The Swamp

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:55 pm The replies...

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:23 am I didn't realize it violates a city rule still in San Francisco. (I'm able to get a haircut in New Mexico, so this would never occur to me.)

But yea, not a good look.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:21 pm "But her hair do" could become 2020's "But her e-mails."

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:44 pm Yes, let's hope a Republican beats Nancy Pelosi in one of the most liberal districts in the country. That will bode well.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:00 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:44 pm Yes, let's hope a Republican beats Nancy Pelosi in one of the most liberal districts in the country. That will bode well.

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say she does. To a moderate republican for X years until next election, is it 6? And then someone who is not Nancy Pelosi retakes the seat. Worst thing ever?

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:44 pm Yes, let's hope a Republican beats Nancy Pelosi in one of the most liberal districts in the country. That will bode well.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:06 pmThere's two Dems running. I forgot that CA does that. Still, I don't have a major issue with Nancy Pelosi.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:41 pm I've been relatively OK with Pelosi, but the shit up in MASS is pretty inexcusable to me. WTF with going after Markey? Total bullshit.

BTW, the fact that Neal wasn't knocked off by Morse up in Wester MA is a bummer. Neal is a corporate piece of shit.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:38 pmIf she gets beat in her district, who is the next Speaker going to be? Because it isn't going to be AOC or Ayanna Pressley as much as you'd like that to be so.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:11 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:38 pmIf she gets beat in her district, who is the next Speaker going to be? Because it isn't going to be AOC or Ayanna Pressley as much as you'd like that to be so.

Doesn't overly matter; Pelosi has become an active roadblock in the party even inching left. And a lot of very wise people here have told me that just because I can't have my first choice, it doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for a lesser choice that's better than the current situation ; )

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:17 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:11 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:38 pmIf she gets beat in her district, who is the next Speaker going to be? Because it isn't going to be AOC or Ayanna Pressley as much as you'd like that to be so.

Doesn't overly matter; Pelosi has become an active roadblock in the party even inching left. And a lot of very wise people here have told me that just because I can't have my first choice, it doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for a lesser choice that's better than the current situation ; )

That's my problem. It's not like she's ideologically worse than McConnel but she's a hell of a similar politician in the grand scheme of anything remotely seen as progressiveness.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:31 pm

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:17 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:11 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:38 pmIf she gets beat in her district, who is the next Speaker going to be? Because it isn't going to be AOC or Ayanna Pressley as much as you'd like that to be so.

Doesn't overly matter; Pelosi has become an active roadblock in the party even inching left. And a lot of very wise people here have told me that just because I can't have my first choice, it doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for a lesser choice that's better than the current situation ; )

That's my problem. It's not like she's ideologically worse than McConnel but she's a hell of a similar politician in the grand scheme of anything remotely seen as progressiveness.

"anything remotely seen as progressiveness." JFC. Yeah, all the bills the Dem House passed this year are identical to what McConnell has allowed.

Pelosi pushed through the CARES Act, which was so effective it appears to have lowered the poverty rate - during the pandemic. Then she pushed through the HEROES Act.

But yeah, she's not progressive.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:42 pm I'll never understand your "this person hasn't done literally nothing as a Democrat so how can you complain" as a rebuttal strategy. Just unbelievably low standards. And it could, again, very easily be used to prove I should be all-in on Romney.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:52 pm If anything, Pelosi dropped the ball on the CARES Act by not getting more relief for vulnerable groups like small businesses, low-income tenants, and people stuck with healthcare bills. The fact that the bill got 419 votes in the House and 96 in the Senate would seem to indicate that Pelosi had a lot more room to work with both her own caucus and with the Senate GOP.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:01 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:42 pm I'll never understand your "this person hasn't done literally nothing as a Democrat so how can you complain" as a rebuttal strategy. Just unbelievably low standards. And it could, again, very easily be used to prove I should be all-in on Romney.

I'm not arguing that she's progressive because she hasn't done literally nothing. I think it's more accurate to say that you are defining her as non-progressive because she hasn't done literally everything. The CARES Act, like the ACA, Dodd-Frank, and countless other bills and laws, wasn't simply "not literally nothing." They were both massive progressive achievements - the problem was that they weren't literally everything.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:52 pm If anything, Pelosi dropped the ball on the CARES Act by not getting more relief for vulnerable groups like small businesses, low-income tenants, and people stuck with healthcare bills. The fact that the bill got 419 votes in the House and 96 in the Senate would seem to indicate that Pelosi had a lot more room to work with both her own caucus and with the Senate GOP.

The bill got all those votes *after* McConnell and Trump were forced to agree on it, which was *after* Pelosi held firm and forced them all to agree to supposedly non-progressive things like massive employment subsidies and massive unemployment insurance benefits, both of which kept millions out of poverty.

Those benefits went to small businesses and low-income tenants and people stuck with healthcare bills. But if you think she could have gotten more, can you tell me which 51 Senators would have voted for more?

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:04 pm Why don’t you instead name the 45 Senators who voted for
the bill that were at their absolute breaking point and wouldn’t have agreed to any further relief efforts?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:12 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:04 pm Why don’t you instead name the 45 Senators who voted for
the bill that were at their absolute breaking point and wouldn’t have agreed to any further relief efforts?

You're asserting she could've gotten more. I'm simply asking for the basis of that assertion.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:17 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:12 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:04 pm Why don’t you instead name the 45 Senators who voted for
the bill that were at their absolute breaking point and wouldn’t have agreed to any further relief efforts?

You're asserting she could've gotten more. I'm simply asking for the basis of that assertion.

Basic logic? If you get a surplus of 45 votes beyond what’s needed to pass, it seems highly unlikely that you couldn’t have added a single thing more without losing all 45. Even if you think a veto-proof majority is needed, you still have 29 votes to spare.