Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 11, 2019

Speaker Pelosi admonished Democrats for personally attacking one another, warning in a meeting Wednesday that the party's fracturing was jeopardizing its majority. Without naming names, her target was clear: the four liberal freshmen known as "the Squad."

"You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK," Pelosi told Democrats. But "the Squad" - Reps. Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Omar of Minnesota, Tlaib of Michigan and Pressley of Massachusetts - is convinced it is Pelosi who is being the bully.

The four are struggling with Pelosi's moves to isolate them in recent weeks, according to interviews with the lawmakers, aides and allies, and are trying to figure out how to respond, texting one another and weighing whether to confront Pelosi to ask her to stop. For now, they are forced to focus on their congressional duties, even as they defend their votes in the House that have drawn Pelosi's ire.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Poor babies, the speaker is teaching them how things actually work in DC, and they all fall back on their "women of color" SJW defense. Unfortunately for them, Nancy isn't buying it.

The Speaker's message should be clear by now: "Shut up, put your head down and do your work, and if you have problems, Rookie, come to me with them rather than airing them in public."

Sounds like the message given to new workers at new jobs everywhere.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 11:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

FTA:

"The tensions underscore the political and generational divide between the most powerful woman in American politics, who has led House Democrats for more than 16 years, and the new band of liberals clamoring for change and trying to push the party left. Pelosi has spent more than 30 years perfecting an inside game to secure wins for her party, most notably the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The four freshman lawmakers, by contrast, have built a massive online following and leveraged their power on the outside, including in the 2020 presidential race.

Their ability to work together - or refusal to - will have major implications for Democrats as they seek to oust President Donald Trump and retain their majority in next year's election. Pelosi knows that fate of her majority rests with the moderate Democrats who captured Republican-held seats in last year's midterm elections."

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 11:59 AM | Reply

--"the Squad" -

Kinda like the Cultural Revolution's "Gang of Four," and almost as radical.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-11 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But "the Squad" - Reps. Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Omar of Minnesota, Tlaib of Michigan and Pressley of Massachusetts - is convinced it is Pelosi who is being the bully."

She is, but that's her job. She has a bully pulpit.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 12:02 PM | Reply

"and almost as radical."

Only "almost?"
You're slipping, Nullifidian.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 12:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Pelosi has spent more than 30 years perfecting an inside game to secure wins for her party, most notably the Affordable Care Act in 2010."

Which the Republicans are now going to have declared undonstitutional by the SC. And it looks likely that they may succeed. The Democratic Party under Pelosi's leadership hasn't won a battle in a long time because Americans don't want Republican-lite. We want what the Squad is trying to bring to the forfront.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-11 12:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

Pelosi let George W. Bush off the hook for lying us into war in Iraq, now she's letting Trump off the hook for multiple crimes, what does it take to get impeached with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-11 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Pelosi's isolation gambit leaves four liberals ultra-Leftists struggling

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-11 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Kinda like the Cultural Revolution's "Gang of Four," and almost as radical.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

God you're an idiot.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-11 01:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Welcome to the new normalcy of twitter and social media politics.

For the likes of AOC it's all about the likes and clicks, not the number of bills passed, agenda moved forward or impact made on their district and constituencies.

I can't wait for her re-election campaign. Vote AOC! She has the most likes and retweets!

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-11 01:17 PM | Reply

Pelosi let George W. Bush off the hook for lying us into war in Iraq, now she's letting Trump off the hook for multiple crimes, what does it take to get impeached with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-07-11 12:24 PM | REPLY

I told you she wasn't the correct person for Speakership. Nobody listens to me however. Everyone thinks I'm a blooming dingbat.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-07-11 01:21 PM | Reply

Kinda like the Cultural Revolution's "Gang of Four," and almost as radical.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

God you're an idiot.

#9 | Posted by jpw

Regarding that comment from our right-wing-iciocy-spewing curmudgeon, that's a monumental understatement.

#12 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-11 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11

But you are OUR blooming dingbat, Laura.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You play with the bull, you get the horns. Entitled little sh#ts think if they put something out on Twitter, Pelosi is going to come give them a participation trophy, and this ain't that kind of game.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-07-11 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I kind of expected everyone who has complained about the 'Twitterer in Chief' to complain about the 'Twitterer's in Congress'. - *not*

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 03:12 PM | Reply

I kind of expected everyone who has complained about the 'Twitterer in Chief' to complain about the 'Twitterer's in Congress'. - *not*

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Awwww poor sheepleshart.

