What wrong with Nancy Pelosi?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Nov 12, 2018.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Your the one that started blaming someone other then Hillary.

    Yes, how to win elections, that is my only consideration, if I had to aaah "pleasurer" the devil to win elections, I would. You on the other hand can remain virtues and ineffectual. Look people judge other people on appearance, you may think you are above that, maybe you do maybe you don't, good for you eitherway, but that does not win elections. Maybe if we can use people's apperance judginess to our advantage though: if we run a gorgeous canidate with a smooth voice, which, and yes am speak for everyone, Tulsi Gabbard is... and she does not have the intellect of a "traditional idiot housewife" as you say, so win-win.

    Well when a disgusting moronic pig wins the presidency, then maybe trying to understand why is important, like that Hillary is a loser, she was a loser in 2008 and she was even bigger loser in 2016, this is fact, you though are not capable of recognizing it or whatever. Look I would love her to be president, she would have made a great president even in 2008, but she unelectable, fact, no emotional bais needed in stating that that it is a proven fact she can't win a presidental election! Is the cause misogyny, is the cause decades of baggage, is it both, yes, does not change the fact of her unelectability.

    I'm just pointing out that no one had a problem talking about his pig dick, at least a female candidate is not going to have to do a dick measuring competition, instead their face and voice it criticised, which may be part of Nacy problem as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    Nancy is a Feminist. keenly focussed on equal rights.
    previousely when you would be burnt at the stake for discussing the term "equal rights" in the usa, she was percieved as being a bit of a middle of the road beauracrat.
    because of her plainly being a female the alt-right penis 1st brigade would have been sucking up to her to have a female on their side to try and fake middle ground voters and corporate suck-up lobyists working for average family companys marketing departments.

    its just typical american penis politics
    trying to set fire to someone who might be the best opposition to their hate of diversity and lack of ability to remain as the big fat school bully dictator wearing a church smock and paying no tax.

    you should ignore it for the complete shite it is.
    nasty little penises being nasty and petty and hateful.
     
    Jeeves likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    is trump the 1st US president to never go door knocking ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    i am confused by you injecting the name backman into your sentence unles you have deliberate intent to try and manipulate the subject nature away from the true nature of what "misogyny" is.

    are you being devicive by using personality politics to white wash alt-right misogyny ?

    or
    is there some sane non tin-foil hat type sentence you have made that refers to specific incidences of shared moral conduct toward both palin & backman that has been assigned as a gender based dysfunction ?

    Palin had to be a gun totting bunny boiler because thats the only type of female dictator that the alt-right can mentally comprehend and feel they can control.

    what that level of misogynistic indoctrination has to do with backman i dont know.
    can you provide a link ?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    The Democrats, following your recommendations, have been losing elections steadily for forty years.
    Liberals would have the opposite take - she proved she could win a Presidential election, but would have made a mediocre President.

    She was only beaten by fraud and crime and a gerrymandered electoral college, after all.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    mysogynist hindsight is 100/100

    if pelosi was a man she would have been president around 2000. a shoe in for 2008.
    but the rules are diffierent if you dont have a penis.

    why do you think the alt-right are getting in to bed with the conservative right and conservatives around making penis & non penis bathroom laws.

    waxing lyrical about the woahs & throws of tumultuous political atmopherics does not remove the incumbent penis culture of the political right and the stoic reliance in need to have a penis before you are given a vote/power/land rights/rights to health care or taken seriousely.

    the elephant in the room is still sitting there regardles of the penis envy polite conversationalists suggesting that its not al about size that matters. only that you have one.
     
  10. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,716
    Americans are learning that running for office is a terrible thing to do to your family.
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,753
    Re that
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,022
    You ignore the point of discussing comparative history:

    • And any given episode is what it is, an episode along the way, but there is a reason we take a moment to consider Hillary Clinton. (#10↑)

    • Much of the argument against Pelosi relies on similar misogynistic myths of manipulative woman, and flourishes on the very same prejudice against women. (#11↑)

    Given the statements' places at the end of one post and beginning of the next, each clearly labeled as part of a contiguous volume, and the second paragraph of your response↑, I don't think you actually overlooked this part. To the other, if you have a functional critique to offer, post it. If, however, you simply wish glib dismissal of people giving consideration in good faith, then yes, you do remind why showing that good faith consideration is an utter waste of their time and yours.

