Pelosi vows to become U.S. House speaker despite opposition

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

No the wackier ones would be investigation hell. They would try the impeachment thing. Trump wants the Mueller thing to go away and that's the end of it. 

 

 

But according to the Republican way of thinking, that would be good for them. Since it would show the world just how wacky the Democrats are. Trump should be looking forward to triumphing over the Democrats and showing just how wacky they are.

 

[Cryingdick]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But according to the Republican way of thinking, that would be good for them. Since it would show the world just how wacky the Democrats are. Trump should be looking forward to triumphing over the Democrats and showing just how wacky they are.

 

 

There is a difference between wacky and dangerously wacky. 

[Jingthing]

The opposition to Pelosi being leader comes mostly to her RIGHT. Not her LEFT. 

I see that there are good arguments to keeping her or not, but to say it's mostly about a leftist uprising is total misinformation.

 

Quote

 

The Democratic Insurgents Who Want to Topple Nancy Pelosi

What do Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton really want?

 

There’s an insurrection brewing in the House of Pelosi.

An intractable group on the Democratic Party’s center flank is working to deny Nancy Pelosi the speaker’s gavel. The leaders of the block-Pelosi effort — which roughly mirrors the right-wing Freedom Caucus’ play to oust Republican Speaker John Boehner in 2015 — include Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA), a 40-year-old former Marine officer, and Tim Ryan (D-OH) a 45-year-old former college quarterback who ran against Pelosi for the minority leader post in 2016 and lost badly, 134–63.

 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/nancy-pelosi-speaker-fight-757178/amp/

 

 

[riclag]

 From the article above-"Fudge told the HuffPost on Thursday that some people oppose Pelosi because they see her as an elitist, "and I think to some degree she is."

 

Ms. Fudge  should be a fresh change to the Democrat leadership! She will help give Americans a chance to move ahead with change in her party and new opportunities, especially with a infrastructure  plan that would help inner city's.   The white rich Democrats have been in power far too long! Polosi should step aside .It's apparent the Dem's want to move away from their traditional elitist agenda! Give a voice to what their new  liberal future is going to be, not the same old same old white elitist subjugation !     

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

 From the article above-"Fudge told the HuffPost on Thursday that some people oppose Pelosi because they see her as an elitist, "and I think to some degree she is."

 

Ms. Fudge  should be a fresh change to the Democrat leadership! She will help give Americans a chance to move ahead with change in her party and new opportunities, especially with a infrastructure  plan that would help inner city's.   The white rich Democrats have been in power far too long! Polosi should step aside .It's apparent the Dem's want to move away from their traditional elitist agenda! Give a voice to what their new  liberal future is going to be, not the same old same old white elitist subjugation !     

It's truly bizarre hearing from a supporter of Republicans whose Congressional delegation is 90 percent white male about Democratic elitism.

And on what issues has Pelosi backed elite policies? Did she support the latest tax bill which skews overwhelmingly in favor of the wealthy? Health care? Wages? Where exactly has she backed the elite?

And as for infrastructure, remember it was Trump who promised a trillion dollar program. Instead he gave that money away and more to the wealthy.

Infrastructure needs funding. Where's that money going to come from?

[Jingthing]

Boy oh boy, it would be fun to start discussing who the democrats should put up for president in 2020. It's related somewhat to the fight about house speaker, but alas, not related enough.

(In case you hadn't noticed, like it or not, the 2020 campaign started already the day after the midterms.)

[Berkshire]

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The problem is that is what the Dems are these days.

Funny, but I've been asking the same about the GOP.  What do the Republicans stand for?  It used to be...

 

Fiscal responsibility?  No more.  Massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy resulting in massive increase in US deficit/debt.  Not very responsible.

Free market/free trade?  No more.  Trump is sticking his nose into private corporations business, e.g., Harley, Amazon, Ford, etc.  Trump and tariffs anyone?

Rule of law?  Please.  Trump is the most corrupt President in history.  Emoluments clause?

Individual rights?  Except Trump is about reversing decades of rights related to abortion, gay rights, voting, etc.

States rights?  Only if they support Trump!

 

Etc.  The only thing Republicans clearly stand for anymore is kissing up to Trump....SAD!

 

 

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Fiscal responsibility?  No more.  Massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy resulting in massive increase in US deficit/debt.  Not very responsible.

Not unusual since the Reagan days. Its either pay more or collect less.

 

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Free market/free trade?  No more.  Trump is sticking his nose into private corporations business, e.g., Harley, Amazon, Ford, etc.  Trump and tariffs anyone?

