File this one as yet another instance in which the liberal media took President Trump’s bait, hook, line, and sinker, launching into apocalyptic meltdowns and illustrating for the American public how, for those on the right not in The Resistance, they’re the opposition party.
On Thursday afternoon, CNN suffered a network-wide meltdown over Trump’s letter canceling Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s overseas trip less than an hour before take-off, calling the President a “childish” and “cranky” schoolboy who’s only concerned about “pure politics.”
Surprising no one, carnival barker and chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta led the way, telling activist and pro-Pelosi host Brooke Baldwin that “our nation’s capital has official become a playground”because “[t]he President has responded in sort of a childish way is the only way to describe it to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to her letter essentially saying that the State of the Union will be postponed.”
Acosta added in a jab to Press Secretary Sarah Sanders that she tweeted the letter out “in lieu of having actual briefings.”
He went on to read excerpts from the letter and noted that it doesn’t include a response to Pelosi’s attempt to stop the State of the Union address to what she claimed were lapses in security due to the government shutdown.
BORGER: You don’t announce these things, so this — this seems silly to me, honestly and the real world out there looking at this will go, come on, kids. Time for a nap. You’re getting cranky.
BALDWIN: I’ve got a — I’ve got a — I’ve got a Coast Guard wife on stand by and I cannot wait to when we eventually talk to her.
BALDWIN: Because I want to get her response to all of this. Her husband’s working the coast guard for 16 years and they’ve got two kids and this is what we’re talking about. Let me just stay with you, Gloria, so it’s this tit for tat. It’s this back and forth obviously between these two but for everyone else watching, everyone’s like make it stop.
BALDWIN: Make it stop!
BORGER: Yes. Reopen the government, figure out a way to deal with the immigration issue and, you know, the problem is you have both sides that are boxed in. The President boxed in, of course, first, because he is insistent upon this wall and he’s not going to give on it and the Democrats are saying we’re not going to give you the wall. They believe they’ve already given him money for the wall. He turned down another offer in which they had given him more money for the wall and so you do have two sides here that are boxed in and people are suffering and it seems ridiculous that in the middle of all of this, the President is responding to Pelosi essentially saying, you know, I’m not going to let you take your trip to Afghanistan, which is I’m sure is a pleasure trip, an excursion. Come on.
Going later to chief political analyst Gloria Borger, Baldwin hailed Acosta’s rhetoric: “I’m still kinda back on Jim Acosta referring to Washington as a playground. The only phrase that comes to mind is nanny-nanny-boo-boo.”
Borger agreed, equating it to Trump telling Pelosi to “get out of the sandbox” and stating that, for her, “[t]he wording in this is incredible to me because it is this kind of dumb tit for tat thing.”
She also expressed anger with Trump calling Pelosi’s trip “an excursion” because “[t]his is not an excursion to the beach” but instead “a war zone.”
Like good liberal activists, Baldwin and Borger went on:
@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, if I were you, I wouldn’t want to try and back up the false claim that Trump is responsible for the shutdown either.
Mueller is lying trash.
@Richard Wheeler: Take care then, I think it will be a long time before the report hits, he is on a tax payer funded gravy train.
That’s some pretty fancy footwork there. I said that you were childish for saying that the Democrats are flatly against border security of any sort. You somehow turned that into demanding that I defend the idea of having no border security at all, a suggestion that neither I nor members of Congress have made. Finally, your rant morphs into a demand that I, for some reason, need to come up with my own plan for securing the border.
How about if the President allows Congress to present its alternative proposals in the form of legislation which can be analyzed and debated, rather than saying, “It’s my way or the highway”?
Is it possible that that he’s a little bit afraid that his plan of “wall, full stop” won’t stand up in the marketplace of ideas?
Really? It is a logical conclusion that if you only support methods proven to be ineffective, resulting in possibly 20 million illegal immigrants soaking up $200 billion per year in costs to the taxpayer, then you are AGAINST effective border security.
