4 ms·

> Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. This is not true. It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications spread

> Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. This is not true. It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications spread on HN as literal truths. Here is an article from December 22 were Pelosi is calling for more stimulus: www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/22/trump-calls-covid-relief-bill-unsuitable-and-demands-congress-add-higher-stimulus-payments.html Here is her direct tweet dated 12/22: https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1341557535732604935 https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/134155753573...? Edit: There are outright lies in the source article. Sad day for HN that the lies are getting so much traction and fact checking with 1st hand sources is getting downvoted.

seriousquestion 5y ago
People are confused about this because Pelosi rejected the stimulus in October, prior to the election. She didn't accept until December, post election. Some democrats were urging her to accept it in October: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1315078896853843970 https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1315078896853843970
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  That’s not what the business insider linked in the tweet says. It says she described the White House plan as “insufficient” meaning there wasn’t enough stimulus in it. How can criticizing a bill for not having enough stimulus mean you are against stimulus? The House had passed the HEROES act for additional stimulus in May 2020. The Republican senate refused to even put it up for a vote. She was always for passing of the HEROES act even during this October - December period. She was always pro stimulus.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    > the HEROES act Does anyone else cringe at this American obsession with naming acts of congress so as to create "inspirational" acronyms?
    - sneeze-slayer 5y ago
      Yeah, I think it's really weird. Maybe a way to help give the bills "spin" and gain support. Honestly, though, I think there are bigger things to worry about.
bombastry 5y ago
I also thought this was odd. This site alleges malfeasance based purely on analysis of data but then alludes to a person's thoughts on specific dates without citation. I also found this article on 2020/12/21 where Pelosi says she wanted more stimulus, but the $600 checks were significant.[1] So it seems all the more unlikely that she said she was against further stimulus at any point on the 22nd. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-wanted-more-600-225424935.html https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-wanted-more-600-22542493...
itsoktocry 5y ago
>It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN. Why does a member of congress need to day-trade stocks, let alone leveraged derivatives? It's absurd.
- Goronmon 5y ago
  It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN. You believing that "right-wing conspiracies" automatically means ties to "alt-right/Nazis", I think this says more about your personal biases than the person you are responding to.
ianthiel 5y ago
Why is this being downvoted? These are references to primary sources that directly contradict facts presented.
devmunchies 5y ago
> right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications maybe on that one point, but the fact the democrats trade way more on the markets is not a conspiracy theory, it's an outright conspiracy. why are you defending these people? because they're democrats on paper?
- allturtles 5y ago
  I believe GP is defending facts against malicious lies. That seems always a good thing, regardless of whom the lies are directed towards.
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    Yes, exactly. This is the kind of obviously disprovable lie that I though wouldn’t fly on HN.
  - devmunchies 5y ago
    > malicious lies just call it a lie. don't need biased adjectives.
    - ABeeSea 5y ago
      I don’t think that’s a biased adjective. It describes the author’s intent in distributing an easily disprovable lie. Their intent was malicious.
calylex 5y ago
Are you retarded? That tweet was made on 12/22 at 6:30PM which is basically the same as 12/23 the date the article claims Pelosi switched her vote. Here is more reference for her "no" position prior to that date https://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pelosi+reject&safe=off&biw=1440&bih=796&sxsrf=ALeKk02llarbdP5E86bxMto_zkfTmjVyOg%3A1618530751847&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F19%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F21%2F2020&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pelosi+reject&safe=...
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  Do you have a specific article with a first hand source saying she was against stimulus? Because her continued and unwavering support for the HEROES act suggest she was always pro-stimulus. The top article in your Google search (lol) link is the Sun. A British tabloid with the same owner as Fox News. Also calling me “r****” is definitely against HN civility rules.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > with the same owner You know the entire establishment media is owned by a select few people right? She was very clearly against stimulus before election because she didn't want to give a win to her political opponent. We can say whatever we want about her political opponent but he had made it very clear on Twitter that he would instantly sign a stimulus only bill without pork if it's brought to him. Pelosi on the other hand played politics and blamed it on her political opponent as she didn't want cheques with his name going out before elections. Here's her interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer criticized by the left: https://youtu.be/vV2mBhQR3r4 https://youtu.be/vV2mBhQR3r4 Here's a left leaning source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-no-covid-19-relief-election-day-blames-white-n1245016 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-no-cov... Here's a right leaning source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-trump-coronavirus-relief-negotiations-cnn-interview https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-trump-coronaviru... > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped into the White House's latest $1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer during a combative interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, accusing President Trump of only wanting to send out a second round of stimulus checks to juice the economy and boost his election odds. > The Trump administration's proposal -- its largest yet -- drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, dimming the odds of another round of emergency aid before the Nov. 3 election. It was expected to include a second round of direct payments of up to $1,200 for adults and $1,000 for children; expanded unemployment benefits at $400 per week and additional funding for state and local governments. > Blitzer pressed Pelosi about her decision to reject the deal, even as some Democrats, including former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and California Rep. Ro Khanna, urged her to accept the offer. (Khanna tweeted that Pelosi should "make a deal & put the ball in McConnell court").

