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

[bad_teammate 13194]

And again, it's not even a strong President who will bring the pressure, it's the people. Without millions of active citizens bringing constant heat, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the president is.

But, IF we get millions of motivated people pushing left VERY HARD, we can make all of this happen.

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

They absolutely will. They'll welcome input, but they will make clear in no uncertain terms that a member of the Executive Branch has no role on the Hill other than breaking a tie in the Senate.

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And again, it's not even a strong President who will bring the pressure, it's the people. Without millions of active citizens bringing constant heat, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the president is.

But, IF we get millions of motivated people pushing left VERY HARD, we can make all of this happen.

That's a big if considering the favorite presidential candidate among Democratic voters is currently Joe Biden.

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

That's a big if considering the favorite presidential candidate among Democratic voters is currently Joe Biden.

Yep, but we either fight for the future or we just give up.

[bad_teammate 13194]

And by "give up" I mean, "I'm over here on the ledge thinking about how BOTH SIDES are leading us down a death spiral" because that's a more politic way of saying, "I'm VERY comfortable financially and none of the huge problems crashing down on us (from wealth inequality to climate change) will ever impact me"

[David Dennison 18854]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yep, but we either fight for the future or we just give up.

It's why I vote against a Republican every single time.

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's why I vote against a Republican every single time.

Outta rep. My man.

Let's do this shit.

[swraith 346]

Cocaine Mitch is better at this than Pelosi.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, swraith said:

Cocaine Mitch is better at this than Pelosi.

That must be why the ACA is still the law of the land.

[swraith 346]

That must be why the ACA is still the law of the land.

Not really relevant. Pelosi was not the the primary savior of the ACA. I believe their was much circle jerking over the the late Senator McCain on that front.

In this case however, Mitch lead the Senate and outmaneuvered Pelosi using timelines and Congress’ desire for vacation as opposed to solving problems.

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, swraith said:

 

Not really relevant. Pelosi was not the the primary savior of the ACA. I believe their was much circle jerking over the the late Senator McCain on that front.

In this case however, Mitch lead the Senate and outmaneuvered Pelosi using timelines and Congress’ desire for vacation as opposed to solving problems.

 

Actually Senate Democrats fucked her by voting for it so overwhelmingly. It wouldn't have passed otherwise.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Obviously Pelosi is on the Putin payroll as well.

This is just all sorts of fucked up.  I hate her with the heat of a thousand suns and wish she would resign effective immediately.  Fuck that cunt.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They absolutely will. They'll welcome input, but they will make clear in no uncertain terms that a member of the Executive Branch has no role on the Hill other than breaking a tie in the Senate.

Dotard dreams up a border crisis to send troops to the border - Hill does jack shit.

Dotard dreams up an emergency to levy tariffs on various countries - Hill does jack shit.

Dotard rapes women, obstructs justice, commits crimes every day - Hill does jack shit (wait, they brought Cohen in for a few hours of testimony so we got that going for us).

Fuck Pelosi and her enablers.  They all should rot in fucking hell.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Any thoughts on a replacement?

Kathy Castor.

I did a googles for a list of Democrats in the House and picked her name at random.  Since she isn't Pelosi then that's good enough for me at this point.

[GSU&UT 1798]

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Any thoughts on a replacement?

Adam Schiff, fucking anyone who isn't going to kowtow to McConnell and Trump.

[Bateshorn 9927]

12 hours ago, swraith said:

Cocaine Mitch is better at this than Pelosi.

He's not, the structural differences in the two bodies make his job, to some degree, easier.  If he was trying to do what he is now, using the decorum and senate rules of the mid-aughts, he'd be miserable.  But his obstruction as minority leader and the ascendency of Trump make it much easier to be Majority leader with a Same party president, then be Speaker and the face of the opposition.   Don't believe me? Look at how well Paul Ryan and John Boehner did.   Sure, the timing worked in McConnell's favor, but he would have preferred Pelosi stood and fought.  She understood that and refused to give him the face up battle he wanted.