Leave Donald ALONE!!! *whimper whimper whimper*

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-11 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

For now, they are forced to focus on their congressional duties,

They can do what Republicans do. Phone it in and collect pay checks.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 03:15 PM | Reply

RoC,

What's interesting about you is your love/hate relationship with Pelosi.

She's tough with AOC? You love her, she's the boss!

She's not impeaching Trump? You hate her, she's a fool!

It's not Pelosi you like. It's getting what you want that you enjoy.

As for me? I think Pelosi should step aside and let new members of Congress lead. She should be there as an adviser and support what younger generations of Americans want.

She's squandered any momentum Democrats had in 2018.

Pretty much handing the presidency to Trump.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She's squandered any momentum Democrats had in 2018.

Pretty much handing the presidency to Trump.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack

LOL yeah, it wasn't at all the younger Dems you seem to think are ready to take the reigns demanding free schitt galore and not having a presentable plan to pay for it or provide it.

The more left wing part of the party is dick punching themselves yet again by taking a single election cycle as a sign to go for broke for every single lefty policy they've never been able to pass.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-11 03:24 PM | Reply

RoC,
What's interesting about you is your love/hate relationship with Pelosi.
She's tough with AOC? You love her, she's the boss!
She's not impeaching Trump? You hate her, she's a fool!

It's not love/hate, I think she is the one of the best Democratic politicians to come along in quite some time, and while I think she is making a Yuge mistake in not commencing impeachment proceedings when she has a clearly impeachable offense in obstruction of justice I do think that she handles her caucus, as Speaker, better than anyone else that the Dems currently have in the House (or have had in decades).

She is a far better Speaker than Boehner or Ryan ever were, I think she is verging on Tip O'Neill territory.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 03:42 PM | Reply

The problem I have with Pelosi and most of the career congresscritters is that a Representative is exactly that.

AOC is not just a newly hired employee in a business.

In the private sector, you're new. You have to earn your due, you're a grunt. It takes time to become a part of a company.

This is not true of a Congressman or Congresswoman! She represents her district and demands respect and is an equal in the House. She isn't one person and I am disgusted of anyone treating her as less.

When I write to the Honorable AOC, that title is automatic. She is every man, woman, and child in her District. She 'is' them. Congresscritters fail to realize that!

#21 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-07-11 04:03 PM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY PETROUS

That's fairly reasonable. Congress and gov't also has unwritten rules and traditions. Pelosi is actually behaving like the 'good ol boys' club she and other women have tried to break up. Now she's the one holding to traditions and seniority. Some of it's female dick wagging.

#22 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21

Noble, but unrealistic. At the end of the day, being a Congressperson on the Hill is like any other job, and seniority and leadership means something. Like any new employee, AOC and the rest of the "Squad" have to earn respect from their fellow Congresspeople, it's a harsh reality but politics is like that.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 04:19 PM | Reply

She's squandered any momentum Democrats had in 2018.
Pretty much handing the presidency to Trump.

#18 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Oh stop it. You'll be screaming "the Russians did it again!" when your time of the month comes.

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 05:06 PM | Reply

it wasn't at all the younger Dems you seem to think are ready to take the reigns demanding free schitt galore and not having a presentable plan to pay for it or provide it.

You should drop the "free stuff" BS.

No one is suggesting "free stuff".

What's being suggested is using our taxes differently.

The Republican Party want to frame it as "free stuff" because it makes greedy morons furious at the notion that poor people are getting "stuff for free" and they aren't.

Also, the stuff the want to give everyone is education and healthcare.

Something other nations don't have any problems providing their citizens.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 05:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also, the stuff the want to give everyone is education and healthcare.
Something other nations don't have any problems providing their citizens.

#25 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I support this ultimately, but like I've said before, there has to be a way to pay for it AND balance our budget.

We waste too much on military and duplicate gov't tasks, so that has to be dealt with too.

#26 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You'll be screaming "the Russians did it again!" when your time of the month comes.
#24 | POSTED BY SHERP

Does you d¡ck get cut up from fkkking all your strawmen?

Find where I've ever said anything about Russia doing anything to help Trump win.

You stupid moron, I was as critical of Hillary as you were. I've always held her accountable for her loss.

I'm clearly not obsessed with her, like you seem to be.

2016 came and went. It's 2019.

Get some new material.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 05:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We waste too much on military and duplicate gov't tasks, so that has to be dealt with

Yea. Agreed.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is her last term; she can't keep openly going against the base and expect to be reelected.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-07-11 05:31 PM | Reply

#29

Doubt it, a vast majority of Democrats in the House agree with her:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent the better part of the week sending sharp messages to her liberal critics on and off Capitol Hill. So far, it appears most House Democrats -- including many freshmen -- are taking her side.

