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

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Onion, moved to other thread.

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-quietly-sounding-out-house-democrats-about-whether-to-impeach-trump-officials-say/2019/09/23/98a33fd8-de5f-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html

 

Quote

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been quietly sounding out top allies and lawmakers about whether the time has come to impeach President Trump, according to multiple Democratic officials, a major development in the ongoing investigation of the president that suggests the House could eventually vote to oust him.

Pelosi, according to multiple senior House Democrats and congressional aides, has asked colleagues whether they believe that Trump’s own admission that he pressured a Ukrainian leader to investigate a political foe is a tipping point. She was making calls as late as Monday night to gauge support in the caucus, and many leadership aides who once thought Trump’s impeachment was unlikely now say they think it’s almost inevitable.

 

Spoiler

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.

Pelosi’s office declined to comment Monday night. But an official familiar with her thinking said most members have been calling her and those conversations have focused on how to force disclosure to Congress about a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s conversations with Ukraine.

Pelosi had made it clear on Sunday that she would no longer stand for months of administration stonewalling.

In a letter to Republicans and Democrats, she wrote, “If the administration persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the president, they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation.”

Pelosi’s conversations — and reconsideration of her long-held position that impeachment is too divisive — comes amid a new clamor for impeachment in the House Democratic Caucus. A group of moderate lawmakers from swing districts is now backing an impeachment inquiry, and Democrats say there’s been a significant shift in the tenor of the discussion following reports that Trump pressured Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and his family.

Trump on Monday denied that he offered military aid to the Ukraine leader only if the country launched a probe.

Seven freshman Democrats with previous service in the military, defense and U.S. intelligence said Monday night that if the allegations against Trump are true, “we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense.”

“We have devoted our lives to the service and security of our country, and throughout our careers, we have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States many times over. Now, we join as a unified group to uphold that oath as we enter uncharted waters and face unprecedented allegations against President Trump,” the seven wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post.

The seven — Reps. Gil Cisneros of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia — said they did not arrive at their decision lightly and called on their colleagues to use all congressional authorities, including impeachment hearings, to “address these new allegations, find the truth and protect our national security.”

In one telling shift, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) issued a lengthy statement Monday calling Trump’s conduct a “reckless abuse of power” and a “turning point.” A close Pelosi ally of similar views and temperament, she described being previously reticent to pursue impeachment for similar reasons as the speaker has stated: the fear that it would divide the country and a Senate acquittal might backfire.

But she said her thinking had changed, writing that an impeachment inquiry “may be the only recourse Congress has” to reproach Trump.

“Congress must meet this pivotal moment in our nation’s history with decisive action,” she wrote.

Senior Democratic officials cautioned that no steps have been finalized and there were still questions about timing and how to conduct the proceedings. Some Democrats, for example, want House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) to have a role in whatever impeachment process moves ahead. Some senior Democrats are also discussing the possibility of a special select committee that would combine House Judiciary with other panels such as Intelligence.

In the meantime, House leaders are planning to hold a vote on a resolution to either condemn Trump’s actions or express the sense of the House that the administration turn over the whistleblower complaint, a move liberals are already dismissing as insufficient. The language has not been finalized.

Until then, lawmakers have been anxiously speculating about what Pelosi, who has been reluctant about impeachment, will do. The speaker is concerned about the political blowback for her majority makers — the Democrats who won seats in districts where Trump prevailed in 2016.

In the Senate, Republicans have made it clear that they are standing with Trump and are unlikely to convict him if a trial occurs.

Impeachment dominated a meeting of chiefs of staff for lawmakers in competitive districts on Monday, according to one official familiar with the talks. The individual said the session grew heated an angry, pitting those congressional aides who thought it was time to back impeachment against those who worry about the political fallout.

Meanwhile, freshman Democrats — most of whom were back in their districts Monday — have been in constant discussion about how to respond to the Ukraine controversy, with plans for a conference call Monday night.