 She just didn't have the votes this time because her caucus has legitimate divisions  on this issue, because Dems are the big tent party now.  Their moderate wing is basically suburban republicans from 10 years ago.   So she threw in the towel, passed the bill, and sent her caucus home to get it's head on straight.  Between last nights debate and the G-20, this will be out of the news cycle by mid afternoon.  It's already fading into the distance this morning.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Bateshorn

[David Dennison 18854]

36 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Adam Schiff, fucking anyone who isn't going to kowtow to McConnell and Trump.

How does Adam Schiff, or fucking anyone who isn't going to kowtow to McConnell and Trump, get enough votes to secure the office?

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How does Adam Schiff, or fucking anyone who isn't going to kowtow to McConnell and Trump, get enough votes to secure the office?

 

95 Dems objected to the bill passed, this isn't a handful of people who are sick of her dude.

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

95 Dems objected to the bill passed, this isn't a handful of people who are sick of her dude.

That's not anywhere near the 218 needed to be Speaker of the House.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's not anywhere near the 218 needed to be Speaker of the House.

Cool man, keep fucking that chicken and digging your heels in the sand while saying "change isn't possible." If you can't see that she's getting more and more pushback then you're being willfully ignorant. She's also agreed that she wouldn't have the Speaker role for more than 4 years so hopefully it will be a moot point.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Do y'all not understand what was occuring on the floor?  She had 35 moderates who were going to vote with the GOP on the motion to recommit, no matter what. The Majority party was going to fucking LOSE a major floor vote.  Moreover, another pile of dems probably would have switched their votes once it became clear what was going to happen. 

In the house, losing a high profile vote when you are in the majority is an absolute no-no. It's incredibly destructive to the moral of the majority and leads to open in fighting.  Like fistfights in the cloak room type stuff. It emboldens the minority.  The majority then has to respond by tightly restricting the rules of floor behaviour and taking away the autonomy of the individual members.  She DOES not want to do this.  This is how the GOP maintained control for years.  The members fucking hate it.  On both sides.  And if she did nothing, and refused to vote, you've got dead bodies on the news while McConnell gloats that he's passed a bill and is ready to help, it's SPeaker Pelosi's fault.   The truth is, there was NOT 218 votes for the the Majority bill.  It was a minoirty position.  I know that sucks if you are sympathetic to that view, but that's the reality.

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Cool man, keep fucking that chicken and digging your heels in the sand while saying "change isn't possible." If you can't see that she's getting more and more pushback then you're being willfully ignorant. She's also agreed that she wouldn't have the Speaker role for more than 4 years so hopefully it will be a moot point.

Of course it's possible. Someone has to challenge and beat her.

No one in the Democratic caucus has shown an ability to do that. 

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Do y'all not understand what was occuring on the floor?  She had 35 moderates who were going to vote with the GOP on the motion to recommit, no matter what. The Majority party was going to fucking LOSE a major floor vote.  Moreover, another pile of dems probably would have switched their votes once it became clear what was going to happen. 

In the house, losing a high profile vote when you are in the majority is an absolute no-no. It's incredibly destructive to the moral of the majority and leads to open in fighting.  Like fistfights in the cloak room type stuff. It emboldens the minority.  The majority then has to respond by tightly restricting the rules of floor behaviour and taking away the autonomy of the individual members.  She DOES not want to do this.  This is how the GOP maintained control for years.  The members fucking hate it.  On both sides.  And if she did nothing, and refused to vote, you've got dead bodies on the news while McConnell gloats that he's passed a bill and is ready to help, it's SPeaker Pelosi's fault.   The truth is, there was NOT 218 votes for the the Majority bill.  It was a minoirty position.  I know that sucks if you are sympathetic to that view, but that's the reality.

Spot on.

Edited June 28, 2019 by David Dennison

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Do y'all not understand what was occuring on the floor?  She had 35 moderates who were going to vote with the GOP on the motion to recommit, no matter what. The Majority party was going to fucking LOSE a major floor vote.  Moreover, another pile of dems probably would have switched their votes once it became clear what was going to happen. 

