The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: nereo on August 10, 2018, 06:09:22 AM
-
As the midterms are gearing up one of the central stategies of the GOP is to make every race about preventing 'Nancy Pelosi and her liberal agenda." Even among Dems there's an open discussion about whether she's a "burden" to the party, and every Dem is being asked whether they would vote for her as speaker, should they retake the majority.
I'm having a hard time understanding why Pelosi is so vilified. What, specifically, do people hate so much about her?
I've asked similar questions of my staunch conservative family members and they just give me this look as if I had asked what was so bad about Hitler, and they toss out words like "liberal" and "California" and then involuntarily shudder at the thought.
I know she was the first female speaker, and her gender factors in some, but it seems to be more than that.
- Thoughts/Opinions?
-
I'm sort of a "middle of the road" voter, much less of a Republican than I used to be. I'm just kind of sick of Nancy Pelosi. I'm ready for some fresh, young "blood" in both parties. Nancy has simply been around wayyyyyyy too long for my taste. Too entrenched. Too old school. But I don't think that's why many people don't like her.
-
I'm sort of a "middle of the road" voter, much less of a Republican than I used to be. I'm just kind of sick of Nancy Pelosi. I'm ready for some fresh, young "blood" in both parties. Nancy has simply been around wayyyyyyy too long for my taste. Too entrenched. Too old school. But I don't think that's why many people don't like her.
In what way is she too old school? In trenched in what? I am struggling to understand this as well.
-
Nothing is wrong with Nancy Pelosi, unless it’s the same thing that was wrong with Hillary. Female, effective, ambitious, experienced politician. I have no problem with someone who is qualified for the job, but some people label that “establishment” and prefer a novice for some reason. I haven’t figured it out.
-
I don't have any problem with her specifically other than I don't like her personality. I don't know much about her stance on many issues.
I do support some more age discrimination as well as term limits in the federal government. She of course would get caught in that net.
Drain the swamp and stuff.
-
Nothing wrong with her really. Just a face that the right has made it a point to turn into the boogeyman to get their base riled up. If she retired tomorrow, they would leave her alone and vilify the next Dem in line.
Most Dems I know who want her gone only feel that way because they're tired of hearing the negativity from the Rs. Which is kinda sad.
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
-
As the midterms are gearing up one of the central stategies of the GOP is to make every race about preventing 'Nancy Pelosi and her liberal agenda." Even among Dems there's an open discussion about whether she's a "burden" to the party, and every Dem is being asked whether they would vote for her as speaker, should they retake the majority.
I'm having a hard time understanding why Pelosi is so vilified. What, specifically, do people hate so much about her?
I've asked similar questions of my staunch conservative family members and they just give me this look as if I had asked what was so bad about Hitler, and they toss out words like "liberal" and "California" and then involuntarily shudder at the thought.
I know she was the first female speaker, and her gender factors in some, but it seems to be more than that.
- Thoughts/Opinions?
From the left, she's not left enough. Even though she has moved left with the party, in a two party system, a speaker/minority leader is going to piss off a good chunk of the party because they act in a way that can build a coalition within their party. In the past, the pork process calmed a lot of that. They might not have been happy, but they wanted their pork, so they generally didn't publicly trash their party's leadership. Now, ear marking being greatly diminished takes away some of the oil that greased the system in the past, and also many on the far left are more worried about social justice issues and more progressive tax rates than getting their share of pork, and on the right, while while they still want their pork, it puts them in cross fire between their donors and some of their important voting blocs.
That's why you see people on the right bitch about McConnell. IN reality, he's been extremely good on some things (free speech in particular) and a little weak on others, but people in his party to the right of him just remember the things he's weak on and complain about him. That's why you see the leadership role in the house as less desirable. yes, it's still a way to amass power and influence, but it also makes you a target, and some many representatives would rather have a lesser role for longer rather than risk getting bounced because they can't keep people happy in their leadership role.
ETA: From the right, she's just a visible, powerful politician that is much further to the left than them. And like all the people that have to make tradeoffs to build a coalition, she is an easy target as a hypocrite. Plus her husband getting rich (or just richer?) makes them an easy target as being corrupt. I don't think anybody knows which members of congress/senate are getting rich legitimately versus trading on their office, but there are probably more of the latter than the former, so it's predictable that people presume the worst and don't care to find out the truth for any particular policitian, particularly from the other side of the aisle.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)
I think the number one reason is that she was highly vilified for her handling of Obamacare. She made a lot of stupid statements, and I think ended up taking on a lot more of the blame around the passage of Obamacare than Obama did.
But she's also been in the house for over 30 years. This is something that Democrats need to fix. Out of the 72 congressmen that have been there for >20 years, 42 are D's (58%).
The Senate though is a whole other ball game. Just about every senator has been around way too long. A lot won their senate seat after 10-20 years in the House or as a governor. You could say the hatred that is spewed towards Nancy Pelosi in many respects is done from the Left on Mitch McConnell. They've both played bad politics as their respective heads of Congress and both have been around since Regan.
There may be more trash cable news for the R side, but D's read a lot more online magazines where the McConnell trashing happens. (And I think there is less Pelosi bashing in R online publications).
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
My understanding is that Pelosi's position on the 2nd amendment is that there should be better background checks for buying a firearm, and that she supports assault weapons bans. I suspect that the people providing her security aren't using assault weapons, and have had extensive background checks . . . so I'm not sure how this is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Could you elaborate on this point?
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
My understanding is that Pelosi's position on the 2nd amendment is that there should be better background checks for buying a firearm, and that she supports assault weapons bans. I suspect that the people providing her security aren't using assault weapons, and have had extensive background checks . . . so I'm not sure how this is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Could you elaborate on this point?
Your understanding is wrong. She is for things like suing gun makers when their guns are used illegally (trying to force them into bankruptcy, a backdoor effort to nullify 2A), she is against state reciprocity laws, and she is against "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. I guarantee that yes, she probably is protected by "assault rifles" (almost every police force in the country has AR-15s, guarantee they're using them to protect her home/office even if they aren't carrying them out in town) and absolutely she is protected by "high capacity magazines" (most full size 9MM pistols have a 17 round capacity).
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
Fly commercial.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol...
I agree with this.
The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men.
You lose me here. I think the bias against powerful female politicians is subconscious for most people, not an explicit belief that "it is immoral for a woman to have power over men". I know a lot of men who despise Pelosi and Hillary, yet have happily worked for women. But, the women they worked for are actual people that they know on a personal level, not abstract caricatures of everything that's wrong with the opposing party, which is basically what Pelosi represents to many people (thanks to a decade of attacks and unsubtle persuasion).
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
I'm going to slightly disagree because I remember Pelosi was always paired with Reid in the commercials at the time. Reid has since retired. They put a little bit on Schumer now, but he's never really been in power yet, and doesn't have the same name recognition.
Plus D's haven't signaled that she's not going to be the House leader. So it makes sense to attack her this year. Why not hand over the reigns to a no-name high ranking Dem? D's are refusing to make a counter move that would make sense and completely destroy R's messaging. It's the same mistake they made with Hillary, they think they'll be able to win with the same old Dems.
If R's have successfully made a caricature out of your leader, just choose a new leader, there are plenty of them.
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
My understanding is that Pelosi's position on the 2nd amendment is that there should be better background checks for buying a firearm, and that she supports assault weapons bans. I suspect that the people providing her security aren't using assault weapons, and have had extensive background checks . . . so I'm not sure how this is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Could you elaborate on this point?
Your understanding is wrong. She is for things like suing gun makers when their guns are used illegally (trying to force them into bankruptcy, a backdoor effort to nullify 2A), she is against state reciprocity laws, and she is against "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. I guarantee that yes, she probably is protected by "assault rifles" (almost every police force in the country has AR-15s, guarantee they're using them to protect her home/office even if they aren't carrying them out in town) and absolutely she is protected by "high capacity magazines" (most full size 9MM pistols have a 17 round capacity).
In what way does Nancy Pelosi 'do as I say not as I do' in regards with state reciprocity laws?
Regarding assault weapons, my understanding of Nancy Pelosi's position is that she wants to prevent private ownership of them. I don't believe she has ever petitioned to remove them from the hands of law enforcement . . . who protect everyone equally. That's not an inconsistent position.
Pelosi has tried unsuccessfully to prevent sales of high capacity magazines for private use. It's possible that the security she has uses high capacity magazines, but that would make sense - there's no legislation banning them.
So far, you haven't provided anything that backs up your assertion of hypocrisy.
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
Fly commercial.
Wasn't that your initial complaint that Nancy Pelosi is flying around in planes, which are bad for the environment?
Flying coach is also shit for the environment. That's why I was asking if you had any suggestions for travel that would be actionable. If you don't, I'm not sure what the initial complaint was about.
This would seem to leave the entirety of your argument being 'She doesn't support my view of how the second amendment should be treated'.
-
Wasn't that your initial complaint that Nancy Pelosi is flying around in planes, which are bad for the environment?
Flying coach is also shit for the environment. That's why I was asking if you had any suggestions for travel that would be actionable. If you don't, I'm not sure what the initial complaint was about.
There is definitely an order of magnitude difference between environmental impact of private jet and commercial seats.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
I wouldn't even limit this to just Republicans, I think latent sexism towards women in politics is present in most men and lots of women too. I even include myself in that statement; I try to recognize it but I'm sure I have blind spots.
On the other hand, I don't exactly love everything I've read about Pelosi, but I can say the same of a lot of other democrats in congress.
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
My understanding is that Pelosi's position on the 2nd amendment is that there should be better background checks for buying a firearm, and that she supports assault weapons bans. I suspect that the people providing her security aren't using assault weapons, and have had extensive background checks . . . so I'm not sure how this is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Could you elaborate on this point?
Your understanding is wrong. She is for things like suing gun makers when their guns are used illegally (trying to force them into bankruptcy, a backdoor effort to nullify 2A), she is against state reciprocity laws, and she is against "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. I guarantee that yes, she probably is protected by "assault rifles" (almost every police force in the country has AR-15s, guarantee they're using them to protect her home/office even if they aren't carrying them out in town) and absolutely she is protected by "high capacity magazines" (most full size 9MM pistols have a 17 round capacity).
In what way does Nancy Pelosi 'do as I say not as I do' in regards with state reciprocity laws?
She thinks that private citizens do not have the right to defend themselves when traveling from state to state when she herself enjoys that protection from her security detail.
Regarding assault weapons, my understanding of Nancy Pelosi's position is that she wants to prevent private ownership of them. I don't believe she has ever petitioned to remove them from the hands of law enforcement . . . who protect everyone equally. That's not an inconsistent position.
So she is okay with her own little mini police force using them to protect her, but she is not okay with me using one to protect myself? That's hypocrisy.
Pelosi has tried unsuccessfully to prevent sales of high capacity magazines for private use. It's possible that the security she has uses high capacity magazines, but that would make sense - there's no legislation banning them.
If she thinks they are so terrible as to be banned, why does she allow them to be used to protect her? Isn't that like saying "well I don't think people should be allowed to use straws, but as long as they're allowed I'm going to go ahead and use them"? You don't see any character flaw in that?
So far, you haven't provided anything that backs up your assertion of hypocrisy.
