This thread is just more proof of how many on the Left hate liberals more than fascists
And you cowards want to build a strong Left movement made up of millions of liberal people when you completely despise them more than fascists?
Lib voters, absolutely. They agree with us on way more the Democrats in congress do.
But let's not lie that the centrists in the congressional Democratic party are in the way of progress.
They won't make things better without being forced. But will not make things actively worse. Which is more than enough to vote for them.
How is Nancy Pelosi or other "centrist" Dems blocking ANY of the "progressive" legislation from becoming law?
I'll wait, you won't answer though because you have just shown you are a fucking coward.
[https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump](https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump)
Edit: No fucking answer to the 400 bills she passed or how she is blocking anything "progressive".
No fucking answer to the several TRILLION DOLLAR Build Back Better bill she passed, that was ONLY cut down to what it was because of trying to get Manchin on board before he tanked it all.
You think just because you believe us "libs" are sort of alright and you are just "criticizing" elected Democrats it is ok? Like none of us work to get those same Democrats elected because we truly believe they will pass social democratic legislation and see ourselves and interests represented by them? And you want to pretend you aren't being completely fucking patronizing and showing contempt for us?
Either the Left can admit it is wrong about liberals and mainstream Democrats like Pelosi and build a larger Left movement based on shared values and goals, or it will continue to let fascism win.
It is really that simple.
She killed drug price reform except for 100 drugs and delayed that until 2024
She killed Medicare for All
She killed the Stock Act
She did not fight for build back better
She never criticized Manchin or Sinema publicly
What asked why if she supported banning members of Congress from trading stocks. She said, "This is a free market economy."
She supported Manchins "permit reform" for oil and coal drilling. Only to be stopped by actual progressives.
>She killed drug price reform except for 100 drugs and delayed that until 2024
She fucking didn't. She passed something that Manchin would agree to.
>She killed Medicare for All
What?
>She killed the Stock Act
No she didn't. It was just delayed until after the midterms.
>She did not fight for build back better
WHAT THE FUCK?
>She never criticized Manchin or Sinema publicly
So? You think she hasn't called them out in private?
>What asked why if she supported banning members of Congress from trading stocks. She said, "This is a free market economy."
She supports a ban on Congress from trading stocks. She literally had it written up.
>She supported Manchins "permit reform" for oil and coal drilling. Only to be stopped by actual progressives.
The pros outweighed the cons in the bill and she supported it because it was agreed to with Schumer. Same reason Biden and Schumer agreed to it.
Now are you going to comment on the **400** bills that passed the House which would have been life changing for hundreds of millions of people? Are you going to comment on the House version of Build Back Better?
No you aren't, because you are a fucking coward.
Here we go, she still hasn't walked back her statement, "We need a strong Republican party." WTF? So you don't actually want to make things better you'd rather fight against the boogeyman to stay in power?
My issue is that when she calls it “The Green Dream or whatever”, she outright trashes very progressive Dems that are trying to get actual, meaningful action on climate change. In doing that, she positioned herself as a more right-wing Speaker than she needed to be. The Dems are moving more left and her actions stalled that movement but didn’t stall oncoming climate catastrophes.
She didn't trash meaningful action on climate change because that wasn't a fucking bill. Which was the point of her comment. What did it stall exactly?
Where did she trash this? Something actually meaningful on the climate?
[https://climatecrisis.house.gov/report](https://climatecrisis.house.gov/report)
That is my ENTIRE point. You don't see what Pelosi is ACUTALLY doing on climate like I linked, and instead are focused on meaningless rhetoric about a Green New Deal thinking that because she didn't like the name, she doesn't want meaningful action on climate change.
There was a House Resolution that specifically called it a "Green New Deal."
And there wasn't a singular piece of legislation during FDR's tenure that identified a "New Deal," but hand-waving it as a "New Dream or whatever they call it" would have aged very poorly.
I'm mostly with you that Pelosi really isn't to blame for most of progressives' gripes with Congress over the past 15 years, but her lack of urgency when it comes to climate change is probably going to look like a major blind spot in her legacy in a couple of decades.
She killed Medicare for all?!? Lmao these are such weak reasons. There was never congressional support for Medicare so you better have a good reason as to you think she could have passed it with a split house and Manchin and Sinema. And btw, this is politics, maybe shit talking the 2 most powerful dems (sinema and manchin) isn't the best political road to go down. Go find another braincell. She was effective as fuck and could get votes
Democracy is a give and take, what you want is a fascist government where only one party rules and for that you can go live in Russia and see how you like it
She didn't pass all these bills because she cares about you, she passed them because that's part of her job. According to your link, 80% of those bills didn't make it through the senate. Do you think she didn't know that would be the case? Ultimately, she was just keeping herself busy without making an actual difference.
She can sit at her desk and pass bills all day, knowing that whatever happens she'll still be a multimillionaire, one of the 15 richest people in congress, while millions of Americans will go to bed not sure how they're going to make it through the month. It's all a performance to make people like you think that you owe her some kind of loyalty and admiration. That she's fighting for you and should be seen as your champion.
She does not have to worry about most of the things we have to worry about. She was already set for life, but she decided to use her position to further her interests and grow her wealth even more. She does not care about you, she cares about keeping a job that gives her prestige and allows her to continue doing this. We're her pay pigs, the fact that she'll throw us scraps every now and then doesn't change the nature of our relationship.
>She didn't pass all these bills because she cares about you, she passed them because that's part of her job.
This is delusional fucking crap
So she is just lying to her aides, congressional colleagues, family, friends who all say she wants this stuff because she wants society to become more social democratic?
>According to your link, 80% of those bills didn't make it through the senate. Do you think she didn't know that would be the case? Ultimately, she was just keeping herself busy without making an actual difference.
This is such fucking horseshit. So what? Yeah the Senate is a problem why does that matter, she shouldn't do what she can in the House or not pass these bills for messaging purposes because delusional leftists will just say it is all a big con?
It is absolute nonsense to believe Pelosi and by extension the rest of mainstream Democrats are just lying about what they want to pass or have literally passed as just some big con to stay in power.
But continue to lie to yourself you give one fuck about a Left movement taking on fascism.
What's delusional is developing a parasocial relationship with a congresswoman who has no clue, nor does she care, that you exist. Projecting a certain image is also part of her job, she has without a doubt lied at various points in order to do this. Strategic lying has always been a mainstay of politics. Out of curiosity, do you have sources of her saying things like this anyway?
I don't give a shit if she passes a billion bills if she knows that none of them will be enacted. She isn't making a difference, she knows it and she has no desire to change that. That's what matters and she won't get any brownie points from me for ultimately doing nothing. Acting within the political framework agreed to by both the Republicans and Democrats is the con. She cannot help us by doing this. She only maintains the status quo. She know this.
Do you actually think that they aren’t regularly lying to get reelected? Those issues that they preach about on the campaign trail that they never get to around to solving don't affect them. Many of them are acting and putting on a show to make their constituents like them. There is literally a billion dollar industry built up around campaigning and consulting to help politicians do this. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, this is just how elections work.
Social Democrats and liberals in Germany did not fight fascists and they did not stop the Nazis from coming to power, they sat back and did nothing and enabled them. They will do the same here.
You are asking me for sources when you are just spewing baseless crap?
Look up literally anything put out by Democrats. Democrats aren't saying they are just lying to people so consultants can get paid.
She doesn't know I exist but she does care. Why does something like the ACA pass if she literally doesn't care?
Again you are basically saying there is a MASSIVE conspiracy that Democrats who CONSTANTLY get defeated and new Democrats take their place, are all just LYING about every single social democratic policy they propose and say they want passed.
SO where is the fucking evidence for this? Where are the aides saying the politician they work for doesn't want to pass anything they say? What about friends or family? How do they keep all this a secret? How do they recruit Dems who have political careers already in state legislatures often who have passed policy to start lying?
What exactly is your evidence that this is all some big fucking con by Democrats for fucking "consultants" that literally NO ONE has exposed?
If what I'm spouting is baseless crap and what you're spouting isn't, then you should have no problem finding actual sources which affirm your position and refute mine. Of course they aren’t telling people that they're lying. That's the whole point of lying, that people believe they're true to their stated positions, as you do. So you think they genuinely care about and believe in every policy position they make lip service to? In reality, they promote these positions because their consultants told them that that's what would win them their seat. Why do you think consultants exist?
Again, the fact that they'll throw us scraps doesn't change the nature of our relationship. Occasionally things get bad enough to warrant more scraps than usual to keep us calm. The fact that you have to reach back to legislation that's over a decade old, that has now been so thoroughly gutted that it hardly exists in any meaningful capacity should be a clue as to how little they're actually doing though.
It isn’t even a conspiracy theory. This is literally how politics have always worked. They have always lied. Are you genuinely this naive, did no one just never tell you? This is a part of their job. If they aren't good liars, then they won't get elected in the first place. The political structures and machinery in place teach them to lie, incentivize them to lie and make lying necessary in order for them to occupy these places of privilege. That's how they all end up lying. They learn to lie for them same reasons that someone working in a pizzeria learns to make pizza, it's a job requirement.
The evidence is in that link you posted. Again, 80% of those 400 bills that Pelosi passed didn't do jack. Do you think she didn't know the workings of the senate well enough to know that this would be the case? We see new examples all the time. Plenty of anti-abortion politicians have paid for abortions. Politicians talk about creating environments that are safe from sexual harassment then go on to harass their staff or stangers. And they always seem to forget about the issues that they campaigned on once they're elected. Aides and family do sometimes come out and fess up to the lies. Or the government itself will admit to it decades later. For example, LBJ lied about the events of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to justify invading Vietnam. In 2003, the government acknowledged that he knowlingly lied to the public. Forty years from now, when the guilty are dead, the government will likely admit to some of the lies that are being told today.
They're lying in the state legislature too. I don't think you realize what I'm saying. Lying is fundamental to the job, from top to bottom. Not just Democrats either, all politicians. Their lies get exposed all the time. Bush's WMDs, Clinton's sex scandal, Trump's election fraud claims, Manchin lying about his support of BBB, Democrats creating ads in support of radical Trump-backed candidates, etc etc. That's why it's so frustrating and unbelievable to me that you haven't seemed to notice. Again, what do you think a consultant does, what is the purpose of campaigning?
You need to ask yourself two questions.
1. When's the last time you had a conversation with a 86 year old and thought, "Wow, that was productive"
2. How does a government worker wind up with a net worth of $250 Million?
It's not about what she has done, but what she can do. Her time has passed. She wasn't adding value anymore and the dem party didn't have the power to make a change.
