• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All partisanship aside... It's time for Pelosi to retire.

Independents are hoping, but unless something changes, votes will be cast for 3rd party candidates?

i'm for as many parties as possible, but for now, the only way to stop Trump is to vote for Democrats. i'm mostly looking at them and saying, "FFS, man, give me something to vote FOR." a message other than "Trump is an asshole" would be a great start. Democratic leadership is not messaging well, or if they are, i haven't seen it. why in the hell not? sell that ****ing platform, and get the kids to vote. it's their future. wake them the **** up, and if you can't, find someone who can.
 
Yeah... if Trump did stutters and rambling THAT badly... people may have a point that he needs some medical evaluation...

She sounds like a rambling grandma you just tune out because nothing she says makes sense and shes talking to herself 75% of the time.

"If?" Aside from when he's reading a speech, he rarely speaks in complete sentences. The man is largely incoherent in his expression. His extemporizing consists of one parenthetical comment after another strung together to form giant run-on sentences.
  • Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
  • Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader
  • Here is a "sentence" he uttered on the campaign trail in Sun City. He was presumably talking about something having to do with nuclear weapons or nuclear power or nuclear something....:

    • Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

      • Diagram that sentence and tell us what is the principal noun that it discusses.
      • Even stripping out the parenthetical/ancillary comments it makes no sense whatsoever:
        • Look, having nuclear...you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world...but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me...., but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners...but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years...

  • Here're a few excerpts from an April 2017 interview with someone from AP:
    • AP: Did he say that? In your meeting? Your private meeting?
      TRUMP: He’s going to end up paying. But you know, nobody ever asked the question. Nobody asked. Nobody ever asked him to pay up. So it’s a different kind of a presidency.
    • AP: [Do] you expect those savings [you just described] to carry out across that full order [of planes Japan will purchase from Lockheed]?
      TRUMP: More. I’m gonna get more than that. This was a thing that was out of control and now it’s great. And the woman that runs Lockheed, Marillyn (Hewson), she was great. But all of a sudden it was a different kind of a thing. You know?
    • AP: What specifically has NATO changed?
      TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country’s aren’t paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn’t believe. And then some expert on NATO said, “You know, Trump is right.” But I said it was obsolete because they weren’t focused on terror. ... It’s not fair that we’re paying close to 4 percent and other countries that are more directly affected are paying 1 percent when they’re supposed to be paying 2 percent. And I’m very strong on it and I’m going to be very strong on it when I go there in a month.”
 
Its a sad part of human nature that some folks simply stay on too long when they should go quietly into the good night. This is true in many professions including public service, athletics, show business and lots of other human endeavors.

As a Democrat, I would encourage the Dems to develop new and younger leadership able rise to the challenge of Trump and the new Retrumplican party. .

Did you see that the California Democratic Party voted the other day to back Kevin de Leon over Dianne Feinstein?
 
Did you see that the California Democratic Party voted the other day to back Kevin de Leon over Dianne Feinstein?

Yes I did. It demonstrates that progressives want strong action and are not happy with the shoulder shrugging resignation they see in many elder statesmen Dems in congress.
 
i'm for as many parties as possible, but for now, the only way to stop Trump is to vote for Democrats. i'm mostly looking at them and saying, "FFS, man, give me something to vote FOR." a message other than "Trump is an asshole" would be a great start. Democratic leadership is not messaging well, or if they are, i haven't seen it. why in the hell not? sell that ****ing platform, and get the kids to vote. it's their future. wake them the **** up, and if you can't, find someone who can.

We often hear that the party who is out of power lacks a message. It could be because there are MANY messages by various people who are vying for leadership. Usually have to wait until the end of the primary season for the next Presidential election. It is painful in the meantime,not sure we can speed up a natural process.
 
