Say what Nancy Pelosi?

[Kingofalldems]

Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

On edit: Comments by Rep. Pelosi were taken out of context.

And Tribe has apologized for getting it wrong.

Link to tweet

[wasupaloopa]

1. Taken out of context. Get a grip

[Chasstev365]

7. Exactly, how is this out of context?

This is TERRIBLE! Did she misspeak?

[George II]

19. WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW. What she said isn't "TERRIBLE", nor did she misspeak -

....that one sentence was only part of everything she said, and it's misrepresented.

[Eyeball_Kid]

205. This is a good illustration of the mistaken power of the Tweet. Tribe should be embarrassed.

The linked article shows that Pelosi was just talking common sense. She's right in directing the focus on policy, not people. Leadership should focus on what needs to be done first, then focus on who will lead. I'm okay with that. BTW, Pelosi's influence DOES need to be challenged. The fact that Dem leadership is aging is an important consideration. Younger leaders are sorely needed, the sooner the better.

[MaryLouisaWillis]

210. BTW....

The Democratic caucus just voted for her to lead again. That is their choice and they apparently like her and think she is a good leader. So people on DU or any other blog really don't get to change that.

[wasupaloopa]

25. she meant it isn't important that we estimate chances of winning and that she is speaker

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.

“That’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal,” Pelosi said.

“Better pay. Better jobs and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. And we have unity in our party. You saw it with the fight on the Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate."

[CrispyQ]

28. How about a better slogan?

Put Al Franken, John Oliver & Jon Stewart in a room for an hour & you'll have a ton of better slogans to choose from.

[pangaia]

61. And Colbert..

[elleng]

35. Much better.

Tribe said what he said without knowledge of her full statement?

[pnwmom]

128. Tribe didn't bother to read past the headline.

He's human and he made a mistake.

[beam me up scottie]

134. So did the op but he didn't get the benefit of doubt.

Why is it so easy to absolve Tribe but not a long time DUer who afaik has never maligned a Democrat or said a mean thing to anyone here?

[Ninsianna]

161. There is the fact that despite realizing his mistake, it's still up.

Why is it so easy to attack Democrats and let the abuse go on without check? If the poster seeks absolution, then perhaps he should take the corrective steps necessary to achieve it.

An apology and a retraction, otherwise, he stands here still maligning Democrats and saying mean things that are not true and which are right wing in origin. Not sure why it's not so easy for some to defend Democrats, but so easy for them to absolve reflexively anyone seeking to malign Democrats, particularly when they're female and in leadership roles.

[beam me up scottie]

163. Oh my, that is simply SCANDALOUS! BRING OUT THE HAIR SHIRT! No, wait - that's too good.

Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 03:21 AM - Edit history (2)

I DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE APOLOGY OR HE BURNS!

You can't be too careful when it comes to suspicious tweets. There's no telling what he'll post next if he's allowed to make a mistake and isn't punished properly.

He might start subjecting us to more KITTEH PICS!



You guys are too much. Next I'll be hearing how the op turned Nancy into a newt. Because he hates Democratic women or some such nonsense. You know, because he posted a tweet from a respected Democrat who made a mistake. Or read some ridiculous long winded lecture about how a long time DUer could be a troll or a bot. The concern that loyal Democrats who've been here thirteen years could have been playing us all along is silly. I'll be certain to give it all the consideration it deserves.




Welp, I've had enough fun for one night, the Perseid meteor showers are calling so I'm done here. I have just enough synergie left for a short stargazing session. Bon nuit!






*Disclaimer: This is sarcasm, I don't think the op is a witch and I don't want to burn anyone. The FSM expressly forbids it. I also don't think he hates Democratic women. Again that is It's part of my religion, we have to express our frustration by being sarcastic at least 5 times a day.

[Ninsianna]

168. Actually, we can't be too careful when it comes to people who violate the spirit

and the letter of the TOS. People who reflexively post tweets based on things they have not read or don't understand are no laughing matter, it's how RW fox produced propaganda is disseminated by those cackling in glee when Democratic women are attacked.

The trolls and the bots who engage in this abuse are far too much, but they do seem to amuse themselves greatly.

He made a mistake, and if he's supposed to be given the sacrament of absolution as was requested, then why, yes he should probably retract and apologize for attacking Democrats.

I don't know what all the religious tangents are about, but the absolution that's demanded requires a few things, and we as Democrats don't find these sorts of attacks on Democrats to be a laughing matter.

Subjecting us to Right Wing nonsense to attack the Right's favorite targets by using Fox distortions to do so is something that rational people who support Democrats should not have a problem with.

Makes one wonder why so much mockery and so much religiosity defends such an obvious malicious attack.