Using your twisted logic and tiny semantic arguments maybe not, but I think reasonable people can disagree with that statement. She doesn't want other people to have the same rights she apparently has no problem exercising herself.
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
Fly commercial.
Wasn't that your initial complaint that Nancy Pelosi is flying around in planes, which are bad for the environment?
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
He was arguing for more gun controls on the general populace (e.g. background checks and a national registry), not about disarming police forces.
FWIW, Washington DC has a 1,000 foot no-firearms barrier around all planned demonstrations - only law enforcement can carry firearms, and they are required to do so.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
I'm going to slightly disagree because I remember Pelosi was always paired with Reid in the commercials at the time. Reid has since retired. They put a little bit on Schumer now, but he's never really been in power yet, and doesn't have the same name recognition.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying they have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
-
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
But you seem to make it a point of aligning yourself with an entire political party known for dismantling environmental regulations and simply not giving a fuck about the environment. Certainly an obvious double standard. Who cares what she flies around in if you don't care about the environment?
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
-
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
But you seem to make it a point of aligning yourself with an entire political party known for dismantling environmental regulations and simply not giving a fuck about the environment. Certainly an obvious double standard. Who cares what she flies around in if you don't care about the environment?
Because it's not about what she does, it's about what she believes OTHERS have to do while doing the opposite for herself. Again, limousine liberal. She wants to make rules for little people while maintaining the ability to flout those rules herself because power. Same reason everyone gets all pissed off at Al Gore for his environmental preaching from his massive power-sucking enclave. Oh, wait, he pays himself indulgences carbon credits, so it's all good :rolleyes:
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
-
Nancy Pelosi is an outspoken critic of the 2A. She also comes across as the worst kind of limousine liberal, the "do as I say not as I do" with her "you shouldn't have 2A rights but I have armed guards at all times" and pushing heavy environmental regulations while flying around on a private jet.
My understanding is that Pelosi's position on the 2nd amendment is that there should be better background checks for buying a firearm, and that she supports assault weapons bans. I suspect that the people providing her security aren't using assault weapons, and have had extensive background checks . . . so I'm not sure how this is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Could you elaborate on this point?
Your understanding is wrong. She is for things like suing gun makers when their guns are used illegally (trying to force them into bankruptcy, a backdoor effort to nullify 2A), she is against state reciprocity laws, and she is against "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. I guarantee that yes, she probably is protected by "assault rifles" (almost every police force in the country has AR-15s, guarantee they're using them to protect her home/office even if they aren't carrying them out in town) and absolutely she is protected by "high capacity magazines" (most full size 9MM pistols have a 17 round capacity).
In what way does Nancy Pelosi 'do as I say not as I do' in regards with state reciprocity laws?
She thinks that private citizens do not have the right to defend themselves when traveling from state to state when she herself enjoys that protection from her security detail.
Can you provide evidence that she thinks this? No state prevents citizens from defending themselves. Are you talking about carrying a concealed weapon across state lines?
Regarding assault weapons, my understanding of Nancy Pelosi's position is that she wants to prevent private ownership of them. I don't believe she has ever petitioned to remove them from the hands of law enforcement . . . who protect everyone equally. That's not an inconsistent position.
So she is okay with her own little mini police force using them to protect her, but she is not okay with me using one to protect myself? That's hypocrisy.
You mentioned a police force. A police force exists to defend all citizens in a country equally. Now you're confusing government security agents with a police force. Can you please provide evidence of your assertion that the security defending Nancy Pelosi uses assault weapons?
Pelosi has tried unsuccessfully to prevent sales of high capacity magazines for private use. It's possible that the security she has uses high capacity magazines, but that would make sense - there's no legislation banning them.
If she thinks they are so terrible as to be banned, why does she allow them to be used to protect her? Isn't that like saying "well I don't think people should be allowed to use straws, but as long as they're allowed I'm going to go ahead and use them"? You don't see any character flaw in that?
Sure, that would be a bit hypocritical I guess. Do you have evidence that high capacity magazines are used to protect her? Where are you getting this information?
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
Fly commercial.
Wasn't that your initial complaint that Nancy Pelosi is flying around in planes, which are bad for the environment?[/quote]
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
That's not true at all. There was a period where she was told to use a military plane with particular capabilities by the House Sargent At Arms, which I think is what you're talking about:
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/)
https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/ (https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/)
She also only flew in private planes while she was speaker of the house. Since holding that post she has in fact flown commercial: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525 (https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525).
Yur complaint would seem to be largely unfounded in this case.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
The rest of us aren’t political targets. In 40 years of life, I’ve yet to feel the need to carry a weapon, although I am concerned about all the untrained yahoos who might whip theirs out in a parking lot and murder someone I love. I see nothing hypocritical about politicians needing armed security.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
-
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
But you seem to make it a point of aligning yourself with an entire political party known for dismantling environmental regulations and simply not giving a fuck about the environment. Certainly an obvious double standard. Who cares what she flies around in if you don't care about the environment?
Because it's not about what she does, it's about what she believes OTHERS have to do while doing the opposite for herself. Again, limousine liberal. She wants to make rules for little people while maintaining the ability to flout those rules herself because power. Same reason everyone gets all pissed off at Al Gore for his environmental preaching from his massive power-sucking enclave. Oh, wait, he pays himself indulgences carbon credits, so it's all good :rolleyes:
Encouraging people to reduce their carbon footprint aren't rules. I mean this is stupid on it's face. Do you have kids? And do you not encourage your kids to make better choices or do/not do things you are guilty of doing/not doing? That isn't some liberal thing. Pretty sure every fucking human being does it, including yourself.
-
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
But you seem to make it a point of aligning yourself with an entire political party known for dismantling environmental regulations and simply not giving a fuck about the environment. Certainly an obvious double standard. Who cares what she flies around in if you don't care about the environment?
Because it's not about what she does, it's about what she believes OTHERS have to do while doing the opposite for herself. Again, limousine liberal. She wants to make rules for little people while maintaining the ability to flout those rules herself because power. Same reason everyone gets all pissed off at Al Gore for his environmental preaching from his massive power-sucking enclave. Oh, wait, he pays himself indulgences carbon credits, so it's all good :rolleyes:
So your equally against Republicans who want to take away certain tax deductions but continue to claim them while they're still on the books? Saying that society needs to change the playing field is a completely different question from what do I need to do for me know with the rules the way they currently are.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
So you don't see any double standard here? No empathy for "the other side"?
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
I'm going to slightly disagree because I remember Pelosi was always paired with Reid in the commercials at the time. Reid has since retired. They put a little bit on Schumer now, but he's never really been in power yet, and doesn't have the same name recognition.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying they have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
Which is unfortunate considering what she actually said was But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Which she further explained
“the outside groups…were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.”
The Affordable Care Act had been publicly available for months. Even if she had said this without the context I've provided here, it wouldn't make any sense. But her critics never acknowledged that.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
So you don't see any double standard here? No empathy for "the other side"?
No, I don’t see a double standard. I did say he had a tiny point, but really only because he included Kellyanne Conway. He had to include a bunch of women who have done really shitty things people are opposed to. Kellyanne was disliked and I suspect mostly because she was a female supporting Trump. So, yes, it happens on both sides.
I’m a female and well aware of bias against us, but just like people don’t like being called racist all the time for things that aren’t, I don’t think we should be including examples of people disliking women when there is a valid reason for it. I do understand if you like what these women do, you may not understand the other side’s issues with it, though.
-
Can you provide evidence that she thinks this? No state prevents citizens from defending themselves. Are you talking about carrying a concealed weapon across state lines?
Yes, I am talking about carrying a concealed weapon across state lines. There is currently a proposal to require states to recognize other states' concealed carry licenses, the same way they recognize other states' driver's licenses. Pelosi is very much against this. So yes, my home state in particular will not recognize any other state's CCW, so it does prevent you from defending yourself in IL unless you are an IL resident and procure an IL CCW permit.
You mentioned a police force. A police force exists to defend all citizens in a country equally. Now you're confusing government security agents with a police force. Can you please provide evidence of your assertion that the security defending Nancy Pelosi uses assault weapons?
Often times, security of dignitaries is partly or wholly farmed out to local police forces. So if Nancy shows up to my neighborhood, and they stick three local cops out in front of her house, they are not protecting her "equally" like they protect me, because they don't sit out in front of my house. It's security dedicated to her. And since almost all local cops have an AR-15 in their car, yes, she is protected by assault weapons. Can I "prove" it? I dunno, probably not, but Google "weapons used by the Secret Service" or "weapons used by local police". See assault weapons on there? See automatic weapons on there?
Sure, that would be a bit hypocritical I guess. Do you have evidence that high capacity magazines are used to protect her? Where are you getting this information?
Where am I getting this information? https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/popular-guns-for-law-enforcement/
The most popular weapons are Glock pistols and similar pistols. Almost any full-size semi automatic is going to have a "high capacity" magazine. Unless she goes out of her way to ensure everyone on her detail only carries revolvers or 1911s or compact pistols, she's protected by high capacity magazines.
I think it's sort of a legitimate argument regarding flying though. Pelosi did use the same private jet provided to all speakers of the house, and it would have been more environmentally friendly of her to teleconference into meetings. I suspect that politically this would have serious repercussions though . . . which is why every politician in Washington regularly flies back and forth. I'd love to see less transportation waste from the government, but am not entirely sure how that would work. Train and automobile transportation is likely to be too slow. Do you have any suggestions?
Fly commercial.
Wasn't that your initial complaint that Nancy Pelosi is flying around in planes, which are bad for the environment?[/quote]
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
That's not true at all. There was a period where she was told to use a military plane with particular capabilities by the House Sargent At Arms, which I think is what you're talking about:
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/)
https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/ (https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/)
She also only flew in private planes while she was speaker of the house. Since holding that post she has in fact flown commercial: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525 (https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525).
Yur complaint would seem to be largely unfounded in this case.
[/quote] Okay dude, whatever.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
So you don't see any double standard here? No empathy for "the other side"?
No, I don’t see a double standard. I did say he had a tiny point, but really only because he included Kellyanne Conway. He had to include a bunch of women who have done really shitty things people are opposed to. Kellyanne was disliked and I suspect mostly because she was a female supporting Trump. So, yes, it happens on both sides.
I’m a female and well aware of bias against us, but just like people don’t like being called racist all the time for things that aren’t, I don’t think we should be including examples of people disliking women when there is a valid reason for it. I do understand if you like what these women do, you may not understand the other side’s issues with it, though.
Exactly! Someone on the right feels exactly the same you do! They way they see it Nancy has done some "really shitty things" and they have valid reasons for disliking her, in their point of view. Just as you do with the women being discussed. Empathy!
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
The rest of us aren’t political targets. In 40 years of life, I’ve yet to feel the need to carry a weapon, although I am concerned about all the untrained yahoos who might whip theirs out in a parking lot and murder someone I love. I see nothing hypocritical about politicians needing armed security.
I'm not a political target, but does that mean I can't be any kind of target? What about a battered woman who wants to carry a gun to protect herself from an abusive ex? She doesn't get to protect herself?
-
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
But you seem to make it a point of aligning yourself with an entire political party known for dismantling environmental regulations and simply not giving a fuck about the environment. Certainly an obvious double standard. Who cares what she flies around in if you don't care about the environment?
