Will Pelosi's petulance back fire on the Democrats?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Well, the current president argued for a long time that the previous president wasn't born in the US.  That and the fact that the current president doesn't appear to want to shake hands, in combination with his rather rude and coarse language.  What comes around goes around.  

[James Regan + 1,776]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yeah, how many Republicans have ripped up a copy of the SOTU Address behind the back of an elected Democratic President, or anything else as blatantly disrepectful of the office or the House of Representatives? Name an instance!

Pay back for pointy finger and parodies in areas which command respect, she’s frustrated I get it, she needs to get over it. OMG I’m imagining some of my pointless arguments at home imagine having to deal with Godly Nancy she’s a Charlotten fake as Fk

Edited February 6, 2020 by James Regan

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:21 PM, Rob Plant said:

Following Trump's positive speech extolling America and what has been achieved, will Pelosi's act of ripping up the speech send a negative message to the electorate and damage the Democrats chances of victory in the upcoming election?

https://news.sky.com/story/state-of-the-union-jeers-cheers-and-a-memorable-protest-but-trumps-prospects-are-improving-all-the-time-11926629

Yes, I think it will, especially to the older generation (who have a lot of opinions and a lot of time to vote!  Get off my lawn!).  My father doesn't really like Trump, as an example, but he always expects people to show respect for the office of the President (even if the CIC may not seem to do so himself).  Nancy's little act will stick in his craw, and that of his friends at Senior gatherings.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

No more then Trump's. 

The only people who paid attention to his speech were his supporters.  Very low broadcast ratings.  Most people just tuned it out because they assumed it was the usual "I'm great, you suck" speech.

https://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-2020-ratings/

I suppose that depends on whether the ratings are reported by left or right leaning, or neutral (do they exist?), publications:

TV Ratings: State of the Union Up From 2018 With 46.8 Million Viewers

This graph is particularly interesting:

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:04 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

Yeah, how many Republicans have ripped up a copy of the SOTU Address behind the back of an elected Democratic President, or anything else as blatantly disrepectful of the office or the House of Representatives? Name an instance!

Well, it wasn't at the State of the Union, but there was once this (I say bring back the duel, and tarring & feathering for that matter!):

Historical Highlights

A Fatal Duel Between Members in 1838

February 24, 1838

Image courtesy of Library of CongressElected to the 25th Congress (1837–1839), Jonathan Cilley of Maine served less than one year in Congress before being killed in a duel with a fellow Member.

On this date, Jonathan Cilley of Maine was killed by Representative William Graves of Kentucky in a duel on the outskirts of D.C., in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Graves approached Cilley with a letter at the behest of a newspaper editor, James Webb, who was incensed about a bribery accusation Cilley had made on the House Floor. Cilley refused to accept the letter; Graves interpreted the refusal as a direct insult to his character and challenged Cilley to a duel. In an ironic twist, neither man had any known grievance with the other prior to the incident. With two other Members of the House present, Henry Wise of Virginia and Delegate George Jones of Wisconsin (the dueling seconds for both men), the duel went beyond the customary two rounds, resulting in Cilley’s death in the third round. After the ensuing House investigation, Graves, along with Wise and Jones, were recommended for censure after Cilley’s death. Although the House refused to impose the censure recommendation it offered a bill to “prohibit the giving or accepting within the District of Columbia, of a challenge to fight a duel, and for the punishment thereof.” On February 27, 1838, the House Chamber hosted a funeral, attended by the President Martin Van Buren and other statesmen, to honor Cilley.

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Well, it wasn't at the State of the Union, but there was once this (I say bring back the duel and tarring & feathering for that matter!):

Historical Highlights

A Fatal Duel Between Members in 1838

February 24, 1838

Image courtesy of Library of CongressElected to the 25th Congress (1837–1839), Jonathan Cilley of Maine served less than one year in Congress before being killed in a duel with a fellow Member.

