Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The Nancy Pelosi thread

Recommended Posts

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to assume that the Democrats wincontrol of the House of Representatives in November. If they fail to do so, it’s a whole different conversation. 

 

This is bound to be unpopular with a lot of people here, conservatives and liberals alike. Earlier this year, I wrote that, regrettably, the Democrats needed to move on from Pelosi: she was being villainized by the Right, and we needed new, younger faces to lead the party. Over the months I’ve come to reconsider that position, and last night, after I read about a speech Pelosi just gave in which I found myself agreeing with her 100%, I changed my mind completely and am now for her. Here’s what she said: 

1. When asked about what her priorities would be after the election, assuming the Democrats win the House, she said, first: lowering health care costs. Second, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure. Third , resolving the immigration issue. And then she mentioned gun control. 

2. When asked how much she would cooperate with the White House, she said she hopes to a lot, on whatever issues they can agree on. She is absolutely opposed to a “scorched earth” policy. 

3. When asked about impeachment, she said that until and unless Robert Mueller delivers a clear indictment of the President, it was premature to even discuss it. And she has no interest in impeaching Brett Kavanaugh. 

 

I am convinced that this is the correct way to govern, both for the Democratic Party and the nation. It would only help Trump’s 2020 chances if the Dems go nuclear against him, or if they attempt to impeach him based on murky or unclear evidence (which, let’s face it, would fail in the Senate anyhow.) Of course since climate change is such a big concern I wish she had mentioned it, but she knows that nothing is to be done until and unless Democrats win all 3 houses, which is not going to happen in 2018. 

I know people will ask me, why shouldn’t she treat Trump the way that McConnell and the Republicans treated Obama? My answer is: because its bad for the country. It was bad then and it’s bad now. If Trump is willing to work with the Democrats on healthcare, on infrastructure, on immigration, let him. If he refuses let it be on him. This is the way to win in 2020. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are an easy sell - everything in her first point is awesome, it is a wonder no one has ever trotted out those items before. It is not just her - every politician does this.  Oh for the political courage to lay out a detailed plan  instead of platitudes.  I don't even like her that much but I could buy off on her top 4 priorities, even though we might differ ideologically on what each of those four solutions would look like.

Point 2 - I love the idea of bi-partisanship; but I am not sure what that looks like in practice.  Half the time I think they just live to get under each others skin, principles be damned.

Point 3 - agreed - barring whatever thresh hold is required, loose talk of impeachment of anyone does nothing to pave the way for bipartisanship or effective governance.

As for climate change - why not demand that be in her platform - enough like minded individuals should be able to shape a national platform.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I know people will ask me, why shouldn’t she treat Trump the way that McConnell and the Republicans treated Obama? My answer is: because its bad for the country. It was bad then and it’s bad now. If Trump is willing to work with the Democrats on healthcare, on infrastructure, on immigration, let him. If he refuses let it be on him. This is the way to win in 2020. 

Actually it will be worse for the country in the long run, because Trump will take credit and be perceived as a uniter, unlike Obama (except the 8 years of GOP obstruction will be overlooked or forgotten). The end result will be a Trump election in 2020 and if you think things are bad now, just wait until he is lame duck.

Scorched earth is the way Pelosi should go. Just my :2cents:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Democrats need a new face, Pelosi should go.

This is what I thought too. But I think we will get that in 2020. Pelosi isn’t running for President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good of her to try to take the high road, but I'm a firm believer in term limits.  We need fresh blood and new ideas, not some career politician who has been part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. Know-It-All said:

You are an easy sell - everything in her first point is awesome, it is a wonder no one has ever trotted out those items before. It is not just her - every politician does this.  Oh for the political courage to lay out a detailed plan  instead of platitudes.  I don't even like her that much but I could buy off on her top 4 priorities, even though we might differ ideologically on what each of those four solutions would look like.

Point 2 - I love the idea of bi-partisanship; but I am not sure what that looks like in practice.  Half the time I think they just live to get under each others skin, principles be damned.

Point 3 - agreed - barring whatever thresh hold is required, loose talk of impeachment of anyone does nothing to pave the way for bipartisanship or effective governance.

As for climate change - why not demand that be in her platform - enough like minded individuals should be able to shape a national platform.

 

I’m worried that, because action on climate change involves sacrifice without clear and immediate results, it will never be an issue that politicians can successfully campaign on- it’s one of those issues that responsible politicians have to do once they’re in office. The problem is that Republicans have abandoned all adult conversation on this issue- which means that in order for action to happen, we’re going to need Democratic majorities in all 3 houses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

It's good of her to try to take the high road, but I'm a firm believer in term limits.  We need fresh blood and new ideas, not some career politician who has been part of the problem.

