If a person tries to cover up a murder, they are not absolved of the crime if a third party exposes them. It makes no difference what their motives were. The Russian hacking and possible collusion with Trump is its own issue, and should be investigated thorougly. But many people concerned with Russian interference conveniently try to absolve the DNC of any wrongdoing because they were hacked. Putin shouldn't have tipped the scales for Trump any more than the DNC should have tipped them for Hillary. That's the inconvenient truth Hillary supporters try to supress.

The only hyperbole here is your erroneous description of a TV show you don't actually watch.

Thankfully, there are actual progressive commentators who disseminate it for me while airing the clips.

I said "people like Maddow", i.e. I was referring to the overall focus on/coverage of Russia, which you described as "hysteria" and likened to Benghazi.

Trump demonstrated this week he will not hesitate to pull all stops to shut down the Russia investigation. It is only thanks to what you described as "hysteria" that he hasn't been able to get away with it. For now anyway.

If everyone took your approach, this whole matter would've long been dead and buried.

My approach is to report on it accurately without letting it override everything else. Report on skepticism in the intelligence community if it exists. If that changes, report on that as well. Don't resort to hyperbole by referring to Russian election meddling as "warfare." As we all know, actual warfare on our part doesn't resort in any investigation (just ask George Bush), and you're absolved of supporting militarism around the world if you're a Democrat (just ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). Lastly, don't infer that withdrawing troops from Russia is some how a bad thing. That's something a person hoping for war would think.

I completely agree. Of course you shouldn't be. But you are. Or, at least, you were in November 2016. That's the reality you refuse to accept. You didn't get to wash your hands and be special. It was still going to be one of the two.

And with Stein getting in some states that carried Trump more votes than the gap between him and Clinton, a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump.

Oh, I accepted the reality of it. In doing so, I also accepted the reality that the majority of voters are brainwashed to the point of refusing to think outside of the box. We live in the Internet age. Until a year and a half ago, I didn't even know who Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were. But thanks to online media, they were able to get exposure for their policy positions. People need to be able to think for themselves.

LOL, even when you criticize Trump you have a way of softening it with phrases like that, keeping Clinton as close to him as possible.

As if his horror mockery of the high office hasn't been so painfully obvious as to bang everyone on the head from the second he descended down that escalator in 2015. As if Clinton with all of her flaws would've been anything close to this unbearable travesty.

Trump is overt, in your face corrupt. What you see is what you get.

But when you consider Hillary has been involved in policies that increased the prison population, gutted welfare, stifled gay rights, sent jobs overseas, bailed out Wall Street on the tax payer's dime, and spread militarism in the Middle East, it's hard to find a kind word for her as well. Not to mention her support of the Patriot Act, using dog whistle language such as "super predators," refusing to discuss universal health care because it will "never come to pass," admitting to having both a public and private position on the issues, and, ironically, supporting election meddling in Palestine. So yeah, I find Hillary's flaws to be more than just minor inconveniences.

I must've hit the nerve to elicit that sarcasm. Regardless, I won't be doing that anymore. I'm getting bored and tired of banging my head against the brick wall.

Yeah, it was the nerve that's tired of being personally shit on for standing by what I believe in. By the way, that brick wall isn't any softer on this end either.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

But many people concerned with Russian interference conveniently try to absolve the DNC of any wrongdoing because they were hacked.

And what wrongdoing would that be? Giving Bernie the shaft?

Thankfully, there are actual progressive commentators who disseminate it for me while airing the clips.

Yes, I'm sure they do disseminate the heck out of it for ya.

Until a year and a half ago, I didn't even know who Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were. But thanks to online media, they were able to get exposure for their policy positions. People need to be able to think for themselves.

Jill Stein could never have become President. Your vote was futile.

So yeah, I find Hillary's flaws to be more than just minor inconveniences.

And yet Hillary would not have wreaked the same havoc as Trump. But you didn't care and put equation mark between them.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And what wrongdoing would that be? Giving Bernie the shaft?

I see. So you don't care that a "neutral" party was actively trying to screw over one of its candidates. You only care that the information was made public.

The next time you tell me that my priorities are messed up, I'll remember to consider the source. If anybody other than Russia had leaked the emails and exposed DNC corruption, it would have been considered journalism.

Jill Stein could never have become President. Your vote was futile.

Voting will always be futile as long as the electoral college exists. And honestly, I don't care if my vote was futile. I don't vote out of fear, I vote based on what I believe in. What happens beyond that is out of my hands.

And yet Hillary would not have wreaked the same havoc as Trump. But you didn't care and put equation mark between them.

Not the same havoc, but havoc none the less. Hillary is the epitome of everything wrong with the Democratic Party and their move towards the right. That's why the party is so heavily divided.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I see. So you don't care that a "neutral" party was actively trying to screw over one of its candidates.

