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

[wildcat09 29360]

DD is giving us the real insight. Where do I send my $9.99?

[David Dennison 18941]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

DD is giving us the real insight. Where do I send my $9.99?

The Human Fund.

[Captainant 27706]

43 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Human Fund.

Ya gurl pelosi would like it more I hear. Votes to fund concentration camps and abuse children aren't gonna fund themselves

[David Dennison 18941]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ya gurl pelosi would like it more I hear. Votes to fund concentration camps and abuse children aren't gonna fund themselves

What would you have preferred?

[Captainant 27706]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What would you have preferred?

...not further funding concentration camps and CBP by connection? They just opened three new facilities AGAINST congresses rules, in part with the funds that were recently passed. 

[David Dennison 18941]

Just now, Captainant said:

...not further funding concentration camps and CBP by connection? They just opened three new facilities AGAINST congresses rules, in part with the funds that were recently passed. 

That means you have to send members home to defend not providing money for children at the border.

That's fine, but it's a tough sell when people see the pictures of suffering every day. Members were obviously more comfortable defending a vote which sent money to concentration camps. 

[Captainant 27706]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That means you have to send members home to defend not providing money for children at the border.

That's fine, but it's a tough sell when people see the pictures of suffering every day. Members were obviously more comfortable defending a vote which sent money to concentration camps. 

And you don't see how it's a failure of her leadership that she was unable to present her caucus any better options? THATS WHAT A GOOD FUCKING LEADER DOES! They don't just roll over and capitulate to evil just because it's easier. 

[David Dennison 18941]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And you don't see how it's a failure of her leadership that she was unable to present her caucus any better options? THATS WHAT A GOOD FUCKING LEADER DOES! They don't just roll over and capitulate to evil just because it's easier. 

The bill with the better options would not have passed.

[Captainant 27706]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The bill with the better options would not have passed.

Oh, so were back to the "its too hard to not fund concentration camps" argument? What great leadership. 

[David Dennison 18941]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Oh, so were back to the "its too hard to not fund concentration camps" argument? What great leadership. 

It is good leadership. A failed bill would have been worse for the party.

[Captainant 27706]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is good leadership. A failed bill would have been worse for the party.

"Good leadership is funding concentration camps"

Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me

[David Dennison 18941]

Just now, Captainant said:

"Good leadership is funding concentration camps"

Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me

That's OK.

[Captainant 27706]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's OK.

You're a piece of shit if you think funding concentration camps is OK. 

[David Dennison 18941]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You're a piece of shit if you think funding concentration camps is OK. 

I think appropriating funds to help children in need is OK. 

But I have no problem with you thinking I'm a piece of shit. I don't care.

[ChickenSandwich 9844]

This thread delivers 

[EuroHorn 3268]

18 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

This thread delivers 

Does the thread title still apply?

this thread 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by EuroHorn

[Patrick Bateman 3918]

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 7/9/2019 at 4:34 PM, David Dennison said:

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

If they don't who does ?

[David Dennison 18941]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If they don't who does ?

No one. It's a political tool to use as they see fit. If they don't choose wisely, they run the risk of losing their seat.

[HtownHorn 14756]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

This thread delivers 

No shit, I finally caught up. Captainant is amazing.

[Alvin89 108]

On 6/8/2018 at 5:31 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m still waiting for legit criticism of Aunt Nancy other than everyone hates her.

Have we found that legit criticism?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Have we found that legit criticism?

Oh yeah...

 

[David Dennison 18941]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh yeah...

 

She feels their tactics are counterproductive politically.

That's why.

[Alvin89 108]

If a poll was to be taken of Democrats in the house and senate, what percentage would side with Pelosi and what percentage would side with the AOC group?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

If a poll was to be taken of Democrats in the house and senate, what percentage would side with Pelosi and what percentage would side with the AOC group?

Why not poll the democratic voters?  

The people in power will almost always side with power out of self interest so polling Congress would most certainly advantage Pelosi. 

[Asithappens 974]

I don't dislike AOC, but she's basically a windbag. 

Pelosi is a competent politician, but I still like the AOC is going after her. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[wildcat09 29360]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She feels their tactics are counterproductive politically.

That's why.

