Mario Kart
Footballguy
You are absolutely correct. Pelosi and the older Dems need to stop discriminating against the young and allow them to lead. Young people have abilities too.
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
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Pelosi gotta go. She's a big part of the debacle that has been the Democratic party for the past 25 years while the Republican have secured the SCOTUS.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Now if that boss lost over 1000 clients when in charge, you keep her running the show for the future?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Nope but failing at your job, bowing to corporate interests seems to be. Also losing 1k seats country wide gets you props too.
LOL at a 28-year-old freshman representative who's never held any elective office before being named Speaker. I'll keep repeating this until I see the anti-Pelosi folks actually grapple with this fact: Speaker of the House is not a "face of the party" political figurehead where your only job is to go on "Meet the Press" every Sunday. It's a job, above all else, of managing a 230+ member caucus: fundraising, setting legislative strategy, making sure members get re-elected, etc. Sending the right "message" doesn't matter a whole lot if you screw up all the details and blow your majority.
So spare me the happy talk about AOC or Stacey Abrams or anyone else with zero qualifications for the job. Who's a realistic candidate who can actually get 218 votes from across the Democratic caucus?
joffer
Footballguy
Ryan is plausible, I suppose, but not sure he'd be acceptable to the progressive wing. As Josh Marshall recently pointed out, that's the other problem with replacing Pelosi: She has enemies on both the left and the right, which actually strengthens her position. Remember, it only takes 16-18 Democratic votes to shoot down a candidacy. So someone who is too identified with the left or centrist factions is probably going to have enough opponents to ensure they never get it. Pelosi is probably the only person who has a shot at 218.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
butcher boy
Footballguy
Pelosi has been fostering a culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers for a while now. What's frightening is that this culture engenders patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a culture in which people are free to admit that Pelosi's “I'm right and you're wrong” attitude is devious because it leaves no room for compromise. Pelosi wants to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists.
The Commish
Footballguy
Because the Dems don't control the Senate is what I was told. That really makes zero sense to me, but several offered that as the reason. This ###hat should be run out.
No, that's not what it is. Senate Majority/Minority Leader is elected by each caucus (as is House Maj/Min Leader). So Schumer only needs the votes of a majority of his caucus (24 Senators), whereas Pelosi needs 218 reps (and since Republicans won't vote for her, she can be submarined by just 16 votes against her).
Anyway, that's just the descriptive reason as to why he's not in trouble. Schumer should absolutely be taking crap over his actions since the election. I don't understand what the hell he's thinking.
The Commish
Footballguy
See.....none of that matters. If you aren't good at your job and he clearly isn't, you should be on the hotseat. Period. His "buddies" might not act, but we as the electorate can sure make our voices heard. That's not happening, outside of my question and then the same question from SiD.
The Commish
Footballguy
Seems like if it's good enough for President Trump, it should be good enough for her or are we just holding people to different standards?
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
It's time to upset the apple cart. Allow the young people to run things, they young Dems have the fundraising by the actual people, not corporations. Young members can set legislative strategy. Young members can get other re-elected by getting their message out there. Step aside and allow a new rule in.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
She's part of the problem.
Dedfin
Footballguy
I'd much prefer an apprenticeship for speaker since it's an impossibly hard job. I'm happy to let Pelosi run stuff for another congress but no flipping way does this get handed down to hoyer or the other old dude.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Young people actually voted in large numbers earlier this month. Young people, to continue turning out their vote, want someone younger in power. The Dem party lowered the age in the Dem House by 10 years. Millenials, like young people, want to see their own doing things they voted for. Pelosi is not young, is not who was voted for, and Millenials will change votes in two years if they don't get what they want. Pelosi needs to take a back seat and help the younger Speaker.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I don't hate her. I think she's one of the people most responsible for Trump though.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
She accepts money from corporations. As long as she is representing the donor class, we will only have policies that benefit them. Forget medicare for all. It's not what her donors want. The new blood in the Democratic party was elected to address that and they won't with her in charge.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
As long as the Republicans control the Senate and the White House, it doesn't really matter what policies Pelosi favors and doesn't favor. What matters is whether she can get her caucus in line to oppose harmful GOP legislation and to send the right messages through hearings, "message" legislation that stalls by design in the Senate, etc. And she's the best there is at that stuff.
Based on everything I hear she plans to step aside if/when the Dems retake the White House anyway (she was gonna step aside if Clinton had won), so her feelings on progressive legislation that might actually become law is basically irrelevant. For now she's good enough to satisfy prominent take-no-prisoners progressives like AOC, so she should be good enough for the rest of us too.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
so, more of the same
timschochet
Footballguy
There will never be leadership of a major political party in this country that does not accept money from corporations.
toshiba
Footballguy
There’s nothing stopping this if that’s what people want. There’s no rule against the Democrats keeping Paul Ryan on as Speaker.
timschochet
Footballguy
I didn’t say that. It’s certainly possible. But corporations will always donate, always play a factor. You can regulate it, limit it, but you’ll never stop it.
