I mean, they gave Democrats a D+35 or 40 seat gain just the other night with Pelosi as leader.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NPR: Group of Democrats moving to oppose Nancy Pelosi's campaign for speaker of the House
- Thread starter Stellar
- Start date
Her position has nothing to do with the campaigning portion of the party.
I'm gonna smash my head against the wall.
I tried poking around to find anything, and it resulted in me listening to a video where the main complaint is that Pelosi wants new blood and new faces, but didn't want Bernie Sanders as a new blood or new face, and that's she too good at raising money, which is "bribery," and stuff along that line. And the few articles I've read say that she wants more women in leadership positions, which is playing the woman card and is divisive.
So, I couldn't find anything of substance and wasted my time. lol.
I thought the centrists were good and "pragmatic politics" were the answer?
That countrywide mindspace just scored Democrats their biggest victory in the House since Watergate. Find another angle.
This thread is a god damn embarrasment.
Nancy Pelosi is as liberal as it comes. Tim Ryan is a conservative Democrat.
So called liberals in this thread getting excited Tim Ryan wants to challenge Nancy makes NO sense.
Nancy Pelosi is as liberal as it comes. Tim Ryan is a conservative Democrat.
So called liberals in this thread getting excited Tim Ryan wants to challenge Nancy makes NO sense.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD AND REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS TRYING TO GET SOMEONE MORE CONSERVATIVE.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
lol Like if the democrats have anyone they could replace her with. Look at the rumored people who want to be speaker. Spoiler alert they are trash for the most part.
No jesus christ, pelosi is not a centrist but she is pragmatic. Pragmatic is understanding shes a great speaker and removing her for a centrist is a terrible idea.
So you are excited the conservative wing of the party are taking her on because she is liberal?
What you are saying is you want Democrat's to be more conservative? Cool.
Let me guess: you're laboring under the delusion that PoliEra is a bunch of milquetoast centrists and therefore anyone we support must be one, too.
Nancy Pelosi is not a centrist. She's been one of the most progressive people in the House for thirty years.
These people who want to replace her are the Blue Dogs who mock ~~~identity politics~~~ (you know, civil rights) and want to appeal to the ~~~white working class~~~ (you know, racists).
New blood for new blood's sake is idiotic. Especially when she wasnt even speaker for more than a single senator's term.
You're so dishonest.... :/
Since when has the argument been it's ALL about money?? It's such a fucking blatant strawman. Please stop arguing dishonestly and in bath faith!
Constituents and donors both matter and both shape policy stances. It should be all constituents. Two forces pull in different directions. Sometimes the same. Pull from donors shouldn't exist.
Funny how your prior argument gets exposed and now you just move on to another dishonest argument... It's embarrassing. Smh..
You've been exposed twice now. Done discussing with you. Others can see the cases each of us made.
Honestly, I keep coming into this thread and the people who don't like Pelosi, have you actually looked at her voting record? What she's actually done in terms of legislation getting passed? If you can find a single bad vote from her, please show me. She's been flawless going back to Bush Jr as far as I know, which is incredible when more popular Democrats like Clinton regularly have to remove massive shoes from their mouth because of their voting record years ago.
I get she's not a perfect mouthpiece for the far left progressive DSA grass roots movement, but literally who else in the House right now would be more effective in whipping votes to actually get good legislation passed? The House is not comprised of mostly DSA Congresspeople being held down by the establishment leaders. It's mostly comprised of center left older white men who thinks Pelosi's stances are too far left. Yet her record has shown she's still capable of whipping these guys into voting with her when push comes to shove. She's brilliant at the job as Speaker of the House and perfectly qualified for it.
I get she's not a perfect mouthpiece for the far left progressive DSA grass roots movement, but literally who else in the House right now would be more effective in whipping votes to actually get good legislation passed? The House is not comprised of mostly DSA Congresspeople being held down by the establishment leaders. It's mostly comprised of center left older white men who thinks Pelosi's stances are too far left. Yet her record has shown she's still capable of whipping these guys into voting with her when push comes to shove. She's brilliant at the job as Speaker of the House and perfectly qualified for it.
Im sure its been pointed out, maybe, in this thread already.
But Pelosi doesn't plan to hold the Speaker role forever, she has said that she looks to pass it on but a few of the new progressives will need some years under their belts and grooming before that can be done.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/18001406/nancy-pelosi-transitional-house-speaker-democrats
Also things that were passed under Pelosi:
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/legislation-signed-into-law-under-pelosi-046650
But Pelosi doesn't plan to hold the Speaker role forever, she has said that she looks to pass it on but a few of the new progressives will need some years under their belts and grooming before that can be done.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/18001406/nancy-pelosi-transitional-house-speaker-democrats
Also things that were passed under Pelosi:
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/legislation-signed-into-law-under-pelosi-046650
Bullshit. Look at both of his dishonest arguments.
First horrible dishonest argument that's self defeating. "Donor money doesn't get you votes"
Gets called out . Ignores response then moves on to dishonest second argument.
"If all about money then why x?"
That is a horrible blatant dishonest strawman.
If not dishonest then it's something far worse. And neither os worth engaging with. If you can't see that then same applies to you. It's plainly obvious
Pelosi is the most accomplished and most competent Speaker of the House in the past 30 years.
You're engaging in vague generalities and appeals to 'common sense.' Then calling anyone who disagrees with your stance dishonest.
