The Commish
Footballguy
I think he can try, but it would certainly end up in the courts. That's not how budgets in this country typically work.
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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
JohnnyU
Footballguy
if it ended up at the Supreme Court doesn't that favor Trump?
Question: When Obama signed an executive order for DACA did that go to the Supreme Court? Are executive orders subject to the courts? I don't know.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't know if it favors him or not. I don't see why it would, but I don't know. Yes, Donnie's already had several EOs rejected. I don't know if the DACA order was ever tested at the SC. Our lawyer guys could probably tell you. I know it's been challenged in court and it's remained. I just don't know if it got the the SC or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I did some reading and yes, the judiciary can hold the President in check on executive orders, but I haven't found anything yet whether that applies if the President uses national security / national emergency as the reason for the executive order.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Reminder to my liberal friends, here is Nancy Pelosi's "On the Issues" score, which takes into account data points based decades of her actions, statements, positions, etc: Left Liberal
Perhaps we should save the friendly fire for conservatives?
Perhaps we should save the friendly fire for conservatives?
I suspect the 2022 thing is like when an older coach gets a two-year extension knowing he will probably leave after one, just so he can avoid lame-duck status and leave on his own terms.Sheriff Bart said:
Whatever happens, the landscape after the 2020 elections will be very different. If a Dem wins the White House, I'm sure there will be a lot of pressure to bring in a new Speaker and wipe the slate clean (plus Pelosi can only play the "there's no one else" card so many times; eventually it will be obvious that she's just stalling). Meanwhile, if Trump wins there will also be huge pressure from the Dem base to start over. And if Trump wins and Dems lose the House, she'll be sent to an internment camp and the problem will resolve itself #gallowshumor
I think what has to be painful is when Fox News Laura Ingraham calls the President out for falsely claiming the wall is being built and says no wall is being built. Or better yet hearing Ann Coulter say what does the President think his supporters are dumb? (We know no wall has been or is being built)
Frankly I don’t know why you press Trump on this lie when his supporters have believed thousands of other lies.... I think you should go all in and believe it all. If you were fine with him guaranteeing that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, why get all wound up about another pack of Trump BS?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/12/1818771/-FOX-News-amp-Ann-Coulter-Pile-On-Trump-for-Lying-that-His-Border-Wall-Is-Already-Being-Built
Last edited by a moderator:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
She didn't repeat herself, at least not on the subject of having enough votes in the Senate. You are laughing at something that didn't happen.
Also, Pelosi used that exchange to emphasize Trump's lack of support in Congress, as well as his weakness when it comes to one of his alleged selling points (the art of negotiation). She was basically saying "If you're so good at negotiation, why don't you get the House to pass it and then use public pressure and your famous negotiating skills to make a deal in the Senate?" She was rubbing in the fact that Trump is completely incapable of pulling that off. And she got him to basically admit it on camera.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I'm all for the new blood taking over, but the truth is Trump would steamroll a wet behind the ears kid. There is a reason Pelosi is hated by the right, she is good at what she does. I hate Mitch McConnell with a passion, but admit he is damn good at what he does too. Pelosi is the perfect person at this moment in history to be speaker.
Gopher State
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
Franknbeans
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Correct. The Green Party had a chance to help prevent the Trump presidency, and they didn't take it because they inexplicably thought a right wing populist real estate developer/career fraud who has never shown even a hint of concern for the environment or long-term planning generally wouldn't be any worse for the environment than a lifelong public servant with a long history of supporting center-left environmental policies. They ####ed up royally and helped cause incalculable harm to the environment, which is supposed to be their big issue. If they're not ashamed of themselves for that, they should be.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
at the risk of repeating myself... you gotta give them something to vote for.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Green Party voters made a decision, the potential consequences of which were abundantly clear to anyone who was paying even the slightest bit of attention to the issues they claim to care about. No amount of meaningless blame-shifting changes that very simple and indisputable fact. Hillary Clinton running a crappy campaign doesn't change it. Clinton also being somewhat to the right of Ed Begley Jr. on the environment doesn't change it.
Everyone is entitled to vote for whomever they like, and certainly if candidates don't get support we can look at the reasons why. But that doesn't absolve voters from responsibility for their decisions. These things are not mutually exclusive. Especially in cases like this, where the potential negative consequences (with respect to both the Green Party's supposedly central issue and more broadly) were massive and incredibly obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
It's not the voters fault that Hillary did not give them something to vote for. She didn't earn their vote. Plain and simple.
That's not their fault. It's hers.
