Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Nancy Pelosi thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, John Blutarsky said:

The political climate is terrible. And if you think the left and Democrats aren’t part of the problem you’re fooling yourself. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Mister Blutarsky: zero-point-zero.

Yeah, she sure zinged Trump.  That was a doozy. In the meantime, we get to keep a dangerously incompetent and historically corrupt president in office for two more years.  But wow what a burn.

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 a

3 hours ago, John Blutarsky said:

The political climate is terrible. And if you think the left and Democrats aren’t part of the problem you’re fooling yourself. 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
23 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

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.

Who is Amir, and why should I care about his opinion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ren hoek said:

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.

I just wish she could keep AOC under control

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Who is Amir, and why should I care about his opinion? 

And oddly, no complaints about someone posting a random tweet from the usual crowd, just :crickets:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Joe Bryant 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?

Sure

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, squistion said:

And oddly, no complaints about someone posting a random tweet from the usual crowd, just :crickets:

When he does it everyday for a couple years straight and starts adding the nodding emoji you'll get some complaints I'm sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lod001 said:

This is so awesome.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says Speaker Pelosi is 'singling out' newly elected women of color. Now they are calling each other racists.

You can't be any more petty than Trump...Oh, oh wait...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lod001 said:

This is so awesome.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says Speaker Pelosi is 'singling out' newly elected women of color. Now they are calling each other racists.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gustavo Fring said:

AOC is clinically insane.  She received ~16,000 votes to get into office and thinks she runs Washington.  Know your role, woman. 

Now I know why all the Trump fans and FOX are so enamored by her, she's going to help get him re-elected!

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

AOC is clinically insane.  She received ~16,000 votes to get into office and thinks she runs Washington.  Know your role, woman. 

 She got >110k votes FTR. Your number is for the primary.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PhantomJB said:

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

Saw that. Said with real passion, too. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

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

Well, they passed a resolution.  THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :rolleyes: 

Maybe not huge...but pretty much got most House Republicans on record as not condemning racist remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

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.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

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.

Yeah she is being as spineless as Republicans who are upset by something Trump has done and get over it in minutes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

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.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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.

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

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.

What should the House do instead?

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

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.

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

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.

Seriously, why should she jeopardize any of her own party's standing, when she can sit back and  watch this admin destroy itself? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cubd8 said:

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.

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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?

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?

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

You didn't answer my question. What positive result comes from an impeachment followed by a Senate acquittal?

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JB Breakfast Club said:

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. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  😖

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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? 

 

.

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...