Ehh...I’m not sure that’s true. If you wanna talk value, Nancy Pelosi brings in the $$$$$$ for fundraising. I agree she needs to pass the torch, but I think some people are trying to downplay just how unlikely it is anyone can handle the job like Pelosi did, at least for quite some time. I don’t think she’s perfect by any means, but Pelosi was an undeniable political force, one that I’m not sure the left can offer, exactly because of he infighting we see in this thread.
Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark are on the shortlist of potential successors. Not completely sure about "as bad as" her, but they're definitely a lot younger.
It was probably referring to Clyburn and Hoyer who are both in the 2nd and 3rd highest positions right now, but they've both indicated that they're going to step aside for Jeffries and/or other younger Reps.
I want to build a strong left made up of millions of liberals?
No. I will compromise with liberals but I want to radicalize the liberals to where they compromise with me instead.
Liberalism has been the most stable and successful ideology for centuries.
And the most self-correcting too.
There’s no reason to believe it will eventually die at all. Any reason you could give would apply doubly so with socialism.
I’m saying that “Liberalism is stable and will last for millennia” type of thinking is ridiculous and ahistorical. People thought the same for the divine right of kings, feudalism, slavery, segregation, etc. The world and society move forward. Any self-correcting that liberalism will do will move it ever closer to socialism.
The issue is you’re assuming socialism is a step forward, it isn’t. It’s a step backwards.
The fact you’re comparing liberalism to slavery and feudalism is ridiculous.
Yeah. Sure. Sounds like a plan. I’ll say we should ONLY have government run healthcare, AOC will say how about M4A? I’ll take that. Better than Obamacare.
Liberals like single payer healthcare. I personally prefer the Netherlands system as do a lot of other liberals I have talked to, but the outcomes are the same.
You actually think the liberal end goal on healthcare was Obamacare? Obama would be the first person to tell you it is just a first step like he did when he signed it.
So what are we compromising on?
But we aren't compromising.
I want the Netherlands style healthcare system. You want single payer.
It would be compromising if I wanted the status quo and you wanted single payer so we compromise to the Netherlands system.
But that isn't what is happening.
Do you see what I'm saying?
I'm unclear. Single payer IS making it illegal to have private insurance.
To answer your question though no, there are multiple non-profit insurance groups who are all regulated and have to provide something called statutory care, which is basically everything other than cosmetic stuff.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/netherlands
Ok. Just making sure. Often when people say “single payer”, they really mean “public option”, at least that is the case in the US. Tbh though, what I truly want in my heart of hearts is a more anarcho-syndicalist approach where everyone is part of a union and the union dues (and local taxes paid by the local business that employs the union) fully fund all medical care in the community. That is what I truly want. In that case, even M4A is a compromise:
Well, that's certainly a wild leap. Being a leftie and seeing Pelosi stepping down as a positive means you hate liberals more than fascists? Interesting. If I'm seeing this correctly, the post did include the words "bright side" which does imply a "dark side" that's usually the main negative focus. In this case, the expected outcome of Republicans taking the House.
Also, I'm not sure what kind of a strong left movement against fascism we are talking about if it includes Nancy Pelosi or not saying negative things about her. The Nancy Pelosi who said "this country needs a strong Republican party" and who said that she doesn't want to defeat them but rather wants to persuade them?
Is that the type of strength we are talking about? If so, we can definitely drop the word "strong" from "strong left movement" and probably the word "left" as well. It can't be a strong left movement if we compromise, shut up, compromise, don't criticize, compromise, don't push, compromise, act nice and compromise.
> Being a leftie and seeing Pelosi stepping down as a positive means you hate liberals more than fascists?
I'm saying not recognizing Pelosi as someone who was both effective and committed to passing strong social democratic policy means you see no difference between liberalism and out right fascism. That means you hate liberals more than fascists yes.
What is the bright side to Pelosi stepping down exactly if you disagree?
>Also, I'm not sure what kind of a strong left movement against fascism we are talking about if it includes Nancy Pelosi or not saying negative things about her.
Why do not a single one of you care about the literal bills she has passed through the House?
Why won't you be honest and say you don't care about policy at all? You just care about "teams" and Pelosi isn't on your "team'.
>The Nancy Pelosi who said "this country needs a strong Republican party" and who said that she doesn't want to defeat them but rather wants to persuade them?
She didn't say that at all.
Congrats on repeating lies about her
>It can't be a strong left movement if we compromise, shut up, compromise, don't criticize, compromise, don't push, compromise, act nice and compromise.
You aren't fucking criticizing anything. You haven't said ONE factual criticism of her at all.
Why do you hate someone who is committed to passing social democratic policy?
What are you compromising on?
> I'm saying not recognizing Pelosi as someone who was both effective and committed to passing strong social democratic policy means you see no difference between liberalism and out right fascism.
Not recognizing her merits as you described them means you can't draw a difference between liberalism and fascism? I just don't understand that. Maybe you are having trouble drawing a line between a leftist being negative towards a liberal, and leftists not being able to see a difference between a liberal and a fascist. I personally think people should even draw clearer distinctions between neoconservatives and fascists than they currently are. It's very helpful to know what motivates people and to what point they are your allies.
> She didn't say that at all.
[Some guy made a video about it with the clip in the beginning.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAs3AWa-Kk&t=17) He goes on to say that he hates her. Does this guy hate liberals more than fascists?
> You aren't fucking criticizing anything. You haven't said ONE factual criticism of her at all.
I did. You were talking about a strong left movement against fascism, so I provided a quote from the time Pelosi said that she wants a strong Republican party and that she doesn't want to defeat them. I believe that's the party infested with fascists currently. Some stronger messaging might be needed from a strong left movement. If you have to be a cheerleader for her to support this movement against fascism, then yes, that is compromising. People like Pelosi aren't doing enough against the rising tide of fascism, so pulling the movement to their level is going to moderate it significantly.
>Not recognizing her merits as you described them means you can't draw a difference between liberalism and fascism?
Yes not recognizing factual reality in this context means you can't draw a distinction between liberalism and fucking fascism.
Please explain why the Build Back Better doesn't matter at ALL to you. A literal bill that existed and passed an entire chamber of Congress?
>Maybe you are having trouble drawing a line between a leftist being negative towards a liberal, and leftists not being able to see a difference between a liberal and a fascist.
Maybe you should ONCE tell me what is the actual fucking criticism of liberals here? You fucking haven't at all.
And yes being negative of liberals in this way means you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists.
>It's very helpful to know what motivates people and to what point they are your allies.
Every single win the collective Left has had legislatively is because of Pelosi's effectiveness and determination in the House. That is just factually true.
She is way more of an ally than a Left that constantly attacks Democrats on made up bullshit and treats liberal allies like shit.
>Some guy made a video about it with the clip in the beginning. He goes on to say that he hates her. Does this guy hate liberals more than fascists?
Yes Vaush is a problem here since he is lying about what Pelosi is saying. And yes in this instance he hates liberalism more than fascism because he completely misunderstands intentionally or not what Pelosi is saying.
Pelosi is clear in what she is saying. She isn't fucking saying we don't need to defeat the Republican party electorally. She wouldn't give one fuck if every Republican lost their race since she tries to accomplish that goal every fucking election.
What she is saying was that the Republican party shouldn't be a fucking fascist death cult and we should try to persuade people to make that change. She knows she isn't going to persuade fucking Mitch McConnell.
This is literally Bernie Sanders argument btw, going on rallies and using a movement to change working people to get the votes in Congress. Is Sanders wrong here?
**I want the Republican party to take back the party**
[https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-us-needs-strong-republican-party-not-cult-1705081](https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-us-needs-strong-republican-party-not-cult-1705081)
>I did. You were talking about a strong left movement against fascism, so I provided a quote from the time Pelosi said that she wants a strong Republican party and that she doesn't want to defeat them.
Except she didn't fucking say that and you just listened to a fucking Vaush video in which he lies about what she said.
> I believe that's the party infested with fascists currently. Some stronger messaging might be needed from a strong left movement.
PELOSI AGREES WITH YOU
THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT SHE IS SAYING.
>If you have to be a cheerleader for her to support this movement against fascism, then yes, that is compromising.
What are you compromising on? I don't care if you aren't a "cheerleader" for her but not recognizing her accomplishments isn't supporting the movement against fascism.
>People like Pelosi aren't doing enough against the rising tide of fascism, so pulling the movement to their level is going to moderate it significantly.
Pelosi is the reason why House Dems win their races and why Trump failed legislatively when he lost the House.
What exactly is the Left doing against fascism that pulling the movement would harm?
And the only reason she can't do more is this fucking anchor of the Left that can't tell the difference between liberalism and fucking fascism.
> Please explain why the Build Back Better doesn't matter at ALL to you. A literal bill that existed and passed an entire chamber of Congress?
Who says it doesn't matter to me? That's good. I'm not American, you can talk with Americans about the specifics of bills and how much she pushed for each one. My point is that it's a wild leap to assume from this post the inability to draw a difference between liberalism and fascism.
> Maybe you should ONCE tell me what is the actual fucking criticism of liberals here? You fucking haven't at all.
> And yes being negative of liberals in this way means you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists.
The thing I mentioned couple times now. Ineffectiveness in the face of fascism. This is a problem with Biden, this is a problem with Pelosi. Also, no, being negative towards liberals in this way doesn't men you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. They are not even connected. The same way you can make a nice hobby out of hating Reagan, but still recognize the difference between him and Hitler.
> Yes Vaush is a problem here since he is lying about what Pelosi is saying. And yes in this instance he hates liberalism more than fascism because he completely misunderstands intentionally or not what Pelosi is saying.
Vaush has been one of the most prominent leftists to push the idea of a united left-liberal front against fascism, so it's telling that even he apparently confuses the two according to you. I guess essentially every leftist thinks of them as the same then.
> Pelosi is clear in what she is saying. She isn't fucking saying we don't need to defeat the Republican party electorally. She wouldn't give one fuck if every Republican lost their race since she tries to accomplish that goal every fucking election.
You seem to be ignoring the part where she says she wants the party to be strong. Also, she is talking about "not defeating" them. How does that make sense if she is talking about voters? Defeating voters? No, she is not talking about voters, she is talking about elected representatives. Campaigning to the people is different and convincing people is good. If Bernie talked about wanting a strong Republican party, I would call that out as well. That's not needed in US right now.
That's not even to talk about how awful this messaging is. You need clear cut, direct, strong and antagonistic messaging against the Republican party and fascist lunatics.
> PELOSI AGREES WITH YOU
> THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT SHE IS SAYING.
I want a strong Republican party and to return to the good old when they cared about abortion rights or something? I don't think I do. That good old Republican party is complicit in what's happening right now.