The drama is all building toward Thursday, a make-or-break moment in the eyes of House Democratic leaders. Pelosi gave the director of national intelligence until then to turn over a whistleblower complaint that details Trump’s conversations with Ukraine.

Under the law, any matter deemed of “urgent concern” is supposed to be shared with Congress. But the Trump administration has refused to hand over the document — despite an inspector general’s determination that it has met that “urgent” threshold. 

“The Director of National Intelligence must comply with the law on Thursday,” Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.). “If not, the Trump administration has left Congress with no alternative but for the House to begin impeachment proceedings, which I will support.”

On Monday night 145 Democrats backed impeachment, well over a majority of the caucus. But Pelosi has long said that any impeachment would need public support as well as backing from some Republicans.

Currently, she has neither. Voters still overwhelming disapprove of Democrats impeaching the president though those polls where conducted prior to last week’s reports about the whistleblower complaint.

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

50 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Lulz pls read the thread before commenting. Start with the comment I was responding to. Have a good day

I'm not discussing your other petty posts on the thread, I'm addressing the one at the top of this page where you accused me of lying.

You then immediately lied about what I said. I'd say that reflects rather poorly on your overall argument. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[David Dennison 18940]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi needs to come out this week in a show of force if she wants to make a difference here.  She needs to say something to the effect of , “We are going to impeach this president and here’s why:...”

I would be lying if I said I think that’s what she is going to do.  I expect more stalling and rhetorical posturing.

Even if she does, it still won't be good enough.

[triplehorn 2664]

Good thread that gives a perspective on what Pelosi and House have been up against as events have unfolded and what they've done dating back to the start of the year to combat it.  Pelosi has her shit together way more than anyone wants to give credit.  You know what these "Republicans" would do if in her shoes ?  They'd quit.  resign, just like they've been doing in droves since 2018. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Pelosi has her shit together way more than anyone wants to give credit. 

If you mean she held on until her ludicrous position became politically untenable, I agree. 

[triplehorn 2664]

you've got it backwards.  She has held on to her position until has become politically tenable to succeed. 

All the while, they've had a strategy for subpoenas and litigation from the get go that is just now about to start bearing fruit to bury the piece of shit.

[DixonHur 11344]

5 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

you've got it backwards.  She has held on to her position until has become politically tenable to succeed. 

All the while, they've had a strategy for subpoenas and litigation from the get go that is just now about to start bearing fruit to bury the piece of shit.

Such bullshit, you and DD are sounding like Trumpkins with your mental gymnastics.  All this talk about a 4D chess grand plan is revisionist history.  

If her plan has been to "stalk" Trump until the right time, she would have communicated it with her caucus and they would have all been on the same page...at least in public.  Instead the Dems in the House are all over the place regarding impeachment with some coming out publicly for and some against.  That is not what good leadership looks like.

If she decides to impeach, it will be because she has not choice, not because she's had some master plan all along.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

She has held on to her position until has become politically tenable to succeed. 

You are going to need to define success. 

[wildcat09 29360]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Such bullshit, you and DD are sounding like Trumpkins with your mental gymnastics.  All this talk about a 4D chess grand plan is revisionist history.  

If her plan has been to "stalk" Trump until the right time, she would have communicated it with her caucus and they would have all been on the same page...at least in public.  Instead the Dems in the House are all over the place regarding impeachment with some coming out publicly for and some against.  That is not what good leadership looks like.

If she decides to impeach, it will be because she has not choice, not because she's had some master plan all along.  

This is all the evidence that you need to prove that the "Pelosi was secretly masterminding it all along" is total bullshit. If so, why would they have been caught so flat-footed when the Mueller report came out? Nobody had any clue how to address it publicly. They have never ever had anything remotely resembling competent coordinated messaging on any of this shit.

[triplehorn 2664]

@DixonHur you haven’t been paying attention.  Like at all.

There has been a coordinated drumbeat for the last few months of House members making individual announcements justifying their rationale for supporting impeachment.  It’s been the case every week that one or more have done it.  It maintains the focus on the longer term outcome while they litigate.

