Should Pelosi remain the Dem House Speaker?

[dbroncos78087]

Why would replacing Nancy be an act of good Will towards the Republicans? How would someone else be better for them?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any honest actor will tell you there isn’t any good reason to do so. They attack her because she’s effective and don’t like that. Just like Mitch McConnell gets attacked. Because he’s effective. As an act of pure politics, I couldn’t name another more effective politician. He’s gotten everything he could ever dream for out of the last four years. Two seats on the highest court in the land that should have been appointed by the other party. And that’s not counting all the unqualified boobs they put on the lower courts.

[Crovash]

Any honest actor will tell you there isn’t any good reason to do so. They attack her because she’s effective and don’t like that. Just like Mitch McConnell gets attacked. Because he’s effective. As an act of pure politics, I couldn’t name another more effective politician. He’s gotten everything he could ever dream for out of the last four years. Two seats on the highest court in the land that should have been appointed by the other party. And that’s not counting all the unqualified boobs they put on the lower courts.

And assuming that Pelosi is effectively McConnell’s counterpart, then it is business as usual for sure.

So, we can expect that very little, if anything at all, will change on the hill. And very little of consequence will get done to benefit most Americans...which, strangely, is exactly what most Americans voted for.

And the country will slip further into stasis, but it’ll just be a less flamboyant ride with Joe Biden at the wheel instead of Donald Trump.

[Sluggo1]

Wrong. They are intriniscally linked. Had the Senate done their job, Garland would have been considered (and probably confirmed given his record). That the Senate failed the process, we got Cavanaugh. His personal problems notwithstanding — and they are not relevant here — he would not have ever even been nominated. Which leads to Barrett, whose confirmation process was an act of utter hypocrisy by the Senate.

You say the Democrats would have done what the Republicans did to Garland. You do not know. So, that is absolutely a moot point. What happened was shenanigans. End of discussion.



Your go-to deflection — for the seventeenth time — but completely irrelevant.

Never said the dems would do what the repubs did to Garland.

Go back and re-read……I'll highlight for you.

This is what was said……
RE: Garland/Cavanaugh/Barrett shenanigans. Garland was "shenanigans";the other two was not. Nothing wrong with appointing Kava (the "shenanigans" there were all from the dems), Barrett was a political windfall yhat dropped into the repubs lap. The dems would have done the same thing.

And please let us not forget that the Barrett situation could have been easily avoided had Ruthie retired when it was suggested. (It's not like she needed the $$$$.) She fully expected Hilly to win at which time she had plenty of time to retire. Had the old girl lived, she would have pulled some "shenanigans" by announcing her retirement the day after Poppa Joe's inauguration.

To clarify (as it that's possible here)……I don't know (and neither do you) what the dems would have done given the Garland situation. The right and ethical thong to do would be to give him a hearing.

Not giving Garland a hearing was wrong. I’ve said that numerous times. Saying that the three are “intrinsically linked” is a stretch. He could have been given a hearing and not passed. We don’t know. So the “intrinsically linked” part is a bit of a guess. But he should have gotten his hearing.

Re: the go to deflection about Ruthie being completely irrelevant……well yes and no. She has a right to do whatever she wants and, I guess, even BO couldn't force her hand. But the fact remains she could have gone for the sure thing (retired at an advanced age and had a clone for a replacement) or hang around for the continued glory of an election they could not lose but did. Old football adage goes that it is best not to take points off the bard when you have them in the bank. Ruthie gambled and lost.

[Sluggo1]

So you’re telling me that you would be completely indifferent to repealing the 2nd Amendment? Ok...got any snake oil I can buy too?

You are one of the legions og posters here that knows what I think. it's friggin' amazing how many people here can make that statement.

To clarity (as if that's possible here)……the right to bear arms or not bear arms is a non issue for me. I don't care if we can buy guns, I don't care if we can't buy guns.

It's like abortion. I don't care if it is legal, I don't care if it is illegal.

Issues like this have little to no effect on the US moving forward as a country so, for me, they are non issues.

Clear????

[Crovash]

Never said the dems would do what the repubs did to Garland.

You are correct. I misread your paragraph.

Not giving Garland a hearing was wrong. I’ve said that numerous times. Saying that the three are “intrinsically linked” is a stretch. He could have been given a hearing and not passed. We don’t know. So the “intrinsically linked” part is a bit of a guess. But he should have gotten his hearing.