Because it's not about what she does, it's about what she believes OTHERS have to do while doing the opposite for herself. Again, limousine liberal. She wants to make rules for little people while maintaining the ability to flout those rules herself because power. Same reason everyone gets all pissed off at Al Gore for his environmental preaching from his massive power-sucking enclave. Oh, wait, he pays himself indulgences carbon credits, so it's all good :rolleyes:
So your equally against Republicans who want to take away certain tax deductions but continue to claim them while they're still on the books? Saying that society needs to change the playing field is a completely different question from what do I need to do for me know with the rules the way they currently are.
Only if those tax deductions are something only available to them as a privilege of office. Using something available to EVERYONE while being against it is different than using something only available to YOU while being against its availability to everyone else.
-
Which is unfortunate considering what she actually said was But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Which she further explained
“the outside groups…were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.”
The Affordable Care Act had been publicly available for months. Even if she had said this without the context I've provided here, it wouldn't make any sense. But her critics never acknowledged that.
I've honestly never read an explanation to the statement, which does exonerate her to an extent. Politics does not usually give room for context that is longer than 30 seconds. But her statement as is, wasn't well-formed. Saying that you have to pass a bill to prove that what detractors are saying is false is still a bad way at setting policy.
-
Can you provide evidence that she thinks this? No state prevents citizens from defending themselves. Are you talking about carrying a concealed weapon across state lines?
Yes, I am talking about carrying a concealed weapon across state lines. There is currently a proposal to require states to recognize other states' concealed carry licenses, the same way they recognize other states' driver's licenses. Pelosi is very much against this. So yes, my home state in particular will not recognize any other state's CCW, so it does prevent you from defending yourself in IL unless you are an IL resident and procure an IL CCW permit.
OK. Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
You admit that nobody's right to protect him/herself is infringed upon . . . and that any private citizen has a legal path to do so regardless of reciprocity of concealed carry laws or not. Which also means that Pelosi is not being hypocritical.
You mentioned a police force. A police force exists to defend all citizens in a country equally. Now you're confusing government security agents with a police force. Can you please provide evidence of your assertion that the security defending Nancy Pelosi uses assault weapons?
Often times, security of dignitaries is partly or wholly farmed out to local police forces. So if Nancy shows up to my neighborhood, and they stick three local cops out in front of her house, they are not protecting her "equally" like they protect me, because they don't sit out in front of my house. It's security dedicated to her. And since almost all local cops have an AR-15 in their car, yes, she is protected by assault weapons. Can I "prove" it? I dunno, probably not, but Google "weapons used by the Secret Service" or "weapons used by local police". See assault weapons on there? See automatic weapons on there?
OK. So, we have no evidence of your claim that assault weapons are used to protect Pelosi, or that local police are used instead of dedicated government security.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that local police are used, and that the local police happen to have assault weapons . . . then so what? They're local police. The same police who protect you, are protecting her. Your argument is that she's being protected in a special way? OK. But if you were to have a death threat against you, you could call the police station and get an officer to watch over you for a few nights too. Where is the hypocrisy here?
Sure, that would be a bit hypocritical I guess. Do you have evidence that high capacity magazines are used to protect her? Where are you getting this information?
Where am I getting this information? https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/popular-guns-for-law-enforcement/
The most popular weapons are Glock pistols and similar pistols. Almost any full-size semi automatic is going to have a "high capacity" magazine. Unless she goes out of her way to ensure everyone on her detail only carries revolvers or 1911s or compact pistols, she's protected by high capacity magazines.
If she's being protected by police (as you've just argued), then there's no problem . . . since she has never said that law enforcement should be denied high capacity magazines. If she's being protected by government security, then it's possible that high capacity magazines are being used for protection and this is protection that the average person wouldn't have access to at the local gun store if a measure that Pelosi supported had passed (which it didn't).
Either way, this really seems like an awful stretch to claim hypocrisy . . . but sure, if it makes you happy . . . I guess that could be viewed as hypocritical?
No. My complaint was she flies around in PRIVATE planes and then preaches at me that I need to do better for the environment. I'll put my tiny carbon footprint up against hers any day. If you recall correctly, she was clamoring for an even bigger plane to fly her around. Like I said, pure limousine liberal.
That's not true at all. There was a period where she was told to use a military plane with particular capabilities by the House Sargent At Arms, which I think is what you're talking about:
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jet-set-2/)
https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/ (https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosi-jet-is-gone/)
She also only flew in private planes while she was speaker of the house. Since holding that post she has in fact flown commercial: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525 (https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/pelosi-to-fly-commercial-045525).
Yur complaint would seem to be largely unfounded in this case.
Okay dude, whatever.
I'm glad that we're in agreement then.
So, again . . . to summarize your objections. Nancy Pelosi is in support of gun control so you don't like her. You also believe that it's hypocritical that she has a government provided security detail who may or may not use firearms that in the past Pelosi has argued should be restricted for private citizens.
-
The twists and turns you take to try and make your point are absurd. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of regular citizens not having the right to defend themselves, which enjoying protection that is unavailable to regular citizens. I find that offensive.
Have a shitty weekend.
-
I think Pelosi has been demonized to death by the right.
The general argument I hear out of people trying to explain why she's so ultra-heinous, is basically that she's super, super Democrat-y.
And there's another thing but I won't say it because no one's gonna admit it anyway.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
But none of this is hypocritical. Sanders advocates for tighter gun restrictions, background checks, etc. He's not advocating for disarming the police and law enforcement agencies.
A speech in a public venue where the only people who have guns are the Capitol Police fits squarely with what he advocates.
You obviously disagree with his stance, but there's no hypocrisy.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
But none of this is hypocritical. Sanders advocates for tighter gun restrictions, background checks, etc. He's not advocating for disarming the police and law enforcement agencies.
A speech in a public venue where the only people who have guns are the Capitol Police fits squarely with what he advocates.
You obviously disagree with his stance, but there's no hypocrisy.
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
-
You have to start from the baseline that almost no one in Congress is popular outside of their own district/state. I couldn't find more than a handful of Members of Congress that I like or would be excited to vote for. Also, the leader of the enemy will always be the main target of criticism.
This ongoing gun debate is silly. Elected leaders will always need armed protection for as long as gun activists keep fighting to make sure it is legal for homicidal people to freely own guns.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
But none of this is hypocritical. Sanders advocates for tighter gun restrictions, background checks, etc. He's not advocating for disarming the police and law enforcement agencies.
A speech in a public venue where the only people who have guns are the Capitol Police fits squarely with what he advocates.
You obviously disagree with his stance, but there's no hypocrisy.
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Sanders does not support the disarming of all citizens, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information
Background checks and tighter restrictions != Disarming of citizens.
It's weird that people with mental health problems are able to get guns, shoot up large crowds of people, and then their right to get guns are consistently defended by the right. The conflation of better restrictions and doing away with the second amendment is a terrible, terrible slippery slope argument.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
I'm sorry, I don't understand what is hypocritical about giving a speech against gun violence and having trained and armed capitol police there.
Capital police weren't "there". They came to protect him for his speech. They follow him around and protect him. So it's real easy to be against private gun ownership when you have your own security that follows you around everywhere you go. The rest of us DON'T have that, so what are we supposed to do? It is totally "four legs good, 2 legs better" when you tell everyone else that they shouldn't have the right to do something that you do because you're in charge.
But none of this is hypocritical. Sanders advocates for tighter gun restrictions, background checks, etc. He's not advocating for disarming the police and law enforcement agencies.
A speech in a public venue where the only people who have guns are the Capitol Police fits squarely with what he advocates.
You obviously disagree with his stance, but there's no hypocrisy.
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Sanders does not support the disarming of all citizens, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information
He supports and assault weapons ban and a high capacity magazine ban, which is a de facto ban on basically all of the popular firearms people own outside of revolvers shotguns and hunting rifles.
It's weird that people with mental health problems are able to get guns, shoot up large crowds of people, and then their right to get guns are consistently defended by the right. The conflation of better restrictions and doing away with the second amendment is a terrible, terrible slippery slope argument.
It's weird that people support taking away the rights of people without due process. No law-abiding gun owner wants a shooting to happen, but we also don't want someone to just remove our rights without a judicial process.
-
Sanders does not support the disarming of all citizens, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information
He supports and assault weapons ban and a high capacity magazine ban, which is a de facto ban on basically all of the popular firearms people own outside of revolvers shotguns and hunting rifles.
When you say that gun laws you disagree with "prevent you from defending yourself", no one is going to take you seriously. If you believe your ability to defend yourself is entirely predicated on the concealed carry of high capacity handguns, then I don't really know what to say.
More likely, you're being disingenuous with your wording which makes it really hard to have a serious conversation. Either way, let's move away from the gun debate unless it directly relates to Nancy Pelosi.
-
I think republicans are shooting themselves in the face by attacking Pelosi. By all means, please try to convince the democratic caucus to nominate a new leader, maybe someone who is not 70+ years old, and has decades of experience finding congressional compromises.
Every single person who might conceivably replace Pelosi is MORE liberal than she is. Every democrat in congress who has said they will support a different person for speaker is trying to move the party left, towards more progressive values. Pelosi, the ever-practical centrist, may be the only thing keeping the democrats from going full blown crazy extremist the way the republicans already have.
You know who is even more unpopular than Nancy Pelosi (29% approval)? Mitch McConnell (24% approval).
So go ahead, republicans. Convince the dems to let Pelosi finally retire. You're not going to like whoever takes her place any better.
Wait a second, maybe that's the point? Maybe the whole goal of the anti-Pelosi movement is to deliberately sow further polarization, to divide the nation even further? Down with the centrist, long live partisan bickering? Maybe we should be checking for Russian fingerprints on those anti-Pelosi ads, because this strategy would fall right in line with the rest of their efforts in US politics these days.
-
When progressives would rather attribute political unpopularity to misogyny instead of acknowledging or at least considering flaws in the candidate, it shows bad faith and intellectual laziness. I think Nancy Pelosi is bad for the US and it's not because she's a woman.
I acknowledge misogyny might be a factor for some, but there's a better case to be made that it's because she's an out of touch limousine liberal who, at best, was mistaken about what the ACA would do to premiums but argued with complete confidence that she knew it would lower rates. Then when it was found that many would pay higher premiums, she said she didn't remember saying it would lower rates and that people are actually getting a better value with the ACA. That comes off as pretty condescending to the millions of Americans whose rates went up who could care less about the new things they've covered for now.
She has a net worth of 30 million and a cushy healthcare program. The ACA didn't negatively impact her budget one bit, but tons of working class Americans felt it very hard. Across the board, premium increases averaged about 60% from 2013 to 2017. And yet with complete confidence she told Americans how good it would be for them so they just have to pass it to see what's in it. It's a cider house rules situation - the rules have been written against their will and by someone who does not live there and deal with the same issues.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/#72afc4bb11d2
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/health/health-insurance-premiums-employer.html
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
So you don't see any double standard here? No empathy for "the other side"?
No, I don’t see a double standard. I did say he had a tiny point, but really only because he included Kellyanne Conway. He had to include a bunch of women who have done really shitty things people are opposed to. Kellyanne was disliked and I suspect mostly because she was a female supporting Trump. So, yes, it happens on both sides.