One of ITS candidates. DNC colluded with the DNC over the DNC nomination of the DNC candidate. So, no - even though I think they made a mistake with Sanders, that is no where even remotely in the same ballpark as what happened with Russia.

99.8% of the "revelations" from Hillary's / DNC emails was mundane political stuff, as it would've been with the GOP (which I'm sure GRU also obtained, but didn't release via their WikiLeaks puppets).

You only care that the information was made public.

Releasing the illegally obtained information was only the beginning. Russia, a hostile foreign power, conducted an all-out assault on the election process in the US and colluded with / recruited American citizens. And those American citizens - traitors - have deep and filthy financial ties to Russia. The shoes are dropping left and right and will continue to do so.

The next time you tell me that my priorities are messed up, I'll remember to consider the source.

Perhaps you should not consider anything. It's just pointless.

And honestly, I don't care if my vote was futile.

Of course you don't. You're too obsessed with Hillary to care you did your part in helping Trump make his way into the White House.

I don't vote out of fear, I vote based on what I believe in.

Speaking of Jill Stein, what was she doing in Moscow at that RT dinner with Flynn in December 2015 breaking bread with murderer Putin? His intent was obviously siphoning votes away from Clinton.

Not the same havoc, but havoc none the less.

Bull. You put equation mark between Clinton and Trump and you continue to do so. As flawed as she may be, Hillary Clinton would not have been as astoundingly hideous of a President as Donald Trump.

 

[Frank Underwood]

One of ITS candidates. DNC colluded with the DNC over the DNC nomination of the DNC candidate. So, no - even though I think they made a mistake with Sanders, that is no where even remotely in the same ballpark as what happened with Russia.

99.8% of the "revelations" from Hillary's / DNC emails was mundane political stuff, as it would've been with the GOP (which I'm sure GRU also obtained, but didn't release via their WikiLeaks puppets).

Of course they only released information meant to hurt Hillary. I've never denied they had an agenda. But as the saying goes, you can't blackmail an honest man. This is why I believe our political parties should be required to be transparent in their activities in the first place. The DNC's charter says they're neutral, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on tv to say the same thing. She also said the Democratic Party is a grassroots party, and then a video surfaces of her saying that unpledged delegates are in place to keep out grassroots activists. The DNC is corrupt as they come, regardless of how that information came to light.

As a result, several DNC officials resigned, and there's even a class action lawsuit against them. Much ado about nothing, or an appropriate response to a party that screwed its base? You decide (I certainly have).

Releasing the illegally obtained information was only the beginning. Russia, a hostile foreign power, conducted an all-out assault on the election process in the US and colluded with / recruited American citizens. And those American citizens - traitors - have deep and filthy financial ties to Russia. The shoes are dropping left and right and will continue to do so.

I'm only referring to the emails. I've condemned everything else they've done, including any possible collusion with the Trump Administration.

I also condemned the illegal method used to obtain the emails, despite how I feel about what's in them.

Of course you don't. You're too obsessed with Hillary to care you did your part in helping Trump make his way into the White House.

Decades of Democratic concessions to the right helped Trump make his way into the White House. We don't have an opposition party. Republicans are worse because Democrats keep pushing them further to the right. That's how a con man like Trump was able to bullshit his way into the White House. It wasn't just the sexism, racism, and xenophobia. He made sure to throw in some of Bernie's populism too.

And in case you were unaware, I live in the blue state of Washington. My vote literally made no difference one way or the other. But if you have an issue with futility, I suggest you be more upset at the electoral college.

Speaking of Jill Stein, what was she doing in Moscow at that RT dinner with Flynn in December 2015 breaking bread with murderer Putin? His intent was obviously siphoning votes away from Clinton.

According to Stein, she was one of several politicians there pushing a peace initiative with the Middle East. She called for ending the war in Syria, and said we should freeze the funding of countries that fund terrorism.

It's not uncommon for politicians (prospective or otherwise) to meet with nefarious leaders in an effort to push diplomatic measures.

Now tell me why Hillary Clinton is smiling and shaking hands with Putin in this photo. Is she part of a large scale Russian conspiracy too?

Bull. You put equation mark between Clinton and Trump and you continue to do so. As flawed as she may be, Hillary Clinton would not have been as astoundingly hideous of a President as Donald Trump.

I'm sure all of the innocent dead civilians scattered across the Middle East find Hillary less hideous than Trump. Or the refugee children she threatened to deport. Or the American citizens who were the target of her and her husband's social conservative agenda in the 90s. Just because Trump's policies are more extreme and Hillary doesn't speak like a petulant child doesn't make her record any less ugly.

I'm reminded of what a character on the show "Designated Survivor" said about how the new President embodied "service over ambition" and "integrity over expedience. Hillary's backwards on both counts.