On this date, Jonathan Cilley of Maine was killed by Representative William Graves of Kentucky in a duel on the outskirts of D.C., in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Graves approached Cilley with a letter at the behest of a newspaper editor, James Webb, who was incensed about a bribery accusation Cilley had made on the House Floor. Cilley refused to accept the letter; Graves interpreted the refusal as a direct insult to his character and challenged Cilley to a duel. In an ironic twist, neither man had any known grievance with the other prior to the incident. With two other Members of the House present, Henry Wise of Virginia and Delegate George Jones of Wisconsin (the dueling seconds for both men), the duel went beyond the customary two rounds, resulting in Cilley’s death in the third round. After the ensuing House investigation, Graves, along with Wise and Jones, were recommended for censure after Cilley’s death. Although the House refused to impose the censure recommendation it offered a bill to “prohibit the giving or accepting within the District of Columbia, of a challenge to fight a duel, and for the punishment thereof.” On February 27, 1838, the House Chamber hosted a funeral, attended by the President Martin Van Buren and other statesmen, to honor Cilley.

 

Amen brother, bring back dueling. 

Taiwan's legislature used to have a lot of Kung Fu fighting, I'll see if I can find some videos

https://youtu.be/7ExEXoTm4Dc

and the rest of the world

https://youtu.be/F2b-2YnfZso

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ward Smith
Added links

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

5 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Amen brother, bring back dueling. 

Taiwan's legislature used to have a lot of Kung Fu fighting, I'll see if I can find some videos

Forget Kung Fu Ward

Have a go at this, we still do this occasionally in the UK

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

25 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Forget Kung Fu Ward

Have a go at this, we still do this occasionally in the UK

Exactly! This is how "Blue" and "Red" politicians should settle their differences. Cheerio 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I suppose that depends on whether the ratings are reported by left or right leaning, or neutral (do they exist?), publications:

TV Ratings: State of the Union Up From 2018 With 46.8 Million Viewers

This graph is particularly interesting:

 

If you see a number that you like, then obviously it comes from a source that's unbiased, neutral and trustworthy.  However, if someone posts a number that you don't like, then obviously it means it comes from "fake news, biased, agenda based."  

That's how it works, right? 

Trump's numbers are on average with Obama's [and worse then... Bush].  And the primary reason his numbers are as "high" as it is is because Fox news saw a jump during his speech, which means that people watching OTHER networks on average tuned him out.  

EDIT: Also your damn chart only goes up to 2019.  Doesn't include 2020.   Which is what this thread is about, right? 

https://www.statista.com/chart/16935/tv-ratings-viewership-for-state-of-the-union-addresses/

Here is a better link that includes 2020.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 2/6/2020 at 10:28 AM, Zhong Lu said:

If you see a number that you like, then obviously it comes from a source that's unbiased, neutral and trustworthy.  However, if someone posts a number that you don't like, then obviously it means it comes from "fake news, biased, agenda based."  

That's how it works, right? 

Trump's numbers are on average with Obama's [and worse then... Bush].  And the primary reason his numbers are as "high" as it is is because Fox news saw a jump during his speech, which means that people watching OTHER networks on average tuned him out.  

EDIT: Also your damn chart only goes up to 2019.  Doesn't include 2020.   Which is what this thread is about, right? 

https://www.statista.com/chart/16935/tv-ratings-viewership-for-state-of-the-union-addresses/

Here is a better link that includes 2020.  

Intelligent people have better things to do with their time in general than watch television. Viewership across the board has been going down for years. 

Better to simply watch online and ideally skip to sections of interest, or do what I do on YouTube and watch at 2x speed. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Ward Smith

[RichieRich216 + 454]

On 2/5/2020 at 10:12 AM, notsonice said:

naw. On election day no one will change their vote on her tearing up the speech (99.99 percent of all voters will not even think of Nancy on election day except in her own district). Do you think lazy registered voters will be motivated by her actions to get off their duffs and vote ? If you do I have a bridge to sell you. Trumps performance ( and personality) will be on the ballot and will drive many to the polls. The senate not calling witnesses will swing a few independent votes to the left.

It was not the job of the Senate to make the case, The house didn’t do the work, If felt needed additional witnesses or testimony should have stayed in town but that would have cut into there Christmas Vacation! So if was national urgency that our Republic was at risk should have stayed in town and done there work! God forbid you get in the way of there PAID VACATION’S... The Senate which rightly could have called witnesses should not have to when the House fails at there job. 
At the end of the day we need TERM LIMITS. It’s the only way to correct the dis function of the Entire Congress...

