With Trump — Speaker Nancy Pelosi does her part to aggravate tantrum-like divisiveness

© 2020 Peter Free

 

31 August 2020

 

 

President Trump is not the only flamethrower on the national stage

 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's 27 August statement — that Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, should not debate President Trump (before November's election) — was as rationally indefensible, as it was provocatively dismissive of 40 to 49 percent of American voters:

 

 

I don’t think that there should be any debates,” Pelosi told reporters.

 

"I do not think that the president of the United States has comported himself in a way that anybody has any association with truth, evidence, data and facts.”

 

I wouldn’t legitimize a conversation with him nor a debate in terms of the presidency of the United States."

 

I think that he’ll probably act in a way that is beneath the dignity of the presidency . . . .

 

“He does that every day,” she added.

 

"I think he will also belittle what the debates are supposed to be about.”

 

© 2020 Justine Coleman, Pelosi says there shouldn't be any debates between Biden and Trump, The Hill (27 August 2020) (excerpts)

 

Video:

 

The Hill, Pelosi: There shouldn't be any debates between Biden and Trump, YouTube (27 August 2020) (quote begins at 01:23 minutes into the clip)

 

 

Let's unpack Speaker Pelosi's statement

 

Against the evidence, Pelosi implicitly suggests that American politicians do not routinely lie and distort.

 

She tacitly concedes that former Vice President Biden probably cannot fend off Trump's inaccuracies and boorishness.

 

She appears to assume that President Trump took office illegitimately — this, evidently, in accord with Democrats' absurdly long-running, evidence-lacking smear that Russian President Putin owns him.

 

She simultaneously rejects the judgment of 40 to 49 percent of the American voting population — who think that Trump is an okay (or better) president.

 

And she further assumes that the United States will not benefit from the two elderly men — who have relatively obvious problems with consistently displaying Commander in Chief-level cognition — interacting with each other, on the same stage, to see which one poses the lesser mental risk to the nation.

 

 

Is Speaker Pelosi's position helpful in calming our divided nation down?

 

I don't think so.

 

We have enough flame-throwing Adam Henrys in the political hierarchy already.

 

Why further ignite the rapidly unraveling strands of the Republic?

 

And how is Pelosi's statement essentially different than Hillary Clinton's 2016-election-losing claim, that this same Republican group is comprised of "deplorables"?

 

 

The moral? — I see no valid political (or spiritual) purpose to insulting roughly 50 percent of Americans

 

Do you?

 

If a political Party repetitively proves itself unable to learn from past political mistakes, why should anyone — with common sense — trust it to lead the United States next year?

 

You can do better, Madam Speaker.