Do you think or think I think that December 21, 2018 was the first time this was brought up? This has been debated AND FUNDED numerous times. Yet, here we are, talking about our porous border and the inherent dangers this presents.
The wall has already proven itself. There are numerous areas where walls of differing styles and construction have been erected and all those concerned report that border crossings drop precipitously where walls have been erected.
Expecting other nations to voluntarily respect our laws hasn’t worked. Deportation doesn’t worked as long as they can turn right around and walk back in. Capturing is not so easy as long as liberal sanctuary cities and states protect illegal immigrants (a felony), which also serves to entice MORE illegal immigrants to come here. Soldiers worked, backing up the areas where the dilapidated walls are in place, but liberals don’t like using the military there. As long as the border is wide open, our capacity to process them all is stretched thin, but the let opposes expansion of detention camps (aka “concentration camps”).
So, explain your support for border security and how you envision it stopping illegal immigration? Because insisting only on the measures that got us to the 20 million point is not supporting border security. Based on the current situation and stance of the Democrats, stating they fully oppose all border security measure is no stretch whatsoever.
Well lets take a serious look at the market place, how do the wealthy invest their money for security, drones? no, um sensors no Men marching around or driving in circles around their houses? no
Barriers, fences, walls yup thats what is around wealthy peoples homes gated communities, walls with gates and statues on the pillars.
Sure some also have guards with the walls, security cameras and additional measures, which we concede will be needed in addition to the steel barrier.
I can assure you when you drive up to their guard shacks you better have an invitation or those gates will not open.
Its still not perfect, what is ,there will be those that will get through the best of defenses, so why even try right? In fact feed them when they come in, pay them your kids allowance to stay, free health, care education on your dime .
Now tell me we dont need a barrier or at least deter them by not putting out the free lifetime buffet.
I support border security.
I do not envision anything stopping illegal immigration, and neither do you. Your argument for walls in general say that illegal immigration “dropped precipitously.”
The Democrats are talking about a combination of ideas that do, in fact, include some fencing, but also include some more high-tech facets. They’re planning to spend money, just not as much as you’d like on the precise items you’d like.
Yes, I get it: your way or the highway. You get everything you want, or nobody gets anything.
But 1 dollar for new barriers? That was the insult they provided as negotiations to the President. 1 dollar. Wheres the rest of the 48 billion they said they were going to provide for our security in 2006? They made a promise to the American voters wheres the beef?
You do know that simply saying it doesn’t make it so. Right? Do you know what happens if you only fence three sides of your yard when you let your dog out? Or, if your child is playing in the yard and a wild dog comes by? Again, you and other liberals will only support measures that have FAILED. That is the same as NOT supporting border security. No, it’s Pelosi whose position is HER open borders or the highway.
@kitt: It’s all talk. The left is faced with someone that is going to STOP illegal immigration so they have to declare their full support for illegal immigrants over US citizens.
@Deplorable Me: Seems Trump ordered all military transport hitchhiking stopped unless approved by WHCOS. Cancelling trips planned for a financial summit for his own people as well.
Barry made it hard on citizens closing monuments to honor flight attendees Trump is making it hard on the elected and appointed shutting down luxury trips abroad and cross country. Yes they all have to ask dad for the key and security.
@kitt: I notice since she can’t use luxury facilities she just decides not to go. I saw one post that said 62 people were going; government reps and family members; I can’t find any articles about this. Can anyone else find information on how many were planning to tag along on a free vacation?
I see the Democrats propose another $1 billion… for more judges and port of entry facilities. So, they would rather keep pouring money into paying for the adverse effects of illegal immigration instead of investing in SOLVING the problem? Is that the liberal thought process? Yes, it is… they don’t mind wasting money LOOKING like they are for border security just as long as no border security actually happens.
Once you denounce as “against border security” every Republican who has ever let a budget package go by without trying to insert language for a wall on the southern border, we can talk. Otherwise, you’re just being a hypocrite.