Contrast that with everyone being silent then suddenly being all in with the wave of wand.  Alternatively, if the House was all in back in Jsnuary, Pelosi would have supported that or been replaced.

This has been by design and the House is organized around it.  You’re badly misreading it.  And Hugo sounds like one extreme of the political horseshoe - shoulder to shoulder and just as divisive as extreme right actors.

[DixonHur 11344]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

@DixonHur you haven’t been paying attention.  Like at all.

There has been a coordinated drumbeat for the last few months of House members making individual announcements justifying their rationale for supporting impeachment.  It’s been the case every week that one or more have done it.  It maintains the focus on the longer term outcome while they litigate.

Contrast that with everyone being silent then suddenly being all in with the wave of wand.  Alternatively, if the House was all in back in Jsnuary, Pelosi would have supported that or been replaced.

This has been by design and the House is organized around it.  You’re badly misreading it.  And Hugo sounds like one extreme of the political horseshoe - shoulder to shoulder and just as divisive as extreme right actors.

You and DD are seeing what you want to see.  The rest of us are seeing what's actually happening.  

Members of the House are coming out in support of impeachment not because of Nancy, but in spite of her.   

And she will be forced to act because of them, not the other way around.  

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by DixonHur

[wildcat09 29360]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You and DD are seeing what you want to see.  The rest of us are seeing what's actually happening.  

Members of the House are coming out in support of impeachment not because of Nancy, but in spite of her.   

And she will be forced to act because of them, not the other way around.  

 

Triple is the Dem equivalent of Republicans who would argue Trump shit his pants on national television as part of a secret genius plan to own the libs. 

[triplehorn 2664]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is all the evidence that you need to prove that the "Pelosi was secretly masterminding it all along" is total bullshit. If so, why would they have been caught so flat-footed when the Mueller report came out? Nobody had any clue how to address it publicly. 

Why were they caught flat-footed ?  You mean to say "Mueller and the seven angry Democrats" weren't actually coordinating the "witch hunt" ? No shit, really?!!  

from the thread just above:

She's been doing the heavy lifting all along.  wake the fuck up.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

DD is a drive by troll.  

Triplehorn is a blinded resistance optimist.  

I value triple’s takes because he at least has some analysis behind his conjecture.  However, I often disagree with him.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

based on what I know about the posters on this board, my money is on Triple's version of the story to be one closest to the truth

[triplehorn 2664]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You and DD are seeing what you want to see.  The rest of us are seeing what's actually happening.  

 

you voted for donald trump, didn't you. 

You've got some ground to make up convincing anyone you're "seeing what's actually happening."

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

Just checking in to see if OP still thinks Pelosi is a bad ass MF.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

Triple, I hope to god you are right, but it just seems like you have been pimping this long game for months or even years now and we have yet to see any fruit.  Honestly, it doesn't really matter because we have no say over how any of this goes down, but it's frustrating just watching the Dems do "nothing", at least from a public perspective.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Triple, I hope to god you are right, but it just seems like you have been pimping this long game for months or even years now and we have yet to see any fruit.  Honestly, it doesn't really matter because we have no say over how any of this goes down, but it's frustrating just watching the Dems do "nothing", at least from a public perspective.

here's what crazy about the public - they're fucking stupid. a LOT of people don't have 1/10th of a clue about what is going on because they don't pay attention like many of us do. They don't browse twitter and other social media constantly. many, many people - especially those that "love" trump - are completely clueless. they have made it such that their main sources of information are Fox News and trump himself. those on the other side have largely just gone about their business and just simply choose to not pay attention.

I think someone - probably triple - pointed out elsewhere that this slow trickle was probably very smart on Pelosi's part. If all of sudden the house called for impeachment it would seem hasty and reactionary. i bet this plays out pretty impressively.

at least that's what I want to believe because the alternative is me seeing where I can get a work visa

[Biff Tannen 45695]

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

here's what crazy about the public - they're fucking stupid. a LOT of people don't have 1/10th of a clue about what is going on because they don't pay attention like many of us do. They don't browse twitter and other social media constantly. many, many people - especially those that "love" trump - are completely clueless. they have made it such that their main sources of information are Fox News and trump himself. those on the other side have largely just gone about their business and just simply choose to not pay attention.