[BainsBane]

174. Yes he did

About the first 50 responses were pointing out the error. The assumption was that he would want to know the actual quote. He chose not to correct or even acknowledge the error. Naturally people are going to wonder why, particularly when it departs from his previous practice.

Contrary to what you claimed in another post in this thread, correcting factual errors is not bullying, even if those facts are inconvenient.

[George II]

206. We don't know what Tribe did if he realized his error. The error here can easily be fixed, but....

....hasn't.

[elleng]

135. Surprises me. I hope he's not losing it,

maybe tired of being called upon so often?

[pnwmom]

139. Below is the quote from the interview. I don't think he's losing it.

He just didn't click on the link.

The question comes at the end of the interview, and it is clearly directed at finding out whether she thinks she'll be chosen Speaker again. (A few minutes earlier, he had been suggesting that she was too old and that younger leadership might be more effective.)

He gave her 30 seconds to answer the following "if so" question:

"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"

[elleng]

143. I read the quote from the interview,

and Tribe should have too.

[pnwmom]

149. Well, lots of other people appear not to have gone past the headline.

But, yes, it is especially surprising when someone like Tribe does that.

[R B Garr]

85. You left out part of Wallace's quote.

This is ridiculous.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

136. No comment.

[tblue37]

66. She said the question of whether or not she would run again to be Speaker

was unimportant:

WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?

PELOSI: It’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.

[former9thward]

81. That is your bolding, not her's

[George II]

104. It's the only way to get her REAL point across to the readers here.

[pnwmom]

151. She couldn't BOLD an oral response, but her answer was clear to anyone

who watched the interview and heard his question in context.

First, he asked her whether she and the other Democratic leaders weren't too old for their positions.

Then he asked her to take the last 30 seconds to speculate on the odds that the Dems would win in 2018 and "if so" would she be Speaker. And she replied that that wasn't important -- that she wanted to talk about ISSUES.

After telling her she had 30 seconds left he asked her:

"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"

[Demsrule86]

191. Yeah, well I read and watched the video and only those looking to criticize will find that she said

mid-terms were unimportant...she said not such thing.

[Demsrule86]

190. No she didn't...she was talking about being speaker...some are so transparent.

I would remind you that Nancy Pelosi is a Democract. We support Democrats.

[ProudLib72]

2. Here is the Hill article

Pelosi: 'Unimportant' to win midterm elections: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/344552-pelosi-unimportant-to-win-midterm-elections

[still_one]

8. The Hill distorted that intentionally. She was saying that ESTIMATING the chances of a Democratic

win in 2018 was bullshit, and it was MORE important to actually WIN on the issues, instead of playing estimating games.

This is the same distortion and bullshit they did to Hillary

Will those that did that, congratulations, you gave us trump, and a republican congress

[tblue37]

69. She said it is unimportant whether she runs again to be Speaker:

. WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?

PELOSI: It’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.

[still_one]

94. That too

[George II]

106. And..................the bait was taken.

[still_one]

130. sure was George

[leftofcool]

144. always is around here

[Demsrule86]

192. You have to wonder if some hate winning...she is doing a great job and the attacks ramp up...do

they want to win? One wonders.

[countingbluecars]

3. context matters n/t

[spooky3]

4. It appears to me that she was responding instead to whether she would run for Speaker again.

Poorly written article by The Hill, and disappointing that Tribe wasn't more careful.

[spooky3]

216. I hope everyone knows Tribe has apologized:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398361

[still_one]

5. She was asked was to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the House"? She

was referring to WASTING TIME estimating the chances of Democrats, and instead focused on winning on the issues.

It is really getting f**king tiresome this Pelosi bashing bullshit, that will go out of the way to take things out of context and distort exactly what she said and meant.

Gee, where did this happen before? Oh, I remember, the bullshit how bad Hillary was, and there was no difference between trump and Hillary, and the same old ad nauseam bullshit:

"During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.

“That’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal,” Pelosi said.

“Better pay. Better jobs and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. And we have unity in our party. You saw it with the fight on the Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate."

[WePurrsevere]

6. That's not how I read what she said....

Per the article...

Chris Wallace asked Pelosi to estimate the chances that Democrats win back the lower chamber back in 2018 and whether she would run again for speaker if they did.

“That’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have the lively debate on a better deal,” Pelosi said.

I thought she was ignoring the first part and only addressing the part I bolded about her running for speaker or becoming speaker again. I think she was saying whether she is or not isn't important.

I seriously doubt she thinks it's 'unimportant' for Democrats to win midterms.