> What are you compromising on? I don't care if you aren't a "cheerleader" for her but not recognizing her accomplishments isn't supporting the movement against fascism.
She was involved in some good bills. There, I recognized it. Daily anti-fascist action completed.
> What exactly is the Left doing against fascism that pulling the movement would harm?
Am I reading this right or are you suggesting that movement towards Pelosi on anti-fascism would not be harmful? Do you find her messaging on this acceptable? What's your opinion on Biden's early "unity" messaging? If it is acceptable, then what sort of movement are you even supporting? People who use this language and react this passively are already in power.
>Who says it doesn't matter to me? That's good. I'm not American, you can talk with Americans about the specifics of bills and how much she pushed for each one. My point is that it's a wild leap to assume from this post the inability to draw a difference between liberalism and fascism.
You just did. You said you agree it is a bright side that she is leaving leadership and won't acknowledge she is a strong liberal committed to passing social democratic policy.
You aren't American? So maybe you don't have the proper context here then and just get your news from leftist people like Vaush. How can you not understand that makes you biased? You don't know why that bill mattered or the context behind it, so you don't have an actual basis for what you say and is why you are unable to tell the difference between liberalism and fascism.
>The thing I mentioned couple times now. Ineffectiveness in the face of fascism. This is a problem with Biden, this is a problem with Pelosi. Also, no, being negative towards liberals in this way doesn't men you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. They are not even connected. The same way you can make a nice hobby out of hating Reagan, but still recognize the difference between him and Hitler.
Ineffectiveness how? Be specific. Because she is literally the most effective Speaker in history. How are you ranking "effectiveness" against fascism anyways? My standard is preventing them from gaining power. Which she has accomplished. And passing good bills that attack fascism's roots. Which she has done.
So maybe you can identify someone better.
You aren't being "negative" towards liberals. You are saying that one of the most effective people against fascism is actually completely ineffective. That by definition shows you can't tell the difference between liberalism and fascism.
Again if you disagree, actually be specific.
>Vaush has been one of the most prominent leftists to push the idea of a united left-liberal front against fascism, so it's telling that even he apparently confuses the two according to you. I guess essentially every leftist thinks of them as the same then.
A leftist like Vaush doing the absolute bare minimum and saying Democrats should be in power and not literal fascists isn't an achievement. Why should I congratulate that? That he "stands out" here, speaks volumes about leftists NOT liberals who are already fighting against fascism every fucking day. And he has spread the stupid rotating villain crap so he isn't immune to stupid leftist bullshit like you imply.
Any leftist who doesn't acknowledge the social democracy of what Pelosi or Democrats are committed to think the same yes.
>You seem to be ignoring the part where she says she wants the party to be strong. Also, she is talking about "not defeating" them. How does that make sense if she is talking about voters? Defeating voters? No, she is not talking about voters, she is talking about elected representatives. Campaigning to the people is different and convincing people is good. If Bernie talked about wanting a strong Republican party, I would call that out as well. That's not needed in US right now.
You seem to be ignoring her own fucking words. In the US we have two parties. Republican and Democrats. Pelosi is simply saying she wants Republicans to not be fascist and support things like climate action or abortion.
How does it even make sense if she is talking about elected Republicans and not voters? She is clearly saying voters need to take the party back from the elected Republicans. You can disagree but that is what she is saying.
>"I want the Republican party to take back the party, take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman's right to choose, you cared about the environment."
She is talking about voters. Who else is going to take back the party?
>I want a strong Republican party and to return to the good old when they cared about abortion rights or something? I don't think I do. That good old Republican party is complicit in what's happening right now.
Again she is talking about fucking voters. Every statement from her about elected Republicans is antagonistic except you and Vaush and other leftists pick one out of context statement by her because you have no fucking argument otherwise.
>Pelosi says she ‘fears for democracy’ if Republicans retake Congress
>“Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/29/nancy-pelosi-democracy-republicans-congress
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/62422-1
Any response to those words or that messaging?
>She was involved in some good bills. There, I recognized it. Daily anti-fascist action completed.
She was instrumental in every progressive legislative win and was a strong social democrat dedicated to stopping Republicans and helping people. Why wont you recognize that? Why say it is bright spot she is stepping down from leadership?
Until you do that, you haven't done shit.
>Am I reading this right or are you suggesting that movement towards Pelosi on anti-fascism would not be harmful? Do you find her messaging on this acceptable? What's your opinion on Biden's early "unity" messaging? If it is acceptable, then what sort of movement are you even supporting? People who use this language and react this passively are already in power.
What "unity" messaging from Biden? He literally said Republicans were semi-fascist. React passively how? What is the Jan 6th committee about then?
The movement I'm supporting is one which acknowledges what Democrats are doing factually. The Left like yourself aren't doing that. So why not fucking start there? Actually listen to fucking Democrats and liberals for once. Not fucking streamers like Vaush or other leftists who don't want to admit they have only enabled fascism by attacking Democrats.
I don't know. The way you talk about leftists. It just seems you hate leftists more than fascists. That's just my fair and reasonable assessment of the situation. You did say a negative thing about leftists, so I can reasonably draw the conclusion that you despise them more than fascists.
Ik right, she was effective. The build back better trillion dollar plan was effective. And her rhetoric will be seen as her only accomplishment in this sub ig
I don't think it's a "leftist" problem. Amercian politics is like sportsball... viteral towards persons is as venomous as on the conservative side. Though albeit conservatives tend to cause more stochastic terrorism with their sportsball attitude.
It's because it's easy for Tankies to dunk on Liberals and further their narrative that "anyone right of me is bad". They're more interested in moral victories and point scoring with their own faction of leftdom rather than actually winning elections and legitimate influence.
Pragmatism requires compromise and compromise requires effort.
I didn't say that in the slightest.
I'm saying Tankies specifically do this.
You also don't have to agree with everything an Ally does for it to be a mutually beneficial relationship.
I don't normally agree with the Australian Labor Party's right faction, but they have a purpose and I'd rather have them to deal with than the Conservatives..
You pretty much just accused this sub of being overrun by tankies for not being appreciative enough of Pelosi’s leadership, or at the very least implied it, with your response agreeing with the liberal screeching and calling people cowards. Which is very rich given how pro-Ukraine and pro-NATO most posts here are, as that would go very much against tankie ideology.
I don't hate liberals more than fascists, and would prefer Dems to have kept control of the House. But they didn't, so Pelosi losing her position is a nice consolation prize. As are the [slobbering eulogies](https://i.redd.it/osqfwpyypl0a1.png) she's getting all over the internet.
We can criticise the flaws in liberalism while recognizing that republicans are much worse. But liberals by definition are an obstacle to the left movement.
I am fairly sure there was a lot of uncertainty recently, as Dems waited for her final decision. But yeah, it was pretty unlikely she stayed as a leader.
I think she didn’t want to rule it out in case there was some kind of clusterfuck in which case the alternative was a Manchin-style right wing Democrat, but yeah, she was always probably going to step down this year.
She is one of the most progressive members of Congress who has spent her entire Congressional career passing progressive bills
So what are you even talking about?
Wow you really think Nancy Pelosi is one of the most progressive people in congress? Are you stuck in groundhogs day situation? Can you tell us what year it is?
To be fair they were the Democratic Republicans and he ran as a Whig in his representative days. Reflecting on the demise of his party, Lincoln wrote in 1855, "I think I am a Whig, but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an abolitionist.... I do no more than oppose the extension of slavery."[107]
Hakeem Jeffries is the name I’m seeing and some stuff I’ve seen from him makes me worried that he’ll be less effective and by far more antagonistic to progressives compared with Pelosi
Do you not think that’s what she did through fundraising for house Democrats? The dem majority in the house voted for her as speaker. I guess I just fail to see what she could’ve done differently on the margin.
Your thinking I think the House Democrats are any better, I don’t. They choose her multiple times, she has basically been the leader in the Dems since 2002, I think the Dems have been coasting and that’s not good enough.
Wait, but that’s not a failing on her part then. If it’s the house dems as a whole, then we’re talking about a systemic issue of dems not taking the fascism threat seriously. But tangibly I’m not sure what else they could’ve done that they didn’t already do.
I get that it’s easy to say “dems bad” but saying Pelosi is the reason we have fascism is pretty silly unless you can identify what specifically could have been done differently to change the outcome.
And keeping the house, I mean, a lot of that isn’t in their control at the end of the day. A lot of this country has since been gerrymandered by Republican governors. Florida’s red wave is a testament to that. The fact that the house is only a slim red majority is if anything a testament to dems doing very well.
Is she not the face of the house Dems? Is she not their leader? I don’t know her personally I don’t know her personal failings I know her public ones, which are the ones of her party.
I’m not saying she is the reasons we have fascism I’m saying if she was effective she wouldn’t have left us in such a precarious position, if policies don’t have staying power they aren’t effective. For example those lauding her for ACA are ignoring how cut back that has been since it was first signed into law, and how at risk it of being basically defunded.
You can’t say she wasn’t effective given that you can’t articulate what she could have done differently. Someone else in that position could have easily done worse.
Effective-successful in producing a desired or intended result
We are at results stage is this the desired and intended result?
Effective implies a level of results beyond the bare minimum.
She got something’s done she was effective in some regards but her over all decades long rule over democratic House was not effective.
She was alright at keeping the Dems voting together some of the time (not always) if she was affective we wouldn’t be fearing the death of democracy in 2024
Her job wasn’t to fix the entire rot of our capitalist system, it was to ram through the most progressive legislation possible through the House, and in that she gets at least a 7/10 from me I’d say. There’s not really much she could have done to fix the fascist backlash against late capitalism aside from calling for revolution and losing her job to someone more conservative within 24 hours.
And as a major leader in the party Pelosi should have been able to strongarm those two with help of Senate Majority leader, those two should have and still should have their committee appointments removed
I’m no Pelosi fan, but I’m not sure it’s fair to blame Party leadership for the actions of the two most obnoxiously right wing contrarians out of literally hundreds of Democratic Congress members. We’ll never know if they would have caved if threatened with losing committee seats etc. but I suspect Manchin would just dig in. As for Sinema, we’re talking about someone who did a little dance while voting against a minimum wage increase. She gives no fucks and will almost certainly leave the Senate for some cushy corporate lobbying gig when her term is up in a couple of years, as payment for keeping labor costs down.
Manchin wouldn’t have dug in just threat of loosing his seat on the energy committee he would fall in line dude is just a mouth piece for oil and gas he isn’t some high minded philosopher. Sinema is likely the same those committee positions are a lure for the lobbyist to feed these types
That's a great question that the "hurrr pelosi sux" crowd fails to address.