    The other three paragraphs of your post amount to surrender. Coming from you, it's not surprising. Still, just like with people feeling uncomfortable somehow↗ about voting for African-American candidates, giving over to supremacism isn't a proper solution.
     
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I'd imagine a fair number of young middle class persons know what it's like to be homeless (or near-homeless) and working class.

    As to the second part - sure, but they've been young, seen much, heard much, and have great memories of a completely different time in US history. Case in point - the simply staggering number of times I've heard some old dude make the argument "Well, I paid my way through college by working two jobs over summer break! You just need to not be so lazy!" Bitch please, show me a Bachelors degree you can pay for working full time during the year and a summer job!
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,753
    I don't quite see how you can be all three at once. Serially, of course it's possible: for example, I have been middle class, a charity case, working class, rural, middle class again, unemployed, freelance, insecure and flush; young, a student, middle aged, single, married, a parent, caregiver to a dying parent, a grandparent and a pensioner - but at different periods of my life.
    Yes, true - only expand it: not one different time. Some things about those other times were better than they are now; people with competent memories have witnessed how the changes came about. If all you have ever known is difficult and growing worse, how do you form a picture of what to aim for and a map to get there?
    I heard the same 50 years ago. But only from conservatives - more often prosperous ones who forget that interest-free loan from Dad, free room and board, and a recommendation from Uncle Croney. Conservatives of all ages repeat that same shite, regardless of the times, just as they recite that crock about hard work making you rich - most often the ones who make 1000 times the salary of their employees, plus perks.
    Show me a BA that will get you a paying job. If it's not in science, quit and go learn roofing, solar installation or massage therapy.
    No kidding, you need to change your whole mind-set, expectations, plans, lifestyle: you're working toward a completely different time.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    not to mention that if you dont have a family member or family friend who will give you a job once you graduate, you need 2 degrees to get the job.
    so thats double the cost.

    how much it costs...
    so how much do you need to earn to pay for that and living costs ?
    $50,000.00 USD per year job while studying full time...
    @ 11% income tax thats $44,500.00 in the hand
    less college fees which is average of $25,000.00 out of state
    or in state $10,000.00
    = $19,500 in the hand per year out of state
    = $34,500 in hand the hand per year in state
    now that your working full time 40 to 50 hours per week... in an unskilled job
    when do you study full time ?
    ... an unskilled job that pays a wage of $40,000 per year minimum...
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,753
    And, oddly, it's the oldest US politician who most strongly advocates free education.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    College education has never been about vocational training, but about contributing to a civilization in general, taking a certain intellectual place in society. It will probably never make sense as vocational training - and it's a time consuming personal service, which like other such personal services cannot be purchased outright by any but the comparatively wealthy. People who can afford butlers and orchestral musicians can afford university professors for their children - others not so much.

    The liberal decision to tap the abilities of the larger society for this contribution - to winnow the culture's intellectual elite, its doctors and lawyers and writers and mathematicians and politicians and economists and sachems and military officers from the much larger pool of children available in the lower classes - was partly accident and partly wisdom, and came from particular circumstances.

    The wealthy will not behave wisely unless both forced and guided, essentially. Pelosi's abilities and inclinations along that line? Come see come saw. She's more into forcing and guiding the not so wealthy.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    And the Pelosi/DCCC establishment's nonsupport of inconveniently left or libertarian political candidates, its backing of Blue Dogs and complicit "centrists", turns out to have a blind spot on the winning side as well as the losing - one the disreputable fringe has been pointing to for decades now, of course, but it's apparently news to them: https://abigailspanberger.com/wp-content/uploads/DCCC_red_to_blue.pdf
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/12/abigail-spanberger-is-not-backing-nancy-pelosi-for/

    Ms Spanberger is going to reach across the aisle and move forward and foster bipartisanship and avoid divisiveness.
    She seems to be an intelligent and competent office holder, and speaks directly at times. Wish her luck.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    And here's what's wrong with Nancy Pelosi, wrapped up in bow:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83cc8c7008cf
    Or in more direct language: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...majority-rule-for-tax-hikes-on-bottom-80.html
    She has made a career out of compromising and wrongfooting stuff that was once the cornerstone of the liberal, sane, and Democratic Party agenda.
    You can kiss Medicare For All goodbye - among many other things.
    And why?
    Translation: The Republicans don't want the House rules they set up for themselves falling into the hands of Nancy Pelosi.