In the house, losing a high profile vote when you are in the majority is an absolute no-no. It's incredibly destructive to the moral of the majority and leads to open in fighting.  Like fistfights in the cloak room type stuff. It emboldens the minority.  The majority then has to respond by tightly restricting the rules of floor behaviour and taking away the autonomy of the individual members.  She DOES not want to do this.  This is how the GOP maintained control for years.  The members fucking hate it.  On both sides.  And if she did nothing, and refused to vote, you've got dead bodies on the news while McConnell gloats that he's passed a bill and is ready to help, it's SPeaker Pelosi's fault.   The truth is, there was NOT 218 votes for the the Majority bill.  It was a minoirty position.  I know that sucks if you are sympathetic to that view, but that's the reality.

So there was literally no way they could have pushed voting back at least 24 hours to negotiate the language in the bill? I heard interviews with multiple congress members who voted No that said they asked her to do so instead of just trying to GTFO as quickly as possible.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Morever, the Dems now control the house on the backs of districts drawn for GOP members.  Good luck primaring Abby Spamberger with a vocal progressive and holding on to that district.  There are 20-25 more districts like that.  You want an ideologically pure minority or a messy majority?  Cause the GOP just had that conversation. and they chose the former.

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

So there was literally no way they could have pushed voting back at least 24 hours to negotiate the language in the bill? I heard interviews with multiple congress members who voted No that said they asked her to do so instead of just trying to GTFO as quickly as possible.

I mean, she'd already lost a motion to recommit earlier and the week and held off another by the skin of her teeth. I don't think the changes were going to make enough people happy to get to 218, and that picture on the Rio Grande was not helping anyone.  The pressure to DO SOMETHING for the general public was greater than the blowback you'd get inside the beltway from progressives.   Unlike in the Senate, where everything happens slowly, sometimes the best thing for the House is to send everyone home.  Just get out of DC for a week.

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

So there was literally no way they could have pushed voting back at least 24 hours to negotiate the language in the bill? I heard interviews with multiple congress members who voted No that said they asked her to do so instead of just trying to GTFO as quickly as possible.

Their votes aren't the votes that mattered. The moderates were not going to budge. The House bill was going to lose no matter what. No amount of negotiating with the left was going to change that. Nancy Pelosi realized that she had no choice but to put the Senate Bill on the floor.

[Bateshorn 9927]

And, not to beat a dead horse, she realize yesterday was the perfect moment to do it in the news cycle.

I mean, Mark Pocan literally called the moderate caucus the "Child Abuse Caucus"  They were screaming at each other on the floor.

People don't realize how raw the House floor is in real time.  I've seen members physically separated during votes.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Bateshorn

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean, she'd already lost a motion to recommit earlier and the week and held off another by the skin of her teeth. I don't think the changes were going to make enough people happy to get to 218, and that picture on the Rio Grande was not helping anyone.  The pressure to DO SOMETHING for the general public was greater than the blowback you'd get inside the beltway from progressives.   Unlike in the Senate, where everything happens slowly, sometimes the best thing for the House is to send everyone home.  Just get out of DC for a week.

Good lord, one day is what people asked, just one day. That is what this is about, not some made up reason about the progressive caucus needing an absolutely perfect bill, just any time to debate the language in a bill that wasn't the one the majority of the House wanted earlier that the Senate didn't take up.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

And, not to beat a dead horse, she realize yesterday was the perfect moment to do it in the news cycle.

The fall votes are going to be fun.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Good lord, one day is what people asked, just one day. That is what this is about, not some made up reason about the progressive caucus needing an absolutely perfect bill, just any time to debate the language in a bill that wasn't the one the majority of the House wanted earlier that the Senate didn't take up.

The moderates convinced her one day or a week wasn't going to matter. They were not supporting changes to the Senate bill. That's why it got a vote.

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The fall votes are going to be fun.

Well, that's the thing:  We have a MUCH larger fight coming in september, on the debt ceiling and budget.  And if the Dems play their cards right, and Trump keeps listening to Mulvaney, they can get an asston of progressive approps riders to avoid a shutdown.

