Unfortunately, she is so stupid and arrogant she doesn’t even realize how bad she looked.

pummeled, or got pummeled?

@@korbandallas8931 🧐?

@@TheNewMinimum lol ya sorry ready it wrong at first. Spot on

@@korbandallas8931 Either way, Pelosi is an ass! 😉

Awful woman. Second only to Hilary.

She was too high on booze & Vicodin to stumble around to look for an exit.

Mostly because she can't gavel her way out from here.

She is a complete airhead compared to these people.

She has no idea 🤷🏼‍♀️😜🤪😂🤣

This is a major problem: you all are drastically underestimating her. You may be able to see through to her hypocrisy, but you don't know what she knows, or what she's doing. And she knows what she's doing. She knows you can see her, and knows you underestimate her. She's still a step or two ahead of us, laughing at us.

At first I thought the old bat was having a stroke, spitting, incoherent, drooling , talked as if she had a mouthful of marbles. Pathetic old thing needs to go home and stay there. Her time has expired 😔 😅

Her sad attempt at performing her witch craft.

perhaps the waving hand helps keep her balance..hic burp..excuse me 😂

Agreeing with you...and not for the first time!

I think he would be considered a conspiracy theorist, racist & a President Trump cult member like the rest of us. I wear those titles like a badge of honor. I know I am doing it right when I'm called those names.

Not just in U.S. but also Canada and most of eur0tr@$h. The corrupt, greedy corporate globalist regime is far reaching and much of this invasive, pervasive subversion and revisionism is coming from european elites/oligarchs. soros, pritzger, wef, etc.

Pelosi won't forget him making light of her.

Of course he knows and who should care. Truth is like a lion ...it doesn't need defending.

if you like this, watch UK Parliament. It's the same kids just from previous years, and now with real power

​@@ChannelMathThat young man wiped the floor with Pelosi smug attitude ❤

It’s amazing that they have real debates. We can learn from this in our country. It’s classy, entertaining and educational.

These debates aren’t getting England very far though is it

Of course they are. you just don't know enough American intellectuals, because they are never invited on major TV programs, because US culture doesn't value -- indeed is repulsed by -- intellectualism. If you look, though, some of the most eloquent intellectuals in the English language are, not surprisingly, American. Are you interested in political science? philosophy?

@@bdoubleu6 no. The rhetoric is sparkling, but usually all you get is a well-summarized version of the dispute. Like if the entire dispute was jammed into a sort of youtube-style video

I find Thomas Sowell to be very eloquent.

Since when is Nancy Pelosi either an intellectual or eloquent?

can't tell if this is sarcasm

@@ChannelMath Nope. I love OU debates! In this day and age, when people have lost the ability to argue with sound reason and emotions under control, it’s refreshing.

@@ChannelMathare you listening to the debate? Or just trying to stir up an unnecessary argument

Apart from the fact that Oxford is not in London, which is not really material to the point you're making (which I have sympathy with), the irony is that British citizens are pretty tired of elites from Oxford running their own country. I say this with the utmost respect for the Union having attended debates there myself. But the Oxford toffs along with the Cambridge toffs run the City of London, British business, and the British political machine. They often come from elite schools and become rich from politics if they weren't already. Think of Boris Johnson or David Cameron or Jacob Rees Mogg. And the system in the UK has pretty low party participation. The recent leadership changes haven't been based on a a national vote but instead on an internal party vote. They aren't really showing Americans a strong example of democracy in action. The average Briton is poorer than the average American and their NHS is at risk. The cost of living crisis there is worse than ours in the US and their housing market is more broken, against the backdrop of high streets in towns hollowing out, farmers being under great stress, and much more. The situation for the Conservative Party - replete with Oxbridge toffs - is so dire that Economist gives them a 1% chance of winning the snap election in July. Lizz "Lettuce" Truss is trying her hand at an US style populist party. We shall see.

we don't require them to be. maybe we should

Utter nonsense. Pelosi is not what we want in the UK. She is an anti democrat.

Very good.

Excellent, largely. Although the inherent fallibility of democracy - that always was and always will be present- is that idiots/stupid people can vote. I wonder if a system could ever be thought up to make it so that only those with some moderate level of understanding of how the interplay between politics and society really works, then perhaps we could filter out those voters who have no idea about politics, yet only a very surface-level, superficial understanding and grasp of policy design/implementation/intended effect/actual outcomes, and that’s to put it promisingly. Perhaps creating a standardised test to measure the political astuteness and comprehensions of the people would be an appropriate method to implement. Also, raising the voting age to 21 would be propitious; 18 year olds are too stupid and inexperienced in life, fundamentally, often lacking sufficient life experience and maturity. Another 3 years of development and the inevitable maturity that accompanies will surely do no harm but only manifest in more self-aware and politically receptive and attuned individuals.