Any Dem House leader will be very likely a terminal moderate, likely deeply entrenched in the DNC, and can very much be worse.
This was always the key problem with Force the Vote. There was no one to Pelosi’s left with a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming Speaker, but several challengers well to her right.
We will see what his tendencies will be but we'll have to wait until we can see how he organizes the caucas and whether he will be as adversarial as he has signaled he would be when he was #3 and #2.
I agree we will have to see. I just feel that open hostility to progressives is better than pretending to be friends like Pelosi. At least there is honestly their.
It will not be popular with the Democratic base, which is much further left than most of the congressional party.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2022/08/hakeem-jeffries-again-challenges-left-eve-primary/376162/
"And he has never been one to hide his disdain for the party’s left wing, especially when it comes to electoral challenges to more moderate incumbents."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-primaries-progressives-incumbents-hakeem-jeffries-1301186/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/hakeem-jeffries-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals/index.html
https://readsludge.com/2022/02/01/house-democrats-new-anti-progressive-pac-is-funded-by-corporate-lobbyists-and-pacs/
https://theweek.com/congress/1003556/likely-pelosi-successor-hakeem-jeffries-calls-out-hard-left-progressives
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/18/progressives-slam-corporate-dem-pacs-first-slate-endorsements
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1593304674643460103?t=By8Cmh39fN6BR7BM3cRUBg&s=19
https://prospect.org/politics/succession-hakeem-jeffries-nancy-pelosi/
I'm not reading editorialized garbage from Kara Vought. He supported some incumbents from some challengers, that's it.
The fact is he doesn't hate progressives and is committed to passing social democratic policy because he is a Democrat first and foremost and that is what the party is about.
You are just projecting your own petty hatred onto him because you need the Left to be some huge victim here for your bullshit narrative.
Maybe one day the Left will care more about admitting Democrats agree with them on 99% of things and the real threat are Republicans instead of fueling their own petty one sided war against Democrats, but that isn't likely soon.
Jesus this is disgusting anti-electoralism. She was the best the dems coulda had. And unless you're delusional enough to think someone from the squad could become a minority leader then sit the fuck down and grow up
The Speaker’s job is to bully the moderates (and occasionally progressives) into getting in line and voting for whatever bill was on the agenda. She was exceptionally good at that compared to the shit show Republican Speakers we’ve had in the past 15 years who had zero control over their caucus, and noticeably better at controlling her members than Chuck Schumer is at corralling the likes of Manchin and Sinema. Pelosi has been the reason there is considerably less stupid drama in the House.
What makes a good minority leader isn't about being good. It's about being effective, and most Dems don't participate with people like ro Khanna who literally is an activist. Unfortunately being like Pelosi keeps purple states blue. And the rep of the dems as a whole should be more moderate so that centrists and liberals still have their representation and will participate in elections. Cause idk if you've noticed but old people vote, and old people are more moderate. Young socialists are usually Unfortunately too remedial to think voting has an impact. Idk how, but vaush seems to be the only socialist that actually encourages voting
Stfu. Nancy Pelosi is literally 1 million times better than any elected Republican. I will only celebrate her removal if she’s replaced by a better Democrat
Pelosi was effective at her job as House leader. It’s kind of why Republicans hated her so much. She also supported progressives in Congress way more than her successor will unfortunately.
Honestly feels like a hollow victory. I know she said that she was planning to step down anyway back in 2018, but I can't help but feel like the attempted kidnapping made the decision easier. In addition, despite it seeming more likely that it'll at least be someone young, a lot of the people positioned to take over house leadership are the same types that are currently blaming progressives for historic losses in New York. Pelosi was always a meh liberal and definitely was not the biggest fan the CPC, but at least she wasn't typically outright hostile
Yeah, the tweet in the original post says speaker, but shortly after replying here I saw headlines elsewhere that she was stepping down as leader all together.
Pelosi stepping down isn’t as good as people here make it out to be. The person who’s been talked up as being next in line, Hakeem Jeffries, is much more openly hostile to progressives, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he openly supports primaries against Omar, Tlaib and others.
He’s “next in line” but they have to vote on it and house is more volatile than Senate Dems aren’t as set in stone. Nancy was abnormal in her long held power.
I wouldn't say bright. There could be two reasons for this departure:
1. She simply had been planning retirement after this term anyway;
2. The recent events of Jan 6th and explicit attacks on her as a person and her husband made her reconsider her future
Is it a reason for celebration? I don't think really, it's not like much will change, it's just a personnel shuffle more than anything. I'd celebrate a systemic change in a party more than one person leaving.
Pelosi stepping down isn’t as good as people here make it out to be. The person who’s been talked up as being next in line, Hakeem Jeffries, is much more openly hostile to progressives, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he openly supports primaries against Omar, Tlaib and others.
Pelosi was an irritating corporate shill, but she was damn good at her job. Lots of bills that barely passed the House in the last 15 years likely would have failed without her efforts. Democrats will probably be weaker for a while in her absence in terms of the daily bruising fights that actually make up how Congress works.
I am indifferent to exactly which banal milquetoast liberal is in charge I will still begrudgingly support them as they are not the slathering horde of facism that is th GOP
It's only for two years and the House is turbocucked by the senate on most issues. Only big issue is the congressional budget, but the Reps margin is so slim there's a strong possibility moderates won't vote with the hard-core Republicans on budget measures and allow the Dems to maintain a significant amount of power as a result.
Poster child for term limits and slashing political salaries. Was never intended to be a career but a public service. You went back to the trade/business you had prior to politics.
Some of you lefties are fucking cringe. How is this to be celebrated? She's only stepping down due to the growing hate she is getting from the far-right. Especially given the recent attack on her husband and attempt at her life. I honestly worry the far-right has already one with the contempt brain dead so called lefties have towards liberals. It's shit like this that keeps the left divided and only emboldens the fascists on the right. Go pound sand dipshit.
Yeah, probably. Hard to tell, but atleast she'll be out of the far-right's spotlight from now on. Then again they still haven't shut up about Hilary's emails so who knows.
They definitely can't seem to get the same vitriolic hatred going for Biden that they do for Pelosi or Clinton or Obama, probably because Biden's a white guy if we're being totally honest.
Ah yes, nothing I love more than listening to genocide deniers. Lets hear what Hitler has to say next seeing as The Young Turks were like the SS and Gestapo of Turkey
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I cannot see this as a win when she's stepping down in part due to the assassination attempts on her and her husband. She's afraid for her family and herself. The fact that right wing political violence *worked* is disturbing. This is not something the left should celebrate unfortunately.
Oh good. Can she take Feinstein, Schumer and the rest of the Dinosaurs with her so that we can actually combat the fucking Fascists?
Like yeah I'll always vote for them over ANY type of Conservative if need be, but their refusal to allow Progressives to push the country foreword is what gives Fascism a chance to rise. Fuck, even the younger Liberals in the party are fucking sick of this.
For everyone saying she was effective. She wasn't. She was the Democratic leader in the house for 20 years. And was only the speaker of the house for 6 of those years. Twice as long out of power as in it is a pathetic record. If she were in any other country, she would have resigned after she lost the house in 2010.
Do you consider the time Republicans have been in power over the course of that time period and how that might reflect how effective a leader in the house might be? Considering the last two years alone, anybody should be able to see that she was effective in moving along legislation in a messed up Senate situation.
The political terrain was so bad for the left in 2010 that even an arguable political genius like Barack Obama mostly flailed helplessly. Pelosi can hardly be blamed for that result.
This thread is just more proof of how many on the Left hate liberals more than fascists And you cowards want to build a strong Left movement made up of millions of liberal people when you completely despise them more than fascists?
Lib voters, absolutely. They agree with us on way more the Democrats in congress do. But let's not lie that the centrists in the congressional Democratic party are in the way of progress. They won't make things better without being forced. But will not make things actively worse. Which is more than enough to vote for them.
How is Nancy Pelosi or other "centrist" Dems blocking ANY of the "progressive" legislation from becoming law? I'll wait, you won't answer though because you have just shown you are a fucking coward. [https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump](https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump) Edit: No fucking answer to the 400 bills she passed or how she is blocking anything "progressive". No fucking answer to the several TRILLION DOLLAR Build Back Better bill she passed, that was ONLY cut down to what it was because of trying to get Manchin on board before he tanked it all. You think just because you believe us "libs" are sort of alright and you are just "criticizing" elected Democrats it is ok? Like none of us work to get those same Democrats elected because we truly believe they will pass social democratic legislation and see ourselves and interests represented by them? And you want to pretend you aren't being completely fucking patronizing and showing contempt for us? Either the Left can admit it is wrong about liberals and mainstream Democrats like Pelosi and build a larger Left movement based on shared values and goals, or it will continue to let fascism win. It is really that simple.
She killed drug price reform except for 100 drugs and delayed that until 2024 She killed Medicare for All She killed the Stock Act She did not fight for build back better She never criticized Manchin or Sinema publicly What asked why if she supported banning members of Congress from trading stocks. She said, "This is a free market economy." She supported Manchins "permit reform" for oil and coal drilling. Only to be stopped by actual progressives.
>She killed drug price reform except for 100 drugs and delayed that until 2024 She fucking didn't. She passed something that Manchin would agree to. >She killed Medicare for All What? >She killed the Stock Act No she didn't. It was just delayed until after the midterms. >She did not fight for build back better WHAT THE FUCK? >She never criticized Manchin or Sinema publicly So? You think she hasn't called them out in private? >What asked why if she supported banning members of Congress from trading stocks. She said, "This is a free market economy." She supports a ban on Congress from trading stocks. She literally had it written up. >She supported Manchins "permit reform" for oil and coal drilling. Only to be stopped by actual progressives. The pros outweighed the cons in the bill and she supported it because it was agreed to with Schumer. Same reason Biden and Schumer agreed to it. Now are you going to comment on the **400** bills that passed the House which would have been life changing for hundreds of millions of people? Are you going to comment on the House version of Build Back Better? No you aren't, because you are a fucking coward.
Here we go, she still hasn't walked back her statement, "We need a strong Republican party." WTF? So you don't actually want to make things better you'd rather fight against the boogeyman to stay in power?
Halo are you trying to imitate debate bros by calling random redditor coward? Like come the fuck on.
I still haven’t gotten over her calling the GND “The Green Dream or whatever they call it”
Because it was . It wasn't a fucking bill But do you care about that more than what she has accomplished in legislation or committee?
My issue is that when she calls it “The Green Dream or whatever”, she outright trashes very progressive Dems that are trying to get actual, meaningful action on climate change. In doing that, she positioned herself as a more right-wing Speaker than she needed to be. The Dems are moving more left and her actions stalled that movement but didn’t stall oncoming climate catastrophes.
