Speaker Who!

[poster]

The media's job is to inform us based on information critical and relevant to events. We got none of it in this case.

Well, it wasn't all that important a story. Someone who had little to no chance to become speaker threw her hat into the ring for speaker and leveraged that announcement into a committee chairmanship. It's not a big deal. You can't expect the major news networks to interrupt their round-the-clock coverage of the atrocities in Yemen for something like that.

There was also probably some serious pushback from Jim Clyburn's supporters in the Congressional Black Caucus. He is the third ranking Democrat in the House. Fudge was trying to use that caucus as her base of support.

And the source of this probability comes from? Also, could you point me to the caucus info you obviously have at your disposal?

 

[Copernicus]

There was also probably some serious pushback from Jim Clyburn's supporters in the Congressional Black Caucus. He is the third ranking Democrat in the House. Fudge was trying to use that caucus as her base of support.

And the source of this probability comes from? Also, could you point me to the caucus info you obviously have at your disposal?

Really, it has been all over the news, if you have been paying attention. Clyburn was in a fight to become the majority whip in the new Democratic House and was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge was contemplating a bid to unseat Pelosi, but that jeopardized Clyburn's chances. Part of the deal that Fudge struck elevated Clyburn to majority whip and herself to chair of a new House committee.

I can give you more references, if your Google searches aren't any help, but this story should suffice: House Democratic leaders find strength in numbers to fight challenge to Pelosi

 

[poster]

Nice diversion. The question is why we got character assassination instead of content from the corporate media. As I stated earlier, the inside political gamesmanship is what Pelosi et al would want us to focus on, which is not the question I asked.

That's the charge I'm making.

 

[Copernicus]

Nice diversion. The question is why we got character assassination instead of content from the corporate media. As I stated earlier, the inside political gamesmanship is what Pelosi et al would want us to focus on, which is not the question I asked.

That's the charge I'm making.

If you say so. AFAICT, you asked two questions that I answered. Now you are telling me that the goalposts aren't where I kicked the ball.

 

[poster]

Not quite. You can read again beginning with post #34 and see what I've said. You are trying to prove me wrong using the very vehicle that I charge is the one Pelosi is riding into the speakership. Pelosi just might be the best choice, but now we'll never know that for sure.

It's becoming very clear that the Democratic party is going to be resistant to change and work to suppress opposition to its authority.

You folks would do well to understand that what gave you the house was not love for the Democrats but dislike for Trump. In fact, what pushed Democrats across the finish line was a number of Republicans who ran as Democrats as well as many republican voters who will not vote Democrat again after the 2020 election, and that, only if Trump can't be replaced through the primaries.

It's not your win, but Trump's loss, but you don't get that, do you.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not quite. You can read again beginning with post #34 and see what I've said. You are trying to prove me wrong using the very vehicle that I charge is the one Pelosi is riding into the speakership. Pelosi just might be the best choice, but now we'll never know that for sure.

It's becoming very clear that the Democratic party is going to be resistant to change and work to suppress opposition to its authority.

You folks would do well to understand that what gave you the house was not love for the Democrats but dislike for Trump. In fact, what pushed Democrats across the finish line was a number of Republicans who ran as Democrats as well as many republican voters who will not vote Democrat again after the 2020 election, and that, only if Trump can't be replaced through the primaries.

It's not your win, but Trump's loss, but you don't get that, do you.

So, what is it that you want? Fudge isn't running for speaker. In fact, she endorsed Pelosi. Do you just want the house to not have a speaker?

 

[poster]

No, I simply pointed out that the Dems are still corporate controlled. I've run into arguments on that and that's what you've been reading.

Copernicus using one of the very corporate entities responsible as a source of defense to say that I'm wrong is laughable.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, I simply pointed out that the Dems are still corporate controlled. I've run into arguments on that and that's what you've been reading.

Copernicus using one of the very corporate entities responsible as a source of defense to say that I'm wrong is laughable.

Could you identify these corporations that are conspiring to elect NP as Speaker?

 

[Elixir]

It's worth asking why this story didn't surface during this past election if it was that important.

- - - Updated - - -

Children, behave.

Do you honestly believe that the entire media, controlled by Pelosi, conspired to hide this story until the moment that Fudge decided to make noise about being the speaker, then they all at once pounced and took her down? Seriously?

Load those questions. Ask again in a less hyperbolic fashion, if you can manage it.

Here's one that is right on point: WHY does Obama belong in jail? For being black? Or because you've been soaking up too much Republican kool-aid propaganda?
Please do iterate the crime(s) of which you find him guilty.

 

[poster]

No, I simply pointed out that the Dems are still corporate controlled. I've run into arguments on that and that's what you've been reading.

Copernicus using one of the very corporate entities responsible as a source of defense to say that I'm wrong is laughable.

Could you identify these corporations that are conspiring to elect NP as Speaker?

I've already stated the corporate media. That includes all the corporate media many here like to read and cite. Any of them that did not offer up insight for us to examine people who would have opposed Pelosi.

What we've witnessed in this particular instance is that (1) there is a direct link between Pelosi and the corporate media (2) the media controls the narrative.