That's not their fault. It's hers.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Again, this is just empty nonsense that people tell themselves to avoid confronting the consequences of their actions. If you are choosing between doing A and B, and everyone is telling you that if you choose B some really really bad things might happen, and you choose B anyway, blaming A for not being an attractive enough option to convince you not to choose B is pretty silly.
Imagine this nonsense logic in other situations. "I wanted Tom Brady to be our quarterback, but my only options were Mitch Trubisky and letting a bunch of crazy old people pick our team's QB, so don't blame me every time 84 year old Bart Starr is too weak to field a snap. If Trubisky wanted my support he shouldn't have thrown 12 interceptions!"
Many, many people are responsible for Trump being President, to varying degrees. Clinton is one of them, and she deserves a lot of blame. Green Party leadership and third party voters are, too. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Certainly neither of these deserves nearly as much blame as the people who actually voted for and supported Trump, but that doesn't change the obvious connection between the decisions of the Green Party and third-party voters and the consequences of those decisions.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
It's also true.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I disagree, but even if it is is true, so what? That doesn't nullify the basic fact that voters make decisions and should be accountable for the consequences of those decisions, particularly if those potential consequences are incredibly obvious before the election.
It's Mitch Trubisky's fault he put up merely average numbers this year. But if someone said you can either choose Trubisky or stubbornly whining about not having Tom Brady while a bunch of old people pick Bart Starr, Trubisky's merely average numbers don't make the latter option any less silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
So what? I have yet to see the Democrats take any kind of meaningful stock as to why they lost the election. All they do is blame everyone else for their own missteps (Russia, anyone?). Unfortunately, all that will serve to do is enable the next crap candidate to come forward.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I totally disagree with this post, and I'm baffled that you seem to have missed the entire midterm election and the Dem messaging on health care and other progressive priorities. Also, Democratic leadership barely mentions Russia. It probably wouldn't crack a list of the 10 issues they discussed the most over the last two years. I don't know where you get your news, but you should think about changing.
But even if it's true, it still doesn't make what I said any less true. In fact your post is kind of hypocritical. By blaming other people (people who have already shouldered a ton of blame, btw) for the clear and obvious consequences of your/third party voters/the Green Party's own decisions, all you're doing is blaming everyone else for your own missteps. Unless perhaps you/they are happy with the Trump presidency? If so, congratulations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
The only clear and obvious consequence is that Hillary did not earn enough votes. Again, that is not the voter's fault despite your objections. It is squarely on her and her campaign. I'm with her. What the F is that BS? She's with us would have been much better. At least she's honest. It was all about her. We seem to forget that they are elected into office to serve us, not the other way around.
By the way, I didn't miss anything and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to talk down to me. This isn't the first time and it's getting old.
By the way, I didn't miss anything and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to talk down to me. This isn't the first time and it's getting old.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
I applaud yours and others efforts to do so.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Take an issue; say the environment. Primaries are over. There are two viable choices to actually win the presidency in our two party system (viable based on polling come election day) and one is a climate change denier and pro environmental reg rollback and voter either doesn't vote or votes for an ivory tower pure candidate polling in single digits, then it really is their fault for not caring about the issue they claim to care about most. Progressive purity was also a wedge issue exploited and amplified by the right and some voters bought it. Wouldn't surprise me if Jill Stein was a right wing plant, at the very least she served them well.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Apologies if the tone rubs you the wrong way, but if you honestly think Democratic leadership didn't take a hard look at 2016 and adjust their messaging (successfully so far, btw) and you think they're just blaming Russia even though they barely bring it up, then you did miss quite a bit. I wish there was a gentler way to put that, but there isn't.
And as I've said repeatedly now, Clinton's failings don't absolve voters of the consequences of their actions. Nobody is suggesting she's blameless. What we're saying- and frankly it's so self-evident I can't believe we're even debating it- is that one person's failings don't render everyone else blameless for their own decisions.
Applying your logic to literally any other situation makes this absurdity of your approach pretty clear. If you didn't like the football analogy, choose literally any other hypothetical where you have a choice between a practical but imperfect option and demanding perfection even though you know your obstinance may pave the way for the worst possible decision instead of the practical, imperfect one. It doesn't really matter how legitimate your criticisms of the practical, imperfect option may be. You can trash that option 24/7/365 if you like. It doesn't change the irrefutable fact that when you make a decision (as every eligible voter does in a democracy, even the ones who stay home), and you deserve some blame for the consequences of that decision.
timschochet
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
NREC34
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm fine with that. These are mostly good people, and FranknBeans is definitely good people. They mostly believe in the right things in my experience, and have maybe (IMO) gotten a little sidetracked and irrational, which is totally understandable in the Trump era. Maybe they don't want to accept what Trump's win says about our country and their/my generation, which is also totally understandable. I'd put the Glenn Greenwald types in the same boat.