This is from a relevant twitter discussion yesterday and I think #2 is on point:

It is absolutely fucking insane that the Democratic leadership and Democratic consulting class thinks that "moderating" on "hey these kids we're detaining should be able to shower and brush their teeth" will help them win votes. The "fuck those kids I hope they get sick and die" crowd isn't voting Dem under any circumstances, nor are their votes needed. Further, magnifying their opposition to "hey these kids we're detaining should be able to shower and brush their teeth" makes Republicans look really bad to moderate voters, you know, the ones they're supposedly trying to target by telling AOC to shut the fuck up about toothbrushes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Chess master Pelosi indeed.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Asithappens 974]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Chess master Pelosi indeed.

I gotta call bullshit on Kasparov.

There is no constitutional "duty" for Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment is, at heart, a political action. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Asithappens said:

I gotta call bullshit on Kasparov.

There is no constitutional "duty" for Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment is, at heart, a political action. 

She has a constitutional duty to put a check on an outlaw renegade executive branch that has committed well documented and egregious crimes.  Impeachment is the only meaningful tool Pelosi has at her disposal to do that.  

What I don’t understand is why she never used the credible threat of impeachment to coerce the White House for more cooperation and restraint.

[DixonHur 11345]

44 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She feels their tactics are counterproductive politically.

That's why.

Bullshit.  If that were the case she should have handled it in house.  A good leader doesn't go blabbing about it to Maureen fucking Dowd.  Now the hot news story is the split among the Dems instead of all the crazy shit Trump does daily.  She's worse than useless, she counterproductive.

[wildcat09 29360]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I gotta call bullshit on Kasparov.

There is no constitutional "duty" for Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment is, at heart, a political action. 

This is like the GOP's argument that McConnell and the GOP senate had no duty to give Garland a hearing. The fact is that the Constitution is an imperfect document written by humans, and it doesn't actually compel many actions at all that are necessary for the system to function properly. So yeah, you can say someone has no "duty" to do something because the Constitution doesn't compel it, but every elected official swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and everyone carrying out the roles it delegates faithfully, regardless of whether it technically compels you them do so, is necessary to preserve the Constitution.

Edited July 11, 2019 by wildcat09

[retread 2951]

^ And if you wait until the end of '19 or beginning of '20 to impeach, the timing can be called into question.

"The Mueller report is ancient history. There was no collusion, and Barr ruled that there was no obstruction." - GOP

[Asithappens 974]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She has a constitutional duty to put a check on an outlaw renegade executive branch that has committed well documented and egregious crimes.  Impeachment is the only meaningful tool Pelosi has at her disposal to do that.  

What I don’t understand is why she never used the credible threat of impeachment to coerce the White House for more cooperation and restraint.

Again, bullshit.

First, I agree that Pelosi has a consitutional duty to exercise Congress's checks and balances. This does not, however, require her to start impeachment proceedings.

Second, Impeachment is an indictment, not a conclusion. The Senate will not convict. 

Third, I strongly disagree that impeachment is the ONLY MEANINGFUL way Pelosi has to rein in the Executive branch. 

Fourth, just what makes you think that a threat (credible) of impeachment would cause (coerce? are you kidding?) the WH to cooperate and exercise restraint? 

[hayden_horn 11364]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Bullshit.  If that were the case she should have handled it in house.  A good leader doesn't go blabbing about it to Maureen fucking Dowd.  Now the hot news story is the split among the Dems instead of all the crazy shit Trump does daily.  She's worse than useless, she counterproductive.

this is what is so insane about her leadership.

she should have been at the border with AOC. she should be highlighting these major issues WITH the new members of the caucus. 

that's how she drives unity and compromise with her party in the house.

she started off politically wily, but she seems to have lost the plot. 

TALK SHIT ABOUT TRUMP. not your own party members, who, despite your best efforts, are actually trying to do some good, and are actually having some success highlighting issues of imprisoning women and children at the border.

talking shit to the media in an attempt to cow a millenial displays a fundamental ignorance of the new generation of leadership, and how they react to bullshit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Fourth, just what makes you think that a threat (credible) of impeachment would cause (coerce? are you kidding?) the WH to cooperate and exercise restraint? 

I’m not saying it would work but she should at least attempt it instead of putting her hands in her pockets and saying “oh well”.

It has a non-zero chance of working because it’s very clear Trump doesn’t want to be impeached and he responds best to blackmail.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[wildcat09 29360]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

this is what is so insane about her leadership.

she should have been at the border with AOC. she should be highlighting these major issues WITH the new members of the caucus. 

that's how she drives unity and compromise with her party in the house.

she started off politically wily, but she seems to have lost the plot. 