[still_one]

9. exactly. She wasn't going to play the "estimating game", but focus on winning on the issues. This

intentional distortion is really garbage, and the same crap was done to Hillary

[WePurrsevere]

21. Sadly I'm not surprised when what a strong woman says is distorted any more...

Disgusted and pissed off, yes, surprised, no. Some just can't seem to, or care to, overcome their 'narrow' and antiquated mindset.

[lapucelle]

10. "Estimate the Democrats chances of winning the midterms,

and if they win, will you run as speaker?" was the Fox News host's actual query.

Pelosi was side-stepping Wallace's demand for a prediction about her personal future. That prediction is what's unimportant. Laurence Tribe should be ashamed of himself for repeating The Hill's distortion of the question she was answering. I thought he was supposed to be smart. And The Hill needs to be called out for its inaccurate clickbait headline

Here's the full exchange, as per the Fox News Sunday transcript:

WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?

PELOSI: It’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/30/conway-on-white-house-operations-health-care-reform.html

[still_one]

12. Isn't that interesting that part was ignored

[George II]

18. I said exactly the same thing below before I read this. Thanks.

[R B Garr]

79. Thanks lapucelle! It's so obvious except for

those who want to harass her.

[sheshe2]

86. The OP left all that out.

Makes you wonder why?

WALLACE: OK. I got 30 seconds and the question is, what are the chances Democrats win back the House in 2018? And if so, will you run for speaker?

PELOSI: It’s so unimportant. What is important is that we have a lively debate on a better deal, better pay, better jobs, and a better future. And that’s what we look forward to having. We have unity in our party. You saw with the fight on Affordable Care Act in the House and in the Senate.


http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/30/conway-on-white-house-operations-health-care-reform.html

[Demsrule86]

194. This changes the entire OP and should not have been left out...needs to

Edited to include this or deleted.

[Tactical Peek]

146. Thanks for that link to the transcript.

Fox News transcripts are a PITA to find usually.

I think one needs a transcript to be able to evaluate what people actually say and what it's about.

She was just pushing Wallace's fishing pole away and getting back to her mission of talking about the D message addressing issues confronting Congress that will lead to the next election battles.

The Hill had some damn poor editing if you ask me.

[Egnever]

11. Surprised Tribe fell for this

[nini]

13. Me too

I follow him on twitter and he's usually level headed.

[Lotusflower70]

14. Ugh

Context matters. This headline was misleading. The misogyny against her is at a ridiculous level right now.

[lapucelle]

20. It's not surprising when this nonsense comes

from the Republican side given Pelosi's masterful performance in leading her caucus throughout the last six weeks. Of course they want her out or marginalized.

What's troubling is that a number of non-Republicans are stoking the anti-Pelosi talking points.

[Lotusflower70]

30. I know right

I expect it from the GOP but we can't be eating our own. We have to unite.

[demmiblue]

15. Here is the entire interview for those who want to make up their own mind:

[George II]

17. Funny how she didn't say winning back the House was "unimportant".

[George II]

16. I think maybe we need the sentences just before and just after that one....

...we'd see that she was referring to her running for Speaker if/when Democrats gain control of the House.

Context is everything.

[BainsBane]

23. A public that sees politics through 140 characters

Gets a president who rules through 140 characters.

[Docreed2003]

39. So very true...sadly

[Cadfael]

72. This!!!

The enormous drawbacks of Twitter when trying to have substantive policy discussion. It's really only conducive to whipping up a frenzy....

[BainsBane]

22. You disagree that the Dem party should focus on issues?

Why?

[Kingofalldems]

24. Just a messenger with honest concerns.

Please don't question my allegiance to the party.

[still_one]

27. I think the problem is The Hill, which has been known to exploit misleading headlines

[hunter]

34. "Concern" has a bad reputation, that scary troll word often follows.

It's one of those words like "tolerance."

I live a zero tolerance life, I do not tolerate those who merely "tolerate."

And I've allegiance to no man or human institution. (Raised as a Jehovah's Witness and then Quaker, human allegiances will buy a person a first class ticket to hell... I was the weird kid in class sitting out the Pledge of Allegiance.)

I've never voted anything but Democratic for no other reason then it was the right thing to do. I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first presidential election.

[BainsBane]

37. What is your concern?

Your link is to an article in which Pelosi said her own leadership position wasn't as important as the party's focusing on issues. By now you know the Hill title and your post is misleading because a dozen or more people have told you what she actually said.

So what is your concern?

[Kingofalldems]

55. Lawrence Tribe, a respected Dem tweeted it.

I put it out for discussion. I posted his tweet. The discussion was excellent. Go away now.

[sheshe2]

62. Say what?

You just told Bains to..."Go away now."

Your comment is dismissive to a female member of DU. Please apologize.

[beam me up scottie]

63. !