seriousquestion 5y ago

People are confused about this because Pelosi rejected the stimulus in October, prior to the election. She didn't accept until December, post election. Some democrats were urging her to accept it in October: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1315078896853843970 https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1315078896853843970

ABeeSea 5y ago
That’s not what the business insider linked in the tweet says. It says she described the White House plan as “insufficient” meaning there wasn’t enough stimulus in it. How can criticizing a bill for not having enough stimulus mean you are against stimulus? The House had passed the HEROES act for additional stimulus in May 2020. The Republican senate refused to even put it up for a vote. She was always for passing of the HEROES act even during this October - December period. She was always pro stimulus.
- jfk13 5y ago
  > the HEROES act Does anyone else cringe at this American obsession with naming acts of congress so as to create "inspirational" acronyms?
  - sneeze-slayer 5y ago
    Yeah, I think it's really weird. Maybe a way to help give the bills "spin" and gain support. Honestly, though, I think there are bigger things to worry about.

bombastry 5y ago

I also thought this was odd. This site alleges malfeasance based purely on analysis of data but then alludes to a person's thoughts on specific dates without citation. I also found this article on 2020/12/21 where Pelosi says she wanted more stimulus, but the $600 checks were significant.[1] So it seems all the more unlikely that she said she was against further stimulus at any point on the 22nd. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-wanted-more-600-225424935.html https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-wanted-more-600-22542493...

itsoktocry 5y ago

>It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN. Why does a member of congress need to day-trade stocks, let alone leveraged derivatives? It's absurd.

Goronmon 5y ago
It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN. You believing that "right-wing conspiracies" automatically means ties to "alt-right/Nazis", I think this says more about your personal biases than the person you are responding to.

ianthiel 5y ago

Why is this being downvoted? These are references to primary sources that directly contradict facts presented.

devmunchies 5y ago

> right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications maybe on that one point, but the fact the democrats trade way more on the markets is not a conspiracy theory, it's an outright conspiracy. why are you defending these people? because they're democrats on paper?

allturtles 5y ago
I believe GP is defending facts against malicious lies. That seems always a good thing, regardless of whom the lies are directed towards.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. This is the kind of obviously disprovable lie that I though wouldn’t fly on HN.
- devmunchies 5y ago
  > malicious lies just call it a lie. don't need biased adjectives.
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    I don’t think that’s a biased adjective. It describes the author’s intent in distributing an easily disprovable lie. Their intent was malicious.

calylex 5y ago

Are you retarded? That tweet was made on 12/22 at 6:30PM which is basically the same as 12/23 the date the article claims Pelosi switched her vote. Here is more reference for her "no" position prior to that date https://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pelosi+reject&safe=off&biw=1440&bih=796&sxsrf=ALeKk02llarbdP5E86bxMto_zkfTmjVyOg%3A1618530751847&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F19%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F21%2F2020&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pelosi+reject&safe=...

ABeeSea 5y ago
Do you have a specific article with a first hand source saying she was against stimulus? Because her continued and unwavering support for the HEROES act suggest she was always pro-stimulus. The top article in your Google search (lol) link is the Sun. A British tabloid with the same owner as Fox News. Also calling me “r****” is definitely against HN civility rules.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > with the same owner You know the entire establishment media is owned by a select few people right? She was very clearly against stimulus before election because she didn't want to give a win to her political opponent. We can say whatever we want about her political opponent but he had made it very clear on Twitter that he would instantly sign a stimulus only bill without pork if it's brought to him. Pelosi on the other hand played politics and blamed it on her political opponent as she didn't want cheques with his name going out before elections. Here's her interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer criticized by the left: https://youtu.be/vV2mBhQR3r4 https://youtu.be/vV2mBhQR3r4 Here's a left leaning source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-no-covid-19-relief-election-day-blames-white-n1245016 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-no-cov... Here's a right leaning source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-trump-coronavirus-relief-negotiations-cnn-interview https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-trump-coronaviru... > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped into the White House's latest $1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer during a combative interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, accusing President Trump of only wanting to send out a second round of stimulus checks to juice the economy and boost his election odds. > The Trump administration's proposal -- its largest yet -- drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, dimming the odds of another round of emergency aid before the Nov. 3 election. It was expected to include a second round of direct payments of up to $1,200 for adults and $1,000 for children; expanded unemployment benefits at $400 per week and additional funding for state and local governments. > Blitzer pressed Pelosi about her decision to reject the deal, even as some Democrats, including former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and California Rep. Ro Khanna, urged her to accept the offer. (Khanna tweeted that Pelosi should "make a deal & put the ball in McConnell court").