I’m a female and well aware of bias against us, but just like people don’t like being called racist all the time for things that aren’t, I don’t think we should be including examples of people disliking women when there is a valid reason for it. I do understand if you like what these women do, you may not understand the other side’s issues with it, though.
Exactly! Someone on the right feels exactly the same you do! They way they see it Nancy has done some "really shitty things" and they have valid reasons for disliking her, in their point of view. Just as you do with the women being discussed. Empathy!
Except I didn’t even address the Pelosi issue, but okay.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
That's bullshit.
Ask the same question about any number of male Dems (Schumer, Bloomberg, whomever) and I'll give you the same answer.
I posted this (or something similar) on Bernie when he pulled the same thing:
https://truthfeednews.com/ultimate-hypocrite-bernie-delivers-speech-at-anti-gun-rally-with-heavily-armed-guards/
Same reason why Dems didn't like Palin in 2008, being all female in our face, how dare her.
In all honestly, jumping right the ::whatever group:: card is just a cop out. I can't disagree with or dislike Pelosi just because she's a female and I have some sort of subconscious resentment to that? That's the bullshit.
Or Betsy DeVos or Sarah Huckabee or the first female to ever run a successful Presidential campaign (didn't hear much about that one in the press did we??), Kellyanne Conway.
While there is a tiny bit of truth in this, all of these women do shitty things, so I’d say there are very legitimate reasons to dislike them. Sarah Huckabee in particular is vilified equally as much as her male predecessor was for her position of basically lying for the POTUS. Let’s not turn every dislike about women into: “It’s because they are women.”
Ah, right, only the Left gets to pull that card, sorry, I'll shut up and color.
If that’s what you’d prefer /shrug
So you don't see any double standard here? No empathy for "the other side"?
No, I don’t see a double standard. I did say he had a tiny point, but really only because he included Kellyanne Conway. He had to include a bunch of women who have done really shitty things people are opposed to. Kellyanne was disliked and I suspect mostly because she was a female supporting Trump. So, yes, it happens on both sides.
I’m a female and well aware of bias against us, but just like people don’t like being called racist all the time for things that aren’t, I don’t think we should be including examples of people disliking women when there is a valid reason for it. I do understand if you like what these women do, you may not understand the other side’s issues with it, though.
Exactly! Someone on the right feels exactly the same you do! They way they see it Nancy has done some "really shitty things" and they have valid reasons for disliking her, in their point of view. Just as you do with the women being discussed. Empathy!
Except I didn’t even address the Pelosi issue, but okay.
I was assuming in the context of the conversation you were defending Pelosi. You know what happens when you assume?
I've reread our back and forth and I think we have been in agreement all along, I think I misunderstood your original comments. Carry on.
-
Glad you guys got to the bottom of that lol seemed like you were both making the same point but were still mad at each other. Pretty rare to see that from a non-married couple ;)
-
The twists and turns you take to try and make your point are absurd. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of regular citizens not having the right to defend themselves, which enjoying protection that is unavailable to regular citizens. I find that offensive.[/quote]
Citizens have the right to defend themselves across the United States Chris, and Nancy Pelosi has never attempted to prevent them from doing so. It's completely possible to defend ones self without an M4, a magazine with 20 bullets, and a concealed carry license.
Ms. Pelosi does have a security detail because of her position. This type of protection is available to regular citizens. If you want to buy a few mercenaries to look after you you're perfectly free to do so, right? If you feel that there is danger to your life, you're free to contact the police for protection.
You're free to find Ms. Pelosi offensive if you want. You're free to hate her because she doesn't share your 2nd amendment viewpoint. When you call her a hypocrite without any evidence of your claims, you don't make a very convincing argument.
Have a shitty weekend.
It looks like sun and mild temperatures here for the weekend. I hope you have a good weekend too.
-
Her insider trading deals are enough to make anyone cringe. Granted, they added the Pelosi provision to the laws to stop the Congress critters from doing more of it.
She was never alone in these acts and something had to be done, as it was very common with both parties.
Career politicians are the problem. Their sex doesn't matter. Unlike Hitlary that could not control her emotions, Pelosi has been very consistent.
She has been a promoter of illegal aliens and against the laws of our nation. That is enough.
-
Her insider trading deals are enough to make anyone cringe. Granted, they added the Pelosi provision to the laws to stop the Congress critters from doing more of it.
She was never alone in these acts and something had to be done, as it was very common with both parties.
Career politicians are the problem. Their sex doesn't matter. Unlike Hitlary that could not control her emotions, Pelosi has been very consistent.
She has been a promoter of illegal aliens and against the laws of our nation. That is enough.
I can kinda (sorta) see how one could view her as a 'promoter' of illegal aliens when compared with the proposed policies of immigration-hawks, but what "laws of our nation" has she been against?
-
Glad you guys got to the bottom of that lol seemed like you were both making the same point but were still mad at each other. Pretty rare to see that from a non-married couple ;)
Heh, I wasn’t mad, but internet speak always sounds like that, ay? It does seem if you say anything that might possibly considered “right” or “left”, the taglines come out, though. Annoying as I’m an Independent who floats both sides, depending on the issue.
-
There is one very specific thing wrong with Pelosi, in the eyes of the GOP: she doesn't have a penis. Everything else is just an excuse or an addition to this single problem.
They may also disagree with her on issues, but they disagree with lots of people on issues and yet don't build entire campaigns around hatred for those people. There are other high profile powerful democrats they don't like, who still don't rise to the same level of vitriol. The only distinguishing feature of Pelosi, and the reason she is a useful crowbar during campaign seasons, is that lots and lots of Americans still think it is immoral for a woman to have power over men. If she had a penis, we'd have an entirety different narrative.
Exibit A of this was the special election in OH-12 this past Tuesday. Ads for Troy Balderson showed O'Conner as a puppet of Pelosi and showed him with photos of Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen and Elizabeth Warren is in a totally different chamber of the Congress. I notice they did not tie him to liberal men like Ted Lieu, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, etc.
https://youtu.be/WQi2flVVzFU
I only saw a handful of ads since I am not anywhere near the district so I don't know how typical this was of the messaging, but this sexist narrative obviously resonates on some level for Republican voters.
-
Citizens have the right to defend themselves across the United States Chris, and Nancy Pelosi has never attempted to prevent them from doing so. It's completely possible to defend ones self without an M4, a magazine with 20 bullets, and a concealed carry license.
If you feel that you need to carry a gun for self defense, you can't do that in Pelosi's home state unless you are a resident of the state and can convince your sheriff or police chief to issue a concealed carry permit. Although California provides no other legal way to bear arms, according to the 9th circuit the requirements for getting a concealed weapon permit is not a 2nd amendment issue. Many on the right believe Pelosi is really completely anti-gun and her statements are merely politically calculated to move in that direction as practically as possible.
-
I’m not a fan of Pelosi’s 2nd Amendment position. I’d love to see someone younger in her position (and younger across the board in both parties). But for me, neither is a deal breaker.
I’d like to see a serious issue about her raised if such exists. Republicans hating her isn’t enough. If she dropped out tomorrow they’d jump at digging/making up dirt on her replacement ASAP. And no, having a penis wouldn’t help in the least. The Democratic Party’s anti gun posturing is such that no replacement chosen will have a different position.
-
no replacement chosen will have a different position.
As I stated above, whoever replaces Pelosi some day is going to be more liberal, not less. Republicans should be campaigning to keep her (and every other septuagenarian in congress) around as long as possible. Old people have old policies. Conservatives love old policies.
-
The twists and turns you take to try and make your point are absurd. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of regular citizens not having the right to defend themselves, which enjoying protection that is unavailable to regular citizens. I find that offensive.
Have a shitty weekend.
That's pretty normal in all of the other G8 countries. Senior government officials are protected by armed security and their citizens aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons around. (Not sure about the UK though, they may be protected by unarmed security...)
-
The twists and turns you take to try and make your point are absurd. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of regular citizens not having the right to defend themselves, which enjoying protection that is unavailable to regular citizens. I find that offensive.
Have a shitty weekend.
That's pretty normal in all of the other G8 countries. Senior government officials are protected by armed security and their citizens aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons around. (Not sure about the UK though, they may be protected by unarmed security...)
Yeah... I can never figure out why people say it's hypocritical for government officials to have actual protection. It's just... kinda ridiculous to compare armed security for public figures who put themselves out there and are at risk as a result, with some dude who wants to open carry an AR.
-
Unlike Hitlary that could not control her emotions...
Name calling- check!
Bad grammar- check!
Sexism- check!
-
Unlike Hitlary that could not control her emotions...
Name calling- check!
Bad grammar- check!
Sexism- check!
How is it sexist?
Because I don't like a person that happens to be a woman, that is sexist? Why not make it racist too?
And my personal dealings with that buffoon makes it even worse!! Oh wait, did I just call her another name?
-
Unlike Hitlary that could not control her emotions...
Name calling- check!
Bad grammar- check!
Sexism- check!
How is it sexist?
Because I don't like a person that happens to be a woman, that is sexist? Why not make it racist too?
And my personal dealings with that buffoon makes it even worse!! Oh wait, did I just call her another name?
I get that you don’t know.
That doesn’t make it less so.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
-
it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
For many Americans, it's is precisely the ability to purchase efficient murder machines that soothes their insecurity over being a complete nobody. They need guns to feel powerful, to feel like they matter, to give them purchase in a world where they otherwise have none.
Especially in cases where they feel that their demographic is losing social status over time as minorities and women become less oppressed, the desire to reassert that authority by wielding firearms only grows. See: George Zimmerman (vigilante who shot a black kid), Stephen Paddock (Trump fanatic and anti-government conspiracy theorist behind Las Vegas shooting), Jared Lee Loughner (shot Gabbie Giffords because she was a woman), etc. These people used guns to fight back against liberalizing American values.
These were crazy people, I grant, and they arguably did horrible things for complex reasons beyond the one I've highlighted here. But I still think Americans have way too much of a raging hard-on for guns, as part of our twisted sense of moral superiority and toxic masculinity. Guns are not powerful! You cannot win a battle of force with the US government, no matter what guns you own. Democracy is the only way to exert power, but it's collective power shared by everyone and aging middle class white voters without a college education are pretty damn unhappy with that. They're not used to sharing.
-
From the NYT opinion section a couple of days ago.
-
It seems to me that most people's problem with Pelosi and Clinton is that they represent "more of what the government has given you in the last 16 years" to people who don't think that the government has done much good for the last 16 years.
-
Americans do not value old people or women. Nancy Pelosi is both. That's the unvarnished truthful answer to your question.
-
If memory serves, she proved to be a very effective Speaker during her tenure starting way back in '07. I never found her to be shrill or strident, and frankly she is kind of centrist compared with the younger generation. Over the years as more and more women came into positions of authority people have had to adjust their attitudes. If a woman in authority was too aggressive, she was a bitch. If she was too passive, she couldn't lead. In the working world, by now, in 2018, most of us have had to pack up that baggage and figure out how to deal with women colleagues and superiors. Part of the anti-Pelosi and anti-Hillary stuff is a reactionary "you can make me work with/for women but you can't make me vote for them."
-
But I still think Americans have way too much of a raging hard-on for guns, as part of our twisted sense of moral superiority and toxic masculinity.