I think someone - probably triple - pointed out elsewhere that this slow trickle was probably very smart on Pelosi's part. If all of sudden the house called for impeachment it would seem hasty and reactionary. i bet this plays out pretty impressively.

at least that's what I want to believe because the alternative is me seeing where I can get a work visa

Lol, true.  RIP.  BLEED.

[wildcat09 29360]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Triple, I hope to god you are right, but it just seems like you have been pimping this long game for months or even years now and we have yet to see any fruit.  Honestly, it doesn't really matter because we have no say over how any of this goes down, but it's frustrating just watching the Dems do "nothing", at least from a public perspective.

The thing is, she's never pushed for impeachment and in fact she's frequently taken active steps to push back against the pressure. She hasn't been quietly supporting impeachment while biding her time for public pressure to sway enough of her caucus, she's been publicly opposing it. Leadership has slow-rolled investigations and she's frequently said they don't have facts to warrant impeachment, meaning that all of the shit we've known for years now doesn't support impeachment on the merits.

There's no puppet mastery here, it's exactly what it looks like. Everything in the Trump era is exactly what it fucking looks like. She's scared of impeaching Trump and has made it clear she'll need to be dragged into doing it.  We might be seeing that now, but it sure as hell isn't due to some great secret plan that she's been orchestrating all along.

[Newy25 7703]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi needs to come out this week in a show of force if she wants to make a difference here.  She needs to say something to the effect of , “We are going to impeach this president and here’s why:...”

I would be lying if I said I think that’s what she is going to do.  I expect more stalling and rhetorical posturing.

I hope others have pointed out the obvious irony between this post and the title of the thread you started. It was a funny title then and even more hilarious now. 

[wildcat09 29360]

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

here's what crazy about the public - they're fucking stupid. a LOT of people don't have 1/10th of a clue about what is going on because they don't pay attention like many of us do. They don't browse twitter and other social media constantly. many, many people - especially those that "love" trump - are completely clueless. they have made it such that their main sources of information are Fox News and trump himself. those on the other side have largely just gone about their business and just simply choose to not pay attention.

I think someone - probably triple - pointed out elsewhere that this slow trickle was probably very smart on Pelosi's part. If all of sudden the house called for impeachment it would seem hasty and reactionary. i bet this plays out pretty impressively.

at least that's what I want to believe because the alternative is me seeing where I can get a work visa

Yeah, which is why those of us who have supported impeachment have been saying all along that we need a month of impeachment hearings that put all of Trump's crimes and misdeeds front and center on every television in the country for a month straight. That would have been a much better strategy to gain public support than the slow trickle of evidence that isn't even coming from the Dems followed by what was long slow trickle of House reps coming out in support of impeachment on fucking twitter, swaying absolutely nobody.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

43 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

She's been doing the heavy lifting all along.  wake the fuck up.

She’s been doing the heavy lifting as far as avoiding impeachment despite overwhelming evidence that Trump is a national security threat/disaster. 

So triple, what is Pelosi going to say today?  What will her next public statement be? 

My prediction is she sticks to her bullshit guns and says something to the effect of:

“We need to follow the facts and evidence, we need to wait on the courts, we need Trump to cooperate and hand over the documents we’ve requested, we need more hearings, the American public isn’t there yet on impeachment.”

I HOPE I AM DEAD WRONG THO

Edited September 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s been doing the heavy lifting as far as avoiding impeachment despite overwhelming evidence that Trump is a national security threat/disaster. 

So triple, what is Pelosi going to say today?  What will her next public statement be? 

My prediction is she sticks to her bullshit guns and says something to the effect of:

“We need to follow the facts and evidence, we need to wait on the courts, we need Trump to cooperate and hand over the documents we’ve requested, we need more hearings, the American public aren’t there yet on impeachment.”

