JustAManOnAToiletNancy Pelosi: Democrat and ex-Speaker, 83, to seek re-election
Oh for fucks sakes.
She’s only one more reelection to lichdom.
We should turn her into a giant baby.
We need to find her phylactery first, otherwise she’ll always return.
Fuck’s sake *
Yes. Fuck posses the sake.
Is it for the sake of just one fuck, or all the fucks?
One must consider both, the aggregate (greater fuck group) and the individual fuck as well.
She is widely credited with marshalling the passage of former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, as well as bills to address infrastructure and climate change under incumbent President Joe Biden.
Her big claim to fame…
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It’s fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you’re in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
They had to get rid of the public option to get enough Democrats to vote for it.
It was not a party line vote, 34 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting No. It squeaked through the House, 219-212.
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
What I’m saying is that there was no national consensus on health care reform in 2008. No plan had a lot of popular support, including single payer (especially single payer!).
“Getting their own party members” to vote for something highly unpopular with their constituents is not as easy at all. Democrats could have ignored the problem or tried to cobble together something that could pass. They chose the latter, at the expense of losing the House in 2010.
harkThis could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it’s obvious that the ol’ switcharoo is intentional.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn’t expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It’s not a “switcharoo”, it’s baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema.
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
Are you kidding?
McCarthy is constantly trying to keep Gaetz, Boebert et al from forcing him out as Speaker. He wishes his caucus was as unified as the Democrats.
Reid kept his caucus together to pass the ACA, McConnell couldn’t keep his together to repeat it.
Party squabbles mean little when ultimately they’re getting their way. If anything, those squabbles push the republican party even more to the right and gets them even more of what they want. Passing the ACA was the best that the democrats could do with a super majority and even then it was a watered down bill.
But they aren’t getting the legislation they want.
They failed to privatize Social Security, failed to repeal the ACA, failed to build a southern wall, etc.
In contrast, Democrats passed the ACA, passed Dodd-Frank, passed ARPA, passed the IRA, passed CHIPS, etc.
Republicans only look successful because they had to drastically lower their bar for success. They don’t want to pass laws any more, so they naturally get what they want.
It’s pretty obvious where the country is heading. You can pick and choose legislation, but the trajectory is clear. Also, things like ACA and Dodd-Frank were watered down trash. CHIPS was bipartisan because it was meant to stick it to China, but you’re trying to rebrand it as a democratic victory.
Politics always involves compromise. ACA and Dodd-Frank were improvements on the status quo, which is usually the best you can hope for. They do not need to be perfect to be good.
CHIPS was a typo. I meant to cite CHIP, which provides health care to children, not CHIPS.
Democrats compromise far more than republicans. ACA and Dodd-Frank are bandaids. You still see many suffer under the healthcare system in this country, meanwhile insurance companies post record profits. As for Dodd-Frank… you’ll see another “once-in-a-lifetime” economic meltdown soon, which will show how effective that legislation was.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Democrats do compromise more than Republicans, which is exactly why they get more legislation passed than Republicans.
The ACA and Dodd-Frank didn’t solve every problem, but they did solve some. We are better off with them than without them. Even if they don’t stop the next catastrophe.
Getting more legislation passed doesn’t matter when that legislation does far less than the fewer pieces of legislation that the republicans can pass. Just look at the state of the country and tell me which party is winning.
Name two pieces of legislation that the GOP passed through Congress in the past 20 years that did more than the ACA and the IRA.
Getting republicans to vote for
No Republicans voted for it.
In fact, she had to work to get Democrats to vote for it. It passed the House 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all the Republicans voting No.
That was the joke…
TESTIFY!
We do legitimately have a gerontocracy problem and this doesn’t help, but at the same time as long as she’s capable of doing the job I can’t in good conscience object either. The beauty of our system of government is anyone can run. You don’t like her, run against her or STFU and quit screaming at the clouds.
The beauty of our system of government is anyone can run. You don’t like her, run against her or STFU and quit screaming at the clouds.
You act like primaries are fair…
Even the DNC stopped doing that years ago, why do you still believe it?
The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”
DeceptichumNo, no. You see buttery emails and stuff, they never deliberately worked against Bernie to ensure Clinton won. Totally it was all the people voting.
brings up Bernie in current year
😴
Pretends the same corruption magically no longer exists
Conflating
Shahid Buttar was a very good candidate running against Pelosi. DNC wasn’t happy and the idiot Dem voters from the District just fell in line behind the incumbent as both party’s voters tend to do. It’s just a fucked up, dysfunctional system we have going here.
Lookee there. The candidate didn’t get the support or votes and lost. Therefore it’s a dysfunctional system. If you added “and it must be destroyed” you could join the Republican party. Candidates lose. It happen every election.
It’s a dysfunctional system because of the way it is. If you can’t see it…well, I don’t know what to tell you. I would love to get a pair of those rose-tinted ignorance-is-bliss glasses.