So when Pelosi sells out again as she did to the insurance industry in delivering the ACA, don't complain. Though I'm relatively certain most of the progressive wannabes on this site won't even notice when it happens.

 

[poster]

Load those questions. Ask again in a less hyperbolic fashion, if you can manage it.

Here's one that is right on point: WHY does Obama belong in jail? For being black? Or because you've been soaking up too much Republican kool-aid propaganda?
Please do iterate the crime(s) of which you find him guilty.

Not only is it not on point and hyperbolic, but it's off topic and the wrong thread.

 

[Ford]

No, I simply pointed out that the Dems are still corporate controlled. I've run into arguments on that and that's what you've been reading.

Copernicus using one of the very corporate entities responsible as a source of defense to say that I'm wrong is laughable.

Could you identify these corporations that are conspiring to elect NP as Speaker?

I've already stated the corporate media. That includes all the corporate media many here like to read and cite. Any of them that did not offer up insight for us to examine people who would have opposed Pelosi.

What we've witnessed in this particular instance is that (1) there is a direct link between Pelosi and the corporate media (2) the media controls the narrative.

Which media outlets? And do they conspire with each other? I'm curious to see what you have to back up this claim.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, I simply pointed out that the Dems are still corporate controlled. I've run into arguments on that and that's what you've been reading.

Copernicus using one of the very corporate entities responsible as a source of defense to say that I'm wrong is laughable.

Could you identify these corporations that are conspiring to elect NP as Speaker?

I've already stated the corporate media. That includes all the corporate media many here like to read and cite. Any of them that did not offer up insight for us to examine people who would have opposed Pelosi.

What we've witnessed in this particular instance is that (1) there is a direct link between Pelosi and the corporate media (2) the media controls the narrative.

So when Pelosi sells out again as she did to the insurance industry in delivering the ACA, don't complain. Though I'm relatively certain most of the progressive wannabes on this site won't even notice when it happens.

So, all corporate media is controlled by one group and they are all unanimous? Fox news is part of this cabul also? Do you have evidence of this?

As an aside, there is no doubt in my mind that if the dems had passed single payer rather than ACA, the republicans would still have absolute power. While I support single payer. ACA was incrementally better than the previous system. It allowed millions to get health care. People with mental problems can get fair health care. Obviously, ACA was easier to implement and caused fewer problems initially. Having said that, even ACA was very disruptive and very unpopular at first. And the Dems lost the house as ACA gradually became accepted. But it really cost us in 2016. Again, single payer might have been better in the long run. But it would have taken longer. There would have been more problems. And the republicans would most likely have overturned it last year. ACA survived by one vote. That's it. Millions have health care due to NP leadership...

- - - Updated - - -

Load those questions. Ask again in a less hyperbolic fashion, if you can manage it.

Here's one that is right on point: WHY does Obama belong in jail? For being black? Or because you've been soaking up too much Republican kool-aid propaganda?
Please do iterate the crime(s) of which you find him guilty.

Not only is it not on point and hyperbolic, but it's off topic and the wrong thread.

But you have made the statement that Obama belonged in jail. Were you only speaking in hyperbolics?

 

[poster]

I've already laid out my proof. Representative challenges Pelosi and immediately gets slammed by the corporate media. None of the large media sites point this out, nor do any of them offer any dialogue, as far as I'm aware, contrasting Pelosi with any challanger. The character assasination also serves to scare anyone else from throwing their hat in the ring. The proof, you see, is the situation itself. The behaviors of the media outlets is the evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

But you have made the statement that Obama belonged in jail. Were you only speaking in hyperbolics?

Ask in the appropriate thread.

 

[Ford]

I've already laid out my proof.

So your proof that the "corporate media" is a giant conspiracy is that they don't sufficiently dislike Nancy Pelosi.

 

[poster]

I've already laid out my proof.

So your proof that the "corporate media" is a giant conspiracy is that they don't sufficiently dislike Nancy Pelosi.

Comprehension issues?

 

[poster]

For anyone who is genuinely interested.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/04/mainstream-media-as-arbiters-of-truth/

 

[Ford]

I've already laid out my proof.

So your proof that the "corporate media" is a giant conspiracy is that they don't sufficiently dislike Nancy Pelosi.

Comprehension issues?

I comprehend that you're using circular reasoning to back up a very shaky claim.

 

[poster]

Comprehension issues?

I comprehend that you're using circular reasoning to back up a very shaky claim.

I think perhaps you're projecting because, in general, the case against FOX from many neoliberals is that FOX does not dislike Trump enough. Can you see that?

Are you one of the genuinely interested?

 

[Ford]

Comprehension issues?

I comprehend that you're using circular reasoning to back up a very shaky claim.

I think perhaps you're projecting because, in general, the case against FOX from many neoliberals is that FOX does not dislike Trump enough. Can you see that?

Are you one of the genuinely interested?

I already asked for your evidence, as have several other people in this thread. So far your evidence has been exactly one article (from Politico) and an editorial by a dead guy. When asked which corporations were engaged in this conspiracy, you responded "the corporate media" and then seem to have declared your claim a self-evident truth.

I'm genuinely interested to see if you have anything beyond circular reasoning and unsupported assertions.