I HOPE I AM DEAD WRONG THO

I think you're wrong on this.  But only because her caucus is clearly revolting.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, lemonlime said:

I think you're wrong on this.  But only because her caucus is clearly revolting.  

Are they though?  Pelosi is still driving this car and based on what I’ve seen she will try to avoid an impeachment vote at all cost.  

The Dems are going to keep investigating and the Trump Administration is going to keep obstructing with no real consequences.  

It’s nice to see more democrats come out on impeachment but they should have been there many month ago.  

[wildcat09 29360]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are they though?  Pelosi is still driving this car and based on what I’ve seen she will try to avoid an impeachment vote at all cost.  

The Dems are going to keep investigating and the Trump Administration is going to keep obstructing with no real consequences.  

It’s nice to see more democrats come out on impeachment but they should have been there many month ago.  

Naw, if an overwhelming majority of her caucus is pushing for impeachment she'll fold. 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[Biff Tannen 45695]

28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There's no puppet mastery here, it's exactly what it looks like. Everything in the Trump era is exactly what it fucking looks like. She's scared of impeaching Trump and has made it clear she'll need to be dragged into doing it.  We might be seeing that now, but it sure as hell isn't due to some great secret plan that she's been orchestrating all along.

This is my concern dude.  Even if we get him out, before the election or not, the Dems have shown they aren't willing or capable to stand up to any other shenanigans the Rs will get up to.  There is no going back to the status quo like Biden would like to believe.  This shit is war.  The dotard is just the tip of the iceberg.  If no one enforces the laws, the laws are meaningless.

[sachick 1189]

11 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

 

Won't believe it until I see Pelosi in a news conference.

[DixonHur 11344]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

you voted for donald trump, didn't you. 

Nope, I was a Bernie bro who ended up protesting my choices...including Gary Johnson...by making a write in vote for William Weld. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

you voted for donald trump, didn't you. 

You've got some ground to make up convincing anyone you're "seeing what's actually happening."

 

Dixon Hur didn’t vote against Trump. Dixon Hur is calling folks on the left trumpkins. Dixon Hur is lambasting democratic leadership over timing of impeachment. Dixon Hur is pushing the divide the left narrative that the GOP wants pushed in left leaning threads. Dixon Hur has come out as abstaining from the 2020 election unless a certain candidate wins the Democratic primary, which fits perfectly with GOP effort to suppress the lefts vote.  

What other narratives would the GOP want pushed in these threads?

Edited September 24, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Nope, I was a Bernie bro who ended up protesting my choices...including Gary Johnson...by making a write in vote for William Weld. 

You were a Bernie Bro and thought your best choice was William fucking Weld?

[DixonHur 11344]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You were a Bernie Bro and thought your best choice was William fucking Weld?

Between Trump, Clinton and Johnson?  Yeah.  That's what a protest vote is...it was between him and Mickey Mouse.

[6th Street 6444]

2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

you've got it backwards.  She has held on to her position until has become politically tenable to succeed. 

All the while, they've had a strategy for subpoenas and litigation from the get go that is just now about to start bearing fruit to bury the piece of shit.

She's been playing Todd Orlando 4th quarter defense for the last year.

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Between Trump, Clinton and Johnson?  Yeah.  That's what a protest vote is...it was between him and Mickey Mouse.

Right. So you protested by supporting someone who doesn’t share your values for government in any way? Strange way to protest. 

I completely understand “protest votes”. Seems pretty stupid for your protest vote to literally vote against your own interest

[GW Hayduke 1953]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You were a Bernie Bro and thought your best choice was William fucking Weld?

Dixon Hur voted for a republican in 2016. Dixon Hur is pushing GOP narratives in left leaning threads.  Hmmmmmm

[hayden_horn 11364]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Right. So you protested by supporting someone who doesn’t share your values for government in any way? Strange way to protest. 

I completely understand “protest votes”. Seems pretty stupid for your protest vote to literally vote against your own interest

yeah. writing in bernie sanders is a proper protest vote for an avowed bernie supporter.