Tariffs are a means, not an end. 

 

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Rule of law?  Please.  Trump is the most corrupt President in history.  Emoluments clause?

De minimus non jurat Lex.

 

At least he made his Billions without being a politician

 

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Individual rights?  Except Trump is about reversing decades of rights related to abortion, gay rights, voting, etc.

Have specific examples of what "rights" have been reversed by President Trump with his pen, other than defining Sex as whether you have a dangler or not?

 

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

The only thing Republicans clearly stand for anymore is kissing up to Trump....SAD!

 

 

At least one pundit feels that the Repubs are the ones who represent the middle class vis a vis the elites and the poor.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/417304-midterms-show-dems-the-party-of-the-elite-not-the-middle-class

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Funny, but I've been asking the same about the GOP.  What do the Republicans stand for?  It used to be...

 

Fiscal responsibility?  No more.  Massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy resulting in massive increase in US deficit/debt.  Not very responsible.

Free market/free trade?  No more.  Trump is sticking his nose into private corporations business, e.g., Harley, Amazon, Ford, etc.  Trump and tariffs anyone?

Rule of law?  Please.  Trump is the most corrupt President in history.  Emoluments clause?

Individual rights?  Except Trump is about reversing decades of rights related to abortion, gay rights, voting, etc.

States rights?  Only if they support Trump!

 

Etc.  The only thing Republicans clearly stand for anymore is kissing up to Trump....SAD!

 

 

Any pretense that the Republicans could lay claim to being fiscally responsible dissappeared long ago with the Reagan tax cuts. And then the Bush tax cuts. In both these cases, just as in the latest one, they claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves. In all 3 cases it was an obvious lie.

[Nyezhov]

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Those are difficult statistics to find, since most surveys seem to have hidden agendas. Rarely are they looking to show white men as the culprits, in my opinion. White men can be very dangerous, as many of the mass murderers in the US have proven. Also, white men tend to either be able to avoid conviction, and get lesser sentences, as a result of race. So, again the numbers are difficult to interpret. 

Lots of white men running around Chicago, St Louis, Washington DC and Detroit murdering each other. But you cant say that because most surveys have hidden agendas as you point out. But off topic.

[metisdead]

The topic is about "Pelosi vows to become U.S. House speaker despite opposition."

 

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[riclag]

There never was a better time even more so than in Obama's reign that the poor,uneducated ,unemployed, welfare state of the USA inner city's can be finally addressed ,taken away from that Vote Democrat the party who will protect your rights as Black American's.

Ms, Fudge coming from OHIO and not the  west coast as does Ms. polosi who rubs arms with the very rich which caters to  illegal aliens from other countries,can partner in a Bi partisan legislation to help the inner city American's step out from under white subjugation of the elitist Dem's!        

[Jingthing]

Some more excellent arguments about why it will be good to keep Pelosi as leader. Which people might as well face, is almost definitely going to happen anyway. Keep in mind the role is less about ideology and more about competence and skill in making votes happen. She's a pro. She's THE pro. But of course she is aged so this will be a transitional thing this last time.

 

Don't fret Pelosi haters, it's not as if she'll ever run for president. 

 

 

Quote

 

The supreme test of Nancy Pelosi’s wizardry

Without Nancy Pelosi’s toughness, focus and legislative skill, there would probably be no Affordable Care Act. Her speakership during the Obama presidency left a legacy of achievement in other areas as well, including a far-
reaching reform of Wall Street regulation and a massive economic stimulus that helped save a collapsing economy.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-test-of-nancy-pelosis-wizardry/2018/11/18/0df35d0a-e9e6-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html

 

[riclag]

Pelosi represents the rich white liberals and dem's who have for many years  invited people from other countries to come while  neglecting American's living in inner cities,such as Chicago,Los Angeles Detroit,Baltimore,Atlanta,Hartford,Cleveland and many more who suffer from just being what they have always been in her eyes and the wealthy elitist dem's a VOTE !

 I'm a Independent voter! The way I see it is Ms. Fudge is a better choice for she is from the inner city her constituents are the forgotten American's ,that are called upon only to vote and support the Dem's every two and four years! The Inner cities ,  homeless,poverty stricken,uneducated and crime under White dem leadership must change !  Pelosi a good fund raiser elitist ,same old same old or Ms. Fudge who has a plan for Inner city  subjugated American's .       

[lannarebirth]

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Your comment makes no sense. Wouldn't it be to the Republicans' advantage to have the Democrats show as "wacky" a face as possible?

