-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Here's a video:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1088170570813005826?s=20
Any supposedly progressive politician entertaining the myth that the GOP was once honorable is....alarming to say the least
The criticism of Pelosi from leftists doesn't really rest on her current tenure as Speaker, mostly because she has only held it for 3 weeks, but on her past actions and continued ties to corporate interests. If she truly sees herself as a transitional speaker now, as she has stated before, willing to step down for a younger progressive, then great. That's exactly where the party needs to go.
The context is she wants a strong Republican Party that will not rubberstamp trump, that will stand up to him. She is saying that to trash the current GOP who is Trumps whipping boy.
It was her calling on Republicans to vote with Dems to override Trump and open up the government.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) during a speech at the Conference of Mayors on Wednesday night told Republicans in attendance to "take back your party."
"To the Republicans in the crowd, I say: take back your party, the Grand Old Party," Pelosi said at the annual gathering of U.S. mayors. "America needs a strong Republican Party, not a rubber stamp."
Pelosi's comments came on the 33rd day of the ongoing partial government shutdown, which became the longest in U.S. history almost two weeks ago.
She literally says exactly what I posted in that link you posted. The idea that there are honorable republicans that need to resist trump is literally peak centrist, my god. She quoted Reagan recently too.
I mean, she is speaking to republicans in that speech. Would she saying "your party was never good" change much? It was a call to arms
Bernie and Warren. Theyre the two I would enthusiastically support instead of just sorta grumbling about it.
She didnt call them honorable *NOW* in how they are voting and acting. She told them to grow a spine and to stop Trump. She isn't praising Republicans and how they are acting now matter how many times you try to spin it that way. She is trying to get Republicans to override Trump to vote to bring open back the government.
Which is... doing her fucking job.
We need Republicans to crack and turn on Trump and have enough votes to override a potential veto and pass a clean spending bill.
Yes I'm sure the party that is almost always in agreement with trump will rise up to stop him because she was nice to them. It's incredibly naive. Republicans will never do anything meaningful to impede their guy.
She isn't being nice and praising them in how they are acting and voting. She is calling on them to grow a spine and stand up to Trump.
Which as you know we need them to do open the government back up if Trump doesn't back down. She is trying to reopen to government and not give Trump his wall. I am curious what your alternate idea is to pull that off if Trump continues to refuse to back down.
She's acting like the adult in the room working to reopen the govt and not give Trump his wall. You rather she sit and pout and refuse to do anything like Trump?
That doesn't make it better, actually. It's the usual decorum nonsense and the belief that the GOP has gotten hijacked by Trump. It's the fable that Trump is an aberration. This is what the GOP are, the fetid deadspawn of rotten bigots in a death cult. The "taking back" part is just a call for a return to decorum, not a demand that they stop being bigots.
Oh I know, I said as much earlier in the thread, but the question was support not realistic chance of winning. Bernies too damn old but hes the only one saying some very important things. I gotta stick by my guy in that case.
Whats your solution to getting a clean spending bill passed with no wall funding with a veto proof majority if Trump continues to prefer just watching the world burn?
This - thank you for writing it out better than I could. Anyone appealing to the decency of the GOP as if they are any different than trump is a dolt.
How do you get a clean spending bill through congress without Republicans?
Copying Trumps tactics of just crossing your arms and not doing anything is not an answer here.
This. It takes both parties to open the government back up. Calling upon Republicans to pressure their elected officials to vote on reopening the government is a lot better than to do nothing.
Like, we all know that Republican voters are culpable for this mess. I'm curious as to what people think she should have done/said instead.
The fact they have no alternate answer of how to re-open to the government without the wall without just sitting and doing nothing like Trump is doing and hope he changes his mind is very telling.
Can't stand this guy. It's like he's living on another world separate from reality. He had a front row view to 6 years of complete obstruction, an unprecedented stolen Supreme Court seat, the gop doing their best to dismantle Obama's legacy via Trump, and this is what he took from it all? GTFO.
Last edited:
Yeah, I just can't muster any enthusiasm for Biden. There is quite a disconnect between him and the current party platform.
Also, pretty reductionist of the actual criticism leveraged at him. People don't like that he is propping up republican candidates and policy, to which he reads as "They dislike me because I like Republicans!"
Last edited:
There's already pressure mounting on the republicans. Appealing to the sense of decency of those people is a lost cause (and alarming to see from an OPPOSITION LEADER). Don't concede anything and let the public opinion continue to turn on the republicans. They will only break with trump if things get really bad for them with their base, and that's what has started to happen. Compromising when you have all the leverage is moronic.
She needs a 2/3rds majority to override Trump's veto. Trump's poll numbers are crashing.
Pelosi is not a dolt, she simply understands what her win conditions are- a) Trump surrenders, or b) the congressional GOP throws Trump under the bus.
Compromising, Conceding??
What the hell are you talking about.
She hasn't given an INCH on the wall. She called on Republicans to grow a spine and agree to their bill.
She's reinforcing a sense of decorum and the myth of the hijacked GOP that she doesn't need to.