[DixonHur 11344]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dixon Hur didn’t vote against Trump.

TBH, I, like most everyone else, thought Hillary would win, and I lived in Texas, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dixon Hur is lambasting democratic leadership over timing of impeachment.

What impeachment?  But yes, put me in the camp with Elizabeth Warren and AOC.

10 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dixon Hur is pushing the divide the left narrative that the GOP wants pushed in left leaning threads.

Um, are they not divided?  Show your work.

10 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dixon Hur has come out as abstaining from the 2020 election unless a certain candidate wins the Democratic primary, which fits perfectly with GOP effort to suppress the lefts vote.  

I'm not part of "the left" and have no obligation to vote for who they want me to vote for...but yes, if it's Biden (aka Hillary 2.0), I might abstain because it show me that the Dems's aren't serious about change.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Reporting out that Pelosi will put a resolution out tomorrow for Impeachment

[GW Hayduke 1953]

How many other accounts on here voted for a republican in 2016 and are constantly on here lambasting the democrats?

[DixonHur 11344]

14 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dixon Hur voted for a republican in 2016. Dixon Hur is pushing GOP narratives in left leaning threads.  Hmmmmmm

Bill Weld was Gary Johnson's running mate...i.e. Libertarian

 

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah. writing in bernie sanders is a proper protest vote for an avowed bernie supporter.

You're probably right, but I decided at the ballot box and William Weld's name was on it as a VP candidate.

14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Right. So you protested by supporting someone who doesn’t share your values for government in any way? Strange way to protest. 

Oh, so now you know the "values for government" that I support.  Please go on...I'm all ears.

Edited September 24, 2019 by DixonHur

[hayden_horn 11364]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

How many other accounts on here voted for a republican in 2016 and are constantly on here lambasting the democrats?

we gotta lotta gary johnson voters on here.

(and i'm actually one of them)

[DixonHur 11344]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

How many other accounts on here voted for a republican in 2016 and are constantly on here lambasting the democrats?

Again, perhaps you should revisit the 2016 election...William Weld was not a GOP candidate.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Again, perhaps you should revisit the 2016 election...William Weld was not a GOP candidate.

Weld is a republican that was running as a libertarian.

Why are you pushing GOP narratives in left leaning threads?

If you are so “upset” with democratic leadership, why won’t you commit to vote against trump?  

Are you ignorant of the fact that the US is a two party democratic system designed to move the country in two directions?

Edited September 24, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[hobbes2702 13049]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Bill Weld was Gary Johnson's running mate...i.e. Libertarian

 

You're probably right, but I decided at the ballot box and William Weld's name was on it as a VP candidate.

Oh, so know you know the "values for government" that I support.  Please go on...I'm all ears.

Well if you were a Bernie bro then I have a pretty good idea what your political ideology is and I’ve got a newsflash for you, William Weld isn’t even fucking close.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we gotta lotta gary johnson voters on here.

(and i'm actually one of them)

Hopefully in 2020 you’ll accept that we are a two party system, Texas might be in play, and it’s a vote either for Trump or for the Dem candidate.

[DixonHur 11344]

9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well if you were a Bernie bro then I have a pretty good idea what your political ideology is and I’ve got a newsflash for you, William Weld isn’t even fucking close.

Wrong....you have no idea, so let me spell it out for you....

I wanted Elizabeth Warren to run, but she didn't so Bernie was a good second choice because I believe the government should set up a strong support network for it's citizens...universal healthcare, free education (including graduate programs), functioning infrastructure, etc.

But I also have strong Libertarian leanings when it comes legalizing drugs (not just MJ, but ALL drugs), immigration, civil liberties, foreign policy, and crime.

In the general I would have voted for Johnson had he not been dumb as a box of rocks.

Edited September 24, 2019 by DixonHur

[SimonBolivar 10958]

16 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we gotta lotta gary johnson voters on here.

(and i'm actually one of them)

Here too. Won't happen again.