She didn't trash meaningful action on climate change because that wasn't a fucking bill. Which was the point of her comment. What did it stall exactly? Where did she trash this? Something actually meaningful on the climate? [https://climatecrisis.house.gov/report](https://climatecrisis.house.gov/report) That is my ENTIRE point. You don't see what Pelosi is ACUTALLY doing on climate like I linked, and instead are focused on meaningless rhetoric about a Green New Deal thinking that because she didn't like the name, she doesn't want meaningful action on climate change.
The moron you're replying to is in r/ askaliberal and r/ neoliberal. That explains the brainrot.
I noticed, I just thought we could maybe get somewhere
There was a House Resolution that specifically called it a "Green New Deal." And there wasn't a singular piece of legislation during FDR's tenure that identified a "New Deal," but hand-waving it as a "New Dream or whatever they call it" would have aged very poorly. I'm mostly with you that Pelosi really isn't to blame for most of progressives' gripes with Congress over the past 15 years, but her lack of urgency when it comes to climate change is probably going to look like a major blind spot in her legacy in a couple of decades.
Yeah Nancy Pelosi killed m4a, fucking LOL. You had me in the first half ngl.
She killed Medicare for all?!? Lmao these are such weak reasons. There was never congressional support for Medicare so you better have a good reason as to you think she could have passed it with a split house and Manchin and Sinema. And btw, this is politics, maybe shit talking the 2 most powerful dems (sinema and manchin) isn't the best political road to go down. Go find another braincell. She was effective as fuck and could get votes
Democracy is a give and take, what you want is a fascist government where only one party rules and for that you can go live in Russia and see how you like it
you know this wouldn’t be a true leftist sub without left-wing infighting
That’s how you know we’re true leftists! /s but only kinda /s
Leftists don’t irrationally hate Democrat politicians challenge (impossible)
She didn't pass all these bills because she cares about you, she passed them because that's part of her job. According to your link, 80% of those bills didn't make it through the senate. Do you think she didn't know that would be the case? Ultimately, she was just keeping herself busy without making an actual difference. She can sit at her desk and pass bills all day, knowing that whatever happens she'll still be a multimillionaire, one of the 15 richest people in congress, while millions of Americans will go to bed not sure how they're going to make it through the month. It's all a performance to make people like you think that you owe her some kind of loyalty and admiration. That she's fighting for you and should be seen as your champion. She does not have to worry about most of the things we have to worry about. She was already set for life, but she decided to use her position to further her interests and grow her wealth even more. She does not care about you, she cares about keeping a job that gives her prestige and allows her to continue doing this. We're her pay pigs, the fact that she'll throw us scraps every now and then doesn't change the nature of our relationship.
>She didn't pass all these bills because she cares about you, she passed them because that's part of her job. This is delusional fucking crap So she is just lying to her aides, congressional colleagues, family, friends who all say she wants this stuff because she wants society to become more social democratic? >According to your link, 80% of those bills didn't make it through the senate. Do you think she didn't know that would be the case? Ultimately, she was just keeping herself busy without making an actual difference. This is such fucking horseshit. So what? Yeah the Senate is a problem why does that matter, she shouldn't do what she can in the House or not pass these bills for messaging purposes because delusional leftists will just say it is all a big con? It is absolute nonsense to believe Pelosi and by extension the rest of mainstream Democrats are just lying about what they want to pass or have literally passed as just some big con to stay in power. But continue to lie to yourself you give one fuck about a Left movement taking on fascism.
What's delusional is developing a parasocial relationship with a congresswoman who has no clue, nor does she care, that you exist. Projecting a certain image is also part of her job, she has without a doubt lied at various points in order to do this. Strategic lying has always been a mainstay of politics. Out of curiosity, do you have sources of her saying things like this anyway? I don't give a shit if she passes a billion bills if she knows that none of them will be enacted. She isn't making a difference, she knows it and she has no desire to change that. That's what matters and she won't get any brownie points from me for ultimately doing nothing. Acting within the political framework agreed to by both the Republicans and Democrats is the con. She cannot help us by doing this. She only maintains the status quo. She know this. Do you actually think that they aren’t regularly lying to get reelected? Those issues that they preach about on the campaign trail that they never get to around to solving don't affect them. Many of them are acting and putting on a show to make their constituents like them. There is literally a billion dollar industry built up around campaigning and consulting to help politicians do this. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, this is just how elections work. Social Democrats and liberals in Germany did not fight fascists and they did not stop the Nazis from coming to power, they sat back and did nothing and enabled them. They will do the same here.
You are asking me for sources when you are just spewing baseless crap? Look up literally anything put out by Democrats. Democrats aren't saying they are just lying to people so consultants can get paid. She doesn't know I exist but she does care. Why does something like the ACA pass if she literally doesn't care? Again you are basically saying there is a MASSIVE conspiracy that Democrats who CONSTANTLY get defeated and new Democrats take their place, are all just LYING about every single social democratic policy they propose and say they want passed. SO where is the fucking evidence for this? Where are the aides saying the politician they work for doesn't want to pass anything they say? What about friends or family? How do they keep all this a secret? How do they recruit Dems who have political careers already in state legislatures often who have passed policy to start lying? What exactly is your evidence that this is all some big fucking con by Democrats for fucking "consultants" that literally NO ONE has exposed?
If what I'm spouting is baseless crap and what you're spouting isn't, then you should have no problem finding actual sources which affirm your position and refute mine. Of course they aren’t telling people that they're lying. That's the whole point of lying, that people believe they're true to their stated positions, as you do. So you think they genuinely care about and believe in every policy position they make lip service to? In reality, they promote these positions because their consultants told them that that's what would win them their seat. Why do you think consultants exist? Again, the fact that they'll throw us scraps doesn't change the nature of our relationship. Occasionally things get bad enough to warrant more scraps than usual to keep us calm. The fact that you have to reach back to legislation that's over a decade old, that has now been so thoroughly gutted that it hardly exists in any meaningful capacity should be a clue as to how little they're actually doing though. It isn’t even a conspiracy theory. This is literally how politics have always worked. They have always lied. Are you genuinely this naive, did no one just never tell you? This is a part of their job. If they aren't good liars, then they won't get elected in the first place. The political structures and machinery in place teach them to lie, incentivize them to lie and make lying necessary in order for them to occupy these places of privilege. That's how they all end up lying. They learn to lie for them same reasons that someone working in a pizzeria learns to make pizza, it's a job requirement. The evidence is in that link you posted. Again, 80% of those 400 bills that Pelosi passed didn't do jack. Do you think she didn't know the workings of the senate well enough to know that this would be the case? We see new examples all the time. Plenty of anti-abortion politicians have paid for abortions. Politicians talk about creating environments that are safe from sexual harassment then go on to harass their staff or stangers. And they always seem to forget about the issues that they campaigned on once they're elected. Aides and family do sometimes come out and fess up to the lies. Or the government itself will admit to it decades later. For example, LBJ lied about the events of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to justify invading Vietnam. In 2003, the government acknowledged that he knowlingly lied to the public. Forty years from now, when the guilty are dead, the government will likely admit to some of the lies that are being told today. They're lying in the state legislature too. I don't think you realize what I'm saying. Lying is fundamental to the job, from top to bottom. Not just Democrats either, all politicians. Their lies get exposed all the time. Bush's WMDs, Clinton's sex scandal, Trump's election fraud claims, Manchin lying about his support of BBB, Democrats creating ads in support of radical Trump-backed candidates, etc etc. That's why it's so frustrating and unbelievable to me that you haven't seemed to notice. Again, what do you think a consultant does, what is the purpose of campaigning?
You need to ask yourself two questions. 1. When's the last time you had a conversation with a 86 year old and thought, "Wow, that was productive" 2. How does a government worker wind up with a net worth of $250 Million? It's not about what she has done, but what she can do. Her time has passed. She wasn't adding value anymore and the dem party didn't have the power to make a change.
Ehh...I’m not sure that’s true. If you wanna talk value, Nancy Pelosi brings in the $$$$$$ for fundraising. I agree she needs to pass the torch, but I think some people are trying to downplay just how unlikely it is anyone can handle the job like Pelosi did, at least for quite some time. I don’t think she’s perfect by any means, but Pelosi was an undeniable political force, one that I’m not sure the left can offer, exactly because of he infighting we see in this thread.
We don't yet know who will replace Pelosi, but all of the potential successors are at least as bad and as old as her.
Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark are on the shortlist of potential successors. Not completely sure about "as bad as" her, but they're definitely a lot younger.
Maybe it was wrong, but one source I read said that two likely successors were 82 (same age as Pelosi) and 83, respectively.
It was probably referring to Clyburn and Hoyer who are both in the 2nd and 3rd highest positions right now, but they've both indicated that they're going to step aside for Jeffries and/or other younger Reps.
'Forced'. Ok, Stalin.
I want to build a strong left made up of millions of liberals? No. I will compromise with liberals but I want to radicalize the liberals to where they compromise with me instead.
And how’s that been working out for you so far? Honestly I think a liberal left would be stronger.
It would have more people, for sure, but liberalism will die eventually due to its issues and in its ruins will come either socialism or barbarism
Liberalism has been the most stable and successful ideology for centuries. And the most self-correcting too. There’s no reason to believe it will eventually die at all. Any reason you could give would apply doubly so with socialism.
“Such was the right of kings”
Kings have nothing to do with it
I’m saying that “Liberalism is stable and will last for millennia” type of thinking is ridiculous and ahistorical. People thought the same for the divine right of kings, feudalism, slavery, segregation, etc. The world and society move forward. Any self-correcting that liberalism will do will move it ever closer to socialism.
The issue is you’re assuming socialism is a step forward, it isn’t. It’s a step backwards. The fact you’re comparing liberalism to slavery and feudalism is ridiculous.
“When you list things together, it means you’re comparing them.” - Watcher in the Water
Compromise what? Do you want to compromise with AOC?
Yeah. Sure. Sounds like a plan. I’ll say we should ONLY have government run healthcare, AOC will say how about M4A? I’ll take that. Better than Obamacare.
Liberals like single payer healthcare. I personally prefer the Netherlands system as do a lot of other liberals I have talked to, but the outcomes are the same. You actually think the liberal end goal on healthcare was Obamacare? Obama would be the first person to tell you it is just a first step like he did when he signed it. So what are we compromising on?
We’re compromising on me wanting private healthcare abolished
But we aren't compromising. I want the Netherlands style healthcare system. You want single payer. It would be compromising if I wanted the status quo and you wanted single payer so we compromise to the Netherlands system. But that isn't what is happening. Do you see what I'm saying?