[Bateshorn 9927]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Good lord, one day is what people asked, just one day. That is what this is about, not some made up reason about the progressive caucus needing an absolutely perfect bill, just any time to debate the language in a bill that wasn't the one the majority of the House wanted earlier that the Senate didn't take up.

Debate is not real in the house, it's for press purposes.  The votes are predetermined by the majority.  The LAST thing you want is democrats screaming at democrats on national television.  That's why another day doesn't get you anything.  Behind closed doors, negotiations were at a stand still.  Allowing the members to spend today in open internecine warfare is both self defeating and shitty leadership.

[GSU&UT 1798]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Morever, the Dems now control the house on the backs of districts drawn for GOP members.  Good luck primaring Abby Spamberger with a vocal progressive and holding on to that district.  There are 20-25 more districts like that.  You want an ideologically pure minority or a messy majority?  Cause the GOP just had that conversation. and they chose the former.

Also this sounds like the exact reason why people think Biden the nominee, he doesn't scare off this supposed huge voting bloc of moderates that apparently change their votes on a whim. Districts are flipping because of engagement but also because of changing demographics, I was part of one in GA-06 and that district is likely not going to flip back as long as people are moving to the Atlanta metro. The suburban republicans are not gaining numbers.

 

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Debate is not real in the house, it's for press purposes.  The votes are predetermined by the majority.  The LAST thing you want is democrats screaming at democrats on national television.  That's why another day doesn't get you anything.  Behind closed doors, negotiations were at a stand still.  Allowing the members to spend today in open internecine warfare is both self defeating and shitty leadership.

Cool, glad those members have to eat shit and instead of doing what they feel like is their duty, to push for change that they think is just. Perhaps it's time to stop acting as if every single norm of American political procedure has to be abided by, a bunch of "flippable" districts aren't going to flip back to the GOP in 2020 because an extra 24 hours of debate was asked for by, again, a large bloc of voting members.

Edited June 28, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The frustration with Pelosi isn’t necessarily on this specific issue.  It’s that she doesn’t fight hard for anything, and even if she fights behind the scenes, she’s not projecting that effort. 

She takes her jabs at Trump here and there to distract from her shortcomings as a leader.   This recent decision wouldn’t be so bad if she was visibly fighting harder on other fronts like oversight or impeachment.  Instead of driving the media narratives she’s sitting back and responding to the narratives the republicans and progressives are pushing. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Cool, glad those members have to eat shit and instead of doing what they felt like is their duty, to push for change that they think is just. Perhaps it's time to stop acting as if every single norm of American political procedure has to be abided by, a bunch of "flippable" districts weren't going to go GOP in 2020 because an extra 24 hours of debate was asked for by, again, a large bloc of voting members.

What do you think average members do?  Do you think the entire democrat caucus gets in a room and hashes this shit out?  Most members aren't engaged in this issue, because they work on other stuff: Ag, Fisheries, Environment, Defense, Transportation, Science, Vet. Affairs, Banking.  They understand the politics of their district, align with their natural caucuses, and vote.  24 hours of progressives screaming at the moderate wing of the party wasn't going to change minds.  The moderates at this point were actually insulted, and didn't want to talk anymore, and they were voting CONSIST WITH THEIR DISTRICTS AND CONSTITUENTS.

You realize 2/3 of the Dems DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.  Don't look at it as 90 voted NO.  Look at it as 345 Members voted YES.  That's an overwhelming majority.  80+ Senators voted Yes. 

I've heard this argument about moderate many times.  When the people you care for and about are seeing their rights taken away and being destroyed, because Democrats don't control the levers of power, i'm sure the ideological purity will be a great comfort.

[zork 629]

So the Dem controlled House of Representatives voted to further fund the filthy fuhrer's concentration camps? 

[Bateshorn 9927]

WTF do you think fighting is?  I mean, they are subpoening the fuck out the administration and passing progressive legislation left right and center.  They are working harder than I've seen the House work in years. It rarely gets covered.  I've literally got 4 bills open in my browser that I'm editing on (well should be, instead of losing my temper here).