This is greedy reductionism. I don't deny there are some widespread unhealthy attitudes towards firearms here in the US, but there are some very legitimate reasons they are regarded with such affection, particularly in western/rural areas.
https://matadornetwork.com/read/mapped-gun-ownership-us/
As far as the affection goes, I think it's kind of a vestigial connection to the frontier life that their ancestors lived. They had to shoot old sick farm animals, varmints, and had to protect themselves as they often settled in wild land that didn't have policing. Traditions are passed down, and still many people out west live in similar circumstances - except instead of no policing, they just have police that are much further away.
People value their autonomy and ability to be self-sufficient. Guns are a crucial tool for them in that regard.
-
Guns are still and important tool for some people for all the reasons you mentioned.
For another group of people it is a lifestyle accessory that signals their politics and religion - and totally unnecessary in day to day life. These same people like to use it as part of their bully agenda which is wholly unacceptable.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
The problem is when people who have security provided for them decide that everyone else doesn't need to be able to provide their own security. It would be like them exempting themselves from paying taxes and then jacking up every one else's tax bill. Well of course they don't care because it doesn't affect them.
-
As far as the affection goes, I think it's kind of a vestigial connection to the frontier life that their ancestors lived. They had to shoot old sick farm animals, varmints, and had to protect themselves as they often settled in wild land that didn't have policing.
I'm feeling a sense of nostalgia for that melancholy day, years and years ago, when old Bessie got sick and I had to put her down with my AR-15... God bless her -- she's in a better place now.
Hope you had a bump stock for that AR-15, otherwise it just wouldn't have been humane.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
argumentum ad nauseam
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No it's a move the goalpost fallacy.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No it's a move the goalpost fallacy.
Yup. Good point.
But when you don’t have a solid argument, any fallacy in a storm, I guess... straw man, then goalpost... wonder what we’ll get next?
-
OK, I finally found something I definitely have a beef with Nancy over. She doesn't want to impeach Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/nancy-pelosi-shrugs-off-trump-impeachment-ahead-of-midterm-elections.html
-
She doesn't want to impeach Trump.
She's always been a little too pragmatic. Centrists are often like that.
-
Oh, it is so much easier to get your base excited about hating Pelosi than taking about something like policy.
-
She doesn't want to impeach Trump.
She's always been a little too pragmatic. Centrists are often like that.
I’m not sure keeping that train wreck in office is a pragmatic choice. At this point it’s at best a lie told to placate cowards until an opportunity presents itself.
-
I’m not sure keeping that train wreck in office is a pragmatic choice. At this point it’s at best a lie told to placate cowards until an opportunity presents itself.
I'm sort of assuming that Pelosi has her eye on the prize, and is playing the long game. She's spent a career finding incremental little wins for American progress, sometimes over the strenuous objections of coalition members who definitely did not want to play nice.
In this case, I suspect that she sees the coming populist rebuttal of all things Trump and is patiently weathering the storm until then. Impeaching him now, before the investigation is even finished, would just agitate his supporters and galvanize what little support he still has. Why toss over the board when you're already winning the game?
She also realizes that the Senate will never convict anyway, no matter what the investigation finds. Trump isn't going to jail no matter what he does, up to and including murdering a war hero on live tv with an original copy of the Constitution rolled up and frozen into an ice pick.
-
I’m not sure keeping that train wreck in office is a pragmatic choice. At this point it’s at best a lie told to placate cowards until an opportunity presents itself.
I'm sort of assuming that Pelosi has her eye on the prize, and is playing the long game. She's spent a career finding incremental little wins for American progress, sometimes over the strenuous objections of coalition members who definitely did not want to play nice.
In this case, I suspect that she sees the coming populist rebuttal of all things Trump and is patiently weathering the storm until then. Impeaching him now, before the investigation is even finished, would just agitate his supporters and galvanize what little support he still has. Why toss over the board when you're already winning the game?
She also realizes that the Senate will never convict anyway, no matter what the investigation finds. Trump isn't going to jail no matter what he does, up to and including murdering a war hero on live tv with an original copy of the Constitution rolled up and frozen into an ice pick.
I would dearly love to see Trump impeached, arrested, tried for treason, and shot by firing squad. But I'm willing to compromise to just impeachment. Does that make me a pragmatic centrist?
-
I’m not sure keeping that train wreck in office is a pragmatic choice. At this point it’s at best a lie told to placate cowards until an opportunity presents itself.
I'm sort of assuming that Pelosi has her eye on the prize, and is playing the long game. She's spent a career finding incremental little wins for American progress, sometimes over the strenuous objections of coalition members who definitely did not want to play nice.
In this case, I suspect that she sees the coming populist rebuttal of all things Trump and is patiently weathering the storm until then. Impeaching him now, before the investigation is even finished, would just agitate his supporters and galvanize what little support he still has. Why toss over the board when you're already winning the game?
She also realizes that the Senate will never convict anyway, no matter what the investigation finds. Trump isn't going to jail no matter what he does, up to and including murdering a war hero on live tv with an original copy of the Constitution rolled up and frozen into an ice pick.
I would dearly love to see Trump impeached, arrested, tried for treason, and shot by firing squad. But I'm willing to compromise to just impeachment. Does that make me a pragmatic centrist?
Sounds more optimistic than pragmatic.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
Some would argue that a shotgun is ideal for home protection, where it is needed. It does not require precise aim, and will penetrate far fewer walls presenting a lower risk to neighbors. Just because something is popular does not mean it is ideal for some purpose. I see a lot of F150s used for daily commute on highways, too.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
You're moving the goalposts again. "Popular" and "useful" are not the same thing.
My Beretta 92FS and my S&W M&P Shield are neither assault rifles nor have high-capacity magazines. Are you saying they are useless for personal protection? Because that's what you said above. And that's not what the nice man at the gun range said.
(Oh, also, I see you're commenting again on the forum. You might wanna go check back on the "Let's Speculate about the future of a Trump presidency" thread, since you asked for evidence that Trump has done anti-gay stuff so you could oppose it. And then, when I and especially GuitarStv provided that evidence, you haven't commented on that thread since.
Just FYI, it's on page 58.)
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
You're moving the goalposts again. "Popular" and "useful" are not the same thing.
My Beretta 92FS and my S&W M&P Shield are neither assault rifles nor have high-capacity magazines. Are you saying they are useless for personal protection? Because that's what you said above. And that's not what the nice man at the gun range said.
(Oh, also, I see you're commenting again on the forum. You might wanna go check back on the "Let's Speculate about the future of a Trump presidency" thread, since you asked for evidence that Trump has done anti-gay stuff so you could oppose it. And then, when I and especially GuitarStv provided that evidence, you haven't commented on that thread since.
Just FYI, it's on page 58.)
Well you better switch to a high capacity magazine or semi-auto weapon. You know to leave no doubt the intruder is dead after you riddle him and your home with bullets ( :
-
Crumbs and the turtle both need to go.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
You're moving the goalposts again. "Popular" and "useful" are not the same thing.
My Beretta 92FS and my S&W M&P Shield are neither assault rifles nor have high-capacity magazines. Are you saying they are useless for personal protection? Because that's what you said above. And that's not what the nice man at the gun range said.
(Oh, also, I see you're commenting again on the forum. You might wanna go check back on the "Let's Speculate about the future of a Trump presidency" thread, since you asked for evidence that Trump has done anti-gay stuff so you could oppose it. And then, when I and especially GuitarStv provided that evidence, you haven't commented on that thread since.
Just FYI, it's on page 58.)
Well you better switch to a high capacity magazine or semi-auto weapon. You know to leave no doubt the intruder is dead after you riddle him and your home with bullets ( :
These are both semi-auto. I’m pretty sure all modern pistols are. But damn, I sure wish I had known they were worthless before I bought them. Sigh.
-
These are both semi-auto. I’m pretty sure all modern pistols are. But damn, I sure wish I had known they were worthless before I bought them. Sigh.
Well knowing is half the battle. You should look into getting a Stinger MANPAD or 2. The White House uses them for protection, so why can't we all use them?
-
I think Pelosi has been demonized to death by the right.
The general argument I hear out of people trying to explain why she's so ultra-heinous, is basically that she's super, super Democrat-y.
And there's another thing but I won't say it because no one's gonna admit it anyway.
I'm not sure what you are thinking but the two things I've overheard about her boils down to being a visible mouthy female, and also, that she has had plastic surgery (which apparently is some kind of moral prohibition to holding office).
I don't have strong feelings about her either way, but I'm not Republican.
-
He advocates that only cops should have [most] guns, which is really easy to do when you always have a cop with a gun with you. The rest of us great unwashed have no cop with us all the time, so we might find it convenient to have a gun. "You don't need a gun for security" is pretty hollow from guys who are always followed around by guys with guns for security.
Do you not understand that despite what our mommies told us, we are in fact not all equal in how much we matter, and it's totally reasonable for high profile politicians to have significantly superior protection than complete nobodies like you and I?
So a poor person in a bad neighborhood doesn't deserve a chance to defend herself because she's not important?
I call bullshit.
Because, you know, all people who want gun control are for banning all guns.
Good lord, we’re back at this BS again.
All guns useful for personal protection. See, Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban
So, anything that isn’t an assault weapon (which I thought was a meaningless term?) and guns with high capacity magazines are worthless for personal protection?
Huh. Why do they exist, then?
No, but the vast vast majority of guns fall into one of those two categories, as the two most popular kinds of guns are "assault rifles" and full-size pistols with large magazines.
The other categories are either specialized (hunting rifles, shotguns) or relatively esoteric (revolvers, compact carry pistols).
Again, it's like saying "we're not going to ban cars, just sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks." Or "we're not going to ban cell phones, only Samsung and Apple phones." If you advocate for banning the most popular and common versions of something, that's pretty meaningful.
revolvers and pistols are esoteric? Hmm
-
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying they have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
A remark that was taken wildly out of context. Which kinda goes back to the "what's so bad?" question. If she's so bad, why the need to create a strawman? Why not just go actual policy positions?
-
Nothing is wrong with Nancy Pelosi, unless it’s the same thing that was wrong with Hillary. Female, effective, ambitious, experienced politician. I have no problem with someone who is qualified for the job, but some people label that “establishment” and prefer a novice for some reason. I haven’t figured it out.
As someone that voted for Clinton and would vote for Pelosi, I would add that both of them remind liberal voters of Bill Clinton. That is, Pelosi has been in the house since before Bill Clinton was President. Bill Clinton (and subsequently Hillary if you watched the primary debates) after 1994 tacked hard and far into the middle. This is when the Democratic party became the tactical party of passing one bill at a time, with tons of compromise, and very little long term strategy. You might like that, but a lot of liberals are tired of it. Pelosi is acutally very liberal if you look at her voting record (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi), but she still gets associated with the "tack to the center, compromise on values, tactics over strategy" Clinton years.
Then, on the other side, she is actually pretty liberal so conservatives don't like her either!
-
Then, on the other side, she is actually pretty liberal so conservatives don't like her either!
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
I would be all for booting Pelosi, just because she has the democratic party stuck in the 1980s. We're more than a whole generation removed from her political background, and I'm not at all sure she's kept up with the party she claims to lead. She's a stick in the mud, a throwback. By the modern standards of the democratic party, she's practically a republican.
