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

[GSU&UT 1798]

Time to go Pelosi, good lord.

[Biff Tannen 45694]

Well that's...that's no good.

[bad_teammate 13219]

It's OK guys, Mike Pence gave her assurances!

 

[David Dennison 18938]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well that's...that's no good.

She should have made them vote.

That's some bullshit.

[Anastasis 23479]

 

[Captainant 27682]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She should have made them vote.

That's some bullshit.

Please, tell me more about how pelosi is a great leader. She's doing a real fuckin bang up job lately. 

[David Dennison 18938]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Please, tell me more about how pelosi is a great leader. She's doing a real fuckin bang up job lately. 

And replace her with?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

“What could Pelosi do to redeem herself?”

I hate that I have to keep asking myself this question.

[Captainant 27682]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And replace her with?

Oh, did she forget to raise up a new generation of democratic leadership as well too? So we have no other choice but her? Strange, that. Such great, powerful, and forward thinking leadership. I guess we just have to trust that Nancy isn't going to continue to roll over, in spite of years of evidence that that's all she'll do. 

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, Captainant said:

Oh, did she forget to raise up a new generation of democratic leadership as well too? So we have no other choice but her? Strange, that. Such great, powerful, and forward thinking leadership. I guess we just have to trust that Nancy isn't going to continue to roll over, in spite of years of evidence that that's all she'll do. 

That's politics. She's no dummy. Why groom your replacement at the expense of power?

But she can be replaced. Who should replace her?

[elfenix 34330]

[GSU&UT 1798]

25 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Most apt comparison for her.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

President Sanders or Warren should name fucking names.

Get on Twitter and say, "The following is a list of Democratic representatives who want to keep kids in cages: A, B, C, D, E. Flood their offices with calls and protests. Primary them. Get them out of office."

Keep on keeping on comrade. 

[elfenix 34330]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Keep on keeping on comrade. 

not putting kids in cages is socialism!

[David Dennison 18938]

35 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Most apt comparison for her.

Any thoughts on a replacement?

[Incredulity 11679]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Any thoughts on a replacement?

Winston Churchill? 

[David Dennison 18938]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Winston Churchill? 

He got tossed out too.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 6/6/2019 at 1:58 PM, David Dennison said:

Give an example.

There aren't any examples of her talking tough.

[Incredulity 11679]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He got tossed out too.

Yeah, but he beat some Nazi ass.  Which is what I keep reading is the opponent here.  So...

[David Dennison 18938]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Yeah, but he beat some Nazi ass.  Which is what I keep reading is the opponent here.  So...

He had help from Russians, too.

[workswithseed 2109]

So she's not a badass MF?

[Hornius Emeritus 12476]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Please, tell me more about how pelosi is a great leader. She's doing a real fuckin bang up job lately. 

 

Consider this: maybe it's wrong to assume that ANYBODY can do a bang up job. Maybe we are ungovernable. What if the reality actually is that there are no politicians who can effectively confront the challenges we will face? What if it's a question of damage mitigation at this point, a matter of a few years at best?    Is Nancy doing less of a "bang up job" than some other politician?

In other words, we always start with the assumption that one thing ---- one idea, one choice, one politician ----- is better than another and therefore we should choose this one and not the other.  What if that assumption is false?

Edited June 27, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[Captainant 27682]

10 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Consider this: maybe it's wrong to assume that ANYBODY can do a bang up job. Maybe we are ungovernable. What if the reality actually is that there are no politicians who can effectively confront the challenges we will face? What if it's a question of damage mitigation at this point, a matter of a few years at best?    Is Nancy doing less of a "bang up job" than some other politician?

In other words, we always start with the assumption that one thing ---- one idea, one choice, one politician ----- is better than another and therefore we should choose this one and not the other.  What if that assumption is false?

Its more that I'm saying that Nancy has thoroughly demonstrated that she's ineffective against the onslaught of the GOP. She's straight up giving 4.5 BILLION to spend however the fuck trump wants on the border. Great use of taxpayer funds. Definitely going to reunite families and close concentration camps

[hayden_horn 11364]

Just now, Captainant said:

Its more that I'm saying that Nancy has thoroughly demonstrated that she's ineffective against the onslaught of the GOP. She's straight up giving 4.5 BILLION to spend however the fuck trump wants on the border. Great use of taxpayer funds. Definitely going to reunite families and close concentration camps

I think my main issue here is i feel that she is allowing this to happen so this can continue to fester through 2020. 

