The Nancy Pelosi thread

[ericttspikes 2,615]

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. 

[Mile High 5,127]

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. 

[ren hoek 4,995]

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.

[tommyGunZ 4,637]

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? 

[lod001 5,406]

Rooting for Pelosi.

[Gopher State 959]

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

[squistion 12,500]

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:

[Joe Bryant 10,313]

@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?

[timschochet 33,375]

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

[Cowboysfan8 7,637]

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

[lod001 5,406]

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.

[rockaction 23,265]

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...

[PhantomJB 657]

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

[yak651 1,052]

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!

[Mystery Achiever 1,252]

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 July 12, 2019 by Mystery Achiever

[Mystery Achiever 1,252]

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.

[Max Power 4,112]

Nice to see Trump say the right thing.

[The Commish 13,451]

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

[sho nuff 16,600]

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

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

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

[The Commish 13,451]

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

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

so?

[sho nuff 16,600]

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so?

I agree its minor...but one of those things to later use against them.

[The Commish 13,451]

On 7/17/2019 at 6:13 PM, sho nuff said:

I agree its minor...but one of those things to later use against them.

With whom?  Who's going to care?

[sho nuff 16,600]

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

With whom?  Who's going to care?

Maybe nobody...maybe enough voters to get them out of office

[tommyGunZ 4,637]

Pelosi is a political mastermind

Edited August 1, 2019 by tommyGunZ

[Maurile Tremblay 22,278]

Moscow Nancy.

[Sheriff Bart 13,590]

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Moscow Nancy.

Popov Pelosi 

[Dickies 9,331]

5 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Popov Pelosi 

Except she doesn’t have a handle on this impeachment thing

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

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.

[Slapdash 16,240]

She is really dropping the ball here

[sho nuff 16,600]

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.

 

[Maurile Tremblay 22,278]

55 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Pelosi Says Congress Should Pass New Laws So Sitting Presidents Can Be Indicted

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.

[Insomniac 643]

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.

[fatguyinalittlecoat 11,318]

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?

[Maurile Tremblay 22,278]

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?

[cosjobs 14,853]

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? 

[timschochet 33,375]

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. 

[IvanKaramazov 21,373]

20 minutes ago, cosjobs said:

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

"Party over country" is what got us here in the first place.

[cubd8 299]

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.

[timschochet 33,375]

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. 

[That one guy 2,154]

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 643]

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?

[JB Breakfast Club 1,191]

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. 

[Maurile Tremblay 22,278]

9 minutes ago, JB Breakfast Club said:

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. 

Bob Uecker.

[JB Breakfast Club 1,191]

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. 

[ren hoek 4,995]

Turns out that Vote Blue No Matter Who #### didn't work out, stunning

[ren hoek 4,995]

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 16,600]

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.

[Maurile Tremblay 22,278]

13 hours ago, Insomniac said:

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

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.

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

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.  😖

[Insomniac 643]

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? 

 

.