Do you have any idea what the word compromise or conceding even means? She has stood firm on not a penny for the wall.
And again, how do you get a clean spending bill passed with a veto-proof majority without getting GOP votes?
She has not given a single inch on the wall and needs GOP votes to get this passed without Trump. What is your solution that works with these two facts that is somehow better than hers.
Apparently they're willing to offer 5 billion for border security and the government isn't even open, which me and others have gone over ad nauseum in the other thread. Not to mention she's an opposition leader willing to buy into the bullshit respectability angle of the opposing party. Excuse me for not having faith in someone like that to lead for any meaningful change
Appealing to their sense of morality isn't going to do it; they don't have one.
You fail to leave out the fact that not one penny of that is for the wall. Democrats have never been opposed to any border security, they are opposed to a big fat ugly wall that is a symbol of racism.
Ok, how do you get their votes then for a veto proof majority?
It should be easy to find him at that hipster coffee shop in LA he's always at
Official Staff Communication
We have plenty of other threads to discuss Pelosi and the shutdown. This thread is for the 2020 Presidential Primary. Please keep things on-topic. Thank you.
The same way we get to a 50%+1 primary majority by using barely veiled epithets against everyone who doesn't share fully 100% of our views, since trying to whip votes up in any way is apparently off limits: Fucking Magic
Considering how ineffective birtherism was the last time around, I'm surprised that's the best play they're going with
User Warned: Inflammatory generalizations
So you and the Democrats are opposed to "symbols of racism", but fine with money going towards "border security" and the not at all racist things that Trump will be able to do with that money, like funding more child concentration camps?
Edit: was in the middle of posting this before I saw the mod post.
Once more candidates have declared I would love it if they all would collectively boycott Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for hijacking the democratic process. It's so unfair that these 3 states (you could include Nevada too maybe) always go first and effectively end up choosing the nominee. If people want equal rights and voting for all they should call out the bullshit that these states pull. I can't believe no other states have tried to fight them on it either.
I'm excited the California primary is earlier this year and has a chance to have some sway.
How would people feel about a lottery system for primary order to shuffle the state sequencing every primary season?
All the ones who have declared already are campaigning in them, too late.
Other states have tried to break into the party, Iowa and NH would just move up their dates even earlier if other states locked in early dates though.
Iowa/SC are actually good states to have up first, they're on the smaller side and are representative of crucial demos within the party and with swing voters.
LOL no those are bullshit explanations they decided on long after the system was in place. Having the same states go first every single year is un-democratic. It's probably too late for 2020 already since Warren and Harris and others are already fellating voters in Iowa and NH but it'd be nice for someone to have some balls and call it out for what it is.
No, it's not. White midwestern voters are a critical swing demographic for winning the general, Black southern voters are a critical Dem demographic for winning the primary.
NH is useless though.
I realize it's self-defeating for any 2020 prospective candidate to call it out because you are insulting your potential voters. Everyone in Iowa and NH is convinced of how wonderful the system is and that they are the special gatekeepers of democracy. Kind of like how every politician has to say or at least imply that America is the greatest country in the world. So if you tell them they're wrong they won't like you. But it'd be nice if someone with no skin in the game like AOC would do them the favor.
New Hampshire is a swing state that would have given Gore the presidency and has a large independent vote. It's not useless at all. I don't mind all three of them (four including Nevada, which is usually early and is a swing state with a big Hispanic population) starting things, tbh.
I like just about every candidate aside from Tulsi. And Biden doesn't excite me or anything but he'd be a huge improvement over Trump.
Were I to pick a favorite, it'd be Kamala at the moment. Behind her would probably be Bernie, Gillibrand, Warren and Beto. I think any of those five could do a great job as president, with the caveat that Bernie's age is a genuine issue at this point. They have all had issues in the past, but there isn't much in any of their records to suggest to me that the issues they've had would stop them from implementing (or at least attempting to implement) the policies they're campaigning on.
Overall I'm just excited that we've hit a point where really bold, progressive policy ideas are the norm and not the exception. We've finally pulled ourselves away from the Bill Clinton-style Democratic politics of the 90's.
I like Bernie. But We have pretty good candidates. Beto and Kamala aren't terrible compared to the rest of the party.
Kamala Harris seems to be drawing the most fire and ire from the extremes and she's handling it well. She had a difficult and controversial job and the way she handled it is not only acceptable but commendable. Being President in 2020 and going forward is not going to be easy. Her interview with Maddow was too brief but was good. Although, it's her professional conduct that I'm looking at, not how casual she can act. I'm looking forward to longer interviews.
I liked how Gillibrand presented herself on the Pod Saves interview but it was exceedingly friendly and unchallenging.
It's very early on but for now I like Harris.
If somehow it worked out that Harris/Gillibrand was elected that seems right now like a very formidable duo who would guide the country well, deal with corruption in various departments of the executive, and attract incredible and needed talent to the WH. I'd like to say Harris/Warren but Warren doesn't give the impression she would be open to VP.
- Status