Which links them all.

Re: the go to deflection about Ruthie being completely irrelevant……well yes and no. She has a right to do whatever she wants and, I guess, even BO couldn't force her hand. But the fact remains she could have gone for the sure thing (retired at an advanced age and had a clone for a replacement) or hang around for the continued glory of an election they could not lose but did. Old football adage goes that it is best not to take points off the bard when you have them in the bank. Ruthie gambled and lost.

Irrelevant because “could have” is not “should have” (see Garland)

[Sluggo1]

You are correct. I misread your paragraph.

Which links them all. Maybe, Maybe not



Irrelevant because “could have” is not “should have” (see Garland)

But the fact that she didn't led to the Amy Barrett mess…a situation in which the dems would have done the same thing given the opportunity.

[SfgiantsJD3]

No Democrat could be dumb enough to vote against her in enough numbers to allow a Republican to become Speaker in a House with a Democratic majority.

Unless there is someone who presents themselves as a better Democratic alternative, she will be Speaker when the new congress is sworn in.

the DEMs vote in caucus for which DEM they want for speaker, its not a DEM or REB choice its a which DEM choice.
Once that person is selected that's who the whole house votes on.

[GGGGG-Men]

You need a dose of reality.

Pelosi is a very polarizing individual in our government. Now that Trump is gone, she may be the most polarizing person in our government. I doubt ver seriously if she is well liked by the general population. She has way too much power and has exerted it over and over. She has insulted the pres every chance she had. Tearing up the SOTU speech on national television was flat out disgraceful. I would think that many in her own party are tired of her act.

If the dems elect anther dem as speaker, they have lost nothing and have shown a willingness to make a change going forward. And, as I said, it wpuld pressure the repubs to do somethng similar.

Not sure why that that would provide you with your laugh for the morning but I guess we all have our own particular sense of humor,

I agree with what you said. But his point was that she’s not that liberal. It’s true. She’s close to center. Wherever that is these days, who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGGG-Men]

Except for the bolded, I agree with everything else you posted.

Yeah that’s just a matter of taste right? She’s perceived as liberal from the right and moderate from the liberals.

Same situation Biden is in but he’s a bit more mellow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbroncos78087]

I agree with what you said. But his point was that she’s not that liberal. It’s true. She’s close to center. Wherever that is these days, who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People under the disillusion that she is uber liberal are sorely misinformed. It’s something I’ve long pointed out.

[GGGGG-Men]

Anybody who replaces her will have the same problems that she has in unifying the party, the donors. She can't adopt progressive policies because she will lose her party donors' money, their media empire digital and print support.

I will say that Pelosi has been great for the upper 1%ers over her political career. She will lose congress again, but she will always be the donors' little princess. She or her kids might even get ten million dollars jobs somewhere after this is all over. The political slush retirement fund for civil servants and their families for a job well done.

It is a racket. This political system of ours. It is more WWF than the NBA with all the drama of "Dallas" and the money raking ability of a casino.

My problem is these long time House members who are millionaires. The senate and presidency is one thing. But the House with all its districts should be the place of the common people reps.


I guess my bigger issue is that there should be term limits in the House, Senate and SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGGG-Men]

Kudos to Brewers on the thread question. He’s on a roll with good discussion topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[statquo]

I'd say no, but who would be next in line? Would be nice to see someone not from New York or California be at the head of the party in Congress.

[Sluggo1]

My problem is these long time House members who are millionaires. The senate and presidency is one thing. But the House with all its districts should be the place of the common people reps.


I guess my bigger issue is that there should be term limits in the House, Senate and SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ba da boom, Ba da bing.

Aren't there something like 50 House members with 30years or more in the House.

I'm not trying to start a separate argument here but……When you see all these young progressive House members come in with these goofy ideas that don't really make sense or that resonates with many voters……I'd like to see a young group come in and try to get the ball rolling on term limits. Most voters don't really know what this means and, once they were educated to the concept, I think it would get widespread support.

Just a thought (or a delirious dream).

[Sluggo1]

I agree with what you said. But his point was that she’s not that liberal. It’s true. She’s close to center. Wherever that is these days, who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She is not likeable and many consider her divisive. Get another Dem in there. Val Demmings seems like she has a head on her shoulders. There must be some others.