They don’t have a choice. Candidates in federal elections are not allowed to accept campaign contributions from corporations. But if a corporation wants to pay for an ad saying “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is awesome!”, she has no power to prevent it. She has to accept it.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Well, yeah. That's how it works when the people that control the Senate and the White House basically want the opposite of what you want on issues and policies that are important to you and have no interest in meeting you halfway.
If you want real change I suggest starting there, and worrying about the of details of those policy initiatives later, once that massive impediment has been removed. Infighting and taking down the most effective politician around when it comes to mounting effective opposition to those people, OTOH, seems awfully counterproductive.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
It's a hint that Pelosi wants what the Senate and White house want, too at least when it comes to healthcare.
timschochet
Footballguy
In any case, I've never accepted the idea that corporate money is somehow inherently bad, or that it benefits the "donor class" against the interests of the "people." Bernie and other progressives can go around saying that; I think it's crap.
When we look back at the liberal successes of the last decade, including gay rights and the MeToo movement, we're going to see that corporations played a huge role. Not because they necessarily wanted to or out of any sense of altruism, but because they are better in tune to public attitude changes than our politicians are. If there is to be real gun control, or action on climate change, or a solution to our immigration problems, it will come because corporations respond to public pressure by withdrawing money from politicians who oppose the majority viewpoint. And that's a good thing.
When we look back at the liberal successes of the last decade, including gay rights and the MeToo movement, we're going to see that corporations played a huge role. Not because they necessarily wanted to or out of any sense of altruism, but because they are better in tune to public attitude changes than our politicians are. If there is to be real gun control, or action on climate change, or a solution to our immigration problems, it will come because corporations respond to public pressure by withdrawing money from politicians who oppose the majority viewpoint. And that's a good thing.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This makes zero sense. Pelosi is the chief architect of the health care legislation that the Senate majority devoted most of the last decade to repealing and that the current occupant of the White House campaigned on repealing.
Apologies in advance for the mild shot here, GB ... but I wonder if maybe you should consider getting your news from major American newspapers instead of stand-up comedians on Youtube.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The House is about to embark on a series of investigations into the sitting administration that will literally be historically unprecedented in scale and scope, even compared to Nixon. It's very possible, maybe even likely, that the House will vote to impeach. Clearly this is the time to turn the leadership responsibilities over to a 20-something who can't scrape together rent money. What could go wrong?
Franknbeans
Footballguy
so you're good with our current health care system I take it.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If you're talking to me, I'm not and I don't see how you get that from my posts.
But I do think it's better than what we had before 2009, and I know Pelosi deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. I also know that the American people agree with me, and that's likely the biggest reason that short-sighted Republicans who tried to kill the protections for preexisting conditions in the ACA lost 40 seats in the House, so she deserves some credit for the recent election results too.
And I know the only way to change it again for the better is for the Dems to win the Senate and the White House, and that the best thing the Democratic House can do to make that happen is be as effective as possible in opposing and holding accountable Trump and the GOP in the interim, and that she's the best person for that particular job.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
more importantly they need to give the people something to vote for
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
That is not what a Speaker of the House does. You're thinking of a presidential candidate.
You know that most of the opposition to Pelosi is coming from her right, not her left, yes? Does that tell you anything?
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Let's stop wasting time and cut to the chase here:Franknbeans said:
They didn't have the votes for a public option, or Medicare for All, or Universal Health Care. They passed Obamacare because it was the best that they could do. They STILL don't have the votes for for a public option, and whether it's Pelosi or somebody else as speaker, that hasn't changed.
IMO, eventually we're going to have a public option. But it's about 10 years away, maybe longer. You can't make it happen any faster.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sometimes. Sometimes they boycott states, like they did with North Carolina after the transgender business. The power of corporations to cause social change is tremendous.The Commish said:
The Commish
Footballguy
I just wanted to be sure. I agree that their power can be significant. Problem I see is they rarely act unless their customers push them to. In those cases, that's not the power of corporations, that's the power of the people who just happen to be the group that I think is the most influential in dragging our politicians along. This situation is not what one typically thinks of when they think of "big business money in politics".
Sabertooth
Footballguy
The problem of course, is the mentorship involves getting people comfortably into corporate pockets so they fall in line.Gr00vus said:
timschochet
Footballguy
And that’s my point. Rather than thinking of corporations as the enemy, we ought to start thinking of ways that corporations can benefit the democratic process.
The Commish
Footballguy
If you say so Tim. None of "your point" makes sense while viewing this topic through the common every day lenses. If you want to attempt to redefine terms and shift the conversation, go for it. I think it's just easier to say what you mean which is, when big corporations are pushed by their customers to do something, they have the means to do it. That is a completely different tangent from what was being discussed though.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
This is why all the corporate dems need to go.
https://youtu.be/lN2Y0NBkUE0
Slimy in the bag for corporations. I will take four more years of Trump over this crap.
https://youtu.be/lN2Y0NBkUE0
Slimy in the bag for corporations. I will take four more years of Trump over this crap.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