All I know, friend, is that the same system has worked for over 100 years.
ares35if the dnc didn't like fucking up primaries, bernie's vp would be the front-runner in 2024. oh, and the country would be in a lot better shape than it is now, too.
i hope california can come up with a candidate that can challenge pelosi in the primaries.
The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”
I’m not saying the DNC isn’t biased. But it looks like that was a legal arguments made by lawyers. Generally, they make every argument they can fit into their brief.
It was only their lawyers and the person running it at the time that said it, that doesn’t count!
BertramDitoreTrue, anyone can technically run. But in practice, a fresh-faced new candidate going up against a well-funded incumbent will very very rarely win. The few times it has happened the incumbent either didn’t take the threat seriously (AOC), or the incumbent was involved in a big scandal.
For your well-intentioned version of America to exist in reality, we’d need to do a few things: overturn Citizens United, require that all elections be fully publicly funded, ban private political donations, and stop letting elected officials draw their own maps. Until then, the gerontocracy will go on.
You give me a dozen reasons why can’t win. Maybe your the wrong person for the job.
Someday I’ll tell you the story of 7 of 11 and Obama.
Oh I’m definitely the wrong person for the job. And I’m not running, see above.
Both sides are the same
Age
Age
No.
No, no, no, no, no!
Is she looking at Feinstein and thinking “well, I don’t need to be propped up yet, so I should still be able to run the country!”
I don’t care on which side of the aisle these oldies sit. They do not represent the will of a people who are largely younger than they are by two decades.
AltoNo, she's looking at her and her husband's bank accounts and thinking "well, I don't need to be propped up yet, so I can continue to be grossly corrupt and get even richer"
Well, she is the queen of congressional insider trading…
FalExplain how. Can you cite any trades that are particularly suspicious?
You’re basically espousing right wing talking points that they came up with to divert attention from the republicans who are actively insider trading. There are plenty of things to criticize pelosi for rather than this stupid argument which isn’t backed up by facts.
bloomberg.com/…/pelosi-s-husband-locked-in-5-3-mi… Paul Pelosi is forever making suspiciously well-timed trades. When it became a scandal, they intentionally sold Nvidia shares at a loss to try to end scrutiny of that trade.
It’s not a Republican talking point. I’m as far left as they come and I’m offended by her corruption (even if Joe Manchin’s family seems worse).
Pelosi’s Husband Locked In $5.3 Million From Alphabet Options
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, won big on Alphabet Inc. stock and added bets on Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. in the weeks leading up to the House Judiciary Committee’s vote on antitrust legislation that seeks to severely limit how these companies organize and offer their products.
So, he exercised his options he held for quite a while, a “week before House panel considered antitrust bills”. What exactly was the insider information? And, he just exercised the options to hold the stock. Not sure how that’s evidence of insider trading
I mention her trading because this is a post about her.
Corruption is corruption and it spans both chambers and all layers of government.
So you don’t care if it’s true or not, you’re just mentioning it because you associate insider trading with pelosi for just random unrelated reasons?
You’re basically espousing right wing talking points
Talking points fabricated by the shadowy, fascist organization known as… 60 Minutes.
She was # 6 in 2021, # 1 to 5 were all Republicans.
Then things didn’t go as well in 2022
So how about we start paying attention to Republican tradings? 👍
mikeboltonshairWhile you are right this has zero to do with whatever party you want to idolize it’s a problem for all sides we need to focus on all of them, none of these clowns should be able to make trades, they are in positions where they actually can shape the outcomes of their trades that’s fucking ridiculous
And on topic there needs to be some realistic term limits for these jackasses especially when they start to get older, nothing wrong with being old but if you are running a country and you get stuck staring at cameras in a daze it’s time to go… ffs most people I know can’t wait to retire and would do so even earlier if they could yet these goblins are slopping it up at the trough
This is a class issue always has been
Never said it wasn’t the case, I just pointed out the Pelosi is always the target when the fact is she’s not the worst and there’s zero attention put on any Republicans regarding that.
So how about we start paying attention to Republican tradings?
People are. See those red bars in the infographics you posted? Paying attention to trades made by Republicans and paying attention made by Democrats are not mutually exclusive (also illustrated by the infographics you posted). What are you trying to achieve with this whataboutism?
I’m just pointing out the fact that people are always pointing at Pelosi but she’s not the biggest culprit and no people aren’t putting as much attention on the people who are actually worse than her.
I’m just pointing out the fact that people are always pointing at Pelosi but she’s not the biggest culprit
You mean that she wasn’t the most successful in 2022. Though, she was the only politician who had their own section in the 2022 report. unusualwhales.com/…/congress-trading-report-2022#…
Different story in 2020, wasn’t it? This infographic includes members of the house only though. Insider trading in the senate may have been worse or better, depending on how you’re looking at it.
The Unusual Whales Congress Trading Report for 2022
Congress has beaten the markets once again in 2022. We've explored numerous ways on how Congress traded, their trends, as well as the most unusual of trades. Read it now to see how Congress beats the market and performs with conflicts, privy information, and power over laws that benefit them.