TALK SHIT ABOUT TRUMP. not your own party members, who, despite your best efforts, are actually trying to do some good, and are actually having some success highlighting issues of imprisoning women and children at the border.

talking shit to the media in an attempt to cow a millenial displays a fundamental ignorance of the new generation of leadership, and how they react to bullshit.

This article seems relevant, particularly this part:

Quote

If there were a big, electoral price for overestimating the conservatism of one’s constituents, then elected representatives at every level of government would not be doing so. Rather, there appears to be an advantage to deluding yourself about how right wing your constituents are on most issues. That way, you can do right by the interest groups who actually have the power to make or break your reelection, while telling yourself that you’re faithfully serving the popular will.

The Democratic leadership and the Dem consulting class really believe the country is more conservative than it is and completely misunderstand what issues they need to actually moderate on to win in red and purple districts, because the particular way in which they misunderstand helps them raise money from big-money donors.

[DixonHur 11345]

6 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Second, Impeachment is an indictment, not a conclusion. The Senate will not convict. 

Who cares?  The point isn't to convict.  It's too late in the game for that anyway.  The point is to keep the news and public talking about the criminality and general shittiness of Trump.

By not starting impeachment proceedings, she's allowing the GOP to control the narrative.  

As retread said a few posts ago, because of her inaction, the Mueller report is fading from memory and all people are left with is Barr's write-up clearing Trump, and Trump's constant repeating of the phrase "no collusion".

[hayden_horn 11364]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This article seems relevant, particularly this part:

The Democratic leadership and the Dem consulting class really believe the country is more conservative than it is and completely misunderstand what issues they need to actually moderate on to win in red and purple districts, because the particular way in which they misunderstand helps them raise money from big-money donors.

well, the country is extremely conservative.

but then, the voting public is absurdly small, and conservatives are probably more likely to vote than people who would lean democratic. 

pelosi losing control of the youth house is about the boomerist thing she could do. she is not seeing the forest for the twitter trees.

hint: you can praise AOC's twitter while deriding trump's twitter. it isn't 1992 any more.

young voters engage on twitter and other social media, and that shit can resonate.

anyways, AOC implies pelosi is bigoted:

Quote

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of repeatedly singling out ‘newly elected women of color’, branding the congressional veteran as being ‘outright disrespectful’.

The firebrand Democrat made the shocking declaration during an interview with the Washington Post on Wednesday night following a private meeting in which Pelosi warned party members to stop publicly criticizing one another on social media. 

‘When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,’ Ocasio-Cortez began.

‘But the persistent singling out … it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful … the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color,’ she continued.

AOC's remarks are sure to intensify the already strained relations she shares with Pelosi along with her liberal freshmen entourage of Representatives Ihan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley - a group that calls themselves ‘the squad’.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7235161/AOC-accuses-Nancy-Pelosi-singling-newly-elected-women-color-says-shes-disrespectful.html

way to lead from the front, nancy.

maybe, i don't know, try speaking with those you want to criticize?

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Who cares?  The point isn't to convict.  It's too late in the game for that anyway.  The point is to keep the news and public talking about the criminality and general shittiness of Trump.

By not starting impeachment proceedings, she's allowing the GOP to control the narrative.  

As retread said a few posts ago, because of her inaction, the Mueller report is fading from memory and all people are left with is Barr's write-up clearing Trump, and Trump's constant repeating of the phrase "no collusion".

Who cares? I do.

Does anyone not realize the very real chance that impeachment will backfire on the Dems? 

We don't need an impeachment to get the news and public to start talking. Impeachment has nothing to do with this.Yeah, it would contribute to that talk, but it's not required. 

And bullshit on Pelosi being the reason why the Mueller report is fading from memory. That's ridiculous, imo. 

It's like everyone is taking crazy pills. Who cares that the Senate won't convict and that this could very well energize Trump's base and help him to a second term? I care. I care a lot.

Also, how about using House committees/sub-committees to investigate Trump, using the power of subpoena and whatnot? There are other options than impeachment. 

Peolos is not a dumb politician. At this point, AOC is (at times). 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You will never win the battles you don’t fight. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You will never win the battles you don’t fight. 

Again, impeachment is NOT THE ONLY WAY TO  BATTLE.

Use some strategy.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Asithappens

[hayden_horn 11364]

Just now, Asithappens said:

Again, impeachment is NOT THE ONLY BATTLE.

