Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker

[bad_teammate 13,225]

24 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Pelosi is playing the long game here. Seeking to impeach Trump would rile up Trump’s base and give them a rallying cry in 2020. Pelosi will not give them that satisfaction  

Libs seriously need to stop reading this kind of shit into Pelosi and thinking of her like some kind of vessel to hold their fantasies. It's pathetic.

After the White House meeting, "OH MY GOD SHE'S GOT HIS BALLS IN HER PURSE!" (Trump actually got the House votes for his wall after Pelosi said in the meeting that he couldn't)

After weird-clapping for Trump at the SOTU, "OH MY GOD THE SHADE I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW POWERFUL SHE IS SLAY QUEEEEEEEN!!!!!" (Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic, she was clapping for him genuinely and wanted him to know that she agreed with what he just said)

Nancy Pelosi fucking sucks. She has no control over Trump's base and what Trump's base will or will not do. It doesn't matter whether the Democrats pursue impeachment or not, his base will say whatever the hell it wants.

[henrygandorf 29,195]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pence.  Trump loses re-election.  Trump resigns on January 19th 2021. Pence gives Trump a Nixon blanket pardon for any crimes committed before or in office.

something tells me the sdny is gonna time things a little differently.

[David Dennison 18,951]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pence.  Trump loses re-election.  Trump resigns on January 19th 2021. Pence gives Trump a Nixon blanket pardon for any crimes committed before or in office.

At which point the state of New York says, "Hold my beer."

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This (from @spaceavian:)

This sends a message that you can violate the law in any way you see fit, as blatantly as you want, subvert democracy to the best of your ability in any 4-year term. And it’s OK.

This kind of thinking and declaration weakens America even more than Trump does.

Yes, impeachment is HARD. It’s really hard. But this is the job you signed up to do. This is your duty. There never has been such a clear case and necessity for impeaching a President as this one. This is what the founders of the country intended. 

Good GOD, Nancy.

How did we get to this point in the first place? With exactly this thinking. No repercussions for illegal behavior. The criminals take notice. They know they can hang around and just do this again without punishment. 

Stop “looking forward” and start imparting consequences.

All of these points can be correct, but let's play real life for a second.

Pelosi initiates impeachment proceedings.  The house impeaches him.  The Senate doesn't.  (We can agree that both of these are the most likely outcome, correct?)

What happens next?  He's still in office.  And then what's more likely in 2020?  The Democrats gain votes from "moderates" who appreciate the circus that ultimately results in nothing changing?  Or the Republicans gain votes from "moderates" who view the President as being unfairly targeted?  American voters love feeling sorry for someone they feel was attacked by the big guy, and you bet your ass Trump will milk the exact same outsider rhetoric that got him elected in the first place.  

There are no meaningful "consequences" Pelosi can hand out.  You can hate the system, but I don't think Pelosi is playing her cards poorly.  With the system and electorate we have, it's really the only play. 

[bad_teammate 13,225]

Nancy can't actually even do her job and keep the Democrats together.

She fucking sucks.

Quote

During a leadership meeting on Tuesday night, Pelosi grew angry and raised her voice to Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) when Dingell pulled out her phone and read a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez, according to two people who were there and requested anonymity to disclose details of a private meeting.

In the tweet, Ocasio-Cortez defended Omar, her close friend, as Pelosi and her leadership team were readying an initial version of the resolution responding to Omar’s foreign allegiance remark.

In the meeting, Dingell agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s assessment that House Democrats shouldn’t be focused on rebuking one of their own but should also be calling out homophobia, racism and xenophobia in general. According to the people in the room, Pelosi was offended at the suggestion that Democrats didn’t already stand up against all forms of hate and grew visibly angry.

 

[Gil Bang 26,049]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

something tells me the sdny is gonna time things a little differently.

And NY Atty. General. 

[David Dennison 18,951]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nancy can't actually even do her job and keep the Democrats together.

She fucking sucks.

 

Anyone else trying to do this job would be lost.

She's great at it.

[Gil Bang 26,049]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,750]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Did it backfire though?  We had 8 years of W and the continuing ramp up of right wing propaganda that ultimately landed us here. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

All of these points can be correct, but let's play real life for a second.

Pelosi initiates impeachment proceedings.  The house impeaches him.  The Senate doesn't.  (We can agree that both of these are the most likely outcome, correct?)