A quartet of first-term lawmakers -- Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York -- have been especially vocal in their criticism of Mrs. Pelosi and of moderates in the caucus for their handling of the bill.

Centrists have fired back, and intraparty tensions are clearly simmering. But in interviews with nearly 20 House Democrats on Wednesday, lawmakers largely said they supported the speaker's recent moves.

"That's what leaders do, they absorb some of that back-and-forth for the good of the group," said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a freshman who represents a Michigan district President Trump won in 2016.

Pelosi's Sharp Message for Democrats Finds Receptive Audience

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 05:47 PM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I didn't mention Hillary, you did. Change your pad.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 05:51 PM | Reply

I didn't mention Hillary,

So, "Russians did it again!" Isn't referring to Hillary?

Odd.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-11 06:06 PM | Reply

"I support this ultimately, but like I've said before, there has to be a way to pay for it AND balance our budget."

Then you should be opposed to any and all spending until the budget is balanced.

But you're not.

You're finding excuses that you don't even believe.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 06:21 PM | Reply

"You should drop the "free stuff" BS."

That's like asking Trump to stop having sexual fantasies about his daughter Ivanka, and start having sexual fantasies about his daughter Tiffany.

It's offensive to them to even ask them to try.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 06:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Then you should be opposed to any and all spending until the budget is balanced.

Agreed, and the OMB has estimated that a 2% across the board cut would balance the budget, and over 10 years would save $23T, wiping out the National Debt.

But the Dems and Repubs in DC won't do it, as evidenced by the Bi-partisan shutdown of Rand Paul's "2 Cent" bill in Committee today.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 06:45 PM | Reply

What a loser headline. Only a moron GOP see-you-next-Tuesday would be so transparent about sowing discord among the left.

#36 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-11 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What a loser headline. Only a moron GOP see-you-next-Tuesday would be so transparent about sowing discord among the left.
#36 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2019-07-11 09:55 PM

Agreed. Nancy is being challenged by the Justice Democrats and required Maureen Dowd to paint her as some reluctant heroin.

2020 is coming, progressives are getting harder for Pelosi to discount as "employees" and not real leadership.

What has she done? Voted for the invasions, took single payer off the table, etc. She's unfit because she's a corporate shill leading the rest of the corporate shills.

#37 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-11 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We want what the Squad is trying to bring to the forfront."

The fact that you can't even spell correctly speaks volumes about your support for these people.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-12 07:36 AM | Reply

Pelosi's behavior proves the Democrat leadership remains in denial regarding how their failure to represent the best interests of the working class has created an opportunity for the rise of the orange sloth. What a tragedy.

#39 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-07-12 09:08 AM | Reply

What a loser headline. Only a moron GOP see-you-next-Tuesday would be so transparent about sowing discord among the left.

#36 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2019-07-11 09:55 PM

Take it up with the Washington Post, they are the ones who wrote the headline and the article...funny that you think they are now GOP C-U-Next Tuesdays.

In the meantime, this should help you deal with these feelings you are having.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 11:35 AM | Reply

You should drop the "free stuff" BS.

No one is suggesting "free stuff".

What's being suggested is using our taxes differently.

Ummmm they're selling it as free college and loan forgiveness.

What else is it to have tens of thousands spent for you and forgiven for you when you're putting in an extremely small fraction of it?

But fine, I agree it's a little simplistic and probably too bumperstickerish but the sentiment is true-Dems are running on a vast expansion of social spending without a clear path to attain it.

And by clear path I mean a funding mechanism that is actually attainable.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:15 PM | Reply

Also, the stuff the want to give everyone is education and healthcare.

Something other nations don't have any problems providing their citizens.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack

I agree.

But there needs to be honesty about that, in that those countries pay much higher taxes to cover it. The math works out because they aren't paying out of pocket for those things, but it looks bad from an optics point of view.

You can't say "here, have an education and healthcare paid by everybody else (better than free?) but don't expect to have to pay more because we're miraculously going to make those with the most influence in government pay for it for you!" and expect to be taken seriously.

Be honest about it in that taxes will likely go up to 35-40% of total pay and show the math of how it could balance out.

I'm tired of politicians being given a pass on the means to the end. We're in this schitt show because they only ever talk about ends and fudge everything behind closed doors to make it work.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You'll be screaming "the Russians did it again!" when your time of the month comes.
#24 | POSTED BY SHERP

Does you d¡ck get cut up from fkkking all your strawmen?

