This is pretty cool.
Of course, FOX News will report this as Democrats being obstructionist. :rolleyes:
Their counterparts already are. McConnell thoughtfully frames it as Pelosi and Shumer putting “our men and women on the battlefield” at risk.
“We’re coming under heavy fire! Requesting immediate air support!”
“Negative. Chuck and Nancy will not meet with POTUS. You’re on your own.”
Eric goes after ABC for reporting on his dad’s idiotic Pocahontas reference in a tweet:
He’s just letting us know how he’s easily staggered and stymied.
My take is that he’s trying to portray Warren as an establishment insider who has been entrenched in Washington forever. I initially rejected that explanation when I realized that Warren was still in her first term as senator, but then I remembered it was Trump we are talking about and the actual facts of the situation are irrelevant.
Well, she was there long before the Native Americans. Which means she’s both part Native American and the ancestor of Native Americans.
Twist your mind around that, Yam.
“We want to meet with Republicans” is now “antics?”
So the Mango Mussolini refers to the Democratic leadership as “Chuck and Nancy,” claims that they want unchecked immigration, that they’re soft on crime, and want to raise taxes. And then basically makes clear that he sees no possibility of a deal with them.
But it’s THEY who are petty for deciding not to waste their time meeting with him?
Oh, the pinhead comments after that article. So much stupid! How do those people remember to breathe?
You’re still not clear on this narcissism thing, are you? 
Dear Eric,
Being called Pocahontas is not offensive if your name is actually Pocahontas.
Just trying to help.
Pelosi and Schumer were in the right–Trump had said no deal was possible, making a meeting useless.
But their method was politically foolish–as noted in this thread, the GOP absolutely is using their stand to label them ‘obstructionist.’
It would have been smarter to say something like:
They should then include Trump’s “I don’t see a deal” tweet in their statement.
That way, the story would have been Trump’s statement that no deal was possible, and his refusal to back off from that position (because of course he would have refused to back off).
I think you are correct insofar as anyone from the White House, FOX, or the community of Trumpniks is capable of picking up nuance.
Your wording is better than the original, but the line, “The ball is in his court,” would simply not be quoted.
Let’s face it, no matter how Chuck and Nancy worded it, the right would have labeled them obstructionist. If they had gone to the meeting and the meeting had ended without agreement, they would have been labeled obstructionist.
The fact that Republicans were obstructionist for eight years is a memory lost in the mists of time.
The real issue is that the current GOP is such a mess that they can’t pass a budget resolution without Democratic votes, and as such they’re in a position to extract a price for them. I think it’s reasonable for them to insist that part of that price, at a minimum, is that they’re not going to take abuse from Trump before negotiations.
Trump seems to think he can blame the shutdown on the Democrats, but I suspect that won’t work on anyone who wouldn’t already blame the Democrats regardless.
I agree that no matter how Pelosi and Schumer replied, they would have been labeled ‘obstructionist’ in the fact-free zone.
But the No Facts crowd would have been at least slightly hampered by P & S emphasizing how deeply they hoped Trump would change his “don’t see a deal” stance, and how eager they were to meet, should he change his mind. This would have put Trump’s “don’t see a deal” position in the spotlight. As it is, the spotlight is on P & S deciding not to meet. That’s an unforced error on their part.
Slightly hampering the integrity-free folks would have been a win for P & S. As we account such things these days, anyway.
I thought they needed Democratic votes simply because they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
I think that they only need 50 if they can pass this mess by a certain date (which I forget) that is rapidly approaching. The filibuster is not a concern.
My personal guess is that Trump thought that his tweet about “I don’t see a deal” was his idea of tough bargaining. He thought he’d rough 'em up before they got in the room and get some concessions. Instead, they refused to dance and left alone with no partner.
The fillibuster has not been the road block for Republican legislation. They can’t get Republicans all on board for their own bills. It hasn’t been the Democrats stopping them. If you look at the House it’s even worse, there is no fillibuster they haven’t been able to pass hardly anything there unless it has Democratic support.
They’re trying to get the tax bill through using reconciliation, which must be done by the end of the fiscal year, which is late next fall. The rush they’re in is to get it done by Christmas, as a nice little present to the Koch brothers et al., but the hurry is political, not legal. They’ve already seen that the bill is very unpopular - better to get it done now and give their constituents time to forget about it before the midterms.
I’m still of the opinion that we’re witnessing a revival of political awareness that is dwarfing anything the Tea Party started with. The American public, with the help of the press, is not forgetting the shitty things that are being done in DC. Things like the Supreme Court debacle were philosophical enough that most people weren’t really paying attention, even at the time. Taxes, healthcare, education? People pay attention to the things that hit their wallet. It’s a slightly different refrain on “It’s the economy, stupid.”