There's an old political saying: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." If the Republicans are gonna fall in line behind the worst thing to happen to this country since segregation, we need as many of the people as possibly who generally believe in the right things to do the same, even if they're not in love.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Yeah, I certainly think they are more than likely good folks like Frankbbeans, but they usually don't listen to reason about some stuff thats all.
ren hoek
Footballguy
The reasonable position, of course, is falling in line behind corporate Democrats because Trump sucks. That's always the responsible position. It's always an appeal based on fear of the worst possible outcome. Some sort of incrementalism that might eventually circle its way back to actually giving a #### about the voters. Look at Trump, look at how bad he is! You don't want Trump again do you? How about this cool trendy guy financed by some oil lobbyist that voted three times to increase the military budget? Look at how cool he is!
The unreasonable position is expecting someone to actually end the wars, address corporate ownership of politics, and deal with environmental concerns in a realistic way, right now. We don't have the time to #### around anymore. It doesn't end by installing the mildly less horrifying blue version of the same crap. It doesn't. It can not and will not change in a substantive way by electing people financed by the same industries that want to continue it. It gets so tiresome having to explain how 'progressives' or 'purists' aren't to blame for the state we're in now. It wasn't a purist that ####### lost to Trump. I don't even like Bernie Sanders.
Why are people like frank and Cav and me the bad guys? Why aren't they the bad guys for prolonging these problems under their watch too? Fracking exploded under Obama. He just finished taking credit for the oil/gas industry's record expansion. Schumer supports all the neocon wars and is a total tool for AIPAC. Pelosi is already trying to drown progressive legislation in the bathtub with PAYGO. Is this Russia's fault as well?
Notice I don't reflexively dismiss dedfin's positions for being a Chapo Traphouse hipster. Do people realize they're arguing with a Chapo Traphouse fan? Doesn't CTH think shoring up behind the status quo because Trump is bad is really stupid too anyway?
The unreasonable position is expecting someone to actually end the wars, address corporate ownership of politics, and deal with environmental concerns in a realistic way, right now. We don't have the time to #### around anymore. It doesn't end by installing the mildly less horrifying blue version of the same crap. It doesn't. It can not and will not change in a substantive way by electing people financed by the same industries that want to continue it. It gets so tiresome having to explain how 'progressives' or 'purists' aren't to blame for the state we're in now. It wasn't a purist that ####### lost to Trump. I don't even like Bernie Sanders.
Why are people like frank and Cav and me the bad guys? Why aren't they the bad guys for prolonging these problems under their watch too? Fracking exploded under Obama. He just finished taking credit for the oil/gas industry's record expansion. Schumer supports all the neocon wars and is a total tool for AIPAC. Pelosi is already trying to drown progressive legislation in the bathtub with PAYGO. Is this Russia's fault as well?
Notice I don't reflexively dismiss dedfin's positions for being a Chapo Traphouse hipster. Do people realize they're arguing with a Chapo Traphouse fan? Doesn't CTH think shoring up behind the status quo because Trump is bad is really stupid too anyway?
Franknbeans
Footballguy
the lesser of 2 evils is still evil
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Idk where people are getting nobody on the left is speaking about Russia. The face of the party (her or Chuck), Pelosi literally just ran for the Speakership on getting Trump's tax returns (which at it's core, is a Russia-centered issue).
Dedfin
Footballguy
Hey ren, I hope your holidays went well.ren hoek said:
Weird beginning but I think you are suggesting that incremental politicians will just lead us back to where we are? I promise I won't bring up that you were a big Trump fan if you want to further explain this.Me too!ren hoek said:
Well, we have to. To have the immediate change that you want we have to do one of these:ren hoek said:
a) Have a civilization ending catastrophe where most of us are dead
2) Have a world war, which really just ends in the above
c) Revolution. Not the soft revolution that those who talk about real and immediate change want, but an actual bloody revolution which really just leads back to the above.
Let's say there are 80 million Americans that want real change on issue you suggested above. How do you think those are initiated? We have such a massive establishment political lobbying infrastructure that even if the entire legislative and executive branch changed they'd find ways to tie stuff up in courts. There won't be immediate change without America's death. You told me you liked Bernie Sanders. That's a bummer to find out you don't. Oh well.