We often hear that the party who is out of power lacks a message. It could be because there are MANY messages by various people who are vying for leadership. Usually have to wait until the end of the primary season for the next Presidential election. It is painful in the meantime,not sure we can speed up a natural process.

this time, it's because the party out of power actually lacks a coherent message, and has done very little to address this other than to argue "Trump is horribly unfit for office, and we aren't Trump." this is true, but it won't be enough for the next three election cycles, which is what it's going to take to remove the cultists from power.
 
i'm for as many parties as possible, but for now, the only way to stop Trump is to vote for Democrats. i'm mostly looking at them and saying, "FFS, man, give me something to vote FOR." a message other than "Trump is an asshole" would be a great start. Democratic leadership is not messaging well, or if they are, i haven't seen it. why in the hell not? sell that ****ing platform, and get the kids to vote. it's their future. wake them the **** up, and if you can't, find someone who can.

I was thinking that at the last election. May it is because of people like me that Trump is in office, may be it is because HC was the opposing nominee, may be it was just meant to be. Every day, I am hoping that something will change. This I hate Trump rhetoric doesn't tell me anything. So yeah, I am right there with you.
We can't keep on polarizing our citizens, we have to come together and move forward. I don't see how that is being accomplished by moving as far right or left as possible.
 
I was thinking that at the last election. May it is because of people like me that Trump is in office, may be it is because HC was the opposing nominee, may be it was just meant to be. Every day, I am hoping that something will change. This I hate Trump rhetoric doesn't tell me anything. So yeah, I am right there with you.
We can't keep on polarizing our citizens, we have to come together and move forward. I don't see how that is being accomplished by moving as far right or left as possible.

Clinton was difficult to vote for. she didn't come across as genuine at all, and i don't like that.
 
Clinton was difficult to vote for. she didn't come across as genuine at all, and i don't like that.

She had no vision, she had no message, she had no new ideas, and she wasn’t likable to millions. She and the DNC basically stole the primary from crazy Bernie. Other then that I just don’t understand why Trump won?
 
this time, it's because the party out of power actually lacks a coherent message, and has done very little to address this other than to argue "Trump is horribly unfit for office, and we aren't Trump." this is true, but it won't be enough for the next three election cycles, which is what it's going to take to remove the cultists from power.

Perhaps you are correct. It could be that there are several messages which makes any one seem ineffectual. Thus the easy rallying cry re: Trump is unfit.

Look at the last two Democratic presidents to give you a hint of the problem. Clinton was a left of center liberal while Obama was a progressive. Those two can't run on the same message,thus the conundrum IMO. Pick one,lose the other.

Except for the huge cost of running political campaigns probably no better time for a 3rd party. It can only happen if someone with the resources of a Bloomberg etc. decide to put up a chunk of their fortune behind it.
 
She had no vision, she had no message, she had no new ideas, and she wasn’t likable to millions. She and the DNC basically stole the primary from crazy Bernie. Other then that I just don’t understand why Trump won?

it's time for someone else to lead, IMO. if a corporation failed as badly as the Democratic party has since 2010, management would be out on their asses. as for her seat, that's up to her constituents.
 
"If?" Aside from when he's reading a speech, he rarely speaks in complete sentences. The man is largely incoherent in his expression. His extemporizing consists of one parenthetical comment after another strung together to form giant run-on sentences.
  • Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
  • Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader
  • Here is a "sentence" he uttered on the campaign trail in Sun City. He was presumably talking about something having to do with nuclear weapons or nuclear power or nuclear something....:



      • Diagram that sentence and tell us what is the principal noun that it discusses.
      • Even stripping out the parenthetical/ancillary comments it makes no sense whatsoever:
        • Look, having nuclear...you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world...but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me...., but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners...but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years...

  • Here're a few excerpts from an April 2017 interview with someone from AP:
    • AP: Did he say that? In your meeting? Your private meeting?
      TRUMP: He’s going to end up paying. But you know, nobody ever asked the question. Nobody asked. Nobody ever asked him to pay up. So it’s a different kind of a presidency.
    • AP: [Do] you expect those savings [you just described] to carry out across that full order [of planes Japan will purchase from Lockheed]?
      TRUMP: More. I’m gonna get more than that. This was a thing that was out of control and now it’s great. And the woman that runs Lockheed, Marillyn (Hewson), she was great. But all of a sudden it was a different kind of a thing. You know?
    • AP: What specifically has NATO changed?
      TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country’s aren’t paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn’t believe. And then some expert on NATO said, “You know, Trump is right.” But I said it was obsolete because they weren’t focused on terror. ... It’s not fair that we’re paying close to 4 percent and other countries that are more directly affected are paying 1 percent when they’re supposed to be paying 2 percent. And I’m very strong on it and I’m going to be very strong on it when I go there in a month.”