And what are these wacky views they espouse? Higher minimum wage? Protections for pre-existing conditions? Improved environmental protection? I keep on asking Trump supporters about the actual issues and never get an answer. I wonder why?

What protections for pre-existing conditions have gone away? That view seems to be inserted in the platform to give the illusion that they are doing something on healthcare, which of course the Democrat leadership doesn't want to do. It's a red herring.

 

I support the young bucks who are doomed to fail if only for their a) exposing the hypocrisy of the leadership on healthcare or b) hopefully moving the platform to an across the board push to Medicare for all or bust. It's what the majority of Americans want and by not fighting for it the Democrats look like the corporate tools they are.

[bristolboy]

 

7 hours ago, riclag said:

 I'm a Independent voter!    

Most ludicrous statement on Thaivisa.com ever?

[bristolboy]

38 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

What protections for pre-existing conditions have gone away? That view seems to be inserted in the platform to give the illusion that they are doing something on healthcare, which of course the Democrat leadership doesn't want to do. It's a red herring.

 

I support the young bucks who are doomed to fail if only for their a) exposing the hypocrisy of the leadership on healthcare or b) hopefully moving the platform to an across the board push to Medicare for all or bust. It's what the majority of Americans want and by not fighting for it the Democrats look like the corporate tools they are.

Republicans in the House voted to repeal the ACA and with it protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Most Republicans in the Senate supported that bill.

 

20 Republican state attorney generals are looking to have the ACA declared unconstitutional. They found themselves the perfect judge for that in Texas who is overwhelmingly like to rule their way. If the Supreme Court backs him up, protection for people with pre-existing conditions is gone.

 

Republican Senator Tom Tillis proposed a bill that was backed by Republicans. He said it would guarantee people with pre-existing conditions access to health insurance. Sounds good, right?

What Republicans didn't say was that while the insurance companies would have to sell them insurance, they could refuse to pay for any health problems arising from pre-existing conditions.

[lannarebirth]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Republicans in the House voted to repeal the ACA and with it protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Most Republicans in the Senate supported that bill.

 

20 Republican state attorney generals are looking to have the ACA declared unconstitutional. They found themselves the perfect judge for that in Texas who is overwhelmingly like to rule their way. If the Supreme Court backs him up, protection for people with pre-existing conditions is gone.

 

Republican Senator Tom Tillis proposed a bill that was backed by Republicans. He said it would guarantee people with pre-existing conditions access to health insurance. Sounds good, right?

What Republicans didn't say was that while the insurance companies would have to sell them insurance, they could refuse to pay for any health problems arising from pre-existing conditions.

 

So you're saying the courts might do something. OK, but that doesn't really have anything to do with Pelosi and Congress. Nothong's going to happen to healthcare in Congress it's just a talking point now. What's sad is they're talking about something that's not going anywhere rather than showing vision for a higher agenda.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

So you're saying the courts might do something. OK, but that doesn't really have anything to do with Pelosi and Congress. Nothong's going to happen to healthcare in Congress it's just a talking point now. What's sad is they're talking about something that's not going anywhere rather than showing vision for a higher agenda.

And what about the next Congress? Why not make the Republicans put up or shut up? You don't think it's useful to show that Republicans are fundamentally opposed to that protection? That people know what they're going to get if they give the Republicans just slightly more control than they had in the last Congress?

And what would that higher agenda be exactly?

[lannarebirth]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what about the next Congress? Why not make the Republicans put up or shut up? You don't think it's useful to show that Republicans are fundamentally opposed to that protection? That people know what they're going to get if they give the Republicans just slightly more control than they had in the last Congress?

And what would that higher agenda be exactly?

They're playing not to lose, and of course teams that do that always lose. They need to lay out a vision as to what they are FOR, not what they are against. Pre-existing conditions coverage is the law of the land, BUILD on that. They should be proposing legislation to SANCTION Saudi Arabia. They should be getting tougher on China's human rights, environmental abuses and territorial expansionism WHILE pointing out that Trump is doing it all wrong. They should throw a few leadership positions to someone not in the old guard.  What they SHOULDN'T do is spend the next two years fighting for head scarves in Congress and third gender toilets.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

They're playing not to lose, and of course teams that do that always lose. They need to lay out a vision as to what they are FOR, not what they are against. Pre-existing conditions coverage is the law of the land, BUILD on that. They should be proposing legislation to SANCTION Saudi Arabia. They should be getting tougher on China's human rights, environmental abuses and territorial expansionism WHILE pointing out that Trump is doing it all wrong. They should throw a few leadership positions to someone not in the old guard.  What they SHOULDN'T do is spend the next two years fighting for head scarves in Congress and third gender toilets.

