The “actual substance of the issue” is that Pelosi suggested they not hold the SOTU speech because of “security concerns” and now the head of the DHS has weighed in and said they can handle it. I’m the one that provided that second point, with a link to the cite. Did you consider that a substantive response?
It’s a political response. The fact that you think what Trump’s lackey says means anything says something about you though.
Pelosi’s letter was a political response too. You realize that, right?
So why should anyone believe your side’s political response if they are both political responses? That’s the case you should be making, but you seem to just be holding it up as gospel. It ain’t working.
I think Pelosi tried to use a thin veneer of plausibility to cover her political jab at the President. She quite bungled it though, because the thin veneer she chose was the responsibility of a department of the executive branch. Essentially, she empowered the other team to dispel her thin veneer, and that is, predictably, exactly what happened.
The responses here amount to various forms of “we don’t believe DHS”, which is just silly enough to give me a chuckle this morning.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamberder today.
We’re being governed by President Wimpy.
The substance of the issue is whether the President should have a chance to give a SOTU in front of Congress.
We don’t believe the Trump Spokesperson for DHS, as she is an unreliable source, and is in the service of the biggest liar to occupy the Whitehouse in… forever.
The man even lies about the number of hamberders he bought a sports team. Started as 300, but he then had to make up a lie and increased that number to 1000. He’d lie about what he had for breakfast. He can’t help himself.
If you really want a chuckle read the latest polls. Trump is even losing support among his most reliable demo, non college educated whites. He’s backed himself into a corner and his ego will not allow him to take his only way out. But by all means please proceed with carrying this fetid bucket of water you’re carrying. Like I said, it ain’t working.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the whole pomp and circumstance of it all went away, but our tradition in recent years has been to do it, and televise it, and analyze it, and respond to it, etc. I’m not convinced that a partial government shutdown is a compelling reason to cancel it, but perhaps this will be the beginning of the end of all that. Maybe in future years we’ll remember last year’s SOTU as the last one in that tradition, or perhaps, given our era of hyper-partisan politics, it will become a thing that only happens when the President and Speaker of the House hail from the same party. Perhaps CNN and MSNBC will televise it when that’s the case for the Dems, and Fox will televise it when that’s the case for the Reps.
No less classy than treating migrant children like feral dogs.
What a mealy-mouthed position.
I don’t like it, but it should happen, but it should go away, but why start now, but later is okay, but is now actually later, the nature of time is complex, I don’t want to weigh in on such metaphysical question…
I’m sure you believe her, but you once proved Trump’s implementation of more inhumane rules of combat were responsible for victories against ISIS by citing an op-ed written by two nobodies who said so. So you’ll understand if I find your critical thinking skills to be somewhat flawed when it comes to whether or not to wave the pom-poms for the Trump administration.
Another tradition has been to invite presidents who won elections legitimately and aren’t under the control of foreign agents.
Nielsen says they can handle it. Nielsen lies her ass off whenever it benefits the president. So, no, that’s not a substantive response.
He’d probably just do another oval office speech. Added benefit is he can say whatever he wants without being booed by Democrats.
Please let him do it from the Oval office. Like Nancy told him.
You guys are being silly. There’s little doubt that security for the event could be handled. But it’s also fair to describe having a special high security event is an undue burden on security personnel who aren’t getting paid.
You were hoping for what? Some bold, daring position on … the SOTU? It’s a trivial speech. Pelosi’s stated reason for suggesting it be cancelled or postponed was bullshit.
Nielsen is basically saying she can get her people to work for no pay and make it happen. Pelosi is saying that’s a bad idea. They can both be right, and probably are.