[Kingofalldems]

64. It was dismissive to someone who insulted me.

You apologize to me.

[beam me up scottie]

67. +1

[sheshe2]

75. No she did not.

Wow, I thought you were different. I was wrong.

[Kingofalldems]

80. Well so long then. You just accused me of being dismissive

of a poster because she was a woman. You don't know me or know what I am thinking. Yet you made that accusation. I suggest you do a search of my posts for the last 13 years to find out the truth.

[sheshe2]

91. You told her to go away.

That was wrong and dismissive, sorry yet it was.

You also did not post Pelosi's full quote. It is sad that you took what she said out of context. Words have meaning.

[beam me up scottie]

95. He posted a TWEET, that's all there was.

He didn't leave anything out or take it out of context.

How about you stop unfairly accusing long time posters of having some sort of ulterior motive and being sexist?

This is beyond absurd. The op has been here longer than most and to my knowledge has never maligned Democrats. He doesn't deserve to be attacked for reposting a tweet and asking a question.

[sheshe2]

99. Good to see you again scottie

miss ya!

[beam me up scottie]

101. Oh I know you have.

[Kingofalldems]

110. Thank you so much.

[BainsBane]

137. That tweet contains a link to an article

That article is the context.

Those who took on the arduous task of reading even the first 200 of those 500 words immediately saw the title was misleading. It's unfortunate Tribe did not.

For some reason the OP has refused to acknowledge the error, and for some reason you demonstrate no concern with the subject matter.

[beam me up scottie]

140. This is irony, right? Or performance art?

It has to be, that's the only explanation. In that case some applause is in order.

Very well done! Bravo! Encore!

[BainsBane]

142. It's called a concern for facts

and truth. There is a certain segment of the population for whom that still matters.

[beam me up scottie]

145. Yes it's all very concerning. I'm concerned that more people aren't properly concerned.

They should really show more concern. But not too much.

Kind of like the three bears, not too much concern or too little.

No, what we need here is just the right amount of concern.

Otherwise people will be concerned.

How's that? Did I pass the test? Am I concerned enough?

Let me know, because I can act more concerned if necessary.

[R B Garr]

158. Looks like facts, truth and context only matter for Vermont

segments of the population. The rest, apparently not so much.

[BainsBane]

160. I haven't seen anything

to suggest they do there either.

Note that in those other discussions, the context we were expected to understand was not in fact there, whereas in this case posters have provided the actual quote as rebuttal.

[R B Garr]

164. True! The browbeating and innuendo was over a forced

reality. This is an actual mis(quote), and we're expected to swallow it because some Dems can be smeared for sport.

[BainsBane]

167. We are in a post-fact political culture

Trump and those who voted for him take to it like a fish to water.

[R B Garr]

170. "Alternative facts", that was a huge slip on Kellyanne's

part. But I see it here in this thread, too, as you noted also.

[Weekend Warrior]

203. A highly deceptive tweet. To the point of dishonest. No effort in correction. Transparent. nt.

[Kingofalldems]

97. I posted a freaking tweet from Lawrence Tribe.

I post tweets like that every day, multiple times a day. You should alert on it if you think it was wrong. You are making a huge mountain out of a molehill here.

[Ninsianna]

169. Perhaps next time do what Tribe did not do here and read the article first.

It's not a badge of honor to post tweets that are factually incorrect and which attack Democrats.

Tribe made a mistake here, and it's one that anyone who clicked the link and read the article learned pretty quickly. Why dig in and not just retract?

[betsuni]

87. The King has spoken. OBEY!

[sheshe2]

93. :)

[Chevy]

184. How did she insult you?? n/t

[tkmorris]

147. What does "female member of DU" have to do with anything?

Females don't get special treatment. That would be sexist.

[melman]

157. That's a good question

Apparently the poster was unable to answer it.

[R B Garr]

78. She said it's unimportant if she runs for speaker.

Translation: first things first -- then she gives examples of what's important.

His tweet is just click / flame bait-- Establishment bad mumbo jumbo.

[sheshe2]

108. ...

[lunasun]

84. This OP should go away now

[George II]

100. "Go away now"? Sure, you posted a tweet, with a very subjective subject line....

...which was NOT in the tweet.

"Say what Nancy Pelosi?"

That's not just "putting it out for discussion"!!!

[Kingofalldems]

109. 'Say what' is a question.

That's putting it out for discussion.

[George II]

112. Perhaps a more appropriate "question" might have been "What does Pelosi mean?"

"Say what?" is an implication of "I don't believe you said that". But of course I don't want to tell you what to post.

Urban Dictionary for "Say what?":

Short for: "What did you say?"

Usually used when hearing something unpleasant.

Goodnight.