The only solution here is for us to make changes incrementally. Sometimes that means you'll have to accept a loss or two in an issue or two. As long as over the long run you keep moving forward. Let me ask you, do you think the supply siders and financial tycoons realized they could use southern racists to fund and expand their lobbying infrastructure to make an authoritarian corporate run state that they would get it done in 4 years? You are damn right they didn't. Do you think they saw every candidate as their perfect one? It would be silly to think that. And did you think when they saw a few losses along the way like women being granted control of their own reproductive system, black people allowed to work alongside white people, gay people being allowed to exist, savings and loan regulations were enacted, environmental regulations were tightened and a collection of other losses conservatives took in the 80s and 90s that I can't recall off the top of my head happened that they were happy about it? Of course they weren't. But they kept marching on because they knew in the long run, they were getting what they wanted. Now 40ish years later, they can practically taste their goal and the reasons they have been so successful is that they have never changed their longterm goal, they always accepted some minor losses but they stuck together the entire time.
Good job listing bad traits of Democrat leaders. I am sure the more you look the more you'll find. I don't think you'll ever find anyone saying any of the D leadership is without flaw. I'm not sure of the point here is. Let me know what I'm missing.ren hoek said:
Pretty sure CTH is pretty mainstream now, but point taken. Sorry @Franknbeans. BTW, I love listening to CTH, but I don't agree with all their politics. They are a potlical version of Cumtown to me.ren hoek said:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Best wishes to you too, Dedfin.Hey ren, I hope your holidays went well.
Me too!
Well, we have to. To have the immediate change that you want we have to do one of these:
a) Have a civilization ending catastrophe where most of us are dead
2) Have a world war, which really just ends in the above
c) Revolution. Not the soft revolution that those who talk about real and immediate change want, but an actual bloody revolution which really just leads back to the above.
Let's say there are 80 million Americans that want real change on issue you suggested above. How do you think those are initiated? We have such a massive establishment political lobbying infrastructure that even if the entire legislative and executive branch changed they'd find ways to tie stuff up in courts. There won't be immediate change without America's death. You told me you liked Bernie Sanders. That's a bummer to find out you don't. Oh well.
The only solution here is for us to make changes incrementally. Sometimes that means you'll have to accept a loss or two in an issue or two. As long as over the long run you keep moving forward. Let me ask you, do you think the supply siders and financial tycoons realized they could use southern racists to fund and expand their lobbying infrastructure to make an authoritarian corporate run state that they would get it done in 4 years? You are damn right they didn't. Do you think they saw every candidate as their perfect one? It would be silly to think that. And did you think when they saw a few losses along the way like women being granted control of their own reproductive system, black people allowed to work alongside white people, gay people being allowed to exist, savings and loan regulations were enacted, environmental regulations were tightened and a collection of other losses conservatives took in the 80s and 90s that I can't recall off the top of my head happened that they were happy about it? Of course they weren't. But they kept marching on because they knew in the long run, they were getting what they wanted. Now 40ish years later, they can practically taste their goal and the reasons they have been so successful is that they have never changed their longterm goal, they always accepted some minor losses but they stuck together the entire time.
Good job listing bad traits of Democrat leaders. I am sure the more you look the more you'll find. I don't think you'll ever find anyone saying any of the D leadership is without flaw. I'm not sure of the point here is. Let me know what I'm missing.
Pretty sure CTH is pretty mainstream now, but point taken. Sorry @Franknbeans. BTW, I love listening to CTH, but I don't agree with all their politics. They are a potlical version of Cumtown to me.
It just seems like the Democrats have no idea that millions of people are struggling to survive in this country, that we're facing a global catastrophe on a scale the planet has never seen before, and that they are fine with endless, scorched earth wars. All I see is a party that wants power back after its humiliating loss to a reality tv star. I don't see realistic, serious answers to these critical issues.
I don't believe I ever said anything to that effect about Sanders. Maybe you're thinking of someone else
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Why was a top priority for hers to pass Paygo? It is a Republican policy? This is why no DINO's will get my vote in 2020. I am almost to the point I will vote Trump over them just because they piss me off so bad. Piss off to Republicans that took over the Democratic Party. It's a long road but time for a Proggressive Party. Leaders are defined. Ro, AOC, Gabbard and Sanders. No real meaningful change will come out Democratic Party, they are all corporate hacks and I applaud Cenk for calling them out.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
More like giving 40% more money to the wealthy or 30%. That's the economic difference between the parties, the rest is all identity politics.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
I think they do see it. I think they also see the boomer cohort as a group that veai washed by Reagan, so suggesting drastic changes right away would give them a 0% of winning anything. I mean #### dude, the Ds on this board are propping libertarians to run as a D.
What would be your solution?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
"That's why I support making all of those problems significantly worse while also endangering national security and lowering the bar for government fraud and corruption to the point that we may never recover."
Similar threads
