Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union?

You don’t care about the speech, but you’ve posted how many times in a thread about the speech? Hmm. Your behavior seems to be telling another story.

I think you are just mad that she’s running circles around Trump politically and he has totally fucked himself on this shutdown fight and its only getting worse every day.

There’s little doubt it “could be” handled. That conditional verb is important, though: with agencies furloughed, there IS doubt about whether it “has been” handled. Nielsen’s assurances to the contrary are exactly as unreliable as she is.

I like to follow the RCP aggregate poll graph:

The current shutdown started Dec 22. It usually takes polls about a week to catch up with the news (they are reported by RCP after they are completed)

If one looks at the Trump disapproval line starting Dec 30 to date, there is a pretty unavoidable conclusion - the disapproval line is trending up at a steep angle. My takeaway conclusion is that the shutdown is really hurting Trump’s approval rating, and we have yet to see any tapering off. Time will tell - we’ll have to see if his disapproval in this aggregate of polls beats the former high of 58.1% reached Dec 14, 2017.

True from a security angle.

From a political angle, the point is that Pelosi is using what power she has to kick Trump in the balls, using polite language. Like disciplining a child: he can’t have what he wants until he does what he must: reopen the government.

In related news:

Granted, we’re talking about DHHS, not DHS here–but it’s Nielsen’s department that imprisoned these children in the first place, and I’m unconvinced they’ve engaged in rigorous tracking of the children in their custody. I don’t trust Nielsen’s competence, let alone her honesty.

Those who trust her competence and honesty, why?

:confused:
It’s in the future so we can be rather sure it has not “been handled” yet. Don’t get what you’re trying to say.

emphasis added

Edit: this is why Nielsen’s competence is important. If she’s not great at making sure everyone’s running a tight ship when the government is fully operational, why trust that she’s doing it during a furlough?

@ Hurricane: Your insightful commentaries are always … interesting to read; but I, for one, wish you’d sometimes follow through and complete a thought. Would that be entirely unreasonable?

Let’s stipulate, for this post only, that Pelosi’s stated reason was a reckless and cold-blooded slander and that if she’d made the statement to the FBI she’d be facing a one-to-five year prison term in [del]Leavenworth[/del][sup][/sup] Danbury Penitentiary for perjury. ( - Leavenworth does not admit female inmates.)

With that stipulation, kindly compose an essay of 25 words or less comparing the propensities of Pelosi and Trump to prevaricate.

You’ve managed to make 14 posts in this thread on “a trivial speech.” I’m pretty sure you have the courage to come up with a contribution along the lines of, “My position is that the speech should/should not go forward because…” instead of limiting your contributions to pointing out reasoning that you don’t like.

I’ve seen this over and over, and I truly don’t get why it’s supposed to matter. What if she’d “told him” to deliver the address to a joint session of Congress? Oh, ha, ha hah, look at Trump doing that just like she told him to! Tee-hee! And, hey, Trump: I see you’re wearing a suit and tie? Just like Nancy told ya to! Ha-HA!

Is he supposed to refrain from something just because Pelosi mentioned it? If she thinks he’s about to launch an ill-advised invasion, should she tell him to do that and thereby ruin it for him? Heck, can she ruin golfing for Trump, by simply telling him that he can golf if he wants? Maybe get him to step down from the presidency, by telling him not to? And then tell him to accept a pardon from Pence, so he won’t?

I genuinely don’t get it: “Oval Office” was, in fact, a thing she said; so what?

Because it’s gonna eat him up, that’s why and it’s enough.

But that’s what I’m asking: would it Eat Him Up if she managed to say anything else right before he does it? I meant what I’d said: if he’s going to launch military strikes, should she tell him to do so? Would that, likewise, Eat Him Up? If she figures that he’s about to nominate someone to a key government post, should she get off a remark to that effect just in time to — if I’m following this — Eat Him Up?

Is that a thing that happens?

I’m sorry you’re confused by it, I don’t think I can clear it up any more.

Depending on the thing, sure. This example you gave would probably be very effective.

Well, now I’m mystified: why didn’t sensible folks tell him to run for president, and accept the nomination, and get sworn in, and otherwise get him to call the whole thing off because, gosh, isn’t getting told just ever-so-very intolerable?

She claimed she didn’t know whether Norway was a predominantly white country, for example.

This is an excellent point and I hadn’t considered it.

I think you’re missing the entire context, which is Trump’s character. Remember: this is the “President” whose biggest contrubution to the planning of America’s giant military was “Me wants me a big parade like Kim Jong-il gets!” This is the man who, rather than writing essays for publication, appears in a Dixieland cowfield before his high-school dropout supporters and hired shills. Standing and farting in the dais of the House Chamber, turning around to smirk at Pelosi whenever he insults her with full knowledge that the Dems (unlike Gopsters) will remain civil — this would be a very happy day for him and the mindless Trumpsters.

Baby wanted to shit on the nation’s most famous dome and brag “Look what I can do!” Pelosi denies him that opportunity. What’s hard to understand?

Former felons (their preferred term is “returning citizens”) will be able to vote in Florida next time. All 1.5 million of them.

What Pelosi has done is made it clear that she will not allow elected Democrats to work with elected Republicans. The Racist Party will continue to blame white people for everything that occurs anywhere during any timeframe.