[Kingofalldems]

114. So what are you saying exactly?

That I hate Nancy Pelosi? What? This is a huge nothing in the long run even if she did say it ( which I agree was taken way out of context) because no one will even remember it in 2018.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Why did you leave out part of the definition - the very first part?

say what

A term used when a person wishes for a surprising or astonishing statement to be repeated, or simply to show their surprise at said statement. To accurately model the timbre of the phrase, omit a high pitch during the last portion of the phrase in addition to stretching the "what" as long as deemed necessary by the user: Say (In high pitch) Whaaaat?!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=say%20what

I'm sure that was just an oversight. Right?

[Ninsianna]

177. That's not how the Urban Dictionary works.

[R B Garr]

119. You got it exactly right, George.

Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

195. You should modify this post to include relevant facts or self-delete.

[bettyellen]

53. A messenger who knows their OP is a gross distortion slamming Dems... and

Won't do a damn thing to correct it?

[Kingofalldems]

57. Talk to Lawrence Tribe about that.

I was going to take it down but after these attacks I will not. If you don't like the post---alert on it. Tired of this shit.

[beam me up scottie]

65. I don't blame you.

You're one of the most loyal Dems on this site. Just ignore the personal attacks.

[Kingofalldems]

68. Thanks.

All I can say it Jesus Christ, WTF is going on here.

[beam me up scottie]

70. You're getting fragged.

Seems to be almost instinctual at this point.

[Kingofalldems]

74. I am not part of any freaking problem

What the hell are you talking about? It was a simple OP. Get over it. Or alert on it.

Waiting now for attacks on my puppy/kitten threads in the Pets section.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Were they Republican kittens and puppies?

I'm going to have to check out those threads, can't be too careful these days...

[sheshe2]

96. Hm.

You were it going to take it down because you knew it was misleading and incorrect ...

Talk to Lawrence Tribe about that.

I was going to take it down but after these attacks I will not. If you don't like the post---alert on it. Tired of this shit.

yet leave it up because people called you out and said it was wrong. Oy!

[beam me up scottie]

98. Maybe he just doesn't like to be bullied.

[sheshe2]

102. You speak for him now?

[beam me up scottie]

105. Did you speak for BB when you demanded an apology?

[sheshe2]

115. well beam...

first you made up the word demand... which I did not do. Yes I spoke for BB directly to his response...yet I spoke directly to King...yet here you are speaking for King...indirectly. See the difference?

[beam me up scottie]

117. I suggested maybe he didn't want to be bullied, that's not speaking for someone, she.

That's why I used a question mark and a shrug emoji.

Like so:

Maybe he didn't want to be bullied?

Speaking for someone would have looked like this:

He didn't want to be bullied.

Note the missing question mark and shrug emoji - that makes it a statement and not a question.

And you're right, you did speak for BB, glad you can see the difference.

[sheshe2]

123. Oh oh oh....

Got it. Twas a suggestion by you speaking for King, not to or by the King just your incredible input with a shrug emoji'

Keep spinning beam on my demand!!!

And yes, you did speak for BB and demanded an apology, glad you can see the difference.

you sure make stuff up. Thanks, it has been great talking to you tonight.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Looks like I was right, he didn't want to be bullied. So now who's spinning?

You're welcome, glad I could clear that up for you, she.

[R B Garr]

138. Yup! Nailed it--Making stuff up, very very!

[sheshe2]

148. :)

[R B Garr]

150. lol, and the comments about bullying...

...

have a good one, she!

[sheshe2]

152. Ha!

Nighty nite, gotta go. Twas fun...

[Kingofalldems]

125. You are correct--I did not want to be bullied.

You got it just right. Thanks again.

[beam me up scottie]

129. You're welcome.

I was going to stay out of it but when everyone started piling on I had to say something.

It's like Lord of the Flies all up in here tonight.

[Kingofalldems]

103. No I left it up because of the personal attacks.

I do not dispute that Tribe was wrong. It was discussed without insults in this thread. Well at least by most posters anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

124. I followed the link and realized what happened.

I knew you weren't accusing Pelosi of anything and figured others would put it in context.

I mean what the hell, you weren't even given a chance to explain, it's like you murdered the baby Jeebus.

How many of us have read something and run right back here to post about it?

[Kingofalldems]

127. Hell I do it all the time.

[beam me up scottie]

131. I've done it on Facebook and it's come back to bite me on the ass.

My friends usually give me the benefit of doubt though. It would be nice if everyone took a step back and breathed before getting out the long knives.

[Weekend Warrior]

204. I'm going to leave it up because people educated me....

And that upsets me.

That's pretty bold.

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. You haven't tried to engage anyone who has posted or talked about the context.

