Gaetz: Pelosi May Have Broken the Law in Ripping Up Speech

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Look at it this way:  A senile old lady (Pelosi) just ripped up some paper.  She is also prone to lying without any provocation.  If this ever went to the SC, they would let her off with being too loony. 

No excuse if one is in the third most powerful position in the country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Pelosi's  speech shredding stunt was a PR stunt.  It warrants more political retribution than legal. (IMO)

Let's focus the anger toward re-taking the House, and sitting her ugly ass back down to the floor as a Minority Leader.

It's also provided an excellent ad to get Republicans elected.

Someone already mentioned this: A split screen of Trump SOTU speech honoring the veterans, premature baby, young black child, etc. and each time he mentions it, the other screen showing Nancy shredding the speech.

It would be highly effective.

[Bigun]

No, my "problem" is that I fear Trump is likely to lose, and that a Dem President is likely to call out the dogs and threaten scores of Administration officials with indictments that will, at a minimum, ruin them financially.   Obviously, this means the GOP needs to win,  and that means it needs to address the stark difference between the percentage of Americans who approve of how things are going and those who disapprove of Trump himself.   The best way for Trump to address that disparity is to use the SOTU to pivot to a new, more Reaganesque position of optimism, and forego the partisan tit for tat.    Prosperity, peace,  jobs and American greatness are winning issues.  Outside the denizens of political boards like this one,  petulant rage and the settling of partisan scores is NOT.

You should run for office. You would fit right in with the rest of the sniveling cowards that currently populate the government.

[XenaLee]

No, my "problem" is that I fear Trump is likely to lose, and that a Dem President is likely to call out the dogs and threaten scores of Administration officials with indictments that will, at a minimum, ruin them financially.   Obviously, this means the GOP needs to win,  and that means it needs to address the stark difference between the percentage of Americans who approve of how things are going and those who disapprove of Trump himself.   The best way for Trump to address that disparity is to use the SOTU to pivot to a new, more Reaganesque position of optimism, and forego the partisan tit for tat.    Prosperity, peace,  jobs and American greatness are winning issues.  Outside the denizens of political boards like this one,  petulant rage and the settling of partisan scores is NOT.

You fear wrong (as usual).   

[Jazzhead]

You fear wrong (as usual).   

Overconfidence and bravado (and tunnel vision) have led to the demise of many a man.

I thought the President's SOTU was just the recipe needed to narrow the gap between folks' admiration for his policies and distaste for the man.   To throw that all that good Reagan-style optimism away in order to keep scratching that tribal itch to settle scores is the height of short-sighted foolishness.   But what do I know,  I'm just a sniveling coward. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Overconfidence and bravado (and tunnel vision) have led to the demise of many a man.

I thought the President's SOTU was just the recipe needed to narrow the gap between folks' admiration for his policies and distaste for the man.   To throw that all that good Reagan-style optimism away in order to keep scratching that tribal itch to settle scores is the height of short-sighted foolishness.   But what do I know,  I'm just a sniveling coward. 

@Jazzhead  Please refresh my memory.  Why are you so convinced Trump's going to lose you keep pimping that Sanford guy?

[musiclady]

I am sorry.  I think things went south permanently the day the punk POTUS Barry Soetero made this quote in 2009....

“Elections have consequences.” It’s the political way for winners to tell losers: “Tough luck, you lost. Get over it.”

Don't put the blame on Trump for that.  The dims took this to the gutter permanently.

But there used to be a difference between us and them.

We were better.

Joining them in the gutter doesn’t make them losers.

Just us.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Jazzhead  Please refresh my memory.  Why are you so convinced Trump's going to lose you keep pimping that Sanford guy?

If it is Mark Sanford, here's an issues list.

Scanning down it, appears I could support a lot of them

https://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But there used to be a difference between us and them.

We were better.

Joining them in the gutter doesn’t make them losers.

Just us.

That is a bring a knife to a gunfight argument.

[Cyber Liberty]

If it is Mark Sanford, here's an issues list.

Scanning down it, appears I could support a lot of them

https://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

Do you think Sanford will win and Trump is for sure going to lose?  That is the question that has me tapping my foot.

[musiclady]

That is a bring a knife to a gunfight argument.

Sometimes it comes under the category of “doing the right thing.”

I’m old fashioned enough to still believe that’s the better way to go.

Always.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead  Please refresh my memory.  Why are you so convinced Trump's going to lose you keep pimping that Sanford guy?

I just told you - the yawning gap between folks' admiration for his policies and their distaste for the man.  At some point the Dems will wise up and offer a simple proposition that will prove appealing:  we can sustain American prosperity without the angst of the reality show.   

The Dems won't, of course, listen to me any more than you will.   They will scare folks with radical and unnecessary structural change, and join Trump in the rhetorical gutter.  So maybe Trump can pull off a miracle and win.   All bets are off, you see, with a lesser-of-two-evils election.

As for Sanford,  look,  I will hold my nose if I have to in the general election.   But not in the primary.   There, I will vote for Sanford, almost the last of his breed.

[Cyber Liberty]

As for Sanford,  look,  I will hold my nose if I have to in the general election.   But not in the primary.   There, I will vote for Sanford, almost the last of his breed.

Thank God he's the last of his breed.

The numbers don't add up to support your doom and gloom prediction.  Nobody who voted for Trump in '16 is deserting him because of his tweeting.  They knew what they were getting.  Since then, his standing has grown with the voters because of his accomplishments, especially when it comes to fixing the broken Federal Court system with good Judges.  Where is this hemorrhage of voters you and many others have been predicting since 2016?  Is he going to fire up all those voters who voted against him last time?  IIRC, they were pretty fired up in 2016, and they were defeated.

Call me rose-colored-glass wearing if you must, but I still believe in arithmetic.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how an admitted wife-cheater and constituent-ducking professional politician would garner votes that you say Trump will never get, can beat even the weakest of the Rat field.  Not one Never-Trump on this Forum would ever vote for that foul POS.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Do you think Sanford will win and Trump is for sure going to lose?  That is the question that has me tapping my foot.

No I do not.  Trump will win.

I just don't mind his issues list is all.

What bothers me more is whether he would actually execute any promises he makes. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sometimes it comes under the category of “doing the right thing.”

I’m old fashioned enough to still believe that’s the better way to go.

Always.

Well, we are in a brawl to win that we did not start, and I for one will not bring the knife as I know my opponent is carrying a gun.

And that, madam, is the right thing to do when faced with that situation.