Use some strategy, for god's sake.

except pelosi's strategy is apparently all over the place. occasionally criticize the president, despite daily outrageous acts. then, i dunno, criticize members of her caucus for....doing their jobs? she's out of touch. she's aged out. she doesn't nor will ever understand anything in the contemporary age of politics from here as it moves forward.

[Captainant 27706]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

Again, impeachment is NOT THE ONLY WAY TO  BATTLE.

Use some strategy.

What's the strategy? Roll over to Mitch McConnell and pass funding bills for concentration camps while not driving accountability and checks against the executive? That's was keeps bringing in the money right? Can't win elections without money, but if all you do with the power is continue to chase donations, what's the fucking point?

[wildcat09 29360]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

well, the country is extremely conservative.

but then, the voting public is absurdly small, and conservatives are probably more likely to vote than people who would lean democratic. 

pelosi losing control of the youth house is about the boomerist thing she could do. she is not seeing the forest for the twitter trees.

hint: you can praise AOC's twitter while deriding trump's twitter. it isn't 1992 any more.

young voters engage on twitter and other social media, and that shit can resonate.

anyways, AOC implies pelosi is bigoted:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7235161/AOC-accuses-Nancy-Pelosi-singling-newly-elected-women-color-says-shes-disrespectful.html

way to lead from the front, nancy.

maybe, i don't know, try speaking with those you want to criticize?

Not really.  A lot of self-identified conservatives aren't even conservative on most issues.  Plenty of our current "conservatives" would have been strong union supporters in the 60s and support raising taxes on rich people and stricter regulation of business for shit they consider harmful.  Nobody in Kentucky is cheering for coal ash to be dumped into their drinking water.  Those people are "conservative" on social issues though, particularly abortion, and for many of them that overrides everything else. A small slice of them could be gettable though with the right messaging and that's the group the Dem consultants are always trying to moderate to reach, but they moderate on all the wrong fucking things. You reach that group by magnifying "fuck the corporations," not silencing the "hey these immigrant children deserve to live" members of your caucus, but that would make it harder to raise money from big-money donors.  

[wildcat09 29360]

6 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Who cares? I do.

Does anyone not realize the very real chance that impeachment will backfire on the Dems? 

We don't need an impeachment to get the news and public to start talking. Impeachment has nothing to do with this.Yeah, it would contribute to that talk, but it's not required. 

And bullshit on Pelosi being the reason why the Mueller report is fading from memory. That's ridiculous, imo. 

It's like everyone is taking crazy pills. Who cares that the Senate won't convict and that this could very well energize Trump's base and help him to a second term? I care. I care a lot.

Also, how about using House committees/sub-committees to investigate Trump, using the power of subpoena and whatnot? There are other options than impeachment. 

Peolos is not a dumb politician. At this point, AOC is (at times). 

An impeachment and the GOP senate's refusal to convict can be a messaging win for the Democrats. Doing nothing has no upside at all.

[David Dennison 18941]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

except pelosi's strategy is apparently all over the place. occasionally criticize the president, despite daily outrageous acts. then, i dunno, criticize members of her caucus for....doing their jobs? she's out of touch. she's aged out. she doesn't nor will ever understand anything in the contemporary age of politics from here as it moves forward.

And yet, not one person in the Democratic caucus has challenged her as Speaker.

There is no one else in that caucus who can do her job.

Yet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

70%+ of democrats support impeachment.  

45% of voters support impeachment.

These are well beyond Nixon/Watergate numbers pre impeachment and that was in a media environment without Twitter and Fox News.

Pelosi has been trying her hardest to keep those impeachment numbers down because she does not want to fight a battle she might not be able to control.  She’s as spineless Paul Ryan except worse because she’s a democrat. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hayden_horn 11364]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Not really.  A lot of self-identified conservatives aren't even conservative on most issues.  Plenty of our current "conservatives" would have been strong union supporters in the 60s and support raising taxes on rich people and stricter regulation of business for shit they consider harmful.  Nobody in Kentucky is cheering for coal ash to be dumped into their drinking water.  Those people are "conservative" on social issues though, particularly abortion, and for many of them that overrides everything else. A small slice of them could be gettable though with the right messaging and that's the group the Dem consultants are always trying to moderate to reach, but they moderate on all the wrong fucking things. You reach that group by magnifying "fuck the corporations," not silencing the "hey these immigrant children deserve to live" members of your caucus, but that would make it harder to raise money from big-money donors.  

ok, yes, i totally agree. i meant "people likely to vote republican right now." that would have been a good way to phrase it.

there is a reason the root of progressive is progress.