You've just restated your 'concern'. You've told a DUer to 'go away', as if you get to control a thread you start. Now you try and disown it with "talk to Lawrence Tribe". Lawrence Tribe can't shut down this thread. Putting Lawrence Tribe right won't get DUers to actually read and think before starting shit threads like this one.

You started "this shit". If you're tired of it, then take this as a lesson. Don't start shit, and you won't get tired.

[Kingofalldems]

207. Not even a good try.

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. Once again, you are refusing to address any of the well-justified criticisms of your thread

You are just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la, I'm not listening". You even seem smug about the way you've helped spread a load of anti-Democratic bullshit.

[Kingofalldems]

213. Oh yes, now I remember you.

Thanks for the input.

[Demsrule86]

196. One wonders why? At least many hear have corrected the record.

[pnwmom]

118. The Hill's headline was DISHONEST and you chose to highlight it for some reason.

Laurence Tribe clearly misread it but you repeated it anyway -- with NO clarifying comment.

She was asked two questions, and she was obviously responding to the second. She doesn't think we should be concerned about who is Speaker in 2018, when there are important ISSUES right now that need our attention.

[Kingofalldems]

121. I saw a tweet by Lawrence Tribe, found it interesting and posted it here.

I highlighted nothing. Once again--I posted a tweet by a highly respected Democrat , saw his concerns and asked the question in short form. I accused no one of anything.

I have never attacked a Democrat on this or any other forum.

[pnwmom]

126. You saw it and you could see that he was wrong -- respected or not.

And you highlighted his tweet here with no comment. Why?

Why was his mistake worth repeating here except as an attempt to make Pelosi look bad?

[Kingofalldems]

132. I trusted his judgement.

I post tweets here every day almost--and multiple times a day. And many with no comment. Look it up.
Maybe you can just put me on ignore?

[Demsrule86]

197. You saw a tweet attacking a Democratic leader which if you had watched the video, you would

have known was not true. And now defend your post which is incorrect. What are we to make of this?

[Demsrule86]

193. Did you watch the video? I can't understand how you reach your conclusion.

[Weekend Warrior]

201. What are your "honest" concerns with respect to what was posted in the op? nt.

[procon]

209. A messenger who editorialized an already slanted headline to deliberately mislead. nt

[still_one]

26. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Kingofalldems]

29. You too?

[still_one]

36. "et tu brute". No. Not happy that The Hill distorted what was actually said in the interview,

I agreed with the statement that issues are the most important think to talk about, not estimations of winning or losing.

I do think that the OP being posted without the OP making a comment on it, will have the tendency to jump to the wrong context from the OP ironically

[Kingofalldems]

38. I do that a lot.

And 993/4% of it is about the atrocity that is Trump.

[still_one]

41. I am guilty of my own share of assumptions. One thing I know is that everyone here realizes how

important 2018 is, and winning is critical

[BainsBane]

40. Did you expect the be congratulated

For refusing to read the article, even after a dozen people have told you the headline is false?

The quote is in the second to third paragraph. It's not like your or Tribe have to read a whole seven paragraphs to see that the article's title is misleading.

[Kingofalldems]

111. No. I did not expect to be congratulated.

[unblock]

31. Kudos to pelosi for saying that policy matters more than the horse race.

[herding cats]

32. When the source is The Hill it's best to delve a bit deeper than their off the cuff reporting.

Sure, they're decent occasionally, but other times they're stirring the pot for clicks. Which now that I think of it is good advice in general, no matter the source.

[DURHAM D]

33. Does Russia own "The Hill" ???

More chaos.

More chaos.

More lies.

More lies.

[still_one]

43. no, but they are a mixed bag

[mcar]

42. Boy, Tribe got this completely wrong

Does this mean it's slam Pelosi week again?

[BainsBane]

46. A Harvard Constitutional law professor

Couldn't bother to read to the second paragraph of an article he tweeted.

[mcar]

47. Shameful

[George II]

48. Looks that way....

Kind of like the old gasoline lines during the oil embargo - odd days Harris, even days Pelosi.

[mcar]

50. ...

[sheshe2]

120. Oh shit!

[dsc]

44. I am trying to imagine the reaction had she answered the question

by saying that her being Speaker was the most important thing on planet earth. I am sure those who are denigrating her answer both in this thread and in the real world would have loved that answer. The fact is she gave a perfectly sensible answer to his dumb question.

[Kingofalldems]

45. True.

[George II]

49. But you still haven't edited your OP to point out that what Tribe thinks is incorrect.

[Kingofalldems]

52. I put it out for discussion.

DU members did a good job in making their points. Do not tell me what to post.