Pelosi was a very effective legislator when she was Speaker. It would be a big mistake to dump her for "fresh blood".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, squistion said:

Actually it will be worse for the country in the long run, because Trump will take credit and be perceived as a uniter, unlike Obama (except the 8 years of GOP obstruction will be overlooked or forgotten). The end result will be a Trump election in 2020 and if you think things are bad now, just wait until he is lame duck.

Scorched earth is the way Pelosi should go. Just my :2cents:

If that your biggest concern that is very sad.   Lets burn down everything if you think Trump will get credit for anything. If the dems get the house and things are better in the USA who cares who takes credit.  I don`t care what perception Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter had.

Tim is right. We have to move on eventually.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I agree with the message but it’s the wrong messenger, IMO.

this

26 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Democrats need a new face, Pelosi should go.

and this

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:
30 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Democrats need a new face, Pelosi should go.

This is what I thought too. But I think we will get that in 2020. Pelosi isn’t running for President. 

She is a good minority leader just not good majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Platitudes without plans, specific plans, are worthless, just politician speak, easily learned by a child and easily rattled off.  Me, I am suspicious that legislation ever lowers costs, it may shift costs, but lower, I suppose if it repeals burdensome regulatory prior legislation, but otherwise, no, no politician has ever produced anything.  I do not know what resolving the immigration issue is or would be, closed borders draconianly enforced would more or less solve the issue as there would be none, but I am pretty sure that is not what you want.  Addressing gun control is an expression devoid of meaning absent a plan. 

She touts cooperation, if the Whitehouse agrees with her.  I cooperate with folks who acquiesce all the time, what about when they don't.  I find no meaning here.

So, no impeachment, unless it looks like it may take hold.  Seems prudent for a politician but again she tells me little or nothing here.

 

I am surprised that a student of history, such as yourself, has learned nothing from the history of campaign promises, particularly empty ones.  Still, if you are excited to see her return to leadership, a role where she previously accomplished relatively little, well, its no skin off of my back.  Its not like she would be worse than what we have now, or what we previously had.  Me, I am hoping we can all set the bar a bit higher, but we need more degradation and utter hopelessness before we are ready for real change, not just a swing back and forth on the same dysfunctional pendulum.

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate should be number 1 but then she's one of the people who loves them some fossil fuel money. Still doesn't support Medicare for All screw the 70%+ of Democratic voters that do. Everybody tosses out infrastructure which is a need but doesn't take any political courage or offend any donors. The Democrats sold the Dreamers out already really have no faith in these leaders on immigration. And lastly we mention gun control something with bipartisan support but might take some courage. Believe it when I see it.

It's past time for some new leadership.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Da Guru said:

If that your biggest concern that is very sad.   Lets burn down everything if you think Trump will get credit for anything. If the dems get the house and things are better in the USA who cares who takes credit.  

Tim is right. We have to move on eventually.

I agree with this but what’s good for the nation is not my only intention here: I disagree with squistion about tactics as well- I don’t think a “unifier Trump” helps him in 2020. I think scorched earth by Democrats helps Trump in 2020. 

My biggest fear is that Mueller issues a report that liberals think condemns Trump and conservatives do not, and then the House, pushed by the Democratic base, impeaches Trump, and it fails in the Senate. To me that’s the best chance for Trump to be re-elected. Look at 1998- if that had been Clinton’s 1st term, he would have won again in 2000, because the public was more disgusted by the impeachment than they were by Clinton lying. I can easily see the same thing happen again. 

Now don’t get me wrong: if Mueller has clear cut evidence of wrongdoing, then you have to pursue impeachment and screw politics. But  I’m skeptical that will be the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Platitudes without plans, specific plans, are worthless, just politician speak, easily learned by a child and easily rattled off.  Me, I am suspicious that legislation ever lowers costs, it may shift costs, but lower, I suppose if it repeals burdensome regulatory prior legislation, but otherwise, no, no politician has ever produced anything.  I do not know what resolving the immigration issue is or would be, closed borders draconianly enforced would more or less solve the issue as there would be none, but I am pretty sure that is not what you want.  Addressing gun control is an expression devoid of meaning absent a plan. 

She touts cooperation, if the Whitehouse agrees with her.  I cooperate with folks who acquiesce all the time, what about when they don't.  I find no meaning here.

So, no impeachment, unless it looks like it may take hold.  Seems prudent for a politician but again she tells me little or nothing here.

 

I am surprised that a student of history, such as yourself, has learned nothing from the history of campaign promises, particularly empty ones.  Still, if you are excited to see her return to leadership, a role were she previously accomplished relatively little, well, its no skin off of my back.  Its not like she would be worse than what we have now, or what we previously had.  Me, I am hoping we can all set the bar a bit higher, but we need more degradation and utter hopelessness before we are ready for real change, not just a swing back and forth on the same dysfunctional pendulum.

 

I don’t disagree with you here but I’m not so concerned with the vague language, which is probably necessary for prior to election. She has proven, between 2007 and 2010, that she is a good and very effective legislator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, toshiba said:

She is a good minority leader just not good majority.

This simply she isn’t true. She was the most effective Speaker, arguably, since Sam Rayburn. I would actually argue that the opposite is true- I don’t think she’s been particularly effective as a minority leader. She is a better legislator than politician, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:
11 minutes ago, toshiba said:

She is a good minority leader just not good majority.

This simply she isn’t true. She was the most effective Speaker, arguably, since Sam Rayburn. I would actually argue that the opposite is true- I don’t think she’s been particularly effective as a minority leader. She is a better legislator than politician, IMO. 

I am glad you are the arbiter of opinion.  As a life long democrat I will take your belief that you hold the exclusive rights to fact on what makes a good leader of a majority Democrat house here as a load of garbage!  

Edited by toshiba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Climate should be number 1 but then she's one of the people who loves them some fossil fuel money. Still doesn't support Medicare for All screw the 70%+ of Democratic voters that do. Everybody tosses out infrastructure which is a need but doesn't take any political courage or offend any donors. The Democrats sold the Dreamers out already really have no faith in these leaders on immigration. And lastly we mention gun control something with bipartisan support but might take some courage. Believe it when I see it.

It's past time for some new leadership.  

1. I already explained why I don’t think action on climate change is doable until we have a Democratic President. 

2. Same with Medicare for All. Do you really think thats going to happen in 2019? 

I know what your goals are, NC. The Republican politicians are completely opposed to all of them. You need Democrats to win all 3 Houses. What is the best way to achieve that goal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I am glad you are the arbiter of opinion.  As a life long democrat I will take your belief that you hold the exclusive rights to fact on what makes a good leader of a majority house here as a load of garbage!  

Lol. Is this supposed to be a reasoned argument against me? I am the arbiter of my own opinion. And yes I am a new Democrat. Does your lifelong affiliation give you more legitimacy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:
11 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Climate should be number 1 but then she's one of the people who loves them some fossil fuel money. Still doesn't support Medicare for All screw the 70%+ of Democratic voters that do. Everybody tosses out infrastructure which is a need but doesn't take any political courage or offend any donors. The Democrats sold the Dreamers out already really have no faith in these leaders on immigration. And lastly we mention gun control something with bipartisan support but might take some courage. Believe it when I see it.

It's past time for some new leadership.  

1. I already explained why I don’t think action on climate change is doable until we have a Democratic President. 

2. Same with Medicare for All. Do you really think thats going to happen in 2019? 

I know what your goals are, NC. The Republican politicians are completely opposed to all of them. You need Democrats to win all 3 Houses. What is the best way to achieve that goal? 

This is why you can take you pragmatic middle of the road garbage and make sure you call it the opinion it is.  Pelosi may align with this passive way to lead but it is an opinion that it is the best way.  So before you claim your opinion as fact you need to check yourself and realize calling an opinion fact doesn't make it so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:
5 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I am glad you are the arbiter of opinion.  As a life long democrat I will take your belief that you hold the exclusive rights to fact on what makes a good leader of a majority house here as a load of garbage!  

Lol. Is this supposed to be a reasoned argument against me? I am the arbiter of my own opinion. And yes I am a new Democrat. Does your lifelong affiliation give you more legitimacy? 

Then before you say "[something] simply isn't so". clarify you are speaking from a point of opinion and not fact!

Edited by toshiba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with this but what’s good for the nation is not my only intention here: I disagree with squistion about tactics as well- I don’t think a “unifier Trump” helps him in 2020. I think scorched earth by Democrats helps Trump in 2020

How did scorched earth by Republicans during 8 years of Obama hurt them?

Answer: It didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with this but what’s good for the nation is not my only intention here: I disagree with squistion about tactics as well- I don’t think a “unifier Trump” helps him in 2020. I think scorched earth by Democrats helps Trump in 2020

How did scorched earth by Republicans during 8 years of Obama hurt them?

Answer: It didn't.

You're right! It led to Trump :( 

Edited by toshiba
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

1. I already explained why I don’t think action on climate change is doable until we have a Democratic President. 

2. Same with Medicare for All. Do you really think thats going to happen in 2019? 

I know what your goals are, NC. The Republican politicians are completely opposed to all of them. You need Democrats to win all 3 Houses. What is the best way to achieve that goal? 

You know how you get things and energize your voters Tim? You flight for the right policies and you don't just do it when it's easy. You do it every day until you get it. Medicare for all was pie in the sky radical lefty stuff 2 years ago now a majority of Republican voters support it. That's how you move policy Tim. And that's how you change majorities.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NCCommish said:
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

1. I already explained why I don’t think action on climate change is doable until we have a Democratic President. 

2. Same with Medicare for All. Do you really think thats going to happen in 2019? 

I know what your goals are, NC. The Republican politicians are completely opposed to all of them. You need Democrats to win all 3 Houses. What is the best way to achieve that goal? 

You know how you get things and energize your voters Tim? You flight for the right policies and you don't just do it when it's easy. You do it every day until you get it. Medicare for all was pie in the sky radical lefty stuff 2 years ago now a majority of Republican voters support it. That's how you move policy Tim. And that's how you change majoritie

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toshiba said:

You're right! It led to Trump :( 

And Neil Gorsuch instead of Merick Garland.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with this but what’s good for the nation is not my only intention here: I disagree with squistion about tactics as well- I don’t think a “unifier Trump” helps him in 2020. I think scorched earth by Democrats helps Trump in 2020. 

My biggest fear is that Mueller issues a report that liberals think condemns Trump and conservatives do not, and then the House, pushed by the Democratic base, impeaches Trump, and it fails in the Senate. To me that’s the best chance for Trump to be re-elected. Look at 1998- if that had been Clinton’s 1st term, he would have won again in 2000, because the public was more disgusted by the impeachment than they were by Clinton lying. I can easily see the same thing happen again. 

Now don’t get me wrong: if Mueller has clear cut evidence of wrongdoing, then you have to pursue impeachment and screw politics. But  I’m skeptical that will be the case. 

At this point Trump is never going to be a unifier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s stopping her from working with. The President on infrastructure and immigration now?  Past year and a half?...what will make the next two years any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am skeptical about the ability of any 78 year old to see the future and to position the country for the future.  In my limited experience it is far more likely that they will want to fight the battles of the past.  It is one thing to consult experience, it is another to be trapped by it.  Time to move on, in my opinion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I agree with the message but it’s the wrong messenger, IMO.

This is probably right.  She has been there so long and is pretty demonized.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rove! said:

What’s stopping her from working with. The President on infrastructure and immigration now?  Past year and a half?...what will make the next two years any different?

The GOP's implementation of the Hastert Rule.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

This is probably right.  She has been there so long and is pretty demonized.

Neither of these are good reasons to get rid of her, or anyone, if they're doing a good job. What supports the case that she has not done a good job representing her constituents and hasn't improved the overall state of the nation? NCCommish mentioned that she takes money from oil companies and hasn't supported single payer healthcare. What else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

 

Scorched earth is the way Pelosi should go. Just my :2cents:

 

Thanks. Can you describe in detail what a Scorched Earth type policy by Democrats would look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Can you describe in detail what a Scorched Earth type policy by Democrats would look like?

Tim was referring to using the same obstructionist tactics and lack of reaching across the aisle that was shown during the 8 years of the Obama Administration. And Republicans paid no penalty for that at all, in fact, they ended up with controlling all three branches of government, plus stealing the Garland seat by not allowing his nomination to move forward.

Tim wants the Democrats to play nice and I say all that will accomplish will be to give Trump legitimacy as a uniter and being reelected in 2020 with more disasterous consequences to follow.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Neither of these are good reasons to get rid of her, or anyone, if they're doing a good job. What supports the case that she has not done a good job representing her constituents and hasn't improved the overall state of the nation? NCCommish mentioned that she takes money from oil companies and hasn't supported single payer healthcare. What else?

I'm not saying she should be gotten rid of, but I would (depending on the candidates) prefer someone else for Speaker.  I have a lot of respect for her and give her a lot of credit for dragging Obamacare over the finish line.

I just think it is difficult for any woman so vilified to effectively lead the House with the rampant sexism coming out of the Administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel about this the same way I feel about opposing red light cameras here in NO> When the Dems decide to put in a new SOTH and if they pick someone who will be popular and who can offer to speak for Congress as a whole and in a way that people like it will be genius and they will do well in elections. I really feel that way. Now I realize and expect they will do well in these midterms even with Pelosi but I just offer that idea free.

I think Gingrich sort of did this in 1994 - before he really became The Newt - and it worked well then. Of course a lot of bad stuff went down after that and well here we are, but what he did do was run on a single agenda presented in a coherent fashion. I wish someone decent would try it, with a decent agenda, and then mean it whence they got the position.

But ultimately fundraising and control and execution of the legislative calendar is the most important thing in reality and thus it is and shall likely always be.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slapdash said:

I just think it is difficult for any woman so vilified to effectively lead the House with the rampant sexism coming out of the Administration.

I think that's exactly the reason you need to keep her there. You can't capitulate to bullying, crass insults and lies. If she's objectively bad at her job, then she should go. But you can't let baseless noise and character assassination force people out. That just rewards miserable behavior and may cost you effective representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, squistion said:

Tim was referring to using the same obstructionist tactics and lack of reaching across the aisle that was shown during the 8 years of the Obama Administration. And Republicans paid no penalty for that all, in fact, they ended up with controlling all three branches of government, plus stealing the Garland seat by not allowing his nomination to move forward.

Tim wants the Democrats to play nice and I say all that will accomplish will be to give Trump legitimacy as a uniter and being reelected in 2020 with more disasterous consequences to follow.

Thanks for clarifying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

Isn’t it a foregone conclusion Rep. Tim Ryan (OH) is going take over?

:no:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I'm not saying she should be gotten rid of, but I would (depending on the candidates) prefer someone else for Speaker.  I have a lot of respect for her and give her a lot of credit for dragging Obamacare over the finish line.

I just think it is difficult for any woman so vilified to effectively lead the House with the rampant sexism coming out of the Administration.

Not to argue for her, but perhaps she would be a great foil for such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I think that's exactly the reason you need to keep her there. You can't capitulate to bullying, crass insults and lies. If she's objectively bad at her job, then she should go. But you can't let baseless noise and character assassination force people out. That just rewards miserable behavior and may cost you effective representatives.

You make a persuasive point, but we are in uncharted waters here though.  We are dealing with a demagogue in the Oval Office that our system is not built to handle.  I don't know if continuing to serve up targets that already resonate with his base is productive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

I’m worried that, because action on climate change involves sacrifice without clear and immediate results, it will never be an issue that politicians can successfully campaign on- it’s one of those issues that responsible politicians have to do once they’re in office. The problem is that Republicans have abandoned all adult conversation on this issue- which means that in order for action to happen, we’re going to need Democratic majorities in all 3 houses. 

Excellent podcast about this subject on the Weeds the past few days.   Link - America's Moral failure on climate change

Edited by tommyGunZ
ETA link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I see from the Democrats, Pelosi taking a reasonable cooperative tact will ensure she doesn't become Speaker - assuming the Democrats do win the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toshiba said:

I am glad you are the arbiter of opinion.  As a life long democrat I will take your belief that you hold the exclusive rights to fact on what makes a good leader of a majority Democrat house here as a load of garbage!  

I'm fine with new leadership if that leadership understands how Congress works.  If new leadership means someone of the NCC ilk, where it's my way or the highway, count me out.

Also, I second tim's point about Pelosi being a historically good majority leader.  When Democrats needed the votes the past 20 years, Nancy delivered them in the House better than anyone in recent history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

You make a persuasive point, but we are in uncharted waters here though.  We are dealing with a demagogue in the Oval Office that our system is not built to handle.  I don't know if continuing to serve up targets that already resonate with his base is productive. 

At some point you have to figure out how to respond to such an environment. I don't think bending over and taking it is a winning strategy. Keep it clean, but don't give in. Rewarding these tantrums just encourages more tantrums. Pelosi isn't perfect, but you don't kick her to the curb just because the Republican griefers are barking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

At some point you have to figure out how to respond to such an environment. I don't think bending over and taking it is a winning strategy. Keep it clean, but don't give in. Rewarding these tantrums just encourages more tantrums. Pelosi isn't perfect, but you don't kick her to the curb just because the Republican griefers are barking.

Despite being an effective leader in the past, she lost her majority pretty handily.  Politics matter too.  Being deeply unpopular with the GOP contributed to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slapdash said:
3 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

At some point you have to figure out how to respond to such an environment. I don't think bending over and taking it is a winning strategy. Keep it clean, but don't give in. Rewarding these tantrums just encourages more tantrums. Pelosi isn't perfect, but you don't kick her to the curb just because the Republican griefers are barking.

Despite being an effective leader in the past, she lost her majority pretty handily.  Politics matter too.  Being deeply unpopular with the GOP contributed to that. 

Small correction in my opinion.  I would say "Being deeply unpopular contributed to that. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.