He speaks like a common man... there is a difference. Trump is winging it most of the time and it's perfectly fine not finding the right words at the moment or a stutter here or there.

If I had to wing it like a lot of these politicians, I would look like a total fool. I would blank out and be like "uhhhhhhhhhh, what was I saying?". I am not a good public speaker...

There something different going on with Pelosi, it reminds me of my mother when she was having really bad mental issues after several lesions in her brain before she passed away.
 
the Democrats are the only way that we can fight back against the Trumpist party, so new and exciting leadership is utterly essential. she doesn't need to retire, but it's time for someone else to lead, IMO.

Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, all three represent the arrogant, elite establishment that isn't the least bit interested in anything but protecting their meal ticket regardless of how many elections we lose.
Nancy in particular seems to be very interested in continually talking about how "we can help President Trump be better".
Yeah, like Republicans are interested :lamo ....thanks Nancy, I'm sure they'll get back to you on that.

We got rid of Harry Reid, now it's time to get rid of the rest of the dead wood.
 
it's time for someone else to lead, IMO. if a corporation failed as badly as the Democratic party has since 2010, management would be out on their asses. as for her seat, that's up to her constituents.

It could also be said that if trickle down economics were a business plan we would have seen the last of it 38 years ago.
Of course, the fact that it's really a MASK for what is, in reality, inverted socialism for corporations and the wealthiest people in the world is lost on a good many elected officials, some of whom are in on the game itself and naturally are loathe to see it go away and some who are evil enough to pretend it's not really a terrible problem, and want to "manage it proactively" instead of getting rid of it altogether.
That latter group has more than a few Democrats, some of which I've already named.

By the way, Dianne Feinstein is a special little creature...whether it's profiting off the 2007-8 by vacuuming up distressed real estate, campaigning against single payer or leading the fights on pot prohibition, you can count on Dianne to be the standard bearer, when she's not making a fool out of herself on the gun issue, that is. (by being hopelessly and deliberately misinformed and staying that way)
 
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, all three represent the arrogant, elite establishment that isn't the least bit interested in anything but protecting their meal ticket regardless of how many elections we lose.
Nancy in particular seems to be very interested in continually talking about how "we can help President Trump be better".
Yeah, like Republicans are interested :lamo ....thanks Nancy, I'm sure they'll get back to you on that.

We got rid of Harry Reid, now it's time to get rid of the rest of the dead wood.

Since we are on the matter of Harry Reid and Democratic senate leadership, I looked up how the democratic caucus is organized.

This is the current structure of the Democratic caucus.

Senate Democratic Leader CHUCK SCHUMER |

Minority Whip DICK DURBIN

Assistant Democratic Leader PATTY MURRAY |

Chairwoman of Policy and Communications Committee DEBBIE STABENOW

Vice Chair of Conference ELIZABETH WARREN |

Vice Chair of Conference MARK WARNER

Chair of Steering Committee AMY KLOBUCHAR |

Chairman of Outreach BERNIE SANDERS

Vice Chairman of Policy and Communications Committee JOE MANCHIN |

Secretary of Conference TAMMY BALDWIN

Chairman of the Campaign Committee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
since you already object to Schumer, you probably don’t like Durbin as a Democratic leader. Apart from them, the names I found is the senate democrats organize themselves.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov
 
Yes I did. It demonstrates that progressives want strong action and are not happy with the shoulder shrugging resignation they see in many elder statesmen Dems in congress.

Careful!!! You're going to get a lot of fake Democrats eager to crank up the outrage sirens on you, too!

OutrageSiren.jpg
 
Since we are on the matter of Harry Reid and Democratic senate leadership, I looked up how the democratic caucus is organized.