[George II]

54. Under the subject line of "Say what Nancy Pelosi?"?

[Kingofalldems]

56. Sure. I trust Lawrence Tribe.

Was he wrong? Looks like it.

[George II]

58. Yes, he was wrong. That should have been pointed out in the OP, but I won't tell you what to post.

[JHan]

155. Yes, the discussion has shown Laurence was wrong.. what more discussion can we have...

based on an inaccurate tweet?

[BainsBane]

165. People have pointed out the errors

Under the assumption that members like to keep their posts accurate. You seem to prefer that such assumptions not be made in your case, so I for one won't be doing so in the future.

Some of us still have our feet in the now outdated political culture where facts mattered. It isn't so easy for us to adjust to the post-fact world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. Saying "but you still haven't..." is not telling you what to post. "Do not tell me what to post" is.

Ironically, you are consistently telling other people in this thread what to do, and then complaining when deficiencies in your posts are pointed out.

[lapucelle]

51. Say What? Well she didn't say THAT.

Laurence Tribe is being given what for on Twitter for repeating The Hill's distortion.

[Kingofalldems]

59. Good.

[DefenseLawyer]

60. Nothing spurs turnout like saying the midterms are unimportant

Taken out of context or not, the word "unimportant" was a poor choice.

[George II]

88. The word "unimportant" was appropriate since she was referring to being Speaker

[BainsBane]

122. Any word can sound bad out of context

And lots of politicians remarks sound bad even in context, yet they are routinely defended here.
Perhaps you should sent Pelosi a list of words that she isn't allowed to utter? Then you can tell us if that list applies to any one else.

[DefenseLawyer]

186. Yeah that's what I'll do.

Get a grip. This is much ado about nothing. However, spending time explaining the context of a quote is never time well spent. Giving your opponents a talking point is best avoided. That's not to say one can always predict when a quote will be twisted, but one certainly can see that it occurred in hindsight. And in hindsight it probably wasn't the clearest response. The fact that we're having this conversation establishes that.

[betsuni]

187. Podesta emails discussing pizza were turned into Pizzagate.

Anything can be twisted into propaganda. Spending time explaining the context of a quote is time well spent.

[Demsrule86]

198. I disagree. Saying it is unimportant if she is elected speaker is fine.

But then I don't dislike Nancy as those defending this post seem to.

[betsuni]

71. What Nancy Pelosi didn't say.

Fixed headline.

[sheshe2]

77. Love you!

[betsuni]

82. Love you too!

[California_Republic]

83. Will you run for speaker?

" that's so unimportant "

[cynatnite]

89. She is moderating her language...

She is not giving up the midterms by a long shot.

She is saying issues are more important than party races.

[Bradshaw3]

90. In other news Barack Obama says healthcare is unimportant

The Hill reporting tonight.

Yes one of the top Dems, a longtime leader who got the public option passed through the house among her many other accomplishments, poo poos the midterms. Good grief, some people.

[Bradical79]

92. I'm pretty sure she's of sound mind still

So I seriously doubt she meant winning the house is unimportant. That tweet quotes one word and makes a new sentence around it. The question was asking about the odds and whether she would run again. Not the importance of winning.

[pnwmom]

141. The Hill deliberately misrepresented her answer. She didn't say that winning the House

wasn't important.

She said that it wasn't important to speculate on the ODDS that the Dems will take back the house, and IF SO, whether she would be speaker.

At the end of the interview, Wallace asked her to answer the following in 30 seconds:

"What are the chances that the Democrats win back the house in 2018 and if so will you run for speaker?"

And her answer was that she didn't think it was important to talk about that and she wanted to talk about ISSUES.

[Caliman73]

107. This is the problem with Twitter

It is fun for feuds and people making funny statements, but it is relatively useless for in depth discussion, which is what is necessary for politics and public policy.

Here we are having a breathless debate over what someone said she said on Twitter, rather than examining the issue from the source and then maybe having a more balanced and nuanced debate.

[JHan]

156. So everything clear now??

A cursory look at the actual interview shows she meant her leadership position is not as important as discussing the dem platform, and she never said winning midterms was unimportant.....because we wouldn't want to spread "fake news" now would we?

SIGH.

[betsuni]

162. Apparently, correcting an incorrect news story is "bullying."

[JHan]

166. nah Laurence Tribe gave the interview so he knows best...

[R B Garr]

171. lol, so true!

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Ninsianna]

159. The several hundred comments on the tweet sort of explain why

this deliberate distortion of what Leader Pelosi is unfair, untrue and pure propaganda as befits the place where the distortion happened, Fox News.

So, how about actually paying attention to what she said and not what insane and deliberately dishonest people claim she said?

