A word about Nancy as she steps down from leadership.

And Trump did not see it he was already turning to the crowed room.

 

Donald Trump at that time, followed an aggressive civil rights investigation that went beyond anything that Obama or presently Biden has done. But Trump was never going to receive praise for doing anything the left would want done.

 

Except I haven't. This thread is about Nancy Pelosi and her retirement from leadership not Scalise. In your sickening effort to minimize what has been done to her and her family as a direct result of the kind of Trumpist RW hate fullled rhetoric have been an apologist for, you brought up Scalise, deciding that because he was shot and continued to serve, she should not be phased by a mere beating of her husband with a hammer so badly he ended up with cranial surgery, for no other reason than because she wasn't there to knee-cap with the same weapon. That is just melodramic hyperbole

I don't know if you are married, but would you rather your spouse be attacked because she is married to you when they were after you , or would you trade places in a heartbeat?

 

Most people from both sides of the aisle would acknowledge that this very same time period has been amongst the most politically polarized era's in our nation's history.

As Speaker of the House, surely she bears a large share of that blame. As one of the "most consequential politicians of the last 15 years", why should we praise her for playing a giant role in the polarization of this country that just so happens to coincide with her leadership? She is not known for reaching across the aisle to garner the votes needed to pass legislation, rather she is known for twisting the arms of her own caucus to ensure there are not any defectors. That is not an example of a great statesman, rather it is an example of a bully that is effective at keeping her people in line. She is far more akin to Herman Goering than she is to Thomas Jefferson.

This lady did not just die and thus is deserving of paying her some sort of final respect. She is not even retiring as a House member. The only thing she has done is decline to seek a leadership role.

Good riddance to her.

 

I took Trump's words (although sloppily stated) were expressing the thought that what happened to GF would open the doors of racial inequality discussion wide open, which was a great thing needed in our country. In that sense Trump was sloppily saying GF was a martyr for that cause.

 

I have no hope, the two major parties and their ideologues will ruin this country.

 

Whose fault is that. It's the two major parties for first kicking out their unwanted wing and now kicking out all moderates to where left and right wing extremist ideolgues remain. You have to pass a litmus test to become one or the other. Both are striving for ideological purity.

 

The topic is Pelosi's effectiveness as the Dem Speaker of the House. It has devolved in to an exercise in character assassination of Nancy.

 

Not the question I asked. Back to the basic question do we need more or less government?

 

Did you expect the thread to be an echo chamber?

 

It's the measure of effectiveness in question. Effective for the Democrats........that is the job of the House Majority leader or effectiveness for the country.....that is the job of the SOTH.

How was she effective for the country? What was her most effective for the country act?

 

Hmmmm. So you're saying the investigations the Repub lead House is about to launch are going to done for good of the country? The role of the Speaker is to try to move the party's agenda forward. I'll put any agenda item Nancy advocated for against the Repub's proposing someone who is inconsequential to the governance of the country, Joe's kid, be investigated.

 

I expect participants in the thread to have no problem with being called out for not staying on topic if they are going to criticize others for not doing so.

 

The thread is about Nancy. If the criticism is about her then it's on topic. Even the title of the thread invites criticism.

 

Her legislative history is well established and readily available. As post #1 states..............

Democrats and Republicans differ in their value judgments about the merits of the policies Pelosi helped enact. But if the question is: Was Nancy Pelosi an effective leader and do you wish your party had someone like her? Well, there’s no difference of opinion on that........................among those who examine the record dispassionately. Something that is beyond the ability of conservative board members.

 

I see where the problem is. You need to go back and re-read post #1.

 

I just did. I would prefer a SOTH that puts the country first instead of the Party. So, the answer to your question is, no.

 

Her legislative history is well established and readily available. I have my opinion about it, you are welcome to yours. What isn't in doubt is her effectiveness as a Speaker.

 

Obviously, legislative leaders believe their party's agenda is in the best interests of the country. OTOH, see post #114.

 

Sure, but the question was put to me (not personally of course) if I wished my Party had someone like her. I don't consider a great leader being one that champions the agenda of their Party. A great leader is one that is able to compromise with the opposing Party in order to do the country's business. I don't see Nancy as a great leader. But then I don't see McCarthy being one either.

I'll take a look at #114. Hopefully it's not a waste of time.

 

Ok, I reread #114. I initially thought about responding to it when I first read it. Obviously you're overlooking the reason for investigating Hunter. Like a spider web, the threads leading to Joe are too many to ignore. It's really not about Hunter, per se, but rather what connection Joe has with his son's foreign business dealings. That's the real prize the Republicans are after.

 

So you can't really come up with anything. How was the country better off with her as SOTH? What great results did she get by what act?

 

They create their agenda what in the agenda she passed was good for the country what was the top of the list?

 

As speaker for the House, representing the Democrats, her job is to follow and accomplish the Democratic Platform, which is a platform that is dedicated to the American people. This means that if she was successful in following the Democratic platform, she was successful in doing it for the American people.

 

The topic of this conversation was that Nancy was despicable. In order to define what despicable means to those on the topic that are criticizing her for being despicable (mostly Republicans), what despicable is and then you can compare if what she did is despicable or not.