What happens next?  He's still in office.  And then what's more likely in 2020?  The Democrats gain votes from "moderates" who appreciate the circus that ultimately results in nothing changing?  Or the Republicans gain votes from "moderates" who view the President as being unfairly targeted?  American voters love feeling sorry for someone they feel was attacked by the big guy, and you bet your ass Trump will milk the exact same outsider rhetoric that got him elected in the first place.  

There are no meaningful "consequences" Pelosi can hand out.  You can hate the system, but I don't think Pelosi is playing her cards poorly.  With the system and electorate we have, it's really the only play. 

I understand the political calculation.  I understand why people think this is the wise move.  

However, for all the bitching we do about republicans putting party over country, make no mistake, that’s exactly what Pelosi is doing by casually disregarding impeachment. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I understand the political calculation.  I understand why people think this is the wise move.  

However, for all the bitching we do about republicans putting party over country, make no mistake, that’s exactly what Pelosi is doing by casually disregarding impeachment. 

Let's say that Pelosi agrees that Trump not being in office is the best thing for the country.  If the goal is to accomplish this, and we agree that impeachment proceedings would probably make this a harder reality in 2020, how can it be said that Pelosi's moves are putting party over country?

[Gil Bang 26,049]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Let's say that Pelosi agrees that Trump not being in office is the best thing for the country.  If the goal is to accomplish this, and we agree that impeachment proceedings would probably make this a harder reality in 2020, how can it be said that Pelosi's moves are putting party over country?

Bingo.  It's an algebra problem.  Pelosi solved it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Let's say that Pelosi agrees that Trump not being in office is the best thing for the country.  If the goal is to accomplish this, and we agree that impeachment proceedings would probably make this a harder reality in 2020, how can it be said that Pelosi's moves are putting party over country?

Basically this:

She lacks courage and conviction to do her duty because of party politics, which demonstrates weakness.  

Edited March 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Basically this:

She lacks courage and conviction which demonstrates weakness.  

This is the ultimate "don't hate the player, hate the game."

Blame the constitution.  Blame our overwhelmingly stupid voting base.  But don't blame Pelosi for valuing actual election results over a footnote in Trump's wikipedia page.

[Fozzz 152]

Odd they don't want to impeach a guy who colluded with Russia to steal the election.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

This is the ultimate "don't hate the player, hate the game."

Blame the constitution.  Blame our overwhelmingly stupid voting base.  But don't blame Pelosi for valuing actual election results over a footnote in Trump's wikipedia page.

If she neglects her constitutional duties because of a stupid voting base, we’ve already lost.  

People want someone to put the politics aside and stand up to this outlaw regime.  Even in a losing effort, at least she did the right thing.  People respect that. 

[Biff Tannen 45,750]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If she neglects her constitutional duties because of a stupid voting base, we’ve already lost.  

Follow us to the ledge brah.

[David Dennison 18,951]

 

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Basically this:

She lacks courage and conviction to do her duty because of party politics, which demonstrates weakness.  

It's not a duty. It's a power that they can choose to exercise as they see fit.

Edited March 11, 2019 by David Dennison

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If she neglects her constitutional duties because of a stupid voting base, we’ve already lost.  

People want someone to put the politics aside and stand up to this outlaw regime.  Even in a losing effort, at least she did the right thing.  People respect that. 

Option A: Trump gets impeached, odds improve that he wins in 2020

Option B: Trump does not get impeached, odds decrease that he wins in 2020

Again, "the right thing" is not necessarily black and white if your ultimate goal is to get him out of office and not just add his name to a trivia question.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not a duty. It's a power that they can choose to exercise as they see fit.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

[David Dennison 18,951]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

There is no duty to impeach in the Constitution, even in the face of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's a power. They do not have to exercise that power.

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Option A: Trump gets impeached, odds improve that he wins in 2020

Option B: Trump does not get impeached, odds decrease that he wins in 2020

Again, "the right thing" is not necessarily black and white if your ultimate goal is to get him out of office and not just add his name to a trivia question.

But President Cheeto committed the crime of the century. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Option A: Trump gets impeached, odds improve that he wins in 2020

Option B: Trump does not get impeached, odds decrease that he wins in 2020

Again, "the right thing" is not necessarily black and white if your ultimate goal is to get him out of office and not just add his name to a trivia question.

I get it!  It sounds great but you have to acknowledge this take is just playing politics which is the whole reason we’re in this mess.  