I know that attacking and abusing Democratic women seems to be very popular among a certain faction here on the supposedly Democratic Underground, but it's really getting old and tiresome, and it doesn't belong here. Let the Right wing attacks remain on their own websites.

[R B Garr]

172. Excellent post. Like some elected official is actually

going to say that winning elections is unimportant. It's just too absurd for words, and of course it was bogus.

[Ninsianna]

173. It's weird that some people here seem to be enjoying the deliberate distortion,

I guess anything that attacks Democratic women tickles some people. Thought this site was supposed to be for supporting Dems not those rolling on the floor laughing at those attacking them?

[R B Garr]

175. Agreed, I hear you. I bet some of the rolling mockery

is more about post removed, so to speak. Fits a pattern.

[Ninsianna]

176. Really? Awfully active so late at night, but I guess it's a workday somewhere on the globe.

[Chevy]

185. Nicely said! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

178. People should stop taking her statements wildly out of context.

Her point is that our people are in the house to do the peoples' business, or try to. It's not a game.

[Ninsianna]

179. Some people seem to be rather amused by their little game of hiding behind

tweets like this that were clearly made in error, to attack Democrats, particularly female ones.

People really do need to check things before they start disseminating things and then digging their heels in. Even if the article was too much, any of the hundreds of replies would have shed some light on the matter.

This whole blind jingoism of simply "trusting" people who are attacking the people that some wish to attack is not really passing the smell test.

This level of attack is something that the right feeds on, we need to call it out when they engage in this, not give it a platform, and be playing games for ones own amusement. I'm disturbed by the level of animosity coming from the OP and his defender. It was a mistake, Tribe made one too, accept it, acknowledge and move on, why must it be this toxic and who insists on making it so? And why are they allowed to?

[cwydro]

183. Good post.

Well stated.

[Kingofalldems]

208. Now that is a great response.

[stonecutter357]

182. #fakenews.

[JNelson6563]

188. A wordsmith manipulating words.

Into a little pile of bullshit. Interesting. Not something we see a lot of these days.

[Demsrule86]

189. Did you read the article? She is talking about whether she is speaker or not...Gosh some never

give up bashing this fine talented woman.

[GaryCnf]

199. I don't know which is worse

Lawrence Tribe's ridiculous reaction AND probable failure to read past a headline

OR

Pelosi's defenders claiming that Nancy Pelosi was talking only about whether she would run for speaker.

The next sentence reveals that she was indeed talking about retaking the House. Her running for speaker has nothing to do with whether we have a lively debate of the important issue she described.

HOWEVER

What she said was politically brilliant.

Here, we cheer things like taking back the House and shutting down Trump - as we should. Outside, the Republicans are salivating over nationalizing the House races and turning them into "Nancy Pelosi vs. Donald Trump," or "The California liberal (sic) vs. the heartland." They are waiting for the first time a national figure utters the word "impeachment" so they can claim "A vote for a Democrat in your local House race is a vote to make Nancy Pelosi the next President of the United States."

What she said - in a hostile environment by the way - immediately turned the discussion back to Democrats fighting for the issues that people care about - issues which the House is not even talking about as they scheme behind closed doors to erase Obama's legacy - and away from just stopping Trump.

I am not a Pelosi fan. I would not be upset if she did not run for Speaker. I would not be upset if she ran for Speaker and was defeated.

BUT

Anyone who missed the message in her response because they were tying themselves in knots with agenda-driven knee jerk reactions to what Mr. Tribe said in a tweet, missed a magnificent maneuver by an immensely talented politician.

[Weekend Warrior]

200. Transparent. nt.

[Renew Deal]

202. It's long past time that she is replaced

The choice not to do so shows lack of courage and foresight by House Dems. Replacing her with Steny Hoyer is not the answer. We need fresh leadership.

[leon8822]

211. She better clarify what she meant ASAP before this gets out of control

[still_one]

215. There is nothing to clarify. What she was referring to what was unimportant was whether she

would run for speaker. It is right there at the end of the interview:

[TooStrong]

214. Taken out of context.

Although, it should be concerning for all if she thinks there is unity in the party.

[spooky3]

217. Tribe apologized to Pelosi and deleted his tweet.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398361

[Kingofalldems]

218. Edited OP.

[George II]

219. See:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398361

Maybe NOW you should "self-delete"?

[Kingofalldems]

220. Quit harrassing me mister.

Don't know you and don't want to know you. Don't know what the hell your deal is but you mean jack to me. OP was edited hours ago.

[George II]

221. Tweet/apology from Lawrence Tribe:

Laurence Tribe Retweeted

Misled by the headline, I hope @NancyPelosi will accept my apology: all she actually called "unimportant" was whether she'd run for speaker.