A word about Nancy as she steps down from leadership.

Funny indeed, that he is the most often cited reason, for lighting the fuse of increased polarization in our politics, which has brought us to where we are, today.

 

She lost both Democratic majorities in 2010 and in this year's mid-terms. She tried to use the House to get pork barrel projects to her friends in Washington during the shutdown. All meanwhile during that economic uncertainty, she literally pulled a Maria Antoinette in front of her refrigerator.

She exemplifies everything wrong with Washington, remember the INTL incident with China just two months ago? Goodbye to awful rubbish.

 

No one condones political violence, on either side. That said, it's worth noting that the person who attacked her husband was an illegal alien so in many ways, the hand bit its master with regards to the 'compassionate' and tolerant' so-called sanctuary cities, instead of following federal law. This matter should have been decided with Texas VS United States, and I don't know why the then-Trump DOJ didn't simply argue that fact.

Sanctuary cities, such as they are are unlawful in this country.

 

Calling her a bitch is insulting to dogs. I would look for something lower on the food chain, like a rat or a roach.

 

You just keep on minimizing this, don't you? Do you see a difference between seeing letters of harassment, or frightening phone calls that come to your loved ones, and attending to a loved one who was actually attacked so brutally that they needed cranial surgery, all because you refused to back down in the face of same? Can you not envision what that must be like? Are you so craven in your partisanship, that you have to turn what happend to Pelosi and her family into a yawner?

Ask any cop if they would rather themselves be attacked in the line of duty, or have their spouse or child attacked instead as a direct result of that same duty. I guarrantee you they would rather be in the hospital bed, than think they played a role however remote, in putting their wife or kid in there.

This is a ludicrous conversation.

 

Yet she is acknowledged to have been one, even by Repubs. So...............

 

As I said, you folks hate her because she was effective. And, it goes without saying, because you were told to hate her by RWM. They don't like strong women.

 

Not likely Jefferies is even further left than Pelosi and is no where near as patient

 

Then the question becomes what is in the best interest if the country. We are all a partisan of one set of ideas or the other. It is our nation. Too often, in my experience, your statement has become little more than a cheap excuse to do nothing.

 

I literally dislike people that accuse someone of corruption without showing any proof of such action. I have been following Nancy Pelosi closely for over 30 years and I have nothing but respect for the person she is. She is tough as nails, she is of one mind, she is adamant about what she wants but she has never been corrupt (to my knowledge).

Words are cheap and easy to use and usually used by those that have a clear bias that is based on their own misinformed and mistaken ideas and rarely based on any facts. Those that do not have an open mind or desire to find data, facts, and truth.

You end up saying "of this, there is no doubt". Well, if there is no doubt, show us the proof you have.

 

https://twitter.com/DraperRobert/status/1593318579549753347

 

I don’t like her because she is a hypocrite and a dishonest person.

You Democrats hate Newt Gingrich and Trump. That puts you in a very big glass house.

 

Rationalize your hatred of her in any way you feel is necessary.

 

I guess you have no interest in her insider trading activities. Martha Stewart, for example, went to jail for doing that. Other speakers, like Jim Wright and Gingrich, were removed for doing less.

 

I'm really gonna miss her "classy" behavior

 

Not really. Over the last 20-30 those in Washington has become more partisan, more unwilling to compromise and more willing to do whatever it takes to get their partisan agenda through. Much less minority party rights. This has led to today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. The, my way or the highway approach.


It hasn’t always been this way. Perhaps one must be an old foggie to remember when it wasn’t. The willingness to compromise, play the old political game of give and take, to work many problems out was there 20-30 years ago. It wasn’t party over country or one party trying to destroy the other.


Could something like this happen today when the senate is tied 50-50, which might happen again this year?


Senate approves 50-50 power-sharing plan


https://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/05/senate.powershare/index.html


Not a chance, the senate is way too partisan, way to devoted to party. There’re many reasons for this and many reasons why both major parties are shrinking. Did you know independents, those non-affiliated folks have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 up to 43% today? Why? Party line votes were a rarity in the past. Non-existent 30 years ago. Why? I’ll give one of my reasons, what I consider the most important reason.


There was a time when both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The Democrats had their solid conservative south, the Republicans, their Rockefeller liberal Republican northeast. The younger ones will find it strange that the south was once solid democratic and the northeast republican. Then both parties began to get rid of their unwanted wing. The GOP, its liberals, the Democrats, its conservatives. Once that was accomplished, both major parties are now in the process of getting rid of their moderates. Only pure conservative and or liberal ideologues are welcome into the major parties today. If you’re not a progressive, the Democrats are trying to get rid of you. Same for the Republicans getting rid of non-Trump supporters these days along with moderates.


So, forget about the power sharing agreement for the senate if it ends up 50-50 again. Forget about both parties compromising with the other, play that old political game of give and take. They hate each other too much. Both major parties will continue to shrink. Independents continuing to grow. Independents end up voting for the party and candidates they least want to lose, not win, but least want to lose. They want a workable government where both major parties work together for the betterment of America, not just work for the ideologues of their base while telling the other 70% of Americans to go to Hades in a hand basket or telling them to stick it where the sun don’t shine as they push, force their agenda on the rest of us until we go back to divided government or kick them

 

Show me, don't just mention it. Has anything been proven?

 

Damn, you are an investor type guy and you can't see the overwhelming potential of insider advantages being a senator or congressman?

WOW!

 

First of all, you are making a general statement that is stereotyping. Just like you defend Trump from all the overwhelming negative information that is out there regarding who he is and what he has done, you are doing the exact opposite with Nancy and you cannot do that. You have to attack (or defend) that same action whether it is your idol or someone you do not like.

Show me anything that Nancy herself has done that proves (or points inequivocally) to what she is accused of. Saying "everyone does it" is just not good enough.

I am not defending her, I am just being constant is my approach to assigning blame and credit. It needs tangible proof to show that your opinion is correct.

 

So you can't answer a simple question? A man of your vast experience in trading?

 

You are deflecting. I do not make judgements on anything without enough proof that a person is guilty of what they are being accused of. When I accuse Trump of being a puppet of Putin, I supply 7 different things that Trump has done in regards to Putin that give a high "probability" that he has been working "with" the Russian.

You have given 1 thing (overwhelming "POTENTIAL" for insider advantages of being a Senator or Congressman). Sure, I will say that there is "potential" for that kind of action. In fact:

75 members of Congress have violated a law designed to prevent insider trading and stop conflicts-of-interest

Nonetheless, there are over 500 members of Congress at any one time and that means many more over the years and if only 75 have violated a law (does not mean they are guilty), it means that less than 15% members of Congress have done anything in that respect. How does that show that Pelosi is in the 15%? Bias? Speculation? what?

 

And certainly, not all have been caught! Thats why I used overwhelming potential As far as deflecting, that's been your position from the start. I had to drag it out of you

Does Congress Have an Insider Trading Problem? (usnews.com)

 

That partisanship grows out of an increasing divergence in ideas as to what is best for the country. If you think the country needs less government and less spending on government exactly where lies the compromise point with those who think there can never be too much government and government spending?

 

When faced with feces in the form of a petulant pig who disgraced the office of the POTUS as no one else could, a symbolic act that sends a message should be excused.

 

I am not deflecting at all. I have not defended Pelosi. I just have not accused her, like you have. I have asked for specific proof of guilt and you have been unable to supply it.

Heck, it has been PROVEN that the intelligence of Trump supporters is below the "average line". Should I accuse you of being of "below average intelligence" simply because you support Trump. Would I be right in doing so? Would you agree that you are of lower intelligence simply because you support Trump?