[David Dennison 18,951]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I get it!  It sounds great but you have to acknowledge this take is just playing politics which is the whole reason we’re in this mess.  

Guess what. It's politics. They aren't playing anything.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Guess what. It's politics. They aren't playing anything.

It’s called being browbeaten into letting yourself get walked all over by Trump and the Kremlin despite the American people overwhelmingly voting you into office to CHECK precisely that.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18,951]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s called being brow beaten into letting yourself get walked all over by Trump and the Kremlin despite the American people overwhelmingly voting you into office to CHECK precisely that.

Which is exactly what they are doing. They are having impeachment proceedings right now. They just aren't calling them that. Because politics.

[yaqdum 182]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'll begrudgingly give her the benefit of the doubt, but it's beyond frustrating that our political system is so fucking stupid that we have the most utterly unfit person in all of history in office perpetrating multiple crimes and practicing the most blatant acts of dumbshittery, but we have to play the game in order to get him out. 

if there's good news it's that we are getting a lesson on how stupidly we set up presidency.  we should have a laundry list of changes to make when this is over with.

[Fozzz 152]

Hugo choking back tears rn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I actually think Pelosi’s trolling Trump by saying he’s not worth it but her lackadaisical attitude troubles me.  In other words, I hope she’s trolling.

[David Dennison 18,951]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I actually think Pelosi’s trolling Trump by saying he’s not worth it but her lackadaisical attitude troubles me.  In other words, I hope she’s trolling.

"I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."

That is what you call leaving the door wide open.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

[lemonlime 5,503]

If we can't impeach a mafia boss president who is using the presidency to make himself rich while taking a hourly giants shits on the Constitution, we deserve the trump presidency.  And yes, I get the Senate won't convict.  But you still hold hearings making his corruption clear to anyone with an IQ above Devin Nunes'.  And you get Senators on record as being okay with the president stealing from the American people.

[Biff Tannen 45,750]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."

That is what you call leaving the door wide open.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

Yeah, open to hoping Mueller saves us.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

For the record, I’ve been of the opinion Pelosi wouldn’t impeach Trump unless the republicans came begging her to do so.  

However, I’m not cool with her coming out and publicly saying that like she did today because it sends the wrong message. 

[henrygandorf 29,195]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I actually think Pelosi’s trolling Trump by saying he’s not worth it but her lackadaisical attitude troubles me.  In other words, I hope she’s trolling.

whether she is or isn't may not ever come out, but regardless, she shouldn't be showing the country her hand, and i'm sure she's not.

she's in leadership, which means it's her job to do the math on what's best (in her eyes).  if this was december 2020 and trump had just been reelected, then i would get your point more.

look at it this way (and i have a feeling this won't be a smooth metaphor) - if you're a police captain, and your job is to put a drug kingpin away, because ultimately, your goal is to make the streets safer, then is it in your best interest to make a stir and arrest every corner boy and mid-level pusher?  we know what's going on and it's illegal, so shouldn't we arrest everyone and start running out of misdemeanor paperwork?  i mean, that would put on a good show, make some headlines, and show people who's boss, right?  but would it actually help achieve the end goal he has in mind? 

maybe the real goal is to make a case and ensure this is a problem that lasts months, not half-decades. 

[David Dennison 18,951]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, open to hoping Mueller saves us.

That's up to Republicans. The House is not going to impeach Donald Trump if he can't be removed. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

What do you do for a living Hugo?  Because I have a feeling it doesn’t involve being Speaker of the House, and she might just know what she’s doing.  

His living is posting on Surly $.10 a post.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which is exactly what they are doing. They are having impeachment proceedings right now. They just aren't calling them that. Because politics.

This is exactly it. It is pointless to try to formally impeach him with the Senate likely to grant him a commendation, rather than remove him. 

House Judiciary is already running an investigation, so are the House Oversight and Intel committees. They aren't calling it impeachment, but it's clear that Trump has committed dozens of impeachable offenses and the GOP doesn't give a fuck. If the committees find enough to convince a sizable part of the GOP in the Senate, they'll rightfully impeach him. I don't think there's enough evidence in the world for the GOP to remove him.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It’s not the Senators’ minds they have to change, it’s public opinion, which I think they’re working on.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

His living is posting on Surly $.10 a post.

You should have to pay us $.10 for everyone of your 6,067 useless shit posts. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, suddenly shaggy said:

You should have to pay us $.10 for everyone of your 6,067 useless shit posts. 