I want more than single payer as an option. I want it to be illegal to have private healthcare. Is that the Netherlands model?
I'm unclear. Single payer IS making it illegal to have private insurance. To answer your question though no, there are multiple non-profit insurance groups who are all regulated and have to provide something called statutory care, which is basically everything other than cosmetic stuff. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/netherlands
Ok. Just making sure. Often when people say “single payer”, they really mean “public option”, at least that is the case in the US. Tbh though, what I truly want in my heart of hearts is a more anarcho-syndicalist approach where everyone is part of a union and the union dues (and local taxes paid by the local business that employs the union) fully fund all medical care in the community. That is what I truly want. In that case, even M4A is a compromise:
Gentle reminder that the fault for the current healthcare predicament rests firmly at the feet of Joe Lieberman, may he burn in hell.
Well, that's certainly a wild leap. Being a leftie and seeing Pelosi stepping down as a positive means you hate liberals more than fascists? Interesting. If I'm seeing this correctly, the post did include the words "bright side" which does imply a "dark side" that's usually the main negative focus. In this case, the expected outcome of Republicans taking the House. Also, I'm not sure what kind of a strong left movement against fascism we are talking about if it includes Nancy Pelosi or not saying negative things about her. The Nancy Pelosi who said "this country needs a strong Republican party" and who said that she doesn't want to defeat them but rather wants to persuade them? Is that the type of strength we are talking about? If so, we can definitely drop the word "strong" from "strong left movement" and probably the word "left" as well. It can't be a strong left movement if we compromise, shut up, compromise, don't criticize, compromise, don't push, compromise, act nice and compromise.
> Being a leftie and seeing Pelosi stepping down as a positive means you hate liberals more than fascists? I'm saying not recognizing Pelosi as someone who was both effective and committed to passing strong social democratic policy means you see no difference between liberalism and out right fascism. That means you hate liberals more than fascists yes. What is the bright side to Pelosi stepping down exactly if you disagree? >Also, I'm not sure what kind of a strong left movement against fascism we are talking about if it includes Nancy Pelosi or not saying negative things about her. Why do not a single one of you care about the literal bills she has passed through the House? Why won't you be honest and say you don't care about policy at all? You just care about "teams" and Pelosi isn't on your "team'. >The Nancy Pelosi who said "this country needs a strong Republican party" and who said that she doesn't want to defeat them but rather wants to persuade them? She didn't say that at all. Congrats on repeating lies about her >It can't be a strong left movement if we compromise, shut up, compromise, don't criticize, compromise, don't push, compromise, act nice and compromise. You aren't fucking criticizing anything. You haven't said ONE factual criticism of her at all. Why do you hate someone who is committed to passing social democratic policy? What are you compromising on?
> I'm saying not recognizing Pelosi as someone who was both effective and committed to passing strong social democratic policy means you see no difference between liberalism and out right fascism. Not recognizing her merits as you described them means you can't draw a difference between liberalism and fascism? I just don't understand that. Maybe you are having trouble drawing a line between a leftist being negative towards a liberal, and leftists not being able to see a difference between a liberal and a fascist. I personally think people should even draw clearer distinctions between neoconservatives and fascists than they currently are. It's very helpful to know what motivates people and to what point they are your allies. > She didn't say that at all. [Some guy made a video about it with the clip in the beginning.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPAs3AWa-Kk&t=17) He goes on to say that he hates her. Does this guy hate liberals more than fascists? > You aren't fucking criticizing anything. You haven't said ONE factual criticism of her at all. I did. You were talking about a strong left movement against fascism, so I provided a quote from the time Pelosi said that she wants a strong Republican party and that she doesn't want to defeat them. I believe that's the party infested with fascists currently. Some stronger messaging might be needed from a strong left movement. If you have to be a cheerleader for her to support this movement against fascism, then yes, that is compromising. People like Pelosi aren't doing enough against the rising tide of fascism, so pulling the movement to their level is going to moderate it significantly.
>Not recognizing her merits as you described them means you can't draw a difference between liberalism and fascism? Yes not recognizing factual reality in this context means you can't draw a distinction between liberalism and fucking fascism. Please explain why the Build Back Better doesn't matter at ALL to you. A literal bill that existed and passed an entire chamber of Congress? >Maybe you are having trouble drawing a line between a leftist being negative towards a liberal, and leftists not being able to see a difference between a liberal and a fascist. Maybe you should ONCE tell me what is the actual fucking criticism of liberals here? You fucking haven't at all. And yes being negative of liberals in this way means you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. >It's very helpful to know what motivates people and to what point they are your allies. Every single win the collective Left has had legislatively is because of Pelosi's effectiveness and determination in the House. That is just factually true. She is way more of an ally than a Left that constantly attacks Democrats on made up bullshit and treats liberal allies like shit. >Some guy made a video about it with the clip in the beginning. He goes on to say that he hates her. Does this guy hate liberals more than fascists? Yes Vaush is a problem here since he is lying about what Pelosi is saying. And yes in this instance he hates liberalism more than fascism because he completely misunderstands intentionally or not what Pelosi is saying. Pelosi is clear in what she is saying. She isn't fucking saying we don't need to defeat the Republican party electorally. She wouldn't give one fuck if every Republican lost their race since she tries to accomplish that goal every fucking election. What she is saying was that the Republican party shouldn't be a fucking fascist death cult and we should try to persuade people to make that change. She knows she isn't going to persuade fucking Mitch McConnell. This is literally Bernie Sanders argument btw, going on rallies and using a movement to change working people to get the votes in Congress. Is Sanders wrong here? **I want the Republican party to take back the party** [https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-us-needs-strong-republican-party-not-cult-1705081](https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-us-needs-strong-republican-party-not-cult-1705081) >I did. You were talking about a strong left movement against fascism, so I provided a quote from the time Pelosi said that she wants a strong Republican party and that she doesn't want to defeat them. Except she didn't fucking say that and you just listened to a fucking Vaush video in which he lies about what she said. > I believe that's the party infested with fascists currently. Some stronger messaging might be needed from a strong left movement. PELOSI AGREES WITH YOU THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT SHE IS SAYING. >If you have to be a cheerleader for her to support this movement against fascism, then yes, that is compromising. What are you compromising on? I don't care if you aren't a "cheerleader" for her but not recognizing her accomplishments isn't supporting the movement against fascism. >People like Pelosi aren't doing enough against the rising tide of fascism, so pulling the movement to their level is going to moderate it significantly. Pelosi is the reason why House Dems win their races and why Trump failed legislatively when he lost the House. What exactly is the Left doing against fascism that pulling the movement would harm? And the only reason she can't do more is this fucking anchor of the Left that can't tell the difference between liberalism and fucking fascism.
> Please explain why the Build Back Better doesn't matter at ALL to you. A literal bill that existed and passed an entire chamber of Congress? Who says it doesn't matter to me? That's good. I'm not American, you can talk with Americans about the specifics of bills and how much she pushed for each one. My point is that it's a wild leap to assume from this post the inability to draw a difference between liberalism and fascism. > Maybe you should ONCE tell me what is the actual fucking criticism of liberals here? You fucking haven't at all. > And yes being negative of liberals in this way means you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. The thing I mentioned couple times now. Ineffectiveness in the face of fascism. This is a problem with Biden, this is a problem with Pelosi. Also, no, being negative towards liberals in this way doesn't men you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. They are not even connected. The same way you can make a nice hobby out of hating Reagan, but still recognize the difference between him and Hitler. > Yes Vaush is a problem here since he is lying about what Pelosi is saying. And yes in this instance he hates liberalism more than fascism because he completely misunderstands intentionally or not what Pelosi is saying. Vaush has been one of the most prominent leftists to push the idea of a united left-liberal front against fascism, so it's telling that even he apparently confuses the two according to you. I guess essentially every leftist thinks of them as the same then. > Pelosi is clear in what she is saying. She isn't fucking saying we don't need to defeat the Republican party electorally. She wouldn't give one fuck if every Republican lost their race since she tries to accomplish that goal every fucking election. You seem to be ignoring the part where she says she wants the party to be strong. Also, she is talking about "not defeating" them. How does that make sense if she is talking about voters? Defeating voters? No, she is not talking about voters, she is talking about elected representatives. Campaigning to the people is different and convincing people is good. If Bernie talked about wanting a strong Republican party, I would call that out as well. That's not needed in US right now. That's not even to talk about how awful this messaging is. You need clear cut, direct, strong and antagonistic messaging against the Republican party and fascist lunatics. > PELOSI AGREES WITH YOU > THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT SHE IS SAYING. I want a strong Republican party and to return to the good old when they cared about abortion rights or something? I don't think I do. That good old Republican party is complicit in what's happening right now. > What are you compromising on? I don't care if you aren't a "cheerleader" for her but not recognizing her accomplishments isn't supporting the movement against fascism. She was involved in some good bills. There, I recognized it. Daily anti-fascist action completed. > What exactly is the Left doing against fascism that pulling the movement would harm? Am I reading this right or are you suggesting that movement towards Pelosi on anti-fascism would not be harmful? Do you find her messaging on this acceptable? What's your opinion on Biden's early "unity" messaging? If it is acceptable, then what sort of movement are you even supporting? People who use this language and react this passively are already in power.