In other words, she is also using this tragic situation as political capital. 

[David Dennison 18938]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Its more that I'm saying that Nancy has thoroughly demonstrated that she's ineffective against the onslaught of the GOP. She's straight up giving 4.5 BILLION to spend however the fuck trump wants on the border. Great use of taxpayer funds. Definitely going to reunite families and close concentration camps

What should she have done? Put up a bill that would fail or not put up a bipartisan bill that includes funds for the border that will pass overwhelmingly?

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by David Dennison

[hobbes2702 13049]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And replace her with?

Someone capable 

[David Dennison 18938]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Someone capable 

I look forward to Rep. Capable throwing his or her hat in the ring.

 

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I look forward to Rep. Capable throwing his or her hat in the ring.

 

You’re taking the position that Nancy is the only one capable of doing that job. I think that we can find someone else who can do something other than give Republicans everything they want. 

Your inability to question power simply because it is your teams power is a problem. Nancy isn’t perfect, she isn’t all knowing, she makes mistakes. She made a massive mistake here. If this was her first then maybe people wouldn’t be so eager for someone else but it isn’t. She continually cowers because she’s playing a political game. I think we should put innocent children over politics. I’m sure others think similarly. So why do you feel the need to defend her every action?

[Anastasis 23479]

42 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Consider this: maybe it's wrong to assume that ANYBODY can do a bang up job. Maybe we are ungovernable. What if the reality actually is that there are no politicians who can effectively confront the challenges we will face? What if it's a question of damage mitigation at this point, a matter of a few years at best?    Is Nancy doing less of a "bang up job" than some other politician?

In other words, we always start with the assumption that one thing ---- one idea, one choice, one politician ----- is better than another and therefore we should choose this one and not the other.  What if that assumption is false?

I hesitate to even quote or rep this post because I don’t want the prejudice against my posting persona on the political board to influence perception of this post. But it is right on. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 18938]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You’re taking the position that Nancy is the only one capable of doing that job. I think that we can find someone else who can do something other than give Republicans everything they want. 

Your inability to question power simply because it is your teams power is a problem. Nancy isn’t perfect, she isn’t all knowing, she makes mistakes. She made a massive mistake here. If this was her first then maybe people wouldn’t be so eager for someone else but it isn’t. She continually cowers because she’s playing a political game. I think we should put innocent children over politics. I’m sure others think similarly. So why do you feel the need to defend her every action?

No, I'm not. I'd love to know who can beat her in an election for Speaker of the House. Bring it.

Also, she's playing a political game because this is politics. The House bill was going to fail. The bill she brought to the floor passed overwhelmingly.

Her only other option was to do nothing and let her members go home without passing the Senate's bipartisan bill that includes funding for children.

Edited June 28, 2019 by David Dennison

[Incredulity 11679]

But I thought she was bad ass Queen Cut A Bitch?  You know the whole, “you would be decapitated before you realize it” run this shit master political strategist.

I’m sure I read that in this very thread ad-nauseum.

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, David Dennison said:

No, I'm not. I'd love to know who can beat her in an election for Speaker of the House. Bring it.

I’m sure none of the others can beat her in an election which is kind of the point. The house continues to support her claim to speaker despite numerous failures vs this admin (and a few wins). 

Someone being able to beat her though has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. I like Nancy, I think overall she’s been pretty impressive. That said she has been beaten time and again by this admin because she is playing politics. 

[retread 2951]

47 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Consider this: maybe it's wrong to assume that ANYBODY can do a bang up job. Maybe we are ungovernable. 

It's a really bad sign when children are suffering at the hands of our govt, and Congress can't come together to make it stop. The subtext of the last few days in DC sounds to me like, "Stop bothering me. July 4th is coming up, and I've already checked out. I need to be out of DC by tomorrow at the latest. Here, take this $$$ and leave me alone."

Edited June 28, 2019 by retread

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

I’m sure none of the others can beat her in an election which is kind of the point. The house continues to support her claim to speaker despite numerous failures vs this admin (and a few wins). 

Someone being able to beat her though has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. I like Nancy, I think overall she’s been pretty impressive. That said she has been beaten time and again by this admin because she is playing politics. 

That's because it is politics. The administration didn't beat her this time. Her own members did.