Short of impeaching him, there's not much else they can do.  They are one house in the 3 branch government.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Bateshorn

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The frustration with Pelosi isn’t necessarily on this specific issue.  It’s that she doesn’t fight hard for anything, and even if she fights behind the scenes, she’s not projecting that effort. 

She takes her jabs at Trump here and there to distract from her shortcomings as a leader.   This recent decision wouldn’t be so bad if she was visibly fighting harder on other fronts like oversight or impeachment.  Instead of driving the media narratives she’s sitting back and responding to the narratives the republicans and progressives are pushing. 

Because she's smart enough to know that nothing she does will ever result in removing Donald Trump from office before his term is up. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

McConnell controls all the rules of the impeachment trial.  he's already said he will make it a joke and rapidly dispense with it.  There are strong reasons to impeach from investigative purposes, but Trump could literally rob the treasury for the Russians and commit multiple murders in broad daylight and the GOP will never remove him from office.

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What do you think average members do?  Do you think the entire democrat caucus gets in a room and hashes this shit out?  Most members aren't engaged in this issue, because they work on other stuff: Ag, Fisheries, Environment, Defense, Transportation, Science, Vet. Affairs, Banking.  They understand the politics of their district, align with their natural caucuses, and vote.  24 hours of progressives screaming at the moderate wing of the party wasn't going to change minds.  The moderates at this point were actually insulted, and didn't want to talk anymore, and they were voting CONSIST WITH THEIR DISTRICTS AND CONSTITUENTS.

You realize 2/3 of the Dems DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.  Don't look at it as 90 voted NO.  Look at it as 345 Members voted YES.  That's an overwhelming majority.  80+ Senators voted Yes. 

I'm sorry, how on earth is giving this admin more money going to improve the lives of these children which we agree is what Americans want? This is the argument, you're acting as if getting this bill across accomplished anything good in comparison to the bill that the majority of the House introduced earlier. You keep ignoring that last part, a better bill was introduced and of course McConnell didn't bring it up for a vote and instead rammed some watered down piece of shit because Pelosi got "promises" from Pence that he for sure will super-duper tell us when children die now.

 

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I've heard this argument about moderate many times.  When the people you care for and about are seeing their rights taken away and being destroyed, because Democrats don't control the levers of power, i'm sure the ideological purity will be a great comfort.

GTFO with this logic, AOC, Talib, Omar aren't causing people to suddenly prefer voting for Republicans now. Where are you even getting this data? Are you even paying attention to how so many people under 50 are trying to push the party left? Who is the biggest group of voters for this upcoming election?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/

[David Dennison 18854]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm sorry, how on earth is giving this admin more money going to improve the lives of these children which we agree is what Americans want? This is the argument, you're acting as if getting this bill across accomplished anything good in comparison to the bill that the majority of the House introduced earlier. You keep ignoring that last part, a better bill was introduced and of course McConnell didn't bring it up for a vote and instead rammed some watered down piece of shit because Pelosi got "promises" from Pence that he for sure will super-duper tell us when children die now.

That bill was never going to pass the Senate. Everyone in Washington knew it. Once the Democrats in the House pulled their support for the House version, the game was over. 

Democratic Senators didn't do Nancy Pelosi any favors by supporting the Senate bill.

Edited June 28, 2019 by David Dennison

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

WTF do you think fighting is?  I mean, they are subpoening the fuck out the administration and passing progressive legislation left right and center.  They are working harder than I've seen the House work in years. It rarely gets covered.  I've literally got 4 bills open in my browser that I'm editing on (well should be, instead of losing my temper here).

Short of impeaching him, there's not much else they can do.  They are one house in the 3 branch government.

Like I said they’re not fighting visibly enough.  The game has changed and they still haven’t caught up on how to go on offense.  You don’t even have to win, just fight.  Passing progressive bills is nice but we all know they’re headed to die in the Senate and none of that is drawing media attention.  That’s not changing anything other than some lip service credit claiming on the campaign trail.  