@Michael: As you see 1 person can toss a hair pin and broom stick into the works If Pelosi saw a bill giving the funds she would not bring it to the floor, then deny or pull any important committee seats from that traitor of the agenda, exactly what Ryan and now the new minority leader are doing, including those that dared to vote against him. Politics at its core is a filthy game that never benefits the citizens.
I guess, then, we’ll also need a 5,525-mile-long wall separating the United States from Canada.
We hear of language that doesn’t make it into final bills all the time. Using Deplorable Me’s logic, surely any Republican who did not try to insert a provision for a wall into a budget bill doesn’t really care about border security.
@Michael: Exactly they dont care politicians sweet talkers never walking the walk and taking the heat for trying to keep those sweet promises, after you fill in the oval circle on your ballot.
Statesmen and journalists are soooo 5 minutes ago…boring its all about getting my 10 minute interview on cable television. Or spreading the latest AP story without researching it.
Congress has a 15% approval in polls but near or over 90% re-election.
Is the press pointing cameras in the correct direction?
@Michael: Nice try, but not every issue can be tied to border security. So, no, you are wrong. However, when a border security issue comes up and Democrats (and some self-interested Republicans) play politics with it only proves they care more about their ideology (which includes support for open borders and illegal immigrants) than they do the security and safety of American citizens.
And you support it.
When that becomes a problem, a wall there will be necessary. However, unlike Mexico, Canada does not have millions of citizens that want to flood into the United States nor does Canada allow hundreds of thousands to come from the Arctic through Canada and into the United States. But the lack of necessity for a northern wall in no way equates to being able to avoid the necessity of protecting will walls our southern border.
Neither you nor Michael make any recommendations as to how to use anything but the measures you denounce to secure the border better than simply using the same failed measures that are employed now. Apparently, you don’t want to give it any consideration nor can you admit that the wall is the one and only measure that can be added to current measures and better protect the border.
Trump just proposed some concessions to Democrats to get his funding and end the shutdown. Let’s see how serious the left actually is. No offers of concession from Democrats, just obstruction; all openness comes from Republicans… as usual.
@Deplorable Me: Should the emocrats actually come to the table and legislation signed then we must stop all activist judges from shredding it as they have so many other good bi-partisan legislations. Yet they never impeach these judges its almost as if they, behind closed doors, coordinate with NGOs who judge shop, to destroy the very thing they took full throated credit for.
@kitt: Early indications are the Democrats will reject; they seek amnesty for illegal immigrants, as usual, knowing this kills any deal. So, expect Trump to go the national emergency route as soon as the Democrats reject the bill.
@Deplorable Me: The ball will soon be in Pelosi’s court public opinion and optics will be difficult to spin in her favor.
Will those who care about the dreamers Barry created with a pen and phone understand?
I specified “budget bills,” so my challenge stands.
Also, Democrats are talking about trying new technologically-based approaches–pretty much the opposite of “doing the same that has tried been tried unsuccessfully in the past.” They’re also saying that they want to spend money on a physical barrier where appropriate.
You either have no real idea what Democrats are talking about, which makes you a fool for spouting off incessantly, or you do know, but you deliberately mischaracterize it, which makes you a liar.
@kitt: She doesn’t care about them any more than she cares about any US citizen that is not her kin. They are here and they aren’t going anywhere. She wants to get MORE here. She’s not going to negotiate for their peace of mind and cut off her supply of new voters. She’ll reject the compromise because she doesn’t have to compromise; the media will protect her and provide her cover.
No, the same holds true. The Democrats have had supermajorities in Congress where they can pass anything they want, not Republicans. Republicans always need some Democrat help on budgetary issues. That’s why we can’t get budgets passed (only continuing resolutions) and we can’t cut spending. If you would recall, the last spending bill Trump got that did not have border security spending in it but has a big load of pork shit in it, which was necessary to sign to keep the government open, by the way, Trump scolded both Republicans and Democrats that he would sign NO MORE of those. So, your point is moot.
You have a short memory. The “virtual wall” was a thing during the Bush administration. It was constantly derided by Democrats as a failure and a waste of money which, as we can see, was mostly correct. But, like most things border security, it was half-assed. However, it was tried and it did fail.
I can provide proof where physical walls are effective. Can you show me where a “virtual” wall is as effective? Why do prisons have the old fashioned, 5th Century technology walls when magical “virtual” walls work just as well?
I know precisely what the Democrats are talking about; status quo. Unending continuance of illegal immigration until our capabilities are swamped. Had Hillary won the Presidency, HER Supreme Court Justices would have readily voted for the rights of any resident of the US to vote. And THAT, as they say, would be THAT.
We can pass bills to add 100,000 more border agents. 200,000. 500,000. However many you want. But, sometime in the future, when a new open borders Democrat is in office, they can be let go. The “virtual” wall can be turned off or ignored. But a REAL wall, 30 feet tall and 6 feet in the ground… that’s there forever. Democrats don’t want “there forever”. They don’t want anything. They want wide open borders.
@Deplorable Me: She doesn’t think Trump has the stuffing to declare an emergency. Big mistake not to take what she could as he offered her entire wish list. She actually rejected it before the Presidents generous offer was official.
The emergency isnt just on the border. NY is tiny little bit North of the border.
NY is also filled with SJW judges. Progressive school officials that have created no safe space for our kids, no sanctuary for them.
This is such stupid shit to say that it undermines any actual points you may have to make on the issue.
to the corner and put this attractive cone on your head complete with label D U N C E
The language doesn’t even have to make it into the real bill; in fact, I specified that they only had to try to get the language inserted. Any Republican who hasn’t even attempted to get money for a wall into a budget package is, by your reasoning, for wide-open borders.
WALLS ALWAYS WORK (except for the ones that don’t, of course). The biggest wall of all time didn’t even work–the Mongols simply went around the end of the Great Wall. Palestinians go under the walls in Israel. Walls around Jerusalem didn’t keep the Crusaders out. Multiple lines of massive walls didn’t keep the Ottomans out of Constantinople. People break out of prison. Our own border agents were explaining to Trump just the other day that walls don’t keep people out. Big fences don’t keep people out of the White House grounds.
Our borders need to be secure, but boiling it down to “wall, period” is stupid. (And don’t tell me that “wall, period” isn’t your plan; it is essentially all you guys–including the president–ever mention.)
@Michael: Do you think you build a house by just pouring the foundation and footings? The Steel barrier is just the foundation. Now as you have not been sitting with your listening ears on back to the corner and put back on your labeled cap.
@Michael: So, no glowing examples of the “virtual” wall working as well as a physical wall?
When funding for the entire border wall has already been approved, why would Republicans keep adding it to budget proposals? To kill them, like Democrat often do? Wake up.
Um… no. They don’t. It takes months to build their tunnels and they are always detected. That wall is 99% effective.
When an invasion force hows up on our Mexican border with towers and catapults, I think the DoD will know what to do. Are you in a competition with someone to see who can be the most stupid?
When was the last time you saw an hundred prisoners just walk past the walls at once? Are you a writer for the Babylon Bee?
Well, then isn’t it a good thing that’s not the whole enchilada? Despite your ignorance, that’s never been the whole proposal, but it is a very important… the MOST important part of the ensemble, and I have explained that thoroughly. What you need to explain is how you expect everything BUT a wall will work when it hasn’t for the past 30 years. The only thing other than walls that has reduced illegal immigration effectively has been Obama’s terrible economy and Trump’s threat to enforce our immigration laws and those are not permanant.
@KITT: Don’t you just love it when liberals crack jokes (or file their nails) when the issue of innocent American men, women and children being killed by the illegal immigrants they clamor to allow in?
@Deplorable Me: Seems there wre to be 93 on the Pelosi trip 7 Democrats the rest family members, all on our dime. Imagine the terrible let down grandmas junket grounded.
@kitt: I have seen that on Facebook but I cannot find any articles covering the facts. Have you seen one? I would like to have it.