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

But I thought she was bad ass Queen Cut A Bitch?  You know the whole, “you would be decapitated before you realize it” run this shit master political strategist.

I’m sure I read that in this very thread ad-nauseum.

She is actually a pretty masterful political strategist. My problem, and others as well it seems, is that now is not a time for political strategy. Now is a time for doing what is right, for standing up for our values even if that means sacrificing some political points. She is unable to do so which is why I don’t think she is the speaker we need right now.

 

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's because it is politics. The administration didn't beat her this time. Her own members did.

So she failed then. Again

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, retread said:

It's a really bad sign when children are suffering at the hands of our govt, and Congress can't come together to make it stop. The subtext of the last few days in DC sounds to me like, "Stop bothering me. July 4th is coming up, and I've already checked out. I need to be out of DC by tomorrow at the latest."

That's not subtext, that's how Washington operates. It's why new members become jaded.

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

So she failed then. Again

Yeah, that's politics. You win some and you lose some. 

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Yeah, that's politics. You win some and you lose some. 

If she is unable to convince her own team that kids dying is a problem and that we shouldn’t support the funding of those killing them then she isn’t capable of being speaker at this time.

[hobbes2702 13049]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not subtext, that's how Washington operates. It's why new members become jaded.

So maybe it’s time to put new people in power. Perhaps we should change how things operate.

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

If she is unable to convince her own team that kids dying is a problem and that we shouldn’t support the funding of those killing them then she isn’t capable of being speaker at this time.

Most of her caucus voted for the bill that passed.

[David Dennison 18938]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

So maybe it’s time to put new people in power. Perhaps we should change how things operate.

Those new people are the ones who were going to torpedo the House bill. 

I think they should get primaried. Then they might lose to a Republican because they are in a swing district.

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

You put forward the right bill and make them vote. Then you name their names online and in mailers. Not only do you keep the DCCC from keeping money and resources away from challengers, you actively fund challengers to those who vote against it.

This is why we need a mass political movement. These representatives are all atomized around their hyperspecific interests (not even local interests, just whatever special interests correlate to that individual).

Carrot and stick. Pelosi has no stick.

If you're a leader with millions of Americans ready to march, you have a stick. (Look at how and why Republicans have fallen in line for Trump. They are TERRIFIED of the base.)

Edited June 28, 2019 by bad_teammate

[David Dennison 18938]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You put forward the right bill and make them vote. Then you name their names online and in mailers. Not only do you keep the DCCC from keeping money and resources away from challengers, you actively fund challengers to those who vote against it.

This is why we need a mass political movement. These representatives are all atomized around their hyperspecific interests (not even local interests, just whatever special interests correlate to that individual).

Carrot and stick. Pelosi has no stick.

If you're a leader with millions of Americans ready to march, you have a stick. (Look at how and why Republicans have fallen in line for Trump. They are TERRIFIED of the base.)

That's a great way to hand the majority over to the Republicans.

[Hornius Emeritus 12476]

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So she failed then. Again

Perhaps, but maybe she failed less than anybody else would have.

Politics is the art of the possible.

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's a great way to hand the majority over to the Republicans.

Good point.

We need make sure that we have a majority in the House so we can vote to fund concentration camps where kids are shoved into ice lockers for only 90 days instead of 120.

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Good point.

We need make sure that we have a majority in the House so we can vote to fund concentration camps where kids are shoved into ice lockers for only 90 days instead of 120.

The majority of the Democratic caucus agrees.

[bad_teammate 13219]

It's why we need Bernie or Liz.

Either one of those will bring the other along (either as VP or as Congressional enforcer) and we NEED progressive, left leadership to join Jayapal and Omar and AOC and Tlaib in their early days of power.

[David Dennison 18938]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

It's why we need Bernie or Liz.

Either one of those will bring the other along (either as VP or as Congressional enforcer) and we NEED progressive, left leadership to join Jayapal and Omar and AOC and Tlaib in their early days of power.

And leadership will promptly tell that person to stay on their turf. 

[bad_teammate 13219]

Just now, David Dennison said:

And leadership will promptly tell that person to stay on their turf. 

Good luck saying with pathetic cucks like Pelosi and Schumer saying that shit to President Warren or President Sanders.

America needs an angry grandma or an angry grandpa to tell us to get out of bed, brush our teeth, and go to work.