I agree! The USA has many talented and erudite public speakers but there seem to be precious few formal forums for debate. Do Yale and Harvard have debating societies? If so, why aren’t their debates here on KZfaq? Are they?!? All too often online debates are “one-on-one” which seldom seem to reach a conclusion. Bring back AUTHENTIC debate!

The media wouldn't cover it. We're in an information war.

We are here, just ignored. Facts don't work anymore.

Yep, I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but despite this there are already college 'debate clubs' in the US that all they do is speed-talk or "spreading" they call it, off a paper to the point you cant understand them and otherwise weird hyperventilating and gasping for air. Somehow this is called 'policy debate' as though only policies should be debated in this fashiojn. Then it's up to judges who 'can' understand them or some garbage, it's a totally ridiculous circus act. Complete opposite of debates worth hearing. dumpster fire example: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNN_YN2arbvDdGw.html

Theres a lot of master debating in the states all right

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

he's truly the Sultan of populism

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

There's nothing genius about america. It's like a business where the rules were laid out years ago, and management vehemently upholds those rules and refuses to listen to the employees.

Nobody is taught this anymore. I am glad there is still hope.

He doesn’t need to… these students are doing a fine job

Quite a lot these days.

@@jonsmith1162 Why is it more now than it used to be?

​@@secretname4190 Because back then education was for the upper class, you would barely find a commoner in the parliament back then.

Plato thought democracy was the worst form of government. Franklin would have read Plato.

@grannyannie2948 My apologies for my original post. Most of the Founders were quite scholarly and knowledgeable of history and various philosophies. Most of them were well aware of the concept of democracy and yet never mentioned democracy in the founding documents, nor did they define the United States as a democracy in any of those same founding documents.

@@FuzzyWuzzy75 No worries. I'm Australian and no expert, I was glad you put a name to a popular quote. From memory the reason democracy is bad is because if it results in tyranny you are fighting a large portion of your own people. A king was preferred because if he was a tyrant you only need to take out one man. But your founding fathers could hardly recommend a king in your country's case. Loosing the US is why Britain settled Australia, so we inherited your king, though perhaps he'd learnt his lesson. Queen Victoria certainly did. She was happy for us to become self governing states and later a nation.

@grannyannie2948 I believe Thomas Sowell says it best when he says, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." I don't believe that is ever more true than with governance. People can be easily manipulated, and that includes monarchs. Take, for example, the Emperor of Japan. For hundreds of years up to the end of WWII, the people of Japan were told that the Emperor was essentially god in carnate. The Emperor of Japan was pretty well chosen from birth and always lived a rather isolated life primarily around the Imperial Palace of Japan. The Emperor had counselors and advisors tell him about everything going on in Japan and in the outside world as it related to Japan. The major institutions of Japanese society all had their representatives on the Emperor's counsel. At least by WWII, the Army would have it's advisor to the Emperor, the Navy would have theirs, the Treasury would have their advisor, the diplomats would have theirs and so on. These "advisors" to the Emperor were the true power behind the throne in Japan. They would advise the Emperor, and based on their counsel, the Emperor would dictate his will to the people of Japan, and when your national ruler is god in carnate, how can you question his will? I am certainly no expert on the monarchs of Europe, but I would imagine there were some similarities to how the Emperor and his counselors ruled Japan for centuries. For that matter, I believe we are seeing something very similar in the modern United States, particularly with the Biden administration in particular. Biden is merely a yes man for George Soros, and his appointed lackies surrounding Joe Biden telling him what to do and say. As pointed out in this clip, the elites and oligarchs are certainly not doing the will of what is in the best interests of the people. They are doing what is in their own best interests. These elites and oligarchs are a perfect example of individuals of low levels of morality in high levels of power. They are living proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and apparently, that is just as much the case in a so-called democracy as it is with a monarchy. The elites and the oligarchs today want their new world order. They claim that this liberal world order is something new that has never been tried before that will lead us all to the Utopia. Nonsense, the new world order is just a modernized prettier way of saying empire and empires have risen and fallen since the dawn of civilization and have always lead to tyranny in the past, it will be no different this time around either. And why should we expect anything but tyranny from those who tell us, "You'll own nothing and be happier!"? Why should we expect anything but tyranny from those that believe so strongly in the principle of "do as I say not do as I do" when it comes to environmental stewardship? These people are proof that evil exists and they are setting the stage for Hell on earth.