This is the current structure of the Democratic caucus.

since you already object to Schumer, you probably don’t like Durbin as a Democratic leader. Apart from them, the names I found is the senate democrats organize themselves.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov

ELIZABETH WARREN, MARK WARNER, AMY KLOBUCHAR, and BERNIE SANDERS are all good eggs.
I don't have much use for the rest of them to be honest but the fact that we're still stuck with gutless wonders like Chuck and Nancy seems to be the root of the problem.
 
ELIZABETH WARREN, MARK WARNER, AMY KLOBUCHAR, and BERNIE SANDERS are all good eggs.
I don't have much use for the rest of them to be honest but the fact that we're still stuck with gutless wonders like Chuck and Nancy seems to be the root of the problem.

The problem is that no matter how much they are hated by the voters, Pelosi and Schumer are some how still seen as reliable leaders by their caucuses and no one has the been willing to challenge them for that role.

There is also the recent matter of Joe Crowley, The number 4 Democrat in the house and widely assumed to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi as house speaker, lost his primary and upended the House Democratic leadership hierarchy.

As for the two democrats who would lead the house democrats if Pelosi retired, there is steny hoyer of Maryland and James clyburn of South Carolina. Steny hoyer is the number 2 Democrat of the House, but in my opinion he is no suitable replacement as leader of the house democrats because he is more politically conservative than Pelosi. Also there is the matter of his age.

And even If Schumer and Pelosi stepped down, dollars to donuts that who ever replaces them would be loyalists of Pelosi and Schumer and would stay the course.
 
The problem is that no matter how much they are hated by the voters, Pelosi and Schumer are some how still seen as reliable leaders by their caucuses and no one has the been willing to challenge them for that role.

There is also the recent matter of Joe Crowley, The number 4 Democrat in the house and widely assumed to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi as house speaker, lost his primary and upended the House Democratic leadership hierarchy.

As for the two democrats who would lead the house democrats if Pelosi retired, there is steny hoyer of Maryland and James clyburn of South Carolina. Steny hoyer is the number 2 Democrat of the House, but in my opinion he is no suitable replacement as leader of the house democrats because he is more politically conservative than Pelosi. Also there is the matter of his age.

And even If Schumer and Pelosi stepped down, dollars to donuts that who ever replaces them would be loyalists of Pelosi and Schumer and would stay the course.

You made some excellent points.
By the way, this is why I wish to GOD Bernie had simply JOINED the Democratic Party in 2010 and launched his considerable crowd funding mojo to overturn these incumbents way back then, in a manner similar to the Tea Party rout.

BRAND NEW CONGRESS - Our Revolution - Democracy for America
 
You made some excellent points.
By the way, this is why I wish to GOD Bernie had simply JOINED the Democratic Party in 2010 and launched his considerable crowd funding mojo to overturn these incumbents way back then, in a manner similar to the Tea Party rout.

BRAND NEW CONGRESS - Our Revolution - Democracy for America

Call me cynical but I don’t think Schumer and Pelosi will step down. Politically ambitious people are not the kind of people who step down willingly.
 
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, all three represent the arrogant, elite establishment that isn't the least bit interested in anything but protecting their meal ticket regardless of how many elections we lose.
Nancy in particular seems to be very interested in continually talking about how "we can help President Trump be better".
Yeah, like Republicans are interested :lamo ....thanks Nancy, I'm sure they'll get back to you on that.

We got rid of Harry Reid, now it's time to get rid of the rest of the dead wood.
Schumer isn't as bad as the others, but that's not saying much. His biggest problem (like many Democrats) is that he doesn't have any control over the party at all.

What the DNC needs are hardball playing representatives that play for keeps. No more "when the go low, you go high!" bull****. Instead they should use all the tools available to them in order to get the results their base desires - just as the Republicans do.

End Trump's wall proposal, take Republican programs for ransom, hold partisan committees to investigate the WH, and make it clear that GOP hardball games have consequences.
 
He speaks like a common man... there is a difference. Trump is winging it most of the time and it's perfectly fine not finding the right words at the moment or a stutter here or there.

If I had to wing it like a lot of these politicians, I would look like a total fool. I would blank out and be like "uhhhhhhhhhh, what was I saying?". I am not a good public speaker...

There something different going on with Pelosi, it reminds me of my mother when she was having really bad mental issues after several lesions in her brain before she passed away.

