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

[retread 2951]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The very least she could do is publicly poke the bear more to expose his unfitness for office and she’s not even doing that. 

She got out there a couple of days and traded barbs with Trump, and then went back into her office. The Ds don't seem to have the will or the stomach for the kind of fight it's going to take to challenge this administration.

[Captainant 27653]

1 minute ago, retread said:

She got out there a couple of days and traded barbs with Trump, and then went back into her office. The Ds don't seem to have the will or the stomach for the kind of fight it's going to take to challenge this administration.

yeah but just think of all those sweet political donations they'll be bagging! Fuck accountability, so long as the cash keeps flowing, right @David Dennison?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Sums it rather nicely here:

 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

And what I'm saying is, maybe her job should be acting like a co-equal branch of government and driving accountability. Ya know, rather than selling out to corporate interests being a fundraising specialist. Because fundraising doesn't fix our broken system, and it arguably perpetuates and worsens the problem.

The House of Representatives does not have the power to hold Donald Trump accountable in a manner worthy of his malfeasance.

Thanks a lot, Madison.

[David Dennison 18854]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sums it rather nicely here:

 

This is just wrong. It's in the news every single day.

 

[Captainant 27653]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The House of Representatives does not have the power to hold Donald Trump accountable in a manner worthy of his malfeasance.

Thanks a lot, Madison.

So your argument is that because the house cannot hold trump to account on its own, it should abdicate its responsibilities all together and focus on fundraising?

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

So your argument is that because the house cannot hold trump to account on its own, it should abdicate its responsibilities all together and focus on fundraising?

I think they should impeach him, but I don't believe they have a responsibility to do so.

[Captainant 27653]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I think they should impeach him, but I don't believe they have a responsibility to do so.

So it's not an abdication of their oath of office to uphold the constitution by not impeaching a president that's trampling over the constitution? Man, your time in washington REALLY fucked your brain up.

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

So it's not an abdication of their oath of office to uphold the constitution by not impeaching a president that's trampling over the constitution? Man, your time in washington REALLY fucked your brain up.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to impeach the president.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Seems Captainant has been drinking early today.  And he's right about everything.

[Captainant 27653]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to impeach the president.

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.

So just to be clear, you disagree that they swore an oath to support and defend the constitution? And that trump's actions do not represent repeated and intentional attacks against the constitution? For a specific example, his suggestions to postpone the census because he couldn't get his question on it? Which is explicitly required in the constitution?

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, Captainant 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.

So just to be clear, you disagree that they swore an oath to support and defend the constitution? And that trump's actions do not represent repeated and intentional attacks against the constitution? For a specific example, his suggestions to postpone the census because he couldn't get his question on it? Which is explicitly required in the constitution?

I don't disagree. That doesn't mean they are required to impeach the president. It means they open themselves up to political attack for not doing so.

 

[Captainant 27653]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't disagree. That doesn't mean they are required to impeach the president. It means they open themselves up to political attack for not doing so.

Oh, so it's not a requirement, they're just abdicating the oaths they swore? Gee, that's SOOOO much better. I bet that'll bring in tons of donations, which is really what it's all about right?

[wildcat09 29349]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is just wrong. It's in the news every single day.

 

Different shit is in the news every day, and none of it is due to messaging from Pelosi or Democratic leadership.  They can't keep anything specific in the headlines for more than a couple days, not even when handed a report summarizing at least eight times the President clearly obstructed justice (and a few more that are a little more legally iffy).

Again, the Republicans pounded the table about Benghazi. They pounded the table about Hillary's emails. And those weren't remotely scandalous. You're acting like the entire public is paying daily attention to all of this shit just like we are when you know that's not the case. if Pelosi wanted to do so, she could take a few examples of Trump's corruption and malevolence and coordinate a simple but brutal messaging campaign that reminded the public every single day of those issues.  Twenty-two women have accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, and the House hasn't held one fucking hearing on it! That's complete and utter political malpractice and there's no justifiable explanation for it. 