First of all, what makes you think that they're not going to build on that? Have you even looked at what their proposed agenda is? Doesn't seem like it.

"Democratic leaders say they would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act.

They would then turn to infrastructure investment and the climbing costs of prescription drugs, answering voter demands and challenging President Trump’s willingness to work on shared policy priorities with a party he has vilified. The idea, said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, is to show voters that Democrats are a governing party, not the leftist mob that Mr. Trump has described — and to extend an arm of cooperation to the president after an electoral rebuke."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/us/politics/house-democrats-nancy-pelosi.html

 

 It's not really about headscarves though, is it? It's about the protections afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. That seem like it would be part of a higher agenda, But apparently, not yours.

[lannarebirth]

^ Sorry, MNF is on.

[metisdead]

Troll posts have been removed, the topic has nothing to do with Agent Orange.

[Jingthing]

Fudge endorsed Pelosi.

Obama endorsed Pelosi.

Ortez is on the sidelines.

Welcome to your new old house speaker - - the incredible Nancy Pelosi.

Now on to the important business at hand.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Why do so many people hate Pelosi (even from the same party) at such a gut, personal level? (And Hillary?) I mean aside from their policy agendas. Hmm.

I don't think it's a mystery.

 

Quote

 

The Nancyness of Nancy Pelosi: What hating her says about us

The Nancyness of Nancy Pelosi is like the Hillaryness of Hillary Clinton: It’s not a definition so much as a collection of amorphous descriptors — cackling, scheming, elitist, ex-wife-like — that nobody can ever quite articulate, other than to say they don’t like it.

An assessment that she’s off-putting is often presented as an objective matter of concern, not one of personal taste: It’s not me who dislikes her but some other people.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-nancyness-of-nancy-pelosi-what-hating-her-says-about-us/2018/11/20/aa412480-ecca-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html

[Chomper Higgot]

On 11/20/2018 at 7:32 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

So you're saying the courts might do something. OK, but that doesn't really have anything to do with Pelosi and Congress. Nothong's going to happen to healthcare in Congress it's just a talking point now. What's sad is they're talking about something that's not going anywhere rather than showing vision for a higher agenda.

The ‘higher agenda’ is the Affordable Care Act.

 

Republicans branded it ‘Obama Care’ and in doing so cemented Obama’s name to one of the most widely welcomed and popular public policies across all US society.

 

The ‘higher agenda’ is and will remain more Obama Care and less Republican attempts to restrict access to healthcare in favour of the insurance industry.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Why do so many people hate Pelosi (even from the same party) at such a gut, personal level? (And Hillary?) I mean aside from their policy agendas. Hmm.

I don't think it's a mystery.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-nancyness-of-nancy-pelosi-what-hating-her-says-about-us/2018/11/20/aa412480-ecca-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html

Who’s Afraid of Nancy Pelosi?

 

By Paul Krugman

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/opinion/nancy-pelosi-midterms-democrats-republicans.html

[mtls2005]

This sort of thing must cause Trump supporters to spontaneously combust...

 

 

 

Trump says Pelosi deserves speakership, offers Republican votes

 

President Donald Trump waded into the Democratic House leadership battle again Saturday morning, throwing his weight behind the woman he’s spent the last few months demonizing: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

 

Trump tweeted that he could get the longtime leader of the Democratic caucus “as many votes as she wants in order for her to be Speaker of the House” — a position that requires the votes of the majority of House members, not the majority of the party.

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/17/18099910/trump-nancy-pelosi-speaker-republican-support

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

This sort of thing must cause Trump supporters to spontaneously combust...

 

 

 

Trump says Pelosi deserves speakership, offers Republican votes

 

President Donald Trump waded into the Democratic House leadership battle again Saturday morning, throwing his weight behind the woman he’s spent the last few months demonizing: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

 

Trump tweeted that he could get the longtime leader of the Democratic caucus “as many votes as she wants in order for her to be Speaker of the House” — a position that requires the votes of the majority of House members, not the majority of the party.

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/17/18099910/trump-nancy-pelosi-speaker-republican-support

I doubt it, they know what he is doing.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

I doubt it, they know what he is doing.

The question is does he know what he is doing? Given his chronic and massive ignorance, which he has demonstrated repeatedly, that seems unlikely.