Find where I've ever said anything about Russia doing anything to help Trump win.

You stupid moron, I was as critical of Hillary as you were. I've always held her accountable for her loss.

I'm clearly not obsessed with her, like you seem to be.

2016 came and went. It's 2019.

Get some new material.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack

God I wish I could NW flag this more than once.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:19 PM | Reply

Agreed, and the OMB has estimated that a 2% across the board cut would balance the budget, and over 10 years would save $23T, wiping out the National Debt.

Thing is you could probably take 20% from the DoD (how many times are we going to bomb the same stretch of sand back to sand?) and spare a hell of a lot of other more critical agencies.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:21 PM | Reply

What else is it to have tens of thousands spent for you and forgiven for you when you're putting in an extremely small fraction of it?

Corporate subsidies?

Dems are running on a vast expansion of social spending without a clear path to attain it.

Again. There's ways to do it. Namely, stop giving the MIC 54% of the budget. Eliminate tax cuts the rich have been giving themselves. Stop funding other nations. Eliminate corporate subsidies.

Which are you more upset about, the poor using our tax money, or reducing funding for the MIC and the rich?

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2020 is coming, progressives are getting harder for Pelosi to discount as "employees" and not real leadership.

Except they're not real leadership.

They're schitt stirrers with ideas that are big on grandiosity but light on details or plausibility.

Progressives are going to lead alright. Lead to 4 more years of Trump.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:27 PM | Reply

that those countries pay much higher taxes to cover it. The math works out because they aren't paying out of pocket for those things, but it looks bad from an optics point of view.

Yes. I completely agree with you.

Who knows. Maybe I'll bite my tongue when I realize how much more our taxes would be.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 12:28 PM | Reply

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 12:26 PM

Tax on every stock exchange

#48 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-12 12:31 PM | Reply

Corporate subsidies?

So you're going with "but they do it toooooo" as your argument?

I'm all for looking at subsidies and getting rid of those that don't play a significant role in stabilizing their intended market.

Again. There's ways to do it. Namely, stop giving the MIC 54% of the budget. Eliminate tax cuts the rich have been giving themselves. Stop funding other nations. Eliminate corporate subsidies.

There's a reason I've been using the word plausible...

All the above is pie in the sky nonsense. It'll never get done, even with Dems controlling Congress and the WH. And lets say it did get done by some long shot, they'll get creamed the next election cycle, we'll get another Trump the following POTUS election and it'll all be wiped clean and probably made worse in the blowback response.

Progressive's have the huge problem of a lack of restraint and far too strong a sense of immediate gratification. They want it NOW, which kills them every. Single. Time.

If they played the long game and let people experience their policies a little bit more, they'd likely find strong support like the ACA has once people actually got to see it work.

Which are you more upset about, the poor using our tax money, or reducing funding for the MIC and the rich?

#45 | Posted by ClownShack

I've been posting here for over a decade.

That you asked such a stupid, knee jerk question shows you're hyperventilating like a little bitch. Why is that? Because you don't have any detailed answers outside of the regurgitated nonsense?

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Tax on every stock exchange

#48 | Posted by PunchyPossum

Or tax dividends as income. Push more into the general tax tables, particularly money being made by shuffling paper.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:34 PM | Reply

And as expected Punchy is being a passive aggressive little ------ by FF everything.

Got more details to share of how the progressives are going to rescue America while giving everybody everything?

Or are you just going to repeat what Bernie and Liz say that's the same grand idea with no viable way to achieve it?

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Does you d¡ck get cut up from fkkking all your strawmen?

#27 | Posted by ClownShack

His isn't big enough to get hay rash.

#52 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-07-12 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your question is a stupid one do some research idiot that question how to pay has been answered many many many many times hell I gave 1 answer here on this thread.

I like the fact that you're happier than hell to vote for candidates that are willing to fork out big money to corporations but whine and cry when a candidate offers to help the poor or the middle class.

FHK you

#53 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-12 12:54 PM | Reply

stop giving the MIC 54% of the budget - #45 | Posted by ClownShack
Why try to mislead people about something so easy to debunk?
2018 budget to miliary was $574 billion.
Government spending was $4.094 trillion.
Math evidently isn't your strong point, but the 14% spent on the MIC is not the 54% you lied mislead about in your post.