Dementia manifests in different ways. Momma used to be downright eloquent, sometimes in the vulgate and other times in her more natural tongue; now she utters incoherent "sentences" just like Trump does.

Red:
That's just it. Trump does sound like a fool. It's not hard to not sound like a fool; just stay on topic, move coherently from one to the next, and answer the questions one's asked or say that one doesn't have an answer if one doesn't. And it's especially not hard for someone who's spent years speaking publicly or as a performer, and he's done both and yet can barely string together complete sentences, let alone answer directly the questions he's asked.

Read the AP interview to which I linked.
  • AP: Do you feel like you have changed the office of the presidency, how the presidency can be used to effect change?
    TRUMP: I think the 100 days is, you know, it’s an artificial barrier. It’s not very meaningful. I think I’ve established amazing relationships that will be used the four or eight years, whatever period of time I’m here. I think for that I would be getting very high marks because I’ve established great relationships with countries, as President el-Sissi has shown and others have shown. Well, if you look at the president of China, people said they’ve never seen anything like what’s going on right now. I really liked him a lot. I think he liked me. We have a great chemistry together. ..
  • AP: Is it this deal that’s between the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus, is that the deal you’re looking at?
    TRUMP: So the Republican Party has various groups, all great people. They’re great people. But some are moderate, some are very conservative. The Democrats don’t seem to have that nearly as much. You know the Democrats have, they don’t have that. The Republicans do have that. And I think it’s fine. But you know there’s a pretty vast area in there. And I have a great relationship with all of them. Now, we have government not closing. I think we’ll be in great shape on that. It’s going very well. Obviously, that takes precedent.
  • AP: But in terms of tax reform, how are you going to roll that out next week?
    TRUMP: Well I’m going to roll (out) probably on Wednesday, around Wednesday of next week, we’re putting out a massive tax reform — business and for people — we want to do both. We’ve been working on it (unintelligible). Secretary Mnuchin is a very talented person, very smart. Very successful (unintelligible). ... We’re going to be putting that out on Wednesday or shortly thereafter. Let me leave a little room just in case (unintelligible). ... And that’s a big story, because a lot of people think I’m going to put it out much later.
    AP: Do you have any details on that in terms of rates?
    TRUMP: Only in terms that it will be a massive tax cut. It will be bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever. Maybe the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had. ...
That's what the man said in a one-on-one interview. Three questions that ask him to describe/discuss his own thoughts and plans and he didn't give a topically relevant response to any of them.

How hard is it, when speaking to just one person, to express one's thoughts coherently and answer the questions they ask? Public Speaking and Interviewing 101: begin your answer with the relevant part of the question.
  • I feel that I've changed the presidency by....
    I think the presidency can be used to effect change by....
  • Yes/no, that is the deal between the Tuesday group and Freedom Caucus. The deal I'm looking at is....
  • My administration will roll out the the tax reform by....
Why does one do that? Well, because it's clear and coherent, but when speaking extemporaneously, because it buys one the second or two it takes to frame one's thought and say something that's accurate and that's neither more nor less than what one means, intends and can disclose.

I know Trump knows that and I know he was taught to do it, so doing it should be "child's play" for him. Despite that, he doesn't do it and when he's extemporizing he ends up saying all sorts of ridiculous things that make clear he hasn't a clue about the subject matter he's discussing.
 
This mythological "center" identified by the Beltway crowd as a midway point between Dems and Republicans doesn't exist amongst the electorate, only among big DONORS.
The actual dynamic of such a strategy is simply to endlessly pull the overall political spectrum further and further and further to the right.
And that's what's been happening.
Result? A Democratic Party that loses election after election because Democrats aren't interested in moving further and further to the Right.

People want CHANGE, not some pretend "center". They just elected a con man but that con man spoke of change, he spoke in populist terms, he did not speak of some nonexistent "center" position in between mainstream liberalism and conservatism. He spoke the language of radicals, in fact.

Here's an article about what an attempt to find out what an actual majority of Americans think and want has demonstrated:
Blowing Up the Myth Of a Political Center in America
 
Back
Top Bottom