Pelosi vows to become U.S. House speaker despite opposition

[Jingthing]

Just now, mikebike said:

I cannot disagree with much here and was in a similar boat to you in '16...

 

The bolded part is where we would diverge... I believe we can credit 45 far more than anything P. or the DNC did for the midterm results. Do you believe P. inspired all the female and persons of colour to take up the torch and oppose the GOP?

It was about two things. Opposition to "trump" and also health care. Pelosi was important in focusing the message on health care. I agree that "trump" deserves credit for his own downfall. 

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Which is why they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?

Yes, younger Americans are strongly for more left wing positions such as --

 

Universal health care

Better subsidized higher education, etc.

 

but still they do not participate at high enough levels. But there was an improvement for the midterms compared to other midterms.

 

At this point in time the democrats only control the house. They don't control the senate, the white house, or the supreme court. 

 

It would have been a NATIONAL DISASTER if the democrats hadn't won the house. That would have told "trump" and the world that Americans have fully endorsed a mad fascist president. 

 

So they are limited in what's possible. They can now offer critically needed OVERSIGHT of a dangerously mad president, they can prevent some more horrible "trump" policies from happening or limit them, they can enter compromises on some positive things when possible, and they can move forward some democratic priorities (such as around health care) forward at least a little bit. I realize that's not the left wing "revolution" that some people want, but the voters as yet have not endorsed that.

[Rimmer]

A flame has been removed

[Becker]

41 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

You my friend have lost the plot, matey. I am happy you will not be returning to the USA. Your vision of a welfare state isn't what young voters want.

No one who still supports the disgrace in the WH can accuse others of having lost the plot. No one.

Got it, matey?

 

And I see your reality disconnect is on par with the other base supporters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/04/10/new-poll-american-youth-more-inclined-to-vote-and-strongly-preferring-a-democratic-congress/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0403807c3124

[Jingthing]

I will add that it may sound like it but I'm not married to Pelosi. In the unlikely event that she doesn't win the leadership I will happily support whoever may be triumphant. The important things now are oversight over potus and legislating anything positive that is possible when controlling only the house. That may not seem like much or enough or quick enough but consider the alternative if the democrats had lost the house.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

I cannot disagree with much here and was in a similar boat to you in '16...

 

The bolded part is where we would diverge... I believe we can credit 45 far more than anything P. or the DNC did for the midterm results. Do you believe P. inspired all the female and persons of colour to take up the torch and oppose the GOP?

 As I said "plenty of blame to go around" and credit, 

Pelosi certainly was not the motivating agent of the "Blue wave" conversely was also not the main  motivating agent of the "deplorables" 

 Even though her political culture has contributed to the discontent that created the "deplorables"  her management  (shaping the narrative, funding,choosing candidates etc  )of the "blue wave" helped in taking back the house.

  As I said , if she is to be so influential as to take some of the blame, then conversely should also be allowed some of the credit, You can't have one and not the other, they are IMO, both opposite faces of the same coin.

  I agree that the culture with in the Democratic party needs to change,and that Pelosi is part of that culture, but I am of the opinion that now is not the time.

[mikebike]

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 As I said "plenty of blame to go around" and credit, 

Pelosi certainly was not the motivating agent of the "Blue wave" conversely was also not the main  motivating agent of the "deplorables" 

 Even though her political culture has contributed to the discontent that created the "deplorables"  her management  (shaping the narrative, funding,choosing candidates etc  )of the "blue wave" helped in taking back the house.

  As I said , if she is to be so influential as to take some of the blame, then conversely should also be allowed some of the credit, You can't have one and not the other, they are IMO, both opposite faces of the same coin.

  I agree that the culture with in the Democratic party needs to change,and that Pelosi is part of that culture, but I am of the opinion that now is not the time.

Agree to disagree, strongly. Now IS the time.

[Jingthing]

41 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Agree to disagree, strongly. Now IS the time.

Be patient. 2020 is coming. 

[metisdead]

An off topic deflection post has been removed as well as the inflammatory and off topic replies. 

[mikebike]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Be patient. 2020 is coming. 

Correct. And the last thing I wanna see is a Dem card full of Pelosis, Hillaries, and their ilk. Time to serve the working class, not the donor class.

[Jingthing]

Correct. And the last thing I wanna see is a Dem card full of Pelosis, Hillaries, and their ilk. Time to serve the working class, not the donor class.