But I don't see a viable replacement option, who has anywhere near the demonstrated ability to seek compromises and build consensus behind legislation. On a personal level, she's head and shoulders above most of the people who have inhabited Congress during her tenure. She's never molested a child, cheated on her spouse with a hooker, stored cash bribes in a freezer, published horribly racist tweets, punched a journalist, etc. I'm sure you can find reasons to dislike her, but you have to admit the standards bar in Congress is pretty much underground.
-
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying they have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
A remark that was taken wildly out of context. Which kinda goes back to the "what's so bad?" question. If she's so bad, why the need to create a strawman? Why not just go actual policy positions?
This was already discussed earlier in the thread, so I don't see the need to rehash this.
Also, that wasn't a strawman, that's just a fact of something she will always be remembered for, which is what I actually stated above.
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
-
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying they have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
A remark that was taken wildly out of context. Which kinda goes back to the "what's so bad?" question. If she's so bad, why the need to create a strawman? Why not just go actual policy positions?
This was already discussed earlier in the thread, so I don't see the need to rehash this.
Also, that wasn't a strawman, that's just a fact of something she will always be remembered for, which is what I actually stated above.
If you don't mind DREAMfire, I'd like to rehash this and I agree we're not straw manning Pelosi.
What she said was pretty much a freudian slip. Yes, I understand the full context. She was exhausted from the hysteric conservative rhetoric about death panels and her statement wasn't meant to communicate some authoritarian message of "you don't need to read it, just trust me that it'll be good for you."
But regardless of what she meant, the truth is that she did want us to trust her and she did make false promises about the ACA. She played a big role in forcing a far more expensive health care plan on millions of lower income Americans.
I posted the same sentiment earlier up the thread and no one responded, because it undermines these intellectually lazy blanket statements of sexism as total BS.
Maybe most people on this board have pretty solid jobs with pretty solid healthcare plans, so they didn't have to deal with the worst of the ACA premium hikes - or if they did, they are good savers, generous, with good incomes, so they are ok with subsidizing others.
But I was a temp when the ACA was passed. Many of friends were and are temps. The ACA sucked for me and it sucks for them. And beyond the anecdote, data bears it out. The ACA made premiums rise an average of 60% across the board from 2013 to 2017.
-
But regardless of what she meant, the truth is that she did want us to trust her and she did make false promises about the ACA. She played a big role in forcing a far more expensive health care plan on millions of lower income Americans.
Why do you think the ACA made healthcare more expensive? It was specifically designed to make healthcare more affordable to people, and to provide insurance to millions more people. It succeeded in both of those goals, in exchange for raising the cost of healthcare for some rich people.
I posted the same sentiment earlier up the thread and no one responded
I've been trying to cut back on the amount of time I spend responding to outright lies. I'm trying to stay out of the climate change thread, too. I'm not doing a very good job.
Next you're going to say that Obama promised you could keep your doctor, when he said the ACA didn't specify which doctors you would be allowed to use. Which was 100% true. What he failed to mention was that private insurance companies add and remove providers all of the time, and the ACA didn't forbid them from continuing to do so. So the free exercise of the health insurance business (how conservative of him!) was made to look like Obama misled people.
it undermines these intellectually lazy blanket statements of sexism as total BS.
How very Trumpian of you. First refuse to answer the questions and throw up a bunch of old easily disproven lies instead of forming a cogent argument of your own, then accuse the opposition of being intellectually lazy. Tar and feather all democrats as evil liberals, then accuse them of blanket statements. It's so transparent it's almost disappointing. Next I expect you'll accuse democrats of not having a viable plan for American healthcare, even though the had years of debate on one and ultimately passed it with supermajorities, while republicans fought against every step even though they had nothing else to offer.
But I was a temp when the ACA was passed. Many of friends were and are temps. The ACA sucked for me and it sucks for them.
Why? If you had employer healthcare, it didn't impact you. If you didn't have employer healthcare, then after the ACA you suddenly had guaranteed coverage you didn't have before, and were offered subsidies to buy insurance and paltry penalties if you wanted to opt out. Seems like a good deal to me, unless you think these people just really wanted to live without any access to healthcare.
And beyond the anecdote, data bears it out. The ACA made premiums rise an average of 60% across the board from 2013 to 2017.
Provide the data, if you're going to claim data supports your argument, please. Health insurance premiums rose slightly more slowly after the passage of the ACA than they did before the passage of the ACA, which is pretty remarkable when you consider how many additional people were suddenly able to get coverage that was previously denied to them. Premiums would have been even more affordable if congressional republicans hadn't immediately started undercutting the program's funding, forcing those previously covered costs back onto consumers.
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I'm pretty indifferent to the leadership in the party, but I will raise hell if Assad's favorite democrat is a contender. Luckily, she has no base of support within Congress to make this a serious proposal.
-
The Republican party is doing everything in their power to undermine the ACA and make it more expensive and difficult to use, and reduce its benefits and coverage. They WANT it to fail. They do not want affordable healthcare for US citizens. So if you are angry about the ACA, be angry at the Republicans. Look at June-Dec 2017. The money that is being cut by US gov not paying their share. The statement that we can't afford those co payments is made laughable by the huge tax cuts to the rich and to corporations, and to un-asked for increase in the DOD budget.
https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I believe sol has already said in this thread that they think any replacement would be more liberal than Pelosi, and I am assuming they meant 'not nearly as moderate'.
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I'm pretty indifferent to the leadership in the party, but I will raise hell if Assad's favorite democrat is a contender. Luckily, she has no base of support within Congress to make this a serious proposal.
It's a weak argument if you make a decision like leadership based on one thing like this. I'm assuming then that you equally "raise hell" about Trump's relation with Russia and North Korea? Regimes that are equally complicit in the mass murder of their citizens.
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
-
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
I'm not sure the modern political environment allows for the kinds of subtleties that once caused the US to funnel weapons to Afghanistan, or support Saddam, or Iran-Contra. The international stage is complex web of relationships, and pursuing US interests has sometimes meant being involved in things that seem pretty contrary to US interests.
The war on terror seems no different, to me. Should we be supporting authoritarian dictators, or ethnic minority rebel groups that look like terrorists? Do we overthrow democratically elected governments that are hostile to the US to install puppet dictators that are friendly to US business interests? Or terrorists who hate America but who also hate their neighboring country that hates us more?
I don't think there are easy answers like "end the war on terror" when so many of these decisions are based on regionally unique factors. I agree that not invading foreign countries seems like an easy one, but apparently lots of smart people have decided that in at least two recent cases, invading was the better option for the US. I'm afraid that decision was made for reasons of profit and reputation more than democracy or freedom, though.
-
But regardless of what she meant, the truth is that she did want us to trust her and she did make false promises about the ACA. She played a big role in forcing a far more expensive health care plan on millions of lower income Americans.
Why do you think the ACA made healthcare more expensive? It was specifically designed to make healthcare more affordable to people, and to provide insurance to millions more people. It succeeded in both of those goals, in exchange for raising the cost of healthcare for some rich people.
Because it made healthcare more expensive, by 60%. It succeeded in those goals, for some people. But it also failed. It raised the cost of healthcare for more than just rich people.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/#1d44273811d2
I've been trying to cut back on the amount of time I spend responding to outright lies. I'm trying to stay out of the climate change thread, too. I'm not doing a very good job.
Next you're going to say that Obama promised you could keep your doctor, when he said the ACA didn't specify which doctors you would be allowed to use. Which was 100% true. What he failed to mention was that private insurance companies add and remove providers all of the time, and the ACA didn't forbid them from continuing to do so. So the free exercise of the health insurance business (how conservative of him!) was made to look like Obama misled people.
You'd be better at cutting back your time responding if you didn't make up statements to argue against :)
I give Obama more credit than Pelosi because he acknowledged the validity of their reality. He apologized to people who lost their plans, even though it was a small percentage, and even though the plans chose to drop them - he acknowledged it was very possible the ACA played a role in them being dropped. Pelosi initially denied making her statement (about premiums going down), then argued they're getting a better value. No accountability.
But I was a temp when the ACA was passed. Many of friends were and are temps. The ACA sucked for me and it sucks for them.
Why? If you had employer healthcare, it didn't impact you. If you didn't have employer healthcare, then after the ACA you suddenly had guaranteed coverage you didn't have before, and were offered subsidies to buy insurance and paltry penalties if you wanted to opt out. Seems like a good deal to me, unless you think these people just really wanted to live without any access to healthcare.
You prove the Nancy Pelosi point I'm making. I'm telling you it sucked and I didn't want it, and now I'm required to pay more, and I didn't want to pay more, and the response is - seems like a good deal to me. Her response was similar, that I'm getting a better value. That's condescending. I get it worked out better for many people. I acknowledge that. Will any progressives acknowledge it worked out worse for many people, and not just the rich?
-
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
I'm not sure the modern political environment allows for the kinds of subtleties that once caused the US to funnel weapons to Afghanistan, or support Saddam, or Iran-Contra. The international stage is complex web of relationships, and pursuing US interests has sometimes meant being involved in things that seem pretty contrary to US interests.
The war on terror seems no different, to me. Should we be supporting authoritarian dictators, or ethnic minority rebel groups that look like terrorists? Do we overthrow democratically elected governments that are hostile to the US to install puppet dictators that are friendly to US business interests? Or terrorists who hate America but who also hate their neighboring country that hates us more?
I don't think there are easy answers like "end the war on terror" when so many of these decisions are based on regionally unique factors. I agree that not invading foreign countries seems like an easy one, but apparently lots of smart people have decided that in at least two recent cases, invading was the better option for the US. I'm afraid that decision was made for reasons of profit and reputation more than democracy or freedom, though.
I'm not trying to make this statement from a standpoint that every decision for the US has been bad. But more that blanket open ended wars are terrible powers to place in the hands of the president.
I think overthrowing Saddam will be a long-term good, but I'd overall consider our attempts in Afghanistan, Assyria, and Libya failures.
-
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
I'm not sure the modern political environment allows for the kinds of subtleties that once caused the US to funnel weapons to Afghanistan, or support Saddam, or Iran-Contra. The international stage is complex web of relationships, and pursuing US interests has sometimes meant being involved in things that seem pretty contrary to US interests.
The war on terror seems no different, to me. Should we be supporting authoritarian dictators, or ethnic minority rebel groups that look like terrorists? Do we overthrow democratically elected governments that are hostile to the US to install puppet dictators that are friendly to US business interests? Or terrorists who hate America but who also hate their neighboring country that hates us more?
I don't think there are easy answers like "end the war on terror" when so many of these decisions are based on regionally unique factors. I agree that not invading foreign countries seems like an easy one, but apparently lots of smart people have decided that in at least two recent cases, invading was the better option for the US. I'm afraid that decision was made for reasons of profit and reputation more than democracy or freedom, though.
I'm not trying to make this statement from a standpoint that every decision for the US has been bad. But more that blanket open ended wars are terrible powers to place in the hands of the president.
I think overthrowing Saddam will be a long-term good, but I'd overall consider our attempts in Afghanistan, Assyria, and Libya failures.
ISIS came to power largely because of the overthrow of Saddam. As a matter of fact, almost all of the current leaders are former members of Saddam's Baath government who were all kicked out during the US led de-Baathification of Iraq. (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html)).
Given that the mess and aftermath of overthrowing Hussein is still yet to be concluded, I'd argue it's much too early to be claiming anything about 'long-term good' yet.