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-12 12:58 PM | Reply

- when a candidate offers to help the poor or the middle class.

www.vox.com

Some people, and marsupials, get upset when THEIR tactic isn't the one chosen to help.

They even deny any other option exists.

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2019-07-12 12:59 PM | Reply

Forgot the link:
en.wikipedia.org
Feel free to follow their citations if you need.

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-12 01:00 PM | Reply

Math evidently isn't your strong point, but the 14% spent on the MIC is not the 54% you lied mislead about in your post.
#54 | POSTED BY ABIGBORE

Don't know whether you're lying, misleading, or are just an idiot. But here, and I can provide citation.

"In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending."

www.nationalpriorities.org

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 01:04 PM | Reply

Forgot the link:
en.wikipedia.org
Feel free to follow their citations if you need.

Wikipedia?

Did you just finish editing their page?

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 01:04 PM | Reply

That you asked such a stupid, knee jerk question shows you're hyperventilating like a little bitch. Why is that? Because you don't have any detailed answers outside of the regurgitated nonsense?
#49 | POSTED BY JPW

Awe, you didn't like my question?

I gave you ways. You wrote them off as implausible.

So. I guess nothing can be done. Thoughts and prayers.

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2019-07-12 12:59 PM | Reply | F

And some damn fools like you have no idea what the hell they're talking about

I wasn't talking about any specific way of funding help for the middle class and the poor I was saying that helping the middle class and the poor over helping the rich was a good idea and I was saying the money is there to do this.

#60 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-12 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh yes, I did say one way to raise money but that was one out of many other ways that can be done that I hadn't specified.

#61 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-12 01:12 PM | Reply

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2019-07-12 12:59 PM | Rep

Oh I see you just wanted an excuse to cry a little more about hillary, there there I will pat your head and let you cry on my shoulder for a minute and let you get it all out now.

Jesus CORKY, get over it, and don't give me links to BS

#62 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-12 01:18 PM | Reply

I like the fact that you're happier than hell to vote for candidates that are willing to fork out big money to corporations but whine and cry when a candidate offers to help the poor or the middle class.

Show me where that's supported in my posting history.

Or just calm the f$&@ down and stop being such a hysterical cooze.

Jesus why are progressive so quick to cry? You'd think Hillary lost again...

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 02:13 PM | Reply

54 percent of all federal discretionary spending -#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 01:04 PM
stop giving the MIC 54% of the budget. -#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 12:26 PM
Are you as bad at English as you are at math?
Were you wrong in #57, #45, or are you ignorant of the difference between the budget and discretionary spending, which makes up a minority of the budget?

#64 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-12 02:15 PM | Reply

Awe, you didn't like my question?

I said it was a stupid question. Probably wouldn't be inaccurate to call it a straw man.

I gave you ways. You wrote them off as implausible.

So it's going to be funded by

A. Willingly taking the kiss of death by slashing military funding
B. Increasing taxes on those with the most influence in our government

at the same time...

To call that strategy a bumbling fool's mess is an understatement. Both are DOA if gone for immediately.

Also, taxes will have to go up on everybody. That's an inescapable fact and it's dishonest to act like it doesn't have to happen.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 02:17 PM | Reply

Got more details to share of how the progressives are going to rescue America while giving everybody everything?
Or are you just going to repeat what Bernie and Liz say that's the same grand idea with no viable way to achieve it?

#51 | POSTED BY JPW

It CAN be achieved with a focused domestic agenda, and abandoning the world police, global piggybank, endless wars strategy.

#66 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-12 02:20 PM | Reply

A. Willingly taking the kiss of death by slashing military funding
B. Increasing taxes on those with the most influence in our government

#65 | POSTED BY JPW

For starters.

We'd be doing the world and the planet much good by shrinking our military footprint.
Close the loopholes where the rich siphon wealth.
Claw back offshore monies.
Eliminate dark money, lobbyists, and nonprofits in politics.

There's plenty we can do. You don't want to do the lifting.

#67 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-12 02:25 PM | Reply

It CAN be achieved with a focused domestic agenda, and abandoning the world police, global piggybank, endless wars strategy.

#66 | Posted by SheepleSchism

What you said = cut DoD budget.

Again, I'm all for it. It just can't be the first punch of the fight because it'll likely miss and you're at a serious disadvantage if it does.

Close the loopholes where the rich siphon wealth.
Claw back offshore monies.
Eliminate dark money, lobbyists, and nonprofits in politics.

All things that need to be done.

Probably before free college and medicare for all because you'll need all the political capital you can get for those changes alone and because with those changes made things like low cost college and medicare for all are far more attainable.