[notsonice + 1,068]

6 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

It was not the job of the Senate to make the case, The house didn’t do the work, If felt needed additional witnesses or testimony should have stayed in town but that would have cut into there Christmas Vacation! So if was national urgency that our Republic was at risk should have stayed in town and done there work! God forbid you get in the way of there PAID VACATION’S... The Senate which rightly could have called witnesses should not have to when the House fails at there job. 
At the end of the day we need TERM LIMITS. It’s the only way to correct the dis function of the Entire Congress...

what are you babbling about ? the subject is Nancy tearing up Trumps speech

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/6/2020 at 10:28 AM, Zhong Lu said:

If you see a number that you like, then obviously it comes from a source that's unbiased, neutral and trustworthy.  However, if someone posts a number that you don't like, then obviously it means it comes from "fake news, biased, agenda based."  

That's how it works, right? 

Trump's numbers are on average with Obama's [and worse then... Bush].  And the primary reason his numbers are as "high" as it is is because Fox news saw a jump during his speech, which means that people watching OTHER networks on average tuned him out.  

EDIT: Also your damn chart only goes up to 2019.  Doesn't include 2020.   Which is what this thread is about, right? 

https://www.statista.com/chart/16935/tv-ratings-viewership-for-state-of-the-union-addresses/

Here is a better link that includes 2020.  

If I were a Demoncrat I wouldn't have wanted to watch it either. It was great though. Best ever IMHO.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Eh.  If I was an independent, and  I am, I wouldn't have watched it either.  That's your problem right there.

EDIT: Wait. Demoncrat? LOL.  Oh great.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[frankfurter + 562]

On 2/7/2020 at 2:29 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Certainly despicable and worthy of expulsion for ethics violation.  But did she break a law? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

Certainly despicable and worthy of expulsion for ethics violation.  But did she break a law? 

There has been debate about whether or not Pelosi broke federal law by destroying an official federal document.

Did Nancy Pelosi break the law when she tore up Trump's speech?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:12 PM, notsonice said:

Whether she broke a federal law or not, she acted like a petulant child and diminished herself, the position of Speaker of the House and the entire House of Representatives.

Responsible parents would discipline a young daughter who acted like this.

Oh well, we’ll see the results of this and other Democratic shenanigans come November. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Now the Demoncrats are pressuring twitter to remove the videos of Nancy ripping up the speech. Even though the record clearly shows she prepped the speech for ripping, during the SOTU by holding pages under the table and beginning the tear, she now claims it's misleading to show a video of her ripping it up during the speech. A distinction without a difference IMHO. Is it a bad look for the witch from fisherman's wharf? The Magic Eight Ball says yes. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Eh.  If I was an independent, and  I am, I wouldn't have watched it either.  That's your problem right there.

EDIT: Wait. Demoncrat? LOL.  Oh great.

You can bet that independents will go for Trump over any of the Democratic candidates IMHO. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Whether she broke a federal law or not, she acted like a petulant child and diminished herself, the position of Speaker of the House and the entire House of Representatives.

I keep hearing and reading statements like this, Douglas, but at this point I'm not sure they/it could be diminished any further than they already are.  The Congress as a whole is pretty useless and mainly distracting.  Think about it: when was the last time you heard of our Congress coming up with anything of value?  When they do make a new law, it is usually, no, normally now, so vaguely written that it has to be put to test through the Supreme Court to determine how it should be properly written, thereby putting the responsibility on the Court to ensure constitutionality.  They do this intentionally so that they don't have to face accountability.  It kind of feels like the only two branches functioning normally are Justice and Executive, and then there is the Congress in the background like a 5th grade classroom full of entitled rich children that no teacher can ever get under control.  OMG, I sound like my grandfather back in 1970!

Edited February 9, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Now the Demoncrats are pressuring twitter to remove the videos of Nancy ripping up the speech. Even though the record clearly shows she prepped the speech for ripping, during the SOTU by holding pages under the table and beginning the tear, she now claims it's misleading to show a video of her ripping it up during the speech. A distinction without a difference IMHO. Is it a bad look for the witch from fisherman's wharf? The Magic Eight Ball says yes. 

That video meme of her tearing up the speech after each citizen or citizens were honored is exactly how I felt about it soon after she actually tore it up.  It is an accurate depiction of her senseless, thoughtless, misjudged and foul act.  Is it something that should get her impeached or censured?  No; it should be chuckled about whenever it is brought up, the same as one would chuckle when talking about their unruly 6 year old and his/her latest stunt.  Overreaction just diminishes her act and puts the reactor merely at her level.  And then you vote her out!

When deciding whether or not this impeachment should have gone forward, they should have simply applied the same reaction.  Voting is the answer there too.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]