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

Oh, so it's not a requirement, they're just abdicating the oaths they swore? Gee, that's SOOOO much better. I bet that'll bring in tons of donations, which is really what it's all about right?

Yes. Politics is about winning elections. That requires money. Lots of it. 

 

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Different shit is in the news every day, and none of it is due to messaging from Pelosi or Democratic leadership.  They can't keep anything specific in the headlines for more than a couple days, not even when handed a report summarizing at least eight times the President clearly obstructed justice (and a few more that are a little more legally iffy).

Again, the Republicans pounded the table about Benghazi. They pounded the table about Hillary's emails. And those weren't remotely scandalous. You're acting like the entire public is paying daily attention to all of this shit just like we are when you know that's not the case. if Pelosi wanted to do so, she could take a few examples of Trump's corruption and malevolence and coordinate a simple but brutal messaging campaign that reminded the public every single day of those issues.  Twenty-two women have accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, and the House hasn't held one fucking hearing on it! That's complete and utter political malpractice and there's no justifiable explanation for it. 

Stop voting for Democrats who support leadership.

Edited July 9, 2019 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13194]

These are the women Nancy hates.

She is complete and total fucking garbage.

And Ayanna Pressley fucking rules. (She should run for president soon.)

 

[Captainant 27653]

 

That awkward moment that Mick fucking Mulvaney has more moral fiber than Nancy pelosi on an issue

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

 

That awkward moment that Mick fucking Mulvaney has more moral fiber than Nancy pelosi on an issue

It has nothing to do with moral fiber. 

But you already knew that.

[Captainant 27653]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It has nothing to do with moral fiber. 

But you already knew that.

Oh sorry, how is Nancy trying to make money off this? That's what it's all about, right? Not doing the right thing, just getting more dolla dolla bills y'all. Its how you get elected, I hear

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh sorry, how is Nancy trying to make money off this? That's what it's all about, right? Not doing the right thing, just getting more dolla dolla bills y'all. Its how you get elected, I hear

Mick Mulvaney sees this as an opportunity to get rid of someone who isn't conservative enough for his taste. He can't fire him, though. Donald Trump has to do that. This is a pretext for getting someone else in at labor who will deregulate faster.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

Edited July 10, 2019 by David Dennison

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think Mulvaney just wants to be labor secretary 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Holy fuck David, maybe everyone else noticed this before me but you are the biggest party over country Democrat here. Just fuck off with every single retort of "that's how Washington works" garbage.

[retread 2951]

If Trump is true to form, Acosta's replacement will be an even more contemptible human being.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Holy fuck David, maybe everyone else noticed this before me but you are the biggest party over country Democrat here. Just fuck off with every single retort of "that's how Washington works" garbage.

Just a cynic and a realist. 

You can't do anything without power. Party gets you power. That's the way it is and it's never going to change.

[triplehorn 2664]

20 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s sill losing.  The battlefield is public opinion.  The battlefield has always been public opinion. Nancy has surrendered that space to Trump and to a lesser extent AOC who are driving the media narratives and currently shaping public opinion.  

Trump just had his highest approval rating yet.  That is an “in your fucking face” indicator that Pelosi has failed on a massive scale.  She completely mishandled the Mueller Report which is a bag of smoking guns.  She hasn’t pressed hard enough on the tax returns.  

Nancy pulled off one of the greatest bait and switches of all time going from, “I’m going to hold Trump accountable” to “We need to focus on 2020.”  It’s political party over country horseshit at its worst. 

Nancy Pelosi is Paul Ryan lite.

That's a pretty damn convincing takedown.  I don't discourage anyone from being vocally furious about what's happening, or not happening, as it's warranted.  As an aside, where are the protests the scale of what we saw after the inauguration ?  I know the impetus and energy is there and ready to go off.