There's plenty we can do. You don't want to do the lifting.

#67 | Posted by SheepleSchism

The straw is thick on this thread.

It's almost as if I'm in a room full of children who want their cookies now now NOW!

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Probably wouldn't be inaccurate to call it a straw man.

What position was I assigning you?

A. Willingly taking the kiss of death by slashing military funding
B. Increasing taxes on those with the most influence in our government

A. I'm not sure if it's the "kiss of death", or if that's what people have been conditioned to believe. Either way, we spend to much money on the MIC. Because people have been scared into believing without it we would be victim to attack.

B. "Increasing" taxes is a misleading statement, something I'd expect to hear from Republican pundits. Eliminating tax cuts isn't the same as increasing taxes. It's getting rid of unnecessary tax cuts the rich don't need and aren't helping our economy. Didn't help when Reagan did it, didn't help when BushJr did it, isn't helping now with Trump's news tax cuts.

To call that strategy a bumbling fool's mess is an understatement. Both are DOA if gone for immediately.

I don't hear you offering up shht. Just b¡tching about the implausibility of it all. What's to be done?

If your answer is, "nothing can be done." Then fkkk it. Why are you even wasting your time posting about progressives? They're not going to accomplish anything anyway. Or if they do then we're doomed to another Trump.

Weird how we don't see repercussions for any actions republicans are taking. Perhaps because they don't spend time worrying about repercussions and get what they can when they can.

Reality is, there are ways we can provide Americans with free healthcare and education. You simply oppose them.

#69 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 02:43 PM | Reply

"It's almost as if I'm in a room full of children who want their cookies now now NOW!"

When would you like your cookies?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

After his nap.

#71 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-12 02:50 PM | Reply

are you ignorant of the difference between the budget and discretionary spending
#64 | POSTED BY ABIGBORE

Oh. You're a semantics boy. Sorry about totally throwing you off with my layman terminology.

Since we're going into it.

Do you know the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending?

Do you know which Congress has more control over allocating funds from?

Do you know which the Republican Party would prefer to make cuts from?

#72 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hilarious stuff guys.

"I know you are but what am I" was the perfect response.

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 03:09 PM | Reply

"Increasing" taxes is a misleading statement, something I'd expect to hear from Republican pundits. Eliminating tax cuts isn't the same as increasing taxes. It's getting rid of unnecessary tax cuts the rich don't need and aren't helping our economy. Didn't help when Reagan did it, didn't help when BushJr did it, isn't helping now with Trump's news tax cuts.

Talk about deceitful. No wonder you think that what I'm saying is bad.

Repealing tax cuts is raising taxes. If the % per year paid goes up, that isn't raising taxes no matter how that increased % is achieved.

Also, as small as the cuts were for the middle and lower class, there will still be increases in the repeals.

Unless you're going to keep those in place and only repeal the cuts on the top brackets.

In which case you're a moron who's drinking way too much of the kool aid.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 03:11 PM | Reply

#74

Yea. Like I said, "something I'd expect to hear from Republican pundits."

Anyway, wanna take a swing at this, "I don't hear you offering up shht."

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:13 PM | Reply

Also, taxes will have to go up on everybody. That's an inescapable fact and it's dishonest to act like it doesn't have to happen.

#65 | POSTED BY JPW

That is very true.

I will oppose any new programs until our government actually fully funds the ones in existence and that includes the unfunded liabilities tied to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These 3 programs plus servicing the debt make up roughly 2/3 of the entire budget.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 03:19 PM | Reply

Also, as small as the cuts were for the middle and lower class, there will still be increases in the repeals.

This is the bigger issue.

Middle and lower class Americans would have to see for themselves that while they're paying more in taxes, they're paying less than they were before for healthcare and education.

If people could gain a little foresight, they would see the long term results would be a smarter, healthier America.

#77 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:22 PM | Reply

that includes the unfunded liabilities tied to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Give me a fkkking break.

If you Republicans had kept your hands off those funds they wouldn't be liabilities.

You can't piss in the drinking water and then complain there's nothing to drink. You created the problem. Now you're crying about it.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:28 PM | Reply

#78 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

How we arrived here is irrelevant at this point.

Elections are about looking forward, not back.

My stance remains. I will oppose all new spending until existing programs are properly funded.

That will require a mix of spending cuts (slowly raising the age of eligibility in the case of SS and Medicare) and tax increases across the board.