    The Problem Solvers Caucus is a rightwing pressure group of standard issue (extreme rightwing authoritarian) Republicans and Blue Dog/New Dems. There isn't a centrist on it.
    And the cabal involved has never solved a single problem in the entire time of its existence, under any of its shifting names.
    https://ballotpedia.org/Problem_Solvers_Caucus
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yeah I recomnend being republican lite riiiggggghhhhttttt.

    Yeah except she lost a president election, so her quality as president is purely hypothetical.

    And 30+ years of republicans shoveling shit on top of her, some of which was her own shit, making her name hated more then lucifer, I see a similiar tactic with Pelosi, and I will agree with Tiassa that some of it is just pure misogyny, but to Tiassa everything looks like a nail, I suspect there is more going on, a more complex psychology of tribal demonizing hate among the right for the leaders of the left, and if that hate is coupled wiht things they disdain, like successful women that are not bimbos, its a perfect storm of constant slander. This slander is so constant it leaks out to the moderates and even among the left that see supporting Pelosi as costing votes.

    Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is something Pelosi actually did that makes even the left wary of her, does you know of such a thing?

    You sure say penis alot, I will attempt to speak to you in kind.

    As for Backman, she is likely among the right, I would assume for bring a crazy bible thumper, I just question if dislike of her is misogyn, that all. It is perfectly possible that the right hate pelosi for being a liberal and being effective and for reason of her individual characters, not her vagina... vagina, vagina, but that would be assuming a degree of inteligence and reason that I suspect most on the right don't have. Problem is most on the left don't either.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    As noted above, in multiple posts with examples - - yes.
    And it's not "even" the left - Pelosi's support has been center-right Dem for decades, and still is. The libertarian left's quarrels with her compromising and undermining and authoritarian bent go back all that time.

    She's just not heroic. There isn't a hill she's willing to die on, metaphorically. That's not the worst fault, in normal times - but we face a fascist movement that has captured a major Party and much of the machinery of government.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Can you cite an ACTION, AN EVENT, some kind of DATA of this? In these times of fascist movmements it is very important we don't make decision based on emotional feeling about politicians and policy.

    For example when I look into Pelosi's actions I find she was intrumental in geting Obamacare passed, that if not for it is likely healthcare reform would have been even more watered down.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602225.html
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/23/healthcare-reform-nancy-pelosi
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...9359be9b69b3a72331f18/?utm_term=.fb19008960ae

    How about this, give me a challanger for Pelosi, someone more on the left than her, less of an 'authoritarian compromising underminer', if there is no one to challange pelosi then pelosi is de facto the best we got presently. When there as a challanger to Hillary that was superior I voted for them first and formost, but when all I had left was Hillary verse a pig, I voted for Hillary without question and hoped for the best.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,543
    Read the posts above. Several such examples appear, some with links and stuff, others just common knowledge among left libertarians.
    That would be another example. Mitt Romney's health care reforms, designed to block single payer and other socialistic reforms while guaranteeing insurance industry profits and control, were not viewed with favor by the left.
    Now Pelosi did get the public option included in there initially, which raises her stock on the left - but she didn't hold the line on it. So the net was Romneycare, only with all its expenses and downsides stapled to the forehead of the Democratic Party instead of Romney's.
    Unwise - trading demonstrated competence for potential. Better odds ride on pressure from incoming and occasional resurgent old guard folks. Pelosi isn't the obstacle Clinton was. I prefer Zoe Lofgren having Pelosi's competence behind her in the next few months, rather than some random selection from Dem bigshots, for example.
     

Share This Page