We can go round and round over this, and I've mentioned it before - the GOP Senate should not be allowed to be arbiters of Trump because they are complicit.  They are aiding and abetting his overt corruption, abuse, and unaccounted for criminality.  Giving GOP Senate that platform to elevate both Trump and themselves by granting him a reprieve could have terrible consequences especially if it happens too soon with time for our collective short attention spans to move on.

Another reason for Pelosi to keep her powder dry is to wait, within a finite window, for a big legal matter to break.  If something big happens with the NRA/RNC or other RNC linked operations on the foreign cash laundering front - something that pins McConnell and other prominent GOP - that instant is when you go scorched earth on Trump's ass.  A reeling Congressional GOP would be a huge help to neutralize their ability to excuse Trump.  Absent a double barreled blow to GOP in Congress, I could tolerate waiting until around late October for the House to go full bore on impeachment.  A lot of relatively behind the scenes progress through the courts on testimony and documents should occur between now and then setting up an expansive all-out push of which the Mueller report would only be a part.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

10 hours ago, triplehorn said:

That's a pretty damn convincing takedown.  I don't discourage anyone from being vocally furious about what's happening, or not happening, as it's warranted.  As an aside, where are the protests the scale of what we saw after the inauguration ?  I know the impetus and energy is there and ready to go off.

We can go round and round over this, and I've mentioned it before - the GOP Senate should not be allowed to be arbiters of Trump because they are complicit.  They are aiding and abetting his overt corruption, abuse, and unaccounted for criminality.  Giving GOP Senate that platform to elevate both Trump and themselves by granting him a reprieve could have terrible consequences especially if it happens too soon with time for our collective short attention spans to move on.

Another reason for Pelosi to keep her powder dry is to wait, within a finite window, for a big legal matter to break.  If something big happens with the NRA/RNC or other RNC linked operations on the foreign cash laundering front - something that pins McConnell and other prominent GOP - that instant is when you go scorched earth on Trump's ass.  A reeling Congressional GOP would be a huge help to neutralize their ability to excuse Trump.  Absent a double barreled blow to GOP in Congress, I could tolerate waiting until around late October for the House to go full bore on impeachment.  A lot of relatively behind the scenes progress through the courts on testimony and documents should occur between now and then setting up an expansive all-out push of which the Mueller report would only be a part.

I agree with this simply because it is the only possibility I think exists from a congressional standpoint. If you allow the senate to find him not guilty, the public will take that to the bank. Therefore, House must indict, senate cannot be allowed to render a verdict. 

If this isn’t Nancy’s plan then we are truly fucked. Probably truly fucked anyway, but this is the only shot she has.  This is how fucked the system is right now. And it pisses me the fuck off 

 

Edit: House must IMPEACH, not indict

Edited July 10, 2019 by Biff Tannen

[retread 2951]

Nancy's had several good jumping off points, and yet she hasn't moved. The release of the report, Barr's phony summary, the endless waiting game for the unredacted report, Barr lying to Congress, etc.

[David Dennison 18854]

5 minutes ago, retread said:

Nancy's had several good jumping off points, and yet she hasn't moved. The release of the report, Barr's phony summary, the endless waiting game for the unredacted report, Barr lying to Congress, etc.

It's mainly cover for her members. She's protecting them and taking the heat for their unwillingness to impeach. She doesn't have the votes and doesn't want to whip her members over impeachment.

For now.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

How many phone calls have you made to the Office of the Speaker of the House?

You're so full of shit with this line.  Stop it.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Nancy Pelosi is lukewarm at best and I want her to do her fucking job.

[David Dennison 18854]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Nancy Pelosi is lukewarm at best and I want her to do her fucking job.

 

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You're so full of shit with this line.  Stop it.

If there were only some way to let her know that you want her to do her fucking job. 

[Captainant 27653]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If there were only some way to let her know that you want her to do her fucking job. 