@@FuzzyWuzzy75 I understand your statement about trade offs. At least your elections seem to offer some difference in policy. Realistically both our major parties are globalist puppets, and voting never changes anything so I've given up on any democratic solutions. As I say it doesn't matter who you vote vote for, the policies never change only the rhetoric. It reminds me of what we were taught of the Soviet Union as children. That was very interesting about the Japanese Emperor. I've never really read about it. It sounds like the current leader of China. Everyone knows about their plans for Taiwan, but they threatened to missile us during covid, apparently. So Taiwan may just be the beginning. I was taught about English kings and Queens and I enjoy history. Throughout the Middle Ages it really depended on the King and his personality. But they seemed to be able to get rid of many bad ones. What you refer to is the Divine Right of Kings. It began in 1603 with James 1. His son Charles 1 took it too far and literally lost his head. Parliament then appointed the Puritan Oliver Cromwell to rule. Charles' sons lived in relative poverty on the continent. When Cromwell died the English, now Great Britain, brought the son's home, and Charles 2 became King. But his powers were greatly curtailed by parliament. Especially his expenditure if he didn't do what they wanted. He was certainly not a puritan. He loved the theatre and had multiple mistresses. But he was a man of the people. He was just as happy to speak to a working man, as to a courtier. And when London burned in 1666? He and his brother physically fought the fire. This was when puritans enmass left for North America. After his death he was discovered to have been a secret Roman Catholic in order to extract money from the French. He had no legitimate children so the throne went to his brother James 2. When James' second wife who was Catholic gave birth to a son, he and his family were exciled on pain of death. This was the Glorious Revolution in 1688. After that it was democratic rule though few could vote, like Plato's Greece. Parliament had to approve monarchs, and did most of the legislation the king just signed. Poor King George was a pretty helpless and pathetic case. He suffered from a combination of mental illness and the cruel treatment of his doctors. He was not a tyrant, but perhaps the elected British parliament was. But they looked to America when considering our settlement. In 1786 they outlawed slavery in our country, we were not settled until 1788. They made it ilegal to harm our indigenous people, and to kill one carried the death sentence. I realise I may have touched sensitive issues. I had no intention to offend. Only to discuss. And my conclusions between Kings and democracy.

Yup. USA needs Trump 2024!! to save USA

So if people want to change something that is unfair in the national and state level and go though the correct process but even them they are stopped by people that think everything is fine because the problem is not effecting them... so i say destroy the system because is not work as it should... that alone is the claim of the deap state this people call all the time... wake the fuck up and hear what they are talking... checks and balances is to say look you can do what you want this way... and ok... but even when they follow the rules it doesn't work because people in that process dont like how things are going because it will effect them in a negative way... just say you are a elitist. to me sounds like you want to trap populists in their place and corner this correct process does not exist in the corrent system because as i sayed people that were not elected interven in every step of the way... now if that was true for everyone maybe is the way it should be, but is not... only their way is the way.

100% Democracy is a failed ideology that came from the Greeks…to much power concentrates to a few! The USA is a constitutional republic 100%!!!👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸

That is Nancy's argument, to insinuate it has no place at a national level when you consider that it does have checks and balances already is insanely elitist with no reason other than elitism.

Totally agree that The United States of Northern America is a Republic. That the creation of Electoral Colleges by the Founding Fathers was genius. Giving Representation to each State. Had the USA been a democracy in 2016, Hilary Clinton would have won based on her Popular vote. Trump will not win in 2024 based on Populism, he remains disliked, if not hated amongst many. Any likely win will reflect on petrol prices on the pump for Americans who do not walk but use their cars. On the wars in Ukraine, Gaza during Biden’s administration and the debacle of Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. I could list further but…..

@@eeeemmteeee if populism in America reigned supreme, who knows what the country would look like? Obstensibly, white supremacy could be the law of the land under populism. Populism doesn't really specify what a society should look like, it's just a means by which a society achieves its aims. Without checks and balances, America would literally tear itself apart. The push for Democracy in the United States can trace its roots to socialism and we're not having it.

In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️

No one voted to become a minority in their only ancestral homeland

If you have "checks and balances" you do not have populism or democracy you have a Republic "if you can keep it"

Progress and discontent are two different things. Both can be true-- inequality enhances technical and economic progress overall, but also breeds discontent. If leaders can't accept (and address) the latter as well as the former, that does not bode well for any democracy.

@@teresabenson3385 - Discontent was addressed by the 10 commandments, "Thou shall not covet." That is the final word, there is no need for government to address it.

@@jrstf So the government doesn't need to address stealing or murder either, because they are also in the 10 commandments?

I thought the educated French middle class led the revolution. There was a great deal of social mobility in Britain in the late Middle Ages, before democracy.

@@teresabenson3385 - I think you've twisted my thought. The government punishes stealing and murder, I prefer they not punish discontent. And moral training is something entirely beyond the ability of government.

Hag

It means the right is winning