-
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
I'm not sure the modern political environment allows for the kinds of subtleties that once caused the US to funnel weapons to Afghanistan, or support Saddam, or Iran-Contra. The international stage is complex web of relationships, and pursuing US interests has sometimes meant being involved in things that seem pretty contrary to US interests.
The war on terror seems no different, to me. Should we be supporting authoritarian dictators, or ethnic minority rebel groups that look like terrorists? Do we overthrow democratically elected governments that are hostile to the US to install puppet dictators that are friendly to US business interests? Or terrorists who hate America but who also hate their neighboring country that hates us more?
I don't think there are easy answers like "end the war on terror" when so many of these decisions are based on regionally unique factors. I agree that not invading foreign countries seems like an easy one, but apparently lots of smart people have decided that in at least two recent cases, invading was the better option for the US. I'm afraid that decision was made for reasons of profit and reputation more than democracy or freedom, though.
I'm not trying to make this statement from a standpoint that every decision for the US has been bad. But more that blanket open ended wars are terrible powers to place in the hands of the president.
I think overthrowing Saddam will be a long-term good, but I'd overall consider our attempts in Afghanistan, Assyria, and Libya failures.
ISIS came to power largely because of the overthrow of Saddam. As a matter of fact, almost all of the current leaders are former members of Saddam's Baath government who were all kicked out during the US led de-Baathification of Iraq. (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html)).
Given that the mess and aftermath of overthrowing Hussein is still yet to be concluded, I'd argue it's much too early to be claiming anything about 'long-term good' yet.
Alright opinion police. It's just my guess.
A lot of the problems we're facing today can easily be traced back to past US interferences of the middle east many decades ago. Overall, I think it is a mistake for our leaders to think that they can control a country on the other side of the planet. Just because a bunch of higher-ups think that this is the best solution, doesn't make it the right one nor the best one for both sides.
I get that it's a difficult trade. How do you interact with a country's dictator that is both amiable to the US but also committing atrocious international crimes? I understand that that's a difficult question. We've been interfering and supplying weapons to one side or the other in almost every war on Earth. And I think that we've likely been wrong probably 90% of the time in the past 60 years.
-
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
I'm not sure the modern political environment allows for the kinds of subtleties that once caused the US to funnel weapons to Afghanistan, or support Saddam, or Iran-Contra. The international stage is complex web of relationships, and pursuing US interests has sometimes meant being involved in things that seem pretty contrary to US interests.
The war on terror seems no different, to me. Should we be supporting authoritarian dictators, or ethnic minority rebel groups that look like terrorists? Do we overthrow democratically elected governments that are hostile to the US to install puppet dictators that are friendly to US business interests? Or terrorists who hate America but who also hate their neighboring country that hates us more?
I don't think there are easy answers like "end the war on terror" when so many of these decisions are based on regionally unique factors. I agree that not invading foreign countries seems like an easy one, but apparently lots of smart people have decided that in at least two recent cases, invading was the better option for the US. I'm afraid that decision was made for reasons of profit and reputation more than democracy or freedom, though.
I'm not trying to make this statement from a standpoint that every decision for the US has been bad. But more that blanket open ended wars are terrible powers to place in the hands of the president.
I think overthrowing Saddam will be a long-term good, but I'd overall consider our attempts in Afghanistan, Assyria, and Libya failures.
ISIS came to power largely because of the overthrow of Saddam. As a matter of fact, almost all of the current leaders are former members of Saddam's Baath government who were all kicked out during the US led de-Baathification of Iraq. (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-saddam-husseins-former-military-officers-and-spies-are-controlling-isis-10156610.html)).
Given that the mess and aftermath of overthrowing Hussein is still yet to be concluded, I'd argue it's much too early to be claiming anything about 'long-term good' yet.
Alright opinion police. It's just my guess.
A lot of the problems we're facing today can easily be traced back to past US interferences of the middle east many decades ago. Overall, I think it is a mistake for our leaders to think that they can control a country on the other side of the planet. Just because a bunch of higher-ups think that this is the best solution, doesn't make it the right one nor the best one for both sides.
I get that it's a difficult trade. How do you interact with a country's dictator that is both amiable to the US but also committing atrocious international crimes? I understand that that's a difficult question. We've been interfering and supplying weapons to one side or the other in almost every war on Earth. And I think that we've likely been wrong probably 90% of the time in the past 60 years.
It's difficult to find the correct answer to . . . but it's easy to find the wrong one. If the response to a dictator committing terrible crimes against humanity is 'We overthrow them through our military might' I gotta ask . . . when do we invade North Korea? China? Sudan? Burma? Zimbabwe? Uzbekistan? Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? . . .
There are a lot of dictators who violate human rights on a regular basis.
And don't take the weight of all the world's problems on your shoulders. An awful lot of other countries have done the invasion then made stuff an awful lot worse (for many years Britain was a big fan of saving native people from themselves - and then causing generational long fighting and problems). The US isn't unique in this aspect . . . it's just disheartening that so few lessons seem to have been learned from history. It's extremely difficult to come into a place, completely change the power structure, and then put a new one in place that will work for decades into the future.
-
It's difficult to find the correct answer to . . . but it's easy to find the wrong one. If the response to a dictator committing terrible crimes against humanity is 'We overthrow them through our military might' I gotta ask . . . when do we invade North Korea? China? Sudan? Burma? Zimbabwe? Uzbekistan? Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? . . .
There are a lot of dictators who violate human rights on a regular basis.
And don't take the weight of all the world's problems on your shoulders. An awful lot of other countries have done the invasion then made stuff an awful lot worse (for many years Britain was a big fan of saving native people from themselves - and then causing generational long fighting and problems). The US isn't unique in this aspect . . . it's just disheartening that so few lessons seem to have been learned from history. It's extremely difficult to come into a place, completely change the power structure, and then put a new one in place that will work for decades into the future.
Got something against Uzbekistan? :P
-
A slight aside to the original purpose of this thread, but I'll bite: The US was originally founded in part to get away from the constant war in Europe. This is covered pretty extensively in Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis by Will Bonner and Addison Wiggin which I found to be a good read despite my own political leanings being far more liberal than Bonner and Wiggin. I know that we emerged post-WWII as the world's police force, but I would prefer to get away from that as much as possible. By all means, we should work with the UN to prevent genocide (as is our contractual mandate), but outside of that we should mind our own business. At least, I am happy to vote for people who believe that.
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I'm pretty indifferent to the leadership in the party, but I will raise hell if Assad's favorite democrat is a contender. Luckily, she has no base of support within Congress to make this a serious proposal.
It's a weak argument if you make a decision like leadership based on one thing like this. I'm assuming then that you equally "raise hell" about Trump's relation with Russia and North Korea? Regimes that are equally complicit in the mass murder of their citizens.
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
It's the president's job (god help us) to talk to foreign counterparts and spearhead diplomacy. It's not exactly analogous to a backbencher House rep's unauthorized publicity gift to a monster. If I'm not mistaken, she even contradicted US intelligence findings about Assad gassing his people and speculated that he was innocent. I also fail to see how her gladhanding with Assad contributes to your goal of "less involved in wars." Wouldn't not going in the first place have been a better play from a noninterventionist point of view?
Now, this isn't the only reason I think she's a ludicrous choice for Leader. Another pretty compelling reason is that she's a backbencher who doesn't exactly have a long list of legislative accomplishments and has no record of being able to work with various groups of Democrats to push legislation through or to hold the line. Which is kind of the job description. You know who does have all that experience? Nancy Pelosi.
-
“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”
Seems like she ain't for ending the war on terror, either.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
*edited to correct Trumpian double-negative
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I'm pretty indifferent to the leadership in the party, but I will raise hell if Assad's favorite democrat is a contender. Luckily, she has no base of support within Congress to make this a serious proposal.
It's a weak argument if you make a decision like leadership based on one thing like this. I'm assuming then that you equally "raise hell" about Trump's relation with Russia and North Korea? Regimes that are equally complicit in the mass murder of their citizens.
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
It's the president's job (god help us) to talk to foreign counterparts and spearhead diplomacy. It's not exactly analogous to a backbencher House rep's unauthorized publicity gift to a monster. If I'm not mistaken, she even contradicted US intelligence findings about Assad gassing his people and speculated that he was innocent. I also fail to see how her gladhanding with Assad contributes to your goal of "less involved in wars." Wouldn't not going in the first place have been a better play from a noninterventionist point of view?
Now, this isn't the only reason I think she's a ludicrous choice for Leader. Another pretty compelling reason is that she's a backbencher who doesn't exactly have a long list of legislative accomplishments and has no record of being able to work with various groups of Democrats to push legislation through or to hold the line. Which is kind of the job description. You know who does have all that experience? Nancy Pelosi.
I haven't read much about her beyond the article posted above, but this is a much more compelling reason if true.
-
She's not nearly as liberal as anyone who might replace her.
You don't think that Tulsi Gabbard has a chance? On one very important issue, Gabbard has been very careful not to be too liberal: gun control (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9). I personally view this as brilliant. That is, there are a bunch of pressing issues to fix in the country and gun control is a quagmire that is better left alone for the time being.
EDITed to add: The making of a charismatic, unorthodox Democrat. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe) from the New Yorker.
I'm pretty indifferent to the leadership in the party, but I will raise hell if Assad's favorite democrat is a contender. Luckily, she has no base of support within Congress to make this a serious proposal.
It's a weak argument if you make a decision like leadership based on one thing like this. I'm assuming then that you equally "raise hell" about Trump's relation with Russia and North Korea? Regimes that are equally complicit in the mass murder of their citizens.
My personal opinion is that the US should be less involved in wars and supplying militants.
If she's for ending the war of terror, then she has my backing.
It's the president's job (god help us) to talk to foreign counterparts and spearhead diplomacy. It's not exactly analogous to a backbencher House rep's unauthorized publicity gift to a monster. If I'm not mistaken, she even contradicted US intelligence findings about Assad gassing his people and speculated that he was innocent. I also fail to see how her gladhanding with Assad contributes to your goal of "less involved in wars." Wouldn't not going in the first place have been a better play from a noninterventionist point of view?
Now, this isn't the only reason I think she's a ludicrous choice for Leader. Another pretty compelling reason is that she's a backbencher who doesn't exactly have a long list of legislative accomplishments and has no record of being able to work with various groups of Democrats to push legislation through or to hold the line. Which is kind of the job description. You know who does have all that experience? Nancy Pelosi.
That's kind of like saying your kid shouldn't try to be a physicist because, despite some aptitude, she has minimal schooling, no research experience, no undergrad experience, and no published papers. Gabbard might be a POS and certainly Pelosi's experience weighs in her favor. But being reasonably new on the political stage isn't itself a compelling reason to dismiss her.
-
But being reasonably new on the political stage isn't itself a compelling reason to dismiss her.
I don't think it's "dismissing her" to say she's not ready to lead Congress.
-
That's kind of like saying your kid shouldn't try to be a physicist because, despite some aptitude, she has minimal schooling, no research experience, no undergrad experience, and no published papers. Gabbard might be a POS and certainly Pelosi's experience weighs in her favor. But being reasonably new on the political stage isn't itself a compelling reason to dismiss her.