Just so you know, when you call or contact her office, they ignore you if you aren't one of her constituents. I know this because I just called her DC office and was told that by one of her staffers. 

So what I'm saying is, you're full of shit. Nancy is gonna do what she wants, consensus be damned. 

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

Just so you know, when you call or contact her office, they ignore you if you aren't one of her constituents. I know this because I just called her DC office and was told that by one of her staffers. 

So what I'm saying is, you're full of shit. Nancy is gonna do what she wants, consensus be damned. 

That's why you call the Speaker's office. 

 

[Captainant 27653]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's why you call the Speaker's office. 

 

Her DC office answered the line as "speaker pelosi's office". And her speaker for the house page does not offer a phone number. Try again. 

EDIT: For clarity, the number listed on speaker.gov site IS Pelosi's congressional office number

Edited July 10, 2019 by Captainant

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

Her DC office answered the line as "speaker pelosi's office". And her speaker for the house page does not offer a phone number. Try again. 

Keep trying.

Or don't.

 

[Captainant 27653]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Keep trying.

Or don't.

They literally told me they can't and won't listen to my opinion, as I am not a constituent. And your response to that is to continue trying an avenue that I've been directly told isn't being considered. 

Fuck you, I do try. I do my fucking part to contact my representatives every week and share my views and attempt to get accountability. How about you stop justifying her negligence behind the weakest, most feckless excuse of "well it's not explicitly required in the Constitution so we won't do it". That's the same fucking answer that Ted fucking Cruz gives me. 

Cut. From. The. Same. Cloth. 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

They literally told me they can't and won't listen to my opinion, as I am not a constituent. And your response to that is to continue trying an avenue that I've been directly told isn't being considered. 

Fuck you, I do try. I do my fucking part to contact my representatives every week and share my views and attempt to get accountability. How about you stop justifying her negligence behind the weakest, most feckless excuse of "well it's not explicitly required in the Constitution so we won't do it". That's the same fucking answer that Ted fucking Cruz gives me. 

Cut. From. The. Same. Cloth. 

You haven't contacted the Office of the Speaker of the House. Call the House switchboard. Ask to be transferred.

Or fill out the form on the website. 

Nancy Pelosi isn't moving forward with impeachment because she feels like it's not politically advantageous to do so. That's politics. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's mainly cover for her members. She's protecting them and taking the heat for their unwillingness to impeach. She doesn't have the votes and doesn't want to whip her members over impeachment.

For now.

This sounds like bullshit.  She better prove me wrong.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

This sounds like bullshit.  She better prove me wrong.

Politics is largely bullshit, so you're right.

[Captainant 27653]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Politics is largely bullshit, so you're right.

Fuck you, you're part of why trump is in office. This sort of shit is why nobody has faith in the political process and voted for a complete outsider like trump. If you can't put two and two together to see that, then you're as dumb as chrispy or zavala or swam. Just on the other side of the aisle. 

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Captainant said:

Fuck you, you're part of why trump is in office. This sort of shit is why nobody has faith in the political process and voted for a complete outsider like trump. If you can't put two and two together to see that, then you're as dumb as chrispy or zavala or swam. Just on the other side of the aisle. 

I agree. Politics sucks. 

Vote. 

[retread 2951]

These are macro isssues that the D House should be addressing without any prodding from Americans. Obstruction, receiving aid from an enemy, lying before Congress, humanitarian atrocities, Russian hacking, etc.  They have a tool to address many of these issues -- impeachment.

I can't decide if she's being overly political or if she (and the rest of the caucus) just doesn't have the stomach for the fight that this will require.

[Captainant 27653]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I agree. Politics sucks. 

Vote. 

We did vote. The blue wave was supposed to be a check against trump. Now that the Dems actually have power, they're too scared to use it for risk of losing their power. 

So tell me, are you just too fucking dumb to notice that, or are you just lying because you prefer party over country?

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

We did vote. The blue wave was supposed to be a check against trump. Now that the Dems actually have power, they're too scared to use it for risk of losing their power. 

So tell me, are you just too fucking dumb to notice that, or are you just lying because you prefer party over country?

I think they're using it in a way you don't like. I don't like it, either, but I understand the politics of why they are doing it. 

Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes to impeach the president. She is unwilling to whip her caucus because her majority rests on the back of swing districts. Those members have to come around on their own for electoral purposes. If she pushes too hard, the Democrats lose the House and she is no longer speaker.

This might all change by Christmas. Or next summer. Or never.

 

[Rougarou 594]

Wow, David being exposed here. The last two pages have been...interesting. CaptainAnt doing some real work here.

[Captainant 27653]

22 hours ago, David Dennison said:

How many phone calls have you made to the Office of the Speaker of the House?

 

22 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's what she's doing. You just don't like it. There's a way for you to voice your displeasure. They'll actually talk to you. 

 

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Her DC office answered the line as "speaker pelosi's office". And her speaker for the house page does not offer a phone number. Try again. 

EDIT: For clarity, the number listed on speaker.gov site IS Pelosi's congressional office number

 

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You haven't contacted the Office of the Speaker of the House. Call the House switchboard. Ask to be transferred.

Or fill out the form on the website. 

Nancy Pelosi isn't moving forward with impeachment because she feels like it's not politically advantageous to do so. That's politics. 

 

Just to re-highlight this horseshit: DD's big "gotcha" is that we just aren't trying hard enough to contact the speaker. I went to speaker dot fucking gov, called the number, and got sent to pelosi's office, which promptly ignored me on the basis of not being one of her direct constituents. 

DD's response is that I'm clearly just calling the wrong number and I should instead go through the switchboard to get to the real speaker of the house(?) office that definitely isn't just pelosi's office again. 

So I'm really at a loss here as to what he thinks is the right thing to do. His stance is seemingly that we're all tied to nancys wagon and she must be the best leader because she got elected (which is a fallacy itself lol), and we shouldn't complain about her decisions because she's the best leader because she was elected speaker.

Working in DC really fucked you in the head, buddy. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The irony here is we’re bitching about Pelosi on a forum that is designed for people to bitch and Dennison is saying we shouldn’t do that. 

All we need to do is call up Tom Herman if we want to make a change at quarterback.  I don’t know why people waste their time complaining about Texas Football on here when you can get whatever you want done with just a few phone calls. 

[David Dennison 18854]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Just to re-highlight this horseshit: DD's big "gotcha" is that we just aren't trying hard enough to contact the speaker. I went to speaker dot fucking gov, called the number, and got sent to pelosi's office, which promptly ignored me on the basis of not being one of her direct constituents. 

DD's response is that I'm clearly just calling the wrong number and I should instead go through the switchboard to get to the real speaker of the house(?) office that definitely isn't just pelosi's office again. 

So I'm really at a loss here as to what he thinks is the right thing to do. His stance is seemingly that we're all tied to nancys wagon and she must be the best leader because she got elected (which is a fallacy itself lol), and we shouldn't complain about her decisions because she's the best leader because she was elected speaker.

Working in DC really fucked you in the head, buddy. 

The right thing to do is vote. Beyond that, contact your elected representatives. If that doesn't work to your liking, vote for the person running against them.

Or run for office.

There are a whole host of things you can do.

Nancy Pelosi is still going to do what she thinks is best, no matter what you think. That's just the way it is. It's frustrating.

[David Dennison 18854]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The irony here is we’re bitching about Pelosi on a forum that is designed for people to bitch and Dennison is saying we shouldn’t do that. 

All we need to do is call up Tom Herman if we want to make a change at quarterback.  I don’t know why people waste their time complaining about Texas Football on here when you can get whatever you want done with just a few phone calls. 

I think you should bitch all you want.

Sadly, I don't think it will change her political calculus on this particular matter.

She'll move when she's ready. Or she won't.