That's what it will take to properly fund existing programs. I don't think our political class has the fortitude to get that done. And, until the public demands it nothing will get done.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 03:32 PM | Reply

Middle and lower class Americans would have to see for themselves that while they're paying more in taxes, they're paying less than they were before for healthcare and education.
If people could gain a little foresight, they would see the long term results would be a smarter, healthier America.

#77 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The problem is the people who have excellent health insurance plans and that includes millions of union workers.

You have to sell them on the fact that they'll be paying more and receiving less as it pertains to healthcare.

M4A is a mirage. You don't get there all at once. A public option gets you there over time as the government not only becomes a player but also the rule maker and referee. It's impossible to compete against anyone who has the power to change the rules and referee the game.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 03:35 PM | Reply

"I will oppose any new programs"

Last month you were practically in tears that Democrats in Congress might not release additional funds for Trump's new "zero tolerance" Family Separation Policy.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 03:38 PM | Reply

Last month you were practically in tears that Democrats in Congress might not release additional funds for Trump's new "zero tolerance" Family Separation Policy.

#81 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You do understand the difference between an appropriation for an existing government function and the creation of an all-new program, right?

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 03:44 PM | Reply

How we arrived here is irrelevant at this point.

"Party of Personal Responsibility" strikes again.

Yea. I know you don't care. That was my point.

Your party literally looted those funds and are now telling us why the money we've been putting into that system, since we got our first job (age 16 for me), is an unfunded liability.

Like I said earlier. Go fkkk yourself.

#83 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:47 PM | Reply

Last month you were practically in tears that Democrats in Congress might not release additional funds for Trump's new "zero tolerance" Family Separation Policy.

He also had front row seats for the Trump Day Military parade.

Don't tell him how they got that money. Cause at this point, it's irrelevant.

#84 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 03:49 PM | Reply

"You do understand the difference between an appropriation for an existing government function and the creation of an all-new program, right?"

Seems like you don't.
Trump's zero tolerance policy is an all new policy.
They even piloted it:
"From July to October 2017, the Trump administration ran what the DHS called a "pilot program" for zero tolerance in El Paso. Families were separated, including families that were seeking asylum, and children were then reclassified as "unaccompanied" and sent into a network of shelters with no system created to reunite them with their parents."
en.wikipedia.org

You seem to be incapable of not lying to yourself or others, JeffJ.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 03:54 PM | Reply

Yea. I know you don't care. That was my point.
Your party literally looted those funds and are now telling us why the money we've been putting into that system, since we got our first job (age 16 for me), is an unfunded liability.
Like I said earlier. Go fkkk yourself.
#83 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I am going to use a quote for my response:

you're hyperventilating like a little bitch. Why is that? Because you don't have any detailed answers outside of the regurgitated nonsense?

#49 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-07-12 12:33 PM


Let me know when you are willing to have an adult discussion, Clown.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 03:55 PM | Reply

"You do understand the difference between an appropriation for an existing government function and the creation of an all-new program, right?"

So DACA wasn't a new program?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 03:59 PM | Reply

Yea. Like I said, "something I'd expect to hear from Republican pundits."

Yawn.

Your arguments are paper thin all around, aren't they?

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 04:43 PM | Reply

Let me know when you are willing to have an adult discussion, Clown.

How are you proposing an "adult discussion", when you're unwilling to hold yourself responsible for where we find ourselves?

"How we arrived here is irrelevant at this point."

Yea. That's a great start to the discussion. Find some personal responsibility for yourself. Then we'll talk.

As for JPW, he just b¡tched it up and left.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 05:28 PM | Reply

As for JPW, he just b¡tched it up and left.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack

Yeah there's this thing called "work".

Where people go to make "money".

To pay for things the Dems aren't giving them for free.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 05:29 PM | Reply

Your arguments are paper thin all around, aren't they?
#88 | POSTED BY JPW

Says the guy who hasn't proposed anything.

Let me know when you actually have something constructive to contribute.

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 05:29 PM | Reply

Yeah there's this thing called "work".

Where people go to make "money".

You're one step away from becoming a full blow Trumptard.

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 05:30 PM | Reply

*munches popcorn*

#93 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 05:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

*Cracks a beer*

and

*Munches popcorn*

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 05:44 PM | Reply

We are where we are, Clown.

I'm discussing what I believe needs to be done to move forward.

All you seem interested in doing is attacking me personally in lieu of addressing how to try and deal with these problems.

If you want to discuss this like an adult, I'm here.

You wanna sling mud, I'll just tune you out like I often do with Snoofy

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 05:47 PM | Reply

*Passes Twizzlers*

#96 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-12 05:58 PM | Reply

I'm discussing what I believe needs to be done to move forward.

You're avoiding responsibility for the fact the people you continuously vote for have broken the system and you want that ignored.

You want to change how social security works because now it's an unfunded liability.

You wanna sling mud, I'll just tune you out like I often do with Snoofy

Do what ever you want. You're a grown man. Take some responsibility for your choices and stop blaming other people.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 06:02 PM | Reply

I like how the question

"So DACA wasn't a new program?"

is Kryptonite for JeffJ.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 06:26 PM | Reply

#98

Apparently you're Kryptonite for JeffJ.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 06:59 PM | Reply

Is DACA, a new program?

Can someone provide the law creating DACA?

#100 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-07-12 07:19 PM | Reply

You're one step away from becoming a full blow Trumptard.

#92 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

LOL so anything right of AOC and Bernie is Trumptard land now?

#101 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 07:24 PM | Reply

"Can someone provide the law creating DACA?"

How are you this bad at figuring things out by yourself?
Seriously, how?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 07:28 PM | Reply

Let me know when you actually have something constructive to contribute.

#91 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

My ideas are just more incremental versions of most Dems.

Healthcare-single later with private insurance until people trust the program. Shouldn't take long given the support for the ACA and Medicare/medicaide.

Education-LOW COST college, on par with what it was in the 60's and 70's at state institutions.

Maintain EPA and reinstitute clean air and water regs.

Repeal tax "reforms" and and simplify taxes by taxing income as income, whether it be wages, dividends, bonuses ect.

Drop student loan interest rates back to where they were when I finished school, about 3-3.5%.

What else?

#103 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 07:32 PM | Reply

LOL so anything right of AOC and Bernie is Trumptard land now?
#101 | POSTED BY JPW

It was more about you exclaiming how you have a "job" so you can make "money" to pay for the free things dems wanna hand out.

Literally a right wing talking point.

Normally you're better at following conversation. Perhaps take a deep breath. You've been unhinged since #49. I supposed my leading question was a bit much.

#104 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 07:37 PM | Reply

#104 - "I suppose my..."

#103 - those are all good gradual steps. Thanks for sharing.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-12 07:39 PM | Reply

LOL so anything right of AOC and Bernie is Trumptard land now?
#101 | POSTED BY JPW

You are starting to figure that out now? Some sense of awareness you have.....

#106 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-12 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Normally you're better at following conversation. Perhaps take a deep breath. You've been unhinged since #49. I supposed my leading question was a bit much.

#104 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Unhinged lol I was f$&@ing with you.

Don't take yourself so seriously.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 08:16 PM | Reply

You are starting to figure that out now? Some sense of awareness you have.....

#106 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Are you trying to look dumb?

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-12 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My ideas are just more incremental versions of most Dems.

Healthcare-single later with private insurance until people trust the program. Shouldn't take long given the support for the ACA and Medicare/medicaide.

Education-LOW COST college, on par with what it was in the 60's and 70's at state institutions.

Maintain EPA and reinstitute clean air and water regs.

Repeal tax "reforms" and and simplify taxes by taxing income as income, whether it be wages, dividends, bonuses ect.

Drop student loan interest rates back to where they were when I finished school, about 3-3.5%.

What else?

#103 | POSTED BY JPW

Dang. I'm pretty sure when getting into the nuts and bolts there would be plenty of disagreement, but these basic principles, on a Venn Diagram I see a fair amount of overlap there.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 09:43 PM | Reply

is Kryptonite for JeffJ.

#98 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-07-12 06:26 PM | FLAG:

#98

Apparently you're Kryptonite for JeffJ.

#99 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

His incessant inanities and absurd equivalencies are Ashton Stamp for JeffJ.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What else?

#103 | POSTED BY JPW

Cut military - MIC expenditures, scale back global military footprint, eliminate dark money/lobbyist/ political non-profit influence.

#111 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-12 09:56 PM | Reply

"His incessant inanities and absurd equivalencies are Ashton Stamp for JeffJ."

You hide from even the easy questions like a cowardly dog hides from thunder, JeffJ.

Was DACA an appropriation for an existing government function, or the creation of an all-new program?

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 10:40 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.

I'm not playing this game because you are bored.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 10:41 PM | Reply

"Snoofy,
Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. "

Show me where I'm being dishonest.

You said "I will oppose any new programs until..."
Then I mentioned a new program, one that's supported by an EO.
Then you got pouty and clammed up.

It's what you do.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 10:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort