Wallace interviews Pelosi...the latter making no sense

[dairyair]

I saw this interview. Yeah, Pelosi looked unprepared, and her delivery was hard to follow. I swear the thought that occurred to was how bad Trump, Pelosi, and Biden are becoming. All three of them are over-the-hill and talk word salad. It's disappointing & disconcerting.

Both party leaders are the front end of the baby boomer generation.
That is old.
Don't young people vote?

The elder boomer generation has really divided this country and ran up a ****load of debt that their kids and grandkids will bear.

 

[trouble13]

Agreed.

Thing is though, Trump's E.O.'s may become a disaster. But he still won the day politically, at least for the moment, and Pelosi was caught off guard. She over-played her hand.

I understand why he did the EOs and dont have a probkem with what they do (devil in the details wary) but I am not a fan of it being done through an EO. This is a failure of congress and they should be the ones who fifure out how to compromise with eachother. This is presidental overreach regardless of good intentions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Moon]

It was Fox. Fox on Sunday. But Wallace handled her very fairly. He was extremely considerate, cordial, and gave her plenty of floor to respond & make her points. She just had a mediocre day.

Chris Wallace is the best interviewer in the business.

 

[dairyair]

Trump caught them flatfooted this time around. I am sure the dem think tank is hard at work on how to reframe things to their advantage.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Flatfooted?
The house passed legislation 2 months ago as a base start point.

The Senate Repubs are so fractured, they could not participate in the negotiations.

 

[Grand Mal]

What would you make of her dodging answer to a straight forward question?



Word salad followed by diversion, and not an answer. You disagree? Please explain in lengthy detail what she mean then.

Realistically, Pelosi was stumbling around with an incoherent and dodging answer because she doesn't have a coherent answer.

She also knows that if she were honest, that her decision was driven by hatred of Trump (can't give him a win) at the cost of the electorate, if would be significantly politically worse for her.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

I mean, believe whatever you have to, and imagine whatever the **** you want, but seriously?
This counts as a coherent answer to the question for you?

Don't be an ass. You're asking me to explain my non-reaction to something that hasn't been brought up in the thread. What did you expect me to do, go search the internet to find what the hell you were talking about? And if you think I'm going to explain anything to you in lengthy detail you haven't been paying attention here. I don't do hoops.
As for what you quoted, a child could understand it. Wallace asked her why, if she knew Trump was going to cut his EO, she didn't pursue a compromise. She explained why she didn't want to compromise on the issue. It's very simply stated and very clear. Very coherent. You might disagree with her but if you seriously didn't understand her you have language problems. What's more likely is you just see the name Pelosi and start blubbering every perjorative you're familiar with. What's more likely is you like the sound of the word 'incoherent' and like how using it makes you feel an be damned whether it actually applies.
Go find a different quote. Show us her being incoherent. This one is an embarrassing failure.

 

[Helix]

It was Fox. Fox on Sunday. But Wallace handled her very fairly. He was extremely considerate, cordial, and gave her plenty of floor to respond & make her points. She just had a mediocre day.

possibly. did fox get what they wanted out of it, though? i'd bet my money on yes. find a ****ing person like me to have in the room when it comes to this kind of thing. the last spider trap that you want to fall into is a reasonable one. i almost tear my hair out when people just won't accept that. however, i like my hair more. have a helix in the room. just do it. ignore him if you want, but have that person who says "yeah, no."

 

[Xilnik]

Can you link to the interview so the rest of us can either see what you're talking about or come to our own conclusions?

Fox News - Speaker Pelosi on FNS | Facebook

Chris Wallace presses Pelosi on coronavirus stimulus: 'Didn't you mess this up?' - YouTube

The full interview includes a bit more that the Facebook link cut off at the end. I actually think in context that her points make more sense than what we have seen represented in previous posts.

 

[Chomsky]

I understand why he did the EOs and dont have a probkem with what they do (devil in the details wary) but I am not a fan of it being done through an EO. This is a failure of congress and they should be the ones who fifure out how to compromise with eachother. This is presidental overreach regardless of good intentions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Agreed. But speaking in purely political terms, if there's SNAFUs this could come back to Trump. By going-in like he did, he took ownership of it.

Some states are saying they don't have the 25% matching funds. So now, Treasury is telling them they should apply for leftover PPP funds, get the 100 bucks per person, then take the 300 from Trump and together give it all to the beneficiaries. Perhaps even worse, Trump seems to be funding this by raiding FEMA funds, with FEMA providing the infrastructure for funds transfer. So, now the states will have to switch their unemployment systems over to a FEMA system. All this, and there's still the possibility of law suits. And to boot, he cut everyone's benefits in half.

 

[Chomsky]

Chris Wallace is the best interviewer in the business.

Bret Baeir ain't bad, either.

 

[Helix]

yeah, i watched twenty seconds of it. completely predictable mistake. find a Lyor.

 

[gdgyva]

Flatfooted?
The house passed legislation 2 months ago as a base start point.

The Senate Repubs are so fractured, they could not participate in the negotiations.

The senate was NEVER going to give Nancy what she wanted

She wasnt moving enough....

Trump bypassed her, and the idiots in the senate who thought they could stonewall the entire process

Now congress as a whole looks like assholes....

I hate EO's but love that these may be the ones that actually get deal making back in DC

 

[eohrnberger]

Don't be an ass. You're asking me to explain my non-reaction to something that hasn't been brought up in the thread. What did you expect me to do, go search the internet to find what the hell you were talking about? And if you think I'm going to explain anything to you in lengthy detail you haven't been paying attention here. I don't do hoops.
As for what you quoted, a child could understand it. Wallace asked her why, if she knew Trump was going to cut his EO, she didn't pursue a compromise. She explained why she didn't want to compromise on the issue. It's very simply stated and very clear. Very coherent. You might disagree with her but if you seriously didn't understand her you have language problems. What's more likely is you just see the name Pelosi and start blubbering every perjorative you're familiar with. What's more likely is you like the sound of the word 'incoherent' and like how using it makes you feel an be damned whether it actually applies.
Go find a different quote. Show us her being incoherent. This one is an embarrassing failure.

I do believe I just did, and you are dodging. :shrug:

Done with you here.

 

[trouble13]

Flatfooted?
The house passed legislation 2 months ago as a base start point.

The Senate Repubs are so fractured, they could not participate in the negotiations.

You think its the republicans fault that she does not have a coherent response to Trumos EO?
Let me take a shot in the dark on how this plays in your head.
If only those stubborn senate republicans would of just signed on to the 3 trillion dollar wish list that the democrats passed months ago, then Trump would not of passed the EOs that put democrats in the awkward position that they are in now. Democrats have no blame for including things that they knew were nonstarters for the goo in the senate. The fault is entirely on republicans. Do I have it about it right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lovebug]

Bret Baeir ain't bad, either.

Krauthammer was worth watching.

 

[Chomsky]

possibly. did fox get what they wanted out of it, though? i'd bet my money on yes. find a ****ing person like me to have in the room when it comes to this kind of thing. the last spider trap that you want to fall into is a reasonable one. i almost tear my hair out when people just won't accept that. however, i like my hair more. have a helix in the room. just do it. ignore him if you want, but have that person who says "yeah, no."

No, he didn't trap her. Not at all. If anything, he seemed to defer to her a bit more than I would have expected.

She didn't utterly fail. She just had that odd fragmented way of speaking, that she occasionally does. It's like a quieter and milder version of Trump's 'word salad'. It's not as bad as Trump, but it comes-off to me as watching a very old person stumble through their conversation. Which is essentially what it is.

 

[Chomsky]

Krauthammer was worth watching.

Without a doubt! David Gergen, too. And I swear I'm getting a huge appreciation for Laura Coats (CNN) legal analysis!

 

[Helix]

No, he didn't trap her. Not at all. If anything, he seemed to defer to her a bit more than I would have expected.

She didn't utterly fail. She just had that odd fragmented way of speaking, that she occasionally does. It's like a quieter and milder version of Trump's 'word salad'. It's not as bad as Trump, but it comes-off to me as watching a very old person stumble through their conversation. Which is essentially what it is.

he is the best tool fox ever had. i don't feel sorry for him for ruining his integrity anymore. he is a Republican weapon, and he is very good. look at him that way, and you'll see what i mean.

 

[2distracted]

I understand why he did the EOs and dont have a probkem with what they do (devil in the details wary) but I am not a fan of it being done through an EO. This is a failure of congress and they should be the ones who fifure out how to compromise with eachother. This is presidental overreach regardless of good intentions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Probably but maybe some virus victims are very needy...I don't know..some say it's a national emergency

 

[Chomsky]

The senate was NEVER going to give Nancy what she wanted

She wasnt moving enough....

Trump bypassed her, and the idiots in the senate who thought they could stonewall the entire process

Now congress as a whole looks like assholes....

I hate EO's but love that these may be the ones that actually get deal making back in DC

Yes, but the Devil is in the details. Successfully implementing these programs in E.O. fashion might be more difficult than it would appear, if it even can be done, legally or otherwise.

My post #33 above, puts forth some of the potential SNAFUs: DP

 

[trouble13]

Agreed. But speaking in purely political terms, if there's SNAFUs this could come back to Trump. By going-in like he did, he took ownership of it.

Some states are saying they don't have the 25% matching funds. So now, Treasury is telling them they should apply for leftover PPP funds, get the 100 bucks per person, then take the 300 from Trump and together give it all to the beneficiaries. Perhaps even worse, Trump seems to be funding this by raiding FEMA funds, with FEMA providing the infrastructure for funds transfer. So, now the states will have to switch their unemployment systems over to a FEMA system. All this, and there's still the possibility of law suits. And to boot, he cut everyone's benefits in half.

Trump does own this. His fingerprints are all over this. As I said the devil is always in the details with this stuff.
For instance Trump said he would pay all of the money for some states but will do it on a case by case basis, but he hasnt released what the guidelines are for determining which states get that help. If he comes off looking partisan about which states he helps and which ones he does not it will damage him politically.
What he did was a shrewd political move. He elevated himself above the partisan bickering that nobody likes and said if congress wont help people who are suffering, I will use my position to do it for them. This is the quandry congress is now stuck with. If they take him to court they will look petty. Both sides need to come to an agreement that both sides can live with and then Trump can rescind his EOs

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

he is the best tool fox ever had. i don't feel sorry for him for ruining his integrity anymore. he is a Republican weapon, and he is very good. look at him that way, and you'll see what i mean.

Alright, fair enough. I'll take that under consideration.

 

[Xilnik]

No, he didn't trap her. Not at all. If anything, he seemed to defer to her a bit more than I would have expected.

She didn't utterly fail. She just had that odd fragmented way of speaking, that she occasionally does. It's like a quieter and milder version of Trump's 'word salad'. It's not as bad as Trump, but it comes-off to me as watching a very old person stumble through their conversation. Which is essentially what it is.

Her fragmented speaking seemed to occur when she was summarizing a point she already made in greater detail earlier in the interview. In context, it is much less 'word salad' when taken that way. The blurb we saw from eohrnberger is lacking a lot of context and makes her response seem far more awkward than it actually was.

 

[HennyBogan]

I've had some problems w Wallace before but he's one of the few seemingly non partisan interviewers

And u know...I was ready to really listen to Pelosi..I opened my mind as much as a person can do so without letting the old gray matter fall out

And by dadgum...I still couldn't decipher what the hell she was talking about..

I understood every word Wallace said but Pelosi ... gibberish

It was supposed to be about helping people victimized by the virus

Wallace Essentially asked her why the Democrats don't want to cooperate w Republicans to get help to those in need..

It was bizarre how little sense she made ..if any.

Seemed she was talking about...I don't know...martians or something...

My mind began to wander and wonder...

When u serve the devil long enough, he eventually turns on u...I couldn't help thinking.

She seems to have the same malady as Biden

Probably drunk and her teeth falling out again

 

[Chomsky]

Trump does own this. His fingerprints are all over this. As I said the devil is always in the details with this stuff.
For instance Trump said he would oay all of the money for some states but will do ot on a case by case basis, but he hasnt released what the guidelines are for determining which states get that help. If he comes off looking partisan about which states he helps snd which ones he does not it will damage him politically.
What he did was a shrewd political move. He elivated himself above the partisan bickering that nobody likes and said if congress wont help people who are suffering, I will use my position to do it for them. This is the quandry congress is now stuck with. If they take him to court they will look petty. Both sides need to come to an agreement that both sides csn live with and then Trump can recind his EOs

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, he did elevate himself. But whether he can pull it off, legally or otherwise, is in question. He may be hoping Congress bails him out, and he then claims credit.

Mnuchin was on CNBC first thing this morning, saying he wants to work with Pelosi & Schumer to put together a deal. We shall see ...

 

[Moon]

Krauthammer was worth watching.

Fact.