I don't know. I think it's more like saying a junior faculty member with a poor funding and publication record who no one likes isn't a great choice for department chair at this point in her career. She's not a kid with a dream-she's a member of Congress and she's had a chance to build her record. I don't dismiss newcomers. I was an enthusiastic Obama voter in 2008. Experience is just one way we figure out who might be good at something. There's just nothing in Tulsi's career that indicates that she'd be particularly good at the job, which requires finesse, cooperation, and a sophisticated understanding of legislative procedure. Tulsi has instead demonstrated poor judgment, has no real coalition-building record other than the fact that Steve Bannon loves her, and I don't see that she's a policy wonk. She is ideological and an early Bernie supporter, so that would impress some folks who'd rather throw verbal bombs than pass legislation.
-
A lot of the problems we're facing today can easily be traced back to past US British, French and Russian interferences of the middle east many decades ago.
No need to give America ALL the credit for colonialism! Spread the love around!
-
A lot of the problems we're facing today can easily be traced back to past US British, French and Russian interferences of the middle east many decades ago.
No need to give America ALL the credit for colonialism! Spread the love around!
I'm not talking about colonialism there. We've done most of our sinnin' since then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
-
When you say Pelosi is against impeachment, are we talking only impeachment or also removal from office? If Pelosi isn't for impeaching Trump, is that more of a rational decision knowing that even if he could be impeached by the House he more than likely wouldn't be removed from office by the Senate? Is that strategy lookin at the long game by rallying the base for midterms while Trump digs his own hole?
The reason I would like to see some fresh faces in our government and Pelosi gone is because they'd be way more liberal. I want the socialists in at this point if only to see the Right's heads explode.
-
When you say Pelosi is against impeachment, are we talking only impeachment or also removal from office? If Pelosi isn't for impeaching Trump, is that more of a rational decision knowing that even if he could be impeached by the House he more than likely wouldn't be removed from office by the Senate? Is that strategy lookin at the long game by rallying the base for midterms while Trump digs his own hole?
The reason I would like to see some fresh faces in our government and Pelosi gone is because they'd be way more liberal. I want the socialists in at this point if only to see the Right's heads explode.
When I say “Impeach” I mean the whole shebang. I think that should be clear from my “have him shot for high treason” line. If she’s got biding her time to some (possibly mythical) point in the future where she can do it I can understand. But really it just looks like she’s out of touch.
I tend to be much more moderate than a lot of leftists and a lot people on this board. But I believe a serious lurch to the left is what this nation needs. Both to undue Trump’s damage and to maybe rebuild the Republican Party as a loyal opposition rather than a shill for oligarchs and Russians. And if I could lock the current crop of Trumpian snowflakes in a meeting hall where only the most strident, obnoxious SJWs had the mike, I’d cheerfully guard the door with a shotgun. From the inside and with no hearing protection just to watch the heads spin and pop.
Though I’m afraid that last sort of sentiment is why polical discourse fails so much these days. It’s more like a football game and ideology no matter what rather than common sense.
-
If you’re conservative, or a right leaning moderate, there’s lots wrong.
Conservatives believe that widespread gun ownership is overwhelmingly a good thing, Nancy Pelosi believes that widespread gun ownership is awful and guns should be banned, or barring that, restricted as much as possible.
Conservatives believe that the government is overinvolved in the healthcare industry and that it should be heavily deregulated to increase access and lower costs, Nancy Pelosi believes that the healthcare industry should be nationalized/socialized/paid for by government (use whichever of these terms you feel best represents her opinion, or replace them with another that you feel works better) to increase access and lower costs.
Conservatives believe that income inequality is a natural part of functioning markets, and the way to reduce it is to reduce market regulations and taxes to increase opportunity for entrepreneurship and advancement, Nancy Pelosi believes that income inequality is an unfortunate side effect of free markets with too few regulations and that government should redistribute income in ways that will be more equitable.
There are lots of other examples I could provide but the basic gist of it is that Nancy Pelosi’s beliefs are pretty much the complete opposite of most conservative’s beliefs. The big kicker is that she is one of the most powerful leaders of the Democratic party, and so is instrumental in the advancement of the liberal/progressive agenda, and so she gets a lot of the heat from conservatives.
Another point is that she has a history of using over the top rhetoric (Referring to the recent tax reform bill as “the worst bill in the history of Congress”….really?!?) and slimy tactics (passing Obamacare using reconciliation) to push through controversial legislation against significant opposition. This isn’t to say that Republicans are any better (they nuked the filibuster first chance they got), but people are a lot more forgiving of their own team than the other.
Finally, she does get a small amount of heat for not being progressive enough and even more for being part of a Democratic leadership team that led to losing huge numbers of Democrats in the house, senate, governorships and state legislations. If you’re on the right you’ll say that’s because she pushed an agenda that was too progressive, if you’re on the left you’ll say it’s because she wasn’t progressive enough.
Such is politics.
Lastly, I have absolutely no interest in participating further in the usual vitriolic, over-the-top political debate that this thread has become, so will not be positing again to this thread.
-
Yeah, it's basically a waste of time and probably bad for your cortisol levels to check out political threads around here. There's a contingent of rather chauvinistic and condescending folks who make it very difficult to have actual conversations. I've learned a lot on these forums, but almost nothing in the political threads.
-
What surprises me is that after 20 years of condescension, insults, sarcasm, recycling what their Facebook and media echo chamber says, and assorted illogical memes, people actually think other people’s minds can be changed over the internet. I’ve literally never met either in person or online a single person whose opinion changed based on an Internet argument. Never. Especially using the methods mentioned.
-
I've occasionally had my mind changed through things like the ChangeMyView subreddit, where people are held to very high standards of gentleness and decorum. The whole goal is to change minds and most seem to understand that to do that, you have to be polite.
-
What surprises me is that after 20 years of condescension, insults, sarcasm, recycling what their Facebook and media echo chamber says, and assorted illogical memes, people actually think other people’s minds can be changed over the internet. I’ve literally never met either in person or online a single person whose opinion changed based on an Internet argument. Never. Especially using the methods mentioned.
I've seen a number of opinions swayed on this forum with simple logic and the addition of facts that some parties were not aware of. Sure, the attacks you describe are rarely effective but we can definitely learn through discussion.
And more than that I like to think that there are a lot of non posters who read along with the discussion. I don't argue with people who have clearly dug their heels in with the anticipation of getting them to admit they're wrong. I do it so that I can learn, so that someone might correct my mistakes, and so that others can read along with the discussion and learn too.
-
The arguing isn't for the benefit of participants, it's for those reading.
-
I've occasionally had my mind changed through things like the ChangeMyView subreddit, where people are held to very high standards of gentleness and decorum. The whole goal is to change minds and most seem to understand that to do that, you have to be polite.
Perhaps you've spent some time reading other threads but if I recall correctly the primary "political" threads I've seen you participate in are gun control debates. If that's the case, then ya, I think you've seen the worst of the worst :)
-
What surprises me is that after 20 years of condescension, insults, sarcasm, recycling what their Facebook and media echo chamber says, and assorted illogical memes, people actually think other people’s minds can be changed over the internet. I’ve literally never met either in person or online a single person whose opinion changed based on an Internet argument. Never. Especially using the methods mentioned.
I've seen a number of opinions swayed on this forum with simple logic and the addition of facts that some parties were not aware of. Sure, the attacks you describe are rarely effective but we can definitely learn through discussion.
And more than that I like to think that there are a lot of non posters who read along with the discussion. I don't argue with people who have clearly dug their heels in with the anticipation of getting them to admit they're wrong. I do it so that I can learn, so that someone might correct my mistakes, and so that others can read along with the discussion and learn too.
Agreed. And in my personal life, I have had half a dozen people in the last few years tell me that their opinions were changed by being my FB friend or through online discussions with me. Including my formerly hard-core conservative cousin whom I almost never see IRL.
-
What surprises me is that after 20 years of condescension, insults, sarcasm, recycling what their Facebook and media echo chamber says, and assorted illogical memes, people actually think other people’s minds can be changed over the internet. I’ve literally never met either in person or online a single person whose opinion changed based on an Internet argument. Never. Especially using the methods mentioned.
I've had my mind changed several times by a well structured argument. If the person you're arguing with lays out a logical piece of reasoning and you can't poke holes in it then you're forced to accept their position.
-
I've occasionally had my mind changed through things like the ChangeMyView subreddit, where people are held to very high standards of gentleness and decorum. The whole goal is to change minds and most seem to understand that to do that, you have to be polite.
Perhaps you've spent some time reading other threads but if I recall correctly the primary "political" threads I've seen you participate in are gun control debates. If that's the case, then ya, I think you've seen the worst of the worst :)
The gun control threads are why I have stopped reading and participating, but when I have read or when I do now, I don't regret leaving at all, haha
-
Count me as someone who has had their mind changed by others on this forum.
But even more broadly speaking, one of the core benefits I get out of politically charged topics such as this one (and the reason I started it) is because it gives me exposure to other points of view. At the end of the day I may still disagree with other posters, but I honestly want to know other people's thinking when they reach a conclusion opposite from mine. Further, I believe this is how mutual understanding spreads. Granted posters who come out just to lob insults don't advance the conversation much (though it can drive clicks/quotes, make supporters laugh and dissenters angry).
-
You pretty much only see left wing, if not far left wing, views around here though. The rare right wing views are typically token in nature (I'm a fiscal conservative, but I've abandoned the GOP) and are quickly piled on by everyone else, so naturally a right winger is not going to bother to post as it's a waste of time and patience. If you're interested in a variety of opinions, one of the things I like to do is watch The Young Turks, Ben Shapiro, and things like that, as they're typically staunchly in their corners, examine issues in great depth, and they're somewhat academic. Cenk Uygur and Ben Shapiro have actually debated in person a few times, it's pretty awesome.
-
You pretty much only see left wing, if not far left wing, views around here though. The rare right wing views are typically token in nature (I'm a fiscal conservative, but I've abandoned the GOP) and are quickly piled on by everyone else, so naturally a right winger is not going to bother to post as it's a waste of time and patience. If you're interested in a variety of opinions, one of the things I like to do is watch The Young Turks, Ben Shapiro, and things like that, as they're typically staunchly in their corners, examine issues in great depth, and they're somewhat academic. Cenk Uygur and Ben Shapiro have actually debated in person a few times, it's pretty awesome.
There's quite a few fiscal conservatives on here, some liberatarians, and many others that could fairly be considered 'right of center'. There's an entire mini-community here of military and retired-military as well. Certainly they seem to be less abundant than progressive/liberal, but they are definitely here, including some of the senior Mustachians.
I tend to ignore the more vitriolic posters from both ends of the spectrum (and have had to block a few) but its those more measured members that take time to post well reasoned posts whom I learn the most from.
-
You also have to remember that we have a fair number of people not from America. What's deemed left wing in the US is center-right in most of the rest of the world. If you've got an American perspective, you're going to be seeing 'left wing' whenever you look at a centrist argument.
-
You also have to remember that we have a fair number of people not from America. What's deemed left wing in the US is center-right in most of the rest of the world. If you've got an American perspective, you're going to be seeing 'left wing' whenever you look at a centrist argument.
This, right here. I'm probably very moderate in Australia, New Zealand, or the UK, but in the US I'm a flaming liberal socialist.