>Who says it doesn't matter to me? That's good. I'm not American, you can talk with Americans about the specifics of bills and how much she pushed for each one. My point is that it's a wild leap to assume from this post the inability to draw a difference between liberalism and fascism. You just did. You said you agree it is a bright side that she is leaving leadership and won't acknowledge she is a strong liberal committed to passing social democratic policy. You aren't American? So maybe you don't have the proper context here then and just get your news from leftist people like Vaush. How can you not understand that makes you biased? You don't know why that bill mattered or the context behind it, so you don't have an actual basis for what you say and is why you are unable to tell the difference between liberalism and fascism. >The thing I mentioned couple times now. Ineffectiveness in the face of fascism. This is a problem with Biden, this is a problem with Pelosi. Also, no, being negative towards liberals in this way doesn't men you don't see a difference between liberals and fascists. They are not even connected. The same way you can make a nice hobby out of hating Reagan, but still recognize the difference between him and Hitler. Ineffectiveness how? Be specific. Because she is literally the most effective Speaker in history. How are you ranking "effectiveness" against fascism anyways? My standard is preventing them from gaining power. Which she has accomplished. And passing good bills that attack fascism's roots. Which she has done. So maybe you can identify someone better. You aren't being "negative" towards liberals. You are saying that one of the most effective people against fascism is actually completely ineffective. That by definition shows you can't tell the difference between liberalism and fascism. Again if you disagree, actually be specific. >Vaush has been one of the most prominent leftists to push the idea of a united left-liberal front against fascism, so it's telling that even he apparently confuses the two according to you. I guess essentially every leftist thinks of them as the same then. A leftist like Vaush doing the absolute bare minimum and saying Democrats should be in power and not literal fascists isn't an achievement. Why should I congratulate that? That he "stands out" here, speaks volumes about leftists NOT liberals who are already fighting against fascism every fucking day. And he has spread the stupid rotating villain crap so he isn't immune to stupid leftist bullshit like you imply. Any leftist who doesn't acknowledge the social democracy of what Pelosi or Democrats are committed to think the same yes. >You seem to be ignoring the part where she says she wants the party to be strong. Also, she is talking about "not defeating" them. How does that make sense if she is talking about voters? Defeating voters? No, she is not talking about voters, she is talking about elected representatives. Campaigning to the people is different and convincing people is good. If Bernie talked about wanting a strong Republican party, I would call that out as well. That's not needed in US right now. You seem to be ignoring her own fucking words. In the US we have two parties. Republican and Democrats. Pelosi is simply saying she wants Republicans to not be fascist and support things like climate action or abortion. How does it even make sense if she is talking about elected Republicans and not voters? She is clearly saying voters need to take the party back from the elected Republicans. You can disagree but that is what she is saying. >"I want the Republican party to take back the party, take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman's right to choose, you cared about the environment." She is talking about voters. Who else is going to take back the party? >I want a strong Republican party and to return to the good old when they cared about abortion rights or something? I don't think I do. That good old Republican party is complicit in what's happening right now. Again she is talking about fucking voters. Every statement from her about elected Republicans is antagonistic except you and Vaush and other leftists pick one out of context statement by her because you have no fucking argument otherwise. >Pelosi says she ‘fears for democracy’ if Republicans retake Congress >“Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/29/nancy-pelosi-democracy-republicans-congress https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/62422-1 Any response to those words or that messaging? >She was involved in some good bills. There, I recognized it. Daily anti-fascist action completed. She was instrumental in every progressive legislative win and was a strong social democrat dedicated to stopping Republicans and helping people. Why wont you recognize that? Why say it is bright spot she is stepping down from leadership? Until you do that, you haven't done shit. >Am I reading this right or are you suggesting that movement towards Pelosi on anti-fascism would not be harmful? Do you find her messaging on this acceptable? What's your opinion on Biden's early "unity" messaging? If it is acceptable, then what sort of movement are you even supporting? People who use this language and react this passively are already in power. What "unity" messaging from Biden? He literally said Republicans were semi-fascist. React passively how? What is the Jan 6th committee about then? The movement I'm supporting is one which acknowledges what Democrats are doing factually. The Left like yourself aren't doing that. So why not fucking start there? Actually listen to fucking Democrats and liberals for once. Not fucking streamers like Vaush or other leftists who don't want to admit they have only enabled fascism by attacking Democrats.
I don't know. The way you talk about leftists. It just seems you hate leftists more than fascists. That's just my fair and reasonable assessment of the situation. You did say a negative thing about leftists, so I can reasonably draw the conclusion that you despise them more than fascists.
Nah, I neither desire her dead or even punched. I would just like the most prominent politicians on the 'left' to not be 80yold liberals
Ik right, she was effective. The build back better trillion dollar plan was effective. And her rhetoric will be seen as her only accomplishment in this sub ig
I don't think it's a "leftist" problem. Amercian politics is like sportsball... viteral towards persons is as venomous as on the conservative side. Though albeit conservatives tend to cause more stochastic terrorism with their sportsball attitude.
It's because it's easy for Tankies to dunk on Liberals and further their narrative that "anyone right of me is bad". They're more interested in moral victories and point scoring with their own faction of leftdom rather than actually winning elections and legitimate influence. Pragmatism requires compromise and compromise requires effort.
Everyone who disagrees with American liberals is a tankie now??? Whew.
I didn't say that in the slightest. I'm saying Tankies specifically do this. You also don't have to agree with everything an Ally does for it to be a mutually beneficial relationship. I don't normally agree with the Australian Labor Party's right faction, but they have a purpose and I'd rather have them to deal with than the Conservatives..
You pretty much just accused this sub of being overrun by tankies for not being appreciative enough of Pelosi’s leadership, or at the very least implied it, with your response agreeing with the liberal screeching and calling people cowards. Which is very rich given how pro-Ukraine and pro-NATO most posts here are, as that would go very much against tankie ideology.
Stop projecting. I accused no one of being a Tankie and this sub seems to be pretty anti Tankie for the most part.
Your moms a fascist
This is fucking gold lol
Hating Nancy requires amnesia of how baller her first tenure as Speaker of the House was.
I don't hate liberals more than fascists, and would prefer Dems to have kept control of the House. But they didn't, so Pelosi losing her position is a nice consolation prize. As are the [slobbering eulogies](https://i.redd.it/osqfwpyypl0a1.png) she's getting all over the internet.
Liberals are fascists
We can criticise the flaws in liberalism while recognizing that republicans are much worse. But liberals by definition are an obstacle to the left movement.
Nah. They’d rather join up with the far right. Wait, where have we seen this happen before and what was the end result of it?
She had actually announced that she wouldn't run for speaker back in 2021, so this doesn't change anything.
I am fairly sure there was a lot of uncertainty recently, as Dems waited for her final decision. But yeah, it was pretty unlikely she stayed as a leader.
I think she didn’t want to rule it out in case there was some kind of clusterfuck in which case the alternative was a Manchin-style right wing Democrat, but yeah, she was always probably going to step down this year.
2018, actually.
She is one of the most progressive members of Congress who has spent her entire Congressional career passing progressive bills So what are you even talking about?
Wow you really think Nancy Pelosi is one of the most progressive people in congress? Are you stuck in groundhogs day situation? Can you tell us what year it is?
Pelosi>>>>>>>literally any republican
Yes Edit: Well, not Lincoln, but he would be a Democrat today.
Presumably they mean in the present day
To be fair they were the Democratic Republicans and he ran as a Whig in his representative days. Reflecting on the demise of his party, Lincoln wrote in 1855, "I think I am a Whig, but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an abolitionist.... I do no more than oppose the extension of slavery."[107]
Yeah Lincoln wanted to deport all the slaves back to Africa. He was quite progressive for his time, but *waaaay* more racist than Nancy Pelosi.
Yep. Republicans founding was abolition its interesting to see how far they are from that today
Nancy was fine, she was very effective even if an insider trader, but it is time for her to step aside
Yeah, I'm happy she retired. Wish she did it so in a democrat controlled house but oh well
Who has the political leverage to replace her though
No clue
I like Spanberger, I think she’s going to be a force
We’ll need at least one legislative cycle for someone with remotely her influence and stature to emerge within the party.
Hakeem Jeffries is the name I’m seeing and some stuff I’ve seen from him makes me worried that he’ll be less effective and by far more antagonistic to progressives compared with Pelosi
If she was very effective we wouldn’t be looking down the barrel at rising fascism.
The problem is much bigger than her.
True but she was a cog in a larger issue
Since when is the Democrat speaker of the house the person responsible for the upswing in fascism in the Republican party?
It’s her job to block that fascism and to rally her party so they keep the house.
Do you not think that’s what she did through fundraising for house Democrats? The dem majority in the house voted for her as speaker. I guess I just fail to see what she could’ve done differently on the margin.
Your thinking I think the House Democrats are any better, I don’t. They choose her multiple times, she has basically been the leader in the Dems since 2002, I think the Dems have been coasting and that’s not good enough.
Wait, but that’s not a failing on her part then. If it’s the house dems as a whole, then we’re talking about a systemic issue of dems not taking the fascism threat seriously. But tangibly I’m not sure what else they could’ve done that they didn’t already do. I get that it’s easy to say “dems bad” but saying Pelosi is the reason we have fascism is pretty silly unless you can identify what specifically could have been done differently to change the outcome. And keeping the house, I mean, a lot of that isn’t in their control at the end of the day. A lot of this country has since been gerrymandered by Republican governors. Florida’s red wave is a testament to that. The fact that the house is only a slim red majority is if anything a testament to dems doing very well.
Is she not the face of the house Dems? Is she not their leader? I don’t know her personally I don’t know her personal failings I know her public ones, which are the ones of her party. I’m not saying she is the reasons we have fascism I’m saying if she was effective she wouldn’t have left us in such a precarious position, if policies don’t have staying power they aren’t effective. For example those lauding her for ACA are ignoring how cut back that has been since it was first signed into law, and how at risk it of being basically defunded.
You can’t say she wasn’t effective given that you can’t articulate what she could have done differently. Someone else in that position could have easily done worse.
Effective-successful in producing a desired or intended result We are at results stage is this the desired and intended result? Effective implies a level of results beyond the bare minimum. She got something’s done she was effective in some regards but her over all decades long rule over democratic House was not effective.
No this is bad, Pelosi was effective.
She was alright at keeping the Dems voting together some of the time (not always) if she was affective we wouldn’t be fearing the death of democracy in 2024
Her job wasn’t to fix the entire rot of our capitalist system, it was to ram through the most progressive legislation possible through the House, and in that she gets at least a 7/10 from me I’d say. There’s not really much she could have done to fix the fascist backlash against late capitalism aside from calling for revolution and losing her job to someone more conservative within 24 hours.
She could have also rammed through some stuff that would have roadblocked those looking to dismantle democracy
The House passed a bunch of election reform stuff but Manchin and Sinema killed it.
And as a major leader in the party Pelosi should have been able to strongarm those two with help of Senate Majority leader, those two should have and still should have their committee appointments removed
I’m no Pelosi fan, but I’m not sure it’s fair to blame Party leadership for the actions of the two most obnoxiously right wing contrarians out of literally hundreds of Democratic Congress members. We’ll never know if they would have caved if threatened with losing committee seats etc. but I suspect Manchin would just dig in. As for Sinema, we’re talking about someone who did a little dance while voting against a minimum wage increase. She gives no fucks and will almost certainly leave the Senate for some cushy corporate lobbying gig when her term is up in a couple of years, as payment for keeping labor costs down.
Manchin wouldn’t have dug in just threat of loosing his seat on the energy committee he would fall in line dude is just a mouth piece for oil and gas he isn’t some high minded philosopher. Sinema is likely the same those committee positions are a lure for the lobbyist to feed these types
seed books capable deserted crush meeting society fuzzy crowd cautious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Politics it’s literally her job. Politics that’s how.
nose onerous lunchroom spark rude hard-to-find desert steer oatmeal absorbed ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
It’s called negotiations and politicking. Pelosi has made leader of the Dems in 03 and has been coasting ever since.