Hey... fuck you short bus....

[henrygandorf 29,195]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not the Senators’ minds they have to change, it’s public opinion, which I think they’re working on.

honest question - do you think impeachment hearings will bring out worse info than we see from this man (and his coverage) on a daily basis?

we know anything that doesn't "convict" him is going to make him yell vindication.  shit, we've even heard from cohen that if he loses in 2020 he'll make sure there isn't a smooth transition of power.  i'm not sure what you're hoping will happen, or whose minds you think need clarification.

[pyrohornIII 4,823]

I think there is a longer game she is playing here.  Let dotard relax enough, start saying stuff he shouldn't.   She is starting to live in his brain, and being unpredictable will keep him off guard.

To me right now impeachment would simply be putting a lot of things out in public view through  impeachment hearings.  Pretty much what is going on now.  And since it is known the Senate Rs wont actually pull the switch, this is the less threatening way to "just ask questions."   So when more and more dirt comes out, it just piles up on the Rs that are covering for the moron, further implicating them. 

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not the Senators’ minds they have to change, it’s public opinion, which I think they’re working on.

GOP Senate seats up for re-election in 2020. Alexander can be convinced, he's retiring and GFTO in major part due to Trump. I think it only matters for the vacant Tennessee seat, Collins (Maine), Daines (Montana), Ernst (Iowa), Gardener (Colorado), Sasse (Nebraska), Sullivan (Alaska), Tillis (North Carolina). 

That's 8 max, if all could be convince and I'm not sure they can. That puts the vote at 54-46. Where do they get the additional 13 votes?

Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)- Not running for re-election

Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia)

Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana)

Susan Collins (R-Maine)

John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas)

Steve Daines (R-Montana)

Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Cory Gardner (R-Colorado)

Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)

Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi)

James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)

Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) -- It is expected that there will be an open special election in 2020 for the seat because Kyl has said he will not run in 2020. A full six-year term election will take place in 2022.

Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Jim Risch (R-Idaho)

Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)

Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota)

Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska)

Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

honest question - do you think impeachment hearings will bring out worse info than we see from this man (and his coverage) on a daily basis?

we know anything that doesn't "convict" him is going to make him yell vindication.  shit, we've even heard from cohen that if he loses in 2020 he'll make sure there isn't a smooth transition of power.  i'm not sure what you're hoping will happen, or whose minds you think need clarification.

I think the hearings are powerful and carry more influence than your usual Trump headlines.  This was the game changer in Watergate, the hearings. 

Think about the drama we’ve seen in the hearing setting so far in the Trump presidency from Comey to Kavanaugh to Cohen.  

The democrats have only had ONE real hearing on Trump malfeasance under their control and it was Cohen.  

I don’t think there will be a single explosive hearing but the process of formally laying out the crimes with documents and testimony can be persuasive over time. 

People say the Senate will never convict but until all the evidence is presented and a trial takes place, how could you ever REALLY know? 

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey... fuck you short bus....

Make that 6,068. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Make that 6,068. 

Here's another dime for you,  fuck you again.  Come back when you actually make a post about something other than just this shit. ^^^

[henrygandorf 29,195]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think the hearings are powerful and carry more influence than your usual Trump headlines.  This was the game changer in Watergate, the hearings.

see, i think there's your difference.  there wasn't constant news coverage coming from 5000 directions in those days.  there were national papers, local papers, and the local news...and then the hearings.  and, incidentally, none of what happened in the hearings lost him an election (obviously).  if you think trump is going to go through hearings before 2020 and resign...no fucking way.

whether intentional or not, trump has desensitized us all to his antics.  shit, we watched the cohen hearings and there were 5-10 statements/answers that on its own would've been a fucking bombshell for other presidents.  and nobody was surprised.

it's like the michael jackson documentary.  it was disgusting and disturbing, but it was information most everyone partly had or suspected before it aired.

to most, the biggest thing to come from the cohen (public) hearing was that the sdny was working on stuff that he couldn't overlap with comments.  nobody batted an eye about him funneling reimbursement money to cohen for pornstar payoffs.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Still no excuse not to try.

[David Dennison 18,951]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Still no excuse not to try.

Politics is a great excuse not to exercise a political power.

[henrygandorf 29,195]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Still no excuse not to try.

too high a price with potentially no upside.

the 2020 election is going to be close.

not sure what you're not getting.