You keep saying that money is all that matters, and then when someone points out that voters in the past few cycles have regularly been voting against campaigns spending far more money than their opponents, and that many politicians forgo lucrative donors because they're morally/ethically opposed to them, you just claim "GOTCHA"?
Your thesis doesn't make sense. Money has existed for thousands of years as a lubricant for economic activity and a store of value, and will continue to be around for thousands more as long as we don't kill ourselves off. Money is powerful, but it's not the end all be all. That whole "priest, king, banker each ask you to kill the other two" thing from GoT is a good way of framing this for electoral politics- people's priorities and values aren't the same. And not everyone is just bribed 24/7, even though economic realities will often constrain political decisionmaking.
The onus is on you to prove it and pointing to a study (which you didn't link to, not even an article about it) which generalizes politicians and doesn't specifically discuss Nancy isn't the proof.
I should have been more clear. I am agreeing. My point was that new blood is not useful in and of itself right now. We are in crisis and I would rather have the most successful lawmaker of my life time in charge rather than some new person.
Exactly.
Those arguments aren't dishonest??
You can disagree, but those arguments are terrible and dishonest.
The point of legitimate possible disagreement is what's the best political strategy. That's complex and interesting. Arguing money doesn't affect policy is just silly at this point.
Who's making the straw man now, Boiled Goose?
Dishonesty continues!
Point out I never said that or argued that. Now I constantly say that. Double down on the strawman.
I'm thinking it's not dishonesty now. You just can't follow basic logical arguments. Not gonna bother.
Economic reality is different from political reality.
I don't deny the political landscape. We can have an honest discussion about strategy there.
You aren't making it seem complex or interesting. All I am getting right now is petty and boring. You are so far away from the original point here that you have reached escape velocity.
I didn't see anything dishonest about them. He asked for specifics, you waved at some nebulous "All of it" then he responded by referencing all of it in his follow up, and in each case you insulted him for it.
You're still not giving specifics. You referenced some study, but haven't actually provided any links or citations to it. I'd love to see it, truthfully, it sounds fascinating. Instead of swiping at him and others, perhaps you could provide that so you can educate us to what you think should be painfully obvious?
Google Princeton study about influence of donor money in politics. Should be easy to find. :)
Magical Pelosi still your defense? Ok!
Whenever Pelosi arranges meeting between donors and caucus members they just discuss the weather. :)
We need fresh blood in leadership! No more old white people! Especially those your side likes!
.... But not Pelosi! Not Pelosi! not Pelosi! Uhhhh... Master legislator. Master legislator!
.... But not Pelosi! Not Pelosi! not Pelosi! Uhhhh... Master legislator. Master legislator!
That wasn't the discussion with Kirblar.
See when I outlined discussion with said poster.
First argument was that money didn't matter. Not only is that demonstrably false. It's also self defeating. (Then why take it?)
Same page so far?
Second argument was a strawman. I never said money was all that matters. I responded, then said poster doubled down on strawman. It's impossible to have honest productive discussion that way.
Agree on these points above?
Because if we don't then it's pointless to continue. Discussion has to have a grounding in basic logic or we're just yelling into the ether.
donors are so evil! they always get what they want!
like... higher minimum wage and gun regulation!!! FUCK THE DONOR CLASS
like... higher minimum wage and gun regulation!!! FUCK THE DONOR CLASS
So you can't even bother to post what you are talking about. Like if it means that much to you, to prove your point why not just link what you are talking about since you know it so well?
I don't even know what you want me to look at with this google search, all I see at the top is a pew research on questions to people about money in politics.
So I looked up Nancy's donors.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00007360&cycle=2014
The top 3 are 1. Salesforce.com 2. University of California and 3. Facebook. The top 1? A software company that helps small businesses.
Where is this evil dark money that Nancy Pelosi gets that makes her vote on and push crazy things like the ACA or Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?
You're beginning to sound like an episode of Infowars, with even less info than Alex Jones provides.
"We will strive for bipartisanship. We believe that we have a responsibility to seek common ground where we can. Where we cannot must stand our ground, but we must try,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-...in-house-of-representatives-today-2018-11-07/
Yeah. She's really sticking it to the republicans there. McConnell literally walked into the door annoying "No compromise. We will make Obama a One Term President." and his party managed to use that to gain the house, the senate, the presidency and the Supreme Court. Republicans are playing stupid checkers. The Dems are playing patty cake. Fuck rules. Fuck decorum. Fuck precedent. Fuck norms.
And I would rather have someone who can lead us out of this partisan nonsense that is choking our Federal Government to death. No matter how accomplished Pelosi is, she is just as polarizing as HRC was. The moment folks hear the name Pelosi, their mind is already made up. We need to start turning this county around, to move people in a different direction. Nancy Pelosi is not the answer.
How is that in any way germane to her ability to whip votes and pass legislation?
We should dump her because right-wing media don't like her?
lol that's not what she's doing.
What she wants is Republicans to work with them on things they agree on like Infrastructure.
Otherwise I mean it will just be grand gestures from the House with no actual laws being passed for the next two years.
No. Because that wasn't being argued. You propped up that straw man.
Any infrastructure bill the republicans propose is going to be bullshit, will not address the desperate infrastructure issues the U.S. has, and is going to be nothing but a huge giveaway to Trump and Republican donors. There is no common ground there. Any idiot can see that. Except Pelosi I guess.