If they want to know how to fight they could take a lesson from the Parkland kids or AOC.  Take an issue or two, get your taking points/messaging down, and work as a team to drive a national conversation in a certain direction.  Make a big stink about it, make the Republicans have to respond.  Anything to focus the country away from the bullshit coming out of the White House.  You have to deprive Trump of oxygen in the information space.  Otherwise he will keep walking all over you. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bateshorn 9927]

I never said that. I never said that progressive politics are going to cause people to lose elections.

However, not voting consistent with your congressional districts politics is an excellent way for a member to lose their district.

You do realize that politics and voters of the VA-7 are very different from NY-14?  Right? 

That's the issue here.  

[zork 629]

Pelosi will now be known as the funder of concentration camps.  What a legacy.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like I said they’re not fighting visibly enough.  The game has changed and they still haven’t caught up on how to go on offense.  You don’t even have to win, just fight.  Passing progressive bills are nice but we all know they’re headed to die in the Senate and none of that is drawing media attention.  That’s not changing anything other than some lip service credit claiming on the campaign trail.  

If they want to know how to fight they could take a lesson from the Parkland kids or AOC.  Take an issue or two, get your taking points/messaging down, and work as a team to drive a national conversation in a certain direction.  Make a big stink about it, make the Republicans have to respond.  Anything to focus the country away from the bullshit coming out of the White House.  You have to deprive Trump of oxygen in the information space.  Otherwise he will keep walking over you. 

 

They also have a responsibility to govern.  The House Science Committee is holding multiple hearings a week exploring a wide range of issues that Lamar Smith ignored for years, when he virtually did nothing except harrass EPA and Climate Scientists. Same for a ton of other committees.  Doing good legislative work takes time and effort.    Trust me, they are trying everything they can, but depriving Trump of oxygen is like trying to hold back the tide without a seawall. The man generates his own bullshit with breathtaking ease.

But I get your point.  The democrats haven't really adapted to the concept of message bills and media splashouts.

[David Dennison 18854]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like I said they’re not fighting visibly enough.  The game has changed and they still haven’t caught up on how to go on offense.  You don’t even have to win, just fight.  Passing progressive bills is nice but we all know they’re headed to die in the Senate and none of that is drawing media attention.  That’s not changing anything other than some lip service credit claiming on the campaign trail.  

If they want to know how to fight they could take a lesson from the Parkland kids or AOC.  Take an issue or two, get your taking points/messaging down, and work as a team to drive a national conversation in a certain direction.  Make a big stink about it, make the Republicans have to respond.  Anything to focus the country away from the bullshit coming out of the White House.  You have to deprive Trump of oxygen in the information space.  Otherwise he will keep walking all over you. 

Man, you really don't understand inside the Beltway stuff.

People who just fight and don't win are losers.

Edited June 28, 2019 by David Dennison

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Man, you really don't understand inside the Beltway stuff.

People who just fight and don't win are losers.

You misunderstood what I was saying.  Trump loses all the time but he still wins because he fights.  That’s why his base stays with him, he’s always on offense.  He loses one battle just to start another and he keeps going.  The democrats look like they’re just standing there absorbing his bullshit.  It’s not effective. 

The democrats need a wartime leader.  Someone that can map out a media attack plan over a month with contingencies.  This isn’t politics as usual anymore.  This is warfare and stakes are really high.  

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You misunderstood what I was saying.  Trump loses all the time but he still wins because he fights.  That’s why his base stays with him, he’s always on offense.  He loses one battle just to start another and he keeps going.  The democrats look like they’re just standing there absorbing his bullshit.  It’s not effective. 

The democrats need a wartime leader.  Someone that can map out a media attack plan over a month with contingencies.  This isn’t politics as usual anymore.  This is warfare and stakes are really high.  

This is inaccurate. He's completely ineffectual as a president.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Right, but he’s immune to meaningful political damage.  That’s winning in Trump’s book. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz