ericttspikes
Footballguy
Some are part of it and it’s all normalized. There is a huge vacuum of moral and ethical leadership that hopefully will be addressed in future elections.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Nancy Pelosi thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Mile High
Footballguy
We all are part of the problem. There is no way it can continue like it is with the culture differents that keep getting wider. This country is dead man walking. We need a divorce, staying together for kids sake isn't working.
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/status/1147821322896138240
Pelosi Democrats will happily burn down this nation to the ground and deliver its ashes personally to Donald Trump before allowing honest Democrats to ruin their lucrative oligarchy club.
We cannot defeat Trumpism without defeating the rotten center of US politics first.
Pelosi Democrats will happily burn down this nation to the ground and deliver its ashes personally to Donald Trump before allowing honest Democrats to ruin their lucrative oligarchy club.
We cannot defeat Trumpism without defeating the rotten center of US politics first.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Gopher State
Footballguy
I just wish she could keep AOC under controlren hoek said:
@timschochet this thread is an example of why I don't like the added and changing subtitles. The "stage an intervention" news was from May. Yet it's on page 1 of the forum and people see it and think the discussion is about the quote.
Can you either remove the changing thread title or update the change with a date each time so people don't think it's something new?
Can you either remove the changing thread title or update the change with a date each time so people don't think it's something new?
timschochet
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
When he does it everyday for a couple years straight and starts adding the nodding emoji you'll get some complaints I'm sure
rockaction
Footballguy
Not only that but now Trump and Pelosi are BFF's...will be interesting to see whether the AOC faction doubles down.
"I'll tell you something about Nancy Pelosi that you know better than I do, she is not a racist. OK? She is not a racist. For them to call her a racist is a disgrace," Trump said while speaking to reporters before departing on Marine One.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/index.html
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
She got >110k votes FTR. Your number is for the primary.Gustavo Fring said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, they passed a resolution. THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
sho nuff
Footballguy
Maybe not huge...but pretty much got most House Republicans on record as not condemning racist remarks.Well, they passed a resolution. THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Commish
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Moscow Nancy.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
Pelosi Says Congress Should Pass New Laws So Sitting Presidents Can Be Indicted
This really make my blood boil. (It might be because Spurs lost - but this really makes me angry).
I actually see the benefits in not indicting a sitting president - not that they should be above the law, but because the president should not be distracted by a criminal case against him.
If Pelosi believes that Trump committed an indictable offense - she should do her ####### job and submit articles of impeachment. That is the solution to the President committing crimes. Remove him from office, and then indict. None of this passing the buck to the DOJ to do the hard work for Congress.
This really make my blood boil. (It might be because Spurs lost - but this really makes me angry).
I actually see the benefits in not indicting a sitting president - not that they should be above the law, but because the president should not be distracted by a criminal case against him.
If Pelosi believes that Trump committed an indictable offense - she should do her ####### job and submit articles of impeachment. That is the solution to the President committing crimes. Remove him from office, and then indict. None of this passing the buck to the DOJ to do the hard work for Congress.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yeah she is being as spineless as Republicans who are upset by something Trump has done and get over it in minutes.
If only there were some remedy available in situations where a President commits crimes...
Mitch McConnell has destroyed a number of procedural norms for partisan gain, but he has not destroyed anything as constitutionally important as impeachment itself.
Pelosi is destroying impeachment. If the whistleblower thing is not immediately impeachable, if that’s the new precedent we’re setting, then nothing is ever impeachable. Establishing that nothing is ever impeachable is a big deal.
One might object that Pelosi is not doing it specifically to protect Trump, intentionally ennabling his corruption; she’s just making a political calculation about what’s best for her party. So “Moscow Nancy” is unfair in a way that “Moscow Mitch” is not.
I disagree. McConnell doesn’t care about Trump either, except as a means to an end. When McConnell protects Trump, it’s not because he’s personally loyal to Putin’s hand-picked puppet. He’s just making a political calculation about what’s best for his own party.
Same as Pelosi is doing.
I have little doubt that they both think they’re doing what’s best for the country, not just what’s best for their own party (perhaps because they are unable to see a difference between the two).
From where I sit, they both seem to be wrong about that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insomniac
Footballguy
What good does impeachment do if there is no possibility of removing Trump from office? No matter what evidence there is, no matter how strong the case, none of the Republicans in the Senate will vote to convict. Maybe there is some point for future historians to see who stood where.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
What good does giving Merrick Garland hearings and an up-or-down vote do if a majority of Senators is unlikely to confirm him anyway?
cosjobs
Footballguy
Seriously, why should she jeopardize any of her own party's standing, when she can sit back and watch this admin destroy itself?
timschochet
Footballguy
I’ve defended Pelosi on plenty of occasions. I think she’s one of the best and most effective speakers in the history of this country.
I can’t defend her here. She’s chosen to put party over country. Permanent black mark on her legacy unless something changes.
I can’t defend her here. She’s chosen to put party over country. Permanent black mark on her legacy unless something changes.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Republicans aren't going to cooperate with this and she's worried that this will hurt their chances of defeating him.
I don't think this impacts the campaign like she may, but I understand why she doesn't want this becoming a circus and letting the clowns of her party put on a show that may turn independents.
timschochet
Footballguy
I understand it too. What’s she’s doing, from a political standpoint, makes total sense.
But when Pelosi took the oath of office, she didn’t say “I swear to protect the Democratic Party from failure and embarrassment and political loss in future elections,•; she swore to protect the Constitution. In the event of a conflict between these two goals, her sworn duty is to the latter, even if it destroys her party or her career.
That one guy
Footballguy
If Trump & Co broke the law and/or acted extra-constitutionally, impeachment is the sole remedy. Voting is the remedy for policy disagreements. All this hemming and hawing over Trump violating this and that law, well, quit complaining and do what you (the House) are constitutionally charged with doing. If he didn’t break the law, then shut up and start passing legislation regardless of how you think the Senate or President will respond...push your agenda AND enforce the constitution. Should you not because it might not be politically expedient, well the “rule of law” means nothing to either party
Insomniac
Footballguy
In terms of results it doesn't appear that it would have made any difference.. I believe Garland would have been voted down on party lines. In 2016 as far as I can tell this had no impact on the election.
I will concede that for myself, a vote on Garland or an impeachment followed by a party line acquittal of a Trump impeachment would confirm my opinion of the lack of character of the GOP members of the Senate. That's not worth a lot, even to me. Several people, including yourself, have pointed out excellent reasons he deserves impeachment and removal from office.
To my mind the most important thing is to defeat Trump in the next election. I think an impeachment followed by a Senate acquittal would result in Trump declaring victory/vindication and using that victory to help his chances to win re-election. I'll concede that may not be the actual result of a failed impeachment.
You didn't answer my question. What positive result comes from an impeachment followed by a Senate acquittal?
JB Breakfast Club
Footballguy
There is a non-zero chance that Nancy rips off a mask to reveal that she's been Mitch McConnell's long lost twin brother this whole time.
JB Breakfast Club
Footballguy
Trump doesn't care about laws...we get that, but he cares about his brand. Impeachment hearings are about dragging the Trump brand. Drag his finances. Drag his morals. Drag Trump in primetime hearings...bring in separated families and broke farmers. Litigate via a team of women, minorities, and LGBTQ attorneys.
Drag out all of the disgusting un-American things he's done. If Republicans stand by him after that, well, that's on them.
ren hoek
Footballguy
The time to impeach was Day 1 of Trump ripping families apart, or his support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen, or all the water he's carried for Netanyahu's Israel, or any number of crimes and misdemeanors that didn't require them to sit it out for 2 years waiting for Mueller to deliver an impeachment fantasy based on a halfbaked conspiracy theory. Now impeachment just looks like a timid political calculation. What's worse, Trump or his pretend opposition party? It's hard to tell the difference anymore.
sho nuff
Footballguy
The problem is they already know all those things and don't care.
IMO if they drag out all that stuff it hurts democrats. Taxes and morals wont work. Emoluments, using the office for personal gain, obstruction of justice and the latest whistleblower stuff.
Going after all the personal crap will turn people off.
I think it's worth signaling that one out of two chambers of the legislature cares about the rule of law, rather than zero out of two.
Kyle Griffin . @kylegriffin1
Pelosi to lawmakers: "If the Admin persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing... 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."
I feel like a "sternly worded" message is coming up next. I have no idea where she goes from there.
Pelosi to lawmakers: "If the Admin persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing... 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."
I feel like a "sternly worded" message is coming up next. I have no idea where she goes from there.
Insomniac
Footballguy
I understand your position, you place a high value on the rule of law and want a society based on it. That's a nice dream, but unfortunately that's all it is anymore.
If one side proves they do not care, at all, about the rule of law what's the value of the other side sgnalinging that they do?
.
Similar threads