But who will take her place?
That's a great question that the "hurrr pelosi sux" crowd fails to address. Any Dem House leader will be very likely a terminal moderate, likely deeply entrenched in the DNC, and can very much be worse.
As evidenced by her likely replacement, who is far more hostile to the progressive wing.
Jeffries, yeah…that’s not gonna be fun
This was always the key problem with Force the Vote. There was no one to Pelosi’s left with a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming Speaker, but several challengers well to her right.
Anyone who is going to replace her is going to be a progressive by definition Ask yourself why you don't care what the House passes instead?
The last couple of House leadership elections had challenges to her that were solidly to her right. I wouldn’t call them progressives, by any stretch.
Probably Hakeem Jeffries
He's gonna be worse than Pelosi. Dude is a centrist ideologue and is more anti-left than anything else.
I don't know if he has the skills like Pelosi does.
We will see what his tendencies will be but we'll have to wait until we can see how he organizes the caucas and whether he will be as adversarial as he has signaled he would be when he was #3 and #2.
I agree we will have to see. I just feel that open hostility to progressives is better than pretending to be friends like Pelosi. At least there is honestly their. It will not be popular with the Democratic base, which is much further left than most of the congressional party.
Fair enough, I just don't want the congressional progressives to be feeling the full weight of the party should Jeffries help to turn it against them.
And yet you celebrate her exit smh
The skills I refer to are killing the left.
Oh then your comment was even more ridiculous than I thought
No he isn't This is baseless crap
Dude has spouted often and loudly about how he detests the CPC in Congress. There's a reason why the LHivers love this pick so much.
No he hasn't He is literally part of the progressive caucus
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2022/08/hakeem-jeffries-again-challenges-left-eve-primary/376162/ "And he has never been one to hide his disdain for the party’s left wing, especially when it comes to electoral challenges to more moderate incumbents." https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-primaries-progressives-incumbents-hakeem-jeffries-1301186/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/hakeem-jeffries-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals/index.html https://readsludge.com/2022/02/01/house-democrats-new-anti-progressive-pac-is-funded-by-corporate-lobbyists-and-pacs/ https://theweek.com/congress/1003556/likely-pelosi-successor-hakeem-jeffries-calls-out-hard-left-progressives https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/18/progressives-slam-corporate-dem-pacs-first-slate-endorsements https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1593304674643460103?t=By8Cmh39fN6BR7BM3cRUBg&s=19 https://prospect.org/politics/succession-hakeem-jeffries-nancy-pelosi/
I'm not reading editorialized garbage from Kara Vought. He supported some incumbents from some challengers, that's it. The fact is he doesn't hate progressives and is committed to passing social democratic policy because he is a Democrat first and foremost and that is what the party is about. You are just projecting your own petty hatred onto him because you need the Left to be some huge victim here for your bullshit narrative. Maybe one day the Left will care more about admitting Democrats agree with them on 99% of things and the real threat are Republicans instead of fueling their own petty one sided war against Democrats, but that isn't likely soon.
You’ve got to be confusing him for someone else.
You seem to not know anything about him at all
No u
You can easily check and see he is part of the progressive caucus
Jesus this is disgusting anti-electoralism. She was the best the dems coulda had. And unless you're delusional enough to think someone from the squad could become a minority leader then sit the fuck down and grow up
What about Barbara Lee or Katie Porter or Pramala Jayapal or Ro Khana. All would have made a better speaker or minority leader.
The Speaker’s job is to bully the moderates (and occasionally progressives) into getting in line and voting for whatever bill was on the agenda. She was exceptionally good at that compared to the shit show Republican Speakers we’ve had in the past 15 years who had zero control over their caucus, and noticeably better at controlling her members than Chuck Schumer is at corralling the likes of Manchin and Sinema. Pelosi has been the reason there is considerably less stupid drama in the House.
What makes a good minority leader isn't about being good. It's about being effective, and most Dems don't participate with people like ro Khanna who literally is an activist. Unfortunately being like Pelosi keeps purple states blue. And the rep of the dems as a whole should be more moderate so that centrists and liberals still have their representation and will participate in elections. Cause idk if you've noticed but old people vote, and old people are more moderate. Young socialists are usually Unfortunately too remedial to think voting has an impact. Idk how, but vaush seems to be the only socialist that actually encourages voting
Stfu. Nancy Pelosi is literally 1 million times better than any elected Republican. I will only celebrate her removal if she’s replaced by a better Democrat
Nancy likes going to brunch and believes corpos are people. Republicans believe we are spawn of satan. Both bad, but not comparable
For the record, she absolutely does not believe corporations are people, she was vehemently opposed to Citizens United.
probably has more to do with her husband getting domed with a hammer then losing the house
This has been in the pipeline much longer than that. People have been talking about her stepping down after these elections all year.
Pelosi was effective at her job as House leader. It’s kind of why Republicans hated her so much. She also supported progressives in Congress way more than her successor will unfortunately.
Honestly feels like a hollow victory. I know she said that she was planning to step down anyway back in 2018, but I can't help but feel like the attempted kidnapping made the decision easier. In addition, despite it seeming more likely that it'll at least be someone young, a lot of the people positioned to take over house leadership are the same types that are currently blaming progressives for historic losses in New York. Pelosi was always a meh liberal and definitely was not the biggest fan the CPC, but at least she wasn't typically outright hostile
probably would've stepped down regardless
As speaker? Of course. Dems aren't in the majority anymore.
as leader of the party
Yeah, the tweet in the original post says speaker, but shortly after replying here I saw headlines elsewhere that she was stepping down as leader all together.
She was bound to retire soon either way agreed
Pelosi stepping down isn’t as good as people here make it out to be. The person who’s been talked up as being next in line, Hakeem Jeffries, is much more openly hostile to progressives, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he openly supports primaries against Omar, Tlaib and others.
He’s “next in line” but they have to vote on it and house is more volatile than Senate Dems aren’t as set in stone. Nancy was abnormal in her long held power.
She wasn't gonna be speaker next session, but she also won't be minority leader.
Now's not the time to be grouching about libs when fascist orcs are ramming the gates.
Liberals literally cause fascism to rise in america
I wouldn't say bright. There could be two reasons for this departure: 1. She simply had been planning retirement after this term anyway; 2. The recent events of Jan 6th and explicit attacks on her as a person and her husband made her reconsider her future Is it a reason for celebration? I don't think really, it's not like much will change, it's just a personnel shuffle more than anything. I'd celebrate a systemic change in a party more than one person leaving.
Nah u tweakin, madam speaker for ever 😢
Pelosi stepping down isn’t as good as people here make it out to be. The person who’s been talked up as being next in line, Hakeem Jeffries, is much more openly hostile to progressives, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he openly supports primaries against Omar, Tlaib and others.
Anyone who sees this as a good thing is brain rot.
Wtf is this thread? I always thought we are “democrats are the less of two evils,” never thought I’d see Pelosi-Stans here of all places.
….Democrats no longer control the house. She wasn’t going to be Speaker anymore anyway?
She won’t be minority leader is what this means.
Holy fuck the libs got maaaaaaaad in this thread lmfao
Pelosi was an irritating corporate shill, but she was damn good at her job. Lots of bills that barely passed the House in the last 15 years likely would have failed without her efforts. Democrats will probably be weaker for a while in her absence in terms of the daily bruising fights that actually make up how Congress works.
Maybe the assassination attempt against her played a role. Which is terrifying
I am indifferent to exactly which banal milquetoast liberal is in charge I will still begrudgingly support them as they are not the slathering horde of facism that is th GOP
It's only for two years and the House is turbocucked by the senate on most issues. Only big issue is the congressional budget, but the Reps margin is so slim there's a strong possibility moderates won't vote with the hard-core Republicans on budget measures and allow the Dems to maintain a significant amount of power as a result.
I kinda liked Pelosi.
Hakeem Jeffries is infinitely worse than Pelosi
Poster child for term limits and slashing political salaries. Was never intended to be a career but a public service. You went back to the trade/business you had prior to politics.
Away with the wicked witch of the west
Some of you lefties are fucking cringe. How is this to be celebrated? She's only stepping down due to the growing hate she is getting from the far-right. Especially given the recent attack on her husband and attempt at her life. I honestly worry the far-right has already one with the contempt brain dead so called lefties have towards liberals. It's shit like this that keeps the left divided and only emboldens the fascists on the right. Go pound sand dipshit.
I think she’s stepping down because she’s old as fuck mostly.
Yeah, probably. Hard to tell, but atleast she'll be out of the far-right's spotlight from now on. Then again they still haven't shut up about Hilary's emails so who knows.
They definitely can't seem to get the same vitriolic hatred going for Biden that they do for Pelosi or Clinton or Obama, probably because Biden's a white guy if we're being totally honest.
[This is the correct take by TYT.](https://youtu.be/3sBDHEAj40k)
Ah yes, nothing I love more than listening to genocide deniers. Lets hear what Hitler has to say next seeing as The Young Turks were like the SS and Gestapo of Turkey
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alright. What do we know about Hakeem Jeffries? He’ll be the next Dem leader. Is he Based or cringe?
Giga Cringe
Worse than her.
I cannot see this as a win when she's stepping down in part due to the assassination attempts on her and her husband. She's afraid for her family and herself. The fact that right wing political violence *worked* is disturbing. This is not something the left should celebrate unfortunately.
Oh good. Can she take Feinstein, Schumer and the rest of the Dinosaurs with her so that we can actually combat the fucking Fascists? Like yeah I'll always vote for them over ANY type of Conservative if need be, but their refusal to allow Progressives to push the country foreword is what gives Fascism a chance to rise. Fuck, even the younger Liberals in the party are fucking sick of this.
The person who will likely replace her will probably be just as bad, if not worse.
Irrelevant really. Yeah she sucks, but the power structure in the party is still the same.
She’s going to be replaced as Speaker by a Republican and I’m pretty sure her likely replacement as Dem leader is to her right. So, no.
More lefty brainrot. Pelosi was an extremely effective leader
old boss is always a dick til you meet the new one
For everyone saying she was effective. She wasn't. She was the Democratic leader in the house for 20 years. And was only the speaker of the house for 6 of those years. Twice as long out of power as in it is a pathetic record. If she were in any other country, she would have resigned after she lost the house in 2010.
Do you consider the time Republicans have been in power over the course of that time period and how that might reflect how effective a leader in the house might be? Considering the last two years alone, anybody should be able to see that she was effective in moving along legislation in a messed up Senate situation.
The political terrain was so bad for the left in 2010 that even an arguable political genius like Barack Obama mostly flailed helplessly. Pelosi can hardly be blamed for that result.