You want to beat 45 or not? Divide the democrats too much and he wins again. He's counting on it.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Cryingdick]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

Correct. And the last thing I wanna see is a Dem card full of Pelosis, Hillaries, and their ilk. Time to serve the working class, not the donor class.

 

The problem is that is what the Dems are these days. They don't allow any dissent with in their ranks. The Democrats at this moment aren't in the process of moving more towards the center. If they start playing ball and Pelosi makes some deals they may have a chance.

 

If they do nothing more than obstruct they will be shown the door next election. There is nobody in the center they are likely to put forward as their candidate. There is even talk of Hillary running again. They just don't get it. They seem to like crying about how unfair everything is when they lose rather than winning. 

 

Trump exploits this really well.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The problem is that is what the Dems are these days. They don't allow any dissent with in their ranks. The Democrats at this moment aren't in the process of moving more towards the center. If they start playing ball and Pelosi makes some deals they may have a chance.

 

If they do nothing more than obstruct they will be shown the door next election. There is nobody in the center they are likely to put forward as their candidate. There is even talk of Hillary running again. They just don't get it. They seem to like crying about how unfair everything is when they lose rather than winning. 

 

Trump exploits this really well.

Right.  On most issues of major concerns to voters, the Democrats are way ahead of the Republicans. How well did Trump exploit this during his first 2 years in office?

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

The Democrats do not have enough votes to stop him from being putting her in. Something tells me Pelosi is in for a rocky last term.

Something tells me the Dems are in for a controversy come January.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-rep-fudge-says-shes-overwhelmed-by-support-as-she-weighs-speaker-bid/2018/11/15/01ae4dea-e8ea-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.74e5778578bd

 

Trump supporting Pelosi just lights a fuse.

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Something tells me the Dems are in for a controversy come January.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-rep-fudge-says-shes-overwhelmed-by-support-as-she-weighs-speaker-bid/2018/11/15/01ae4dea-e8ea-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.74e5778578bd

 

Trump supporting Pelosi just lights a fuse.

 

i wonder how many votes Trump basically can control and count on? more than 50, more than 100?

It seems pretty certain Pelosi has "earned" Trump's "approval".

 

Watching the squirming that will ensue should be fun.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Something tells me the Dems are in for a controversy come January.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-rep-fudge-says-shes-overwhelmed-by-support-as-she-weighs-speaker-bid/2018/11/15/01ae4dea-e8ea-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.74e5778578bd

 

Trump supporting Pelosi just lights a fuse.

Watching the squirming when the democrats propose health care protections and an increase in the minimum wage should be even more fun.

[lannarebirth]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Watching the squirming when the democrats propose health care protections and an increase in the minimum wage should be even more fun.

A Federal increase in minimum wage is pretty prefunctory. Most states have moved forward on that frontwithout Federal govt. assistance.

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

A Federal increase in minimum wage is pretty prefunctory. Most states have moved forward on that frontwithout Federal govt. assistance.

 

What exactly does this map have to do with the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15? Which is more than twice the minimum wage that the map is based on.

[lannarebirth]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What exactly does this map have to do with the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15? Which is more than twice the minimum wage that the map is based on.

Well, because one of these things constitutes reality and the other is illusory. Washington state, which I believe has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, currently has a minimum wage of$11.50/hr. $12.00 on Jan. 1, 2018 and $13.50 on Jan 1, 2020. This is one of those things the market tends to take care of, as do state legislatures.

 

Sure the Feds should up the wage, but it won't be $15 and it will be like the tail wagging the dog.

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Watching the squirming when the democrats propose health care protections and an increase in the minimum wage should be even more fun.

 

All DOA if they won't play ball on immigration They can barely make Pelosi speaker without republicans. How effective do you think they will be at pushing legislation through? In any case that dog doesn't hunt when it goes to the senate.

 

Although I hope you are right to the extent them actually trying to do something meaningful would be a lot better than investigations and calls for impeachment.

 

Go to places like Seattle and see what the $15 minimum wage has done. It has done nothing more than  move that guy that was sort of doing okay on his $18.50 an hour several rungs down the ladder. Minimum wage doesn't move the bottom up it moves the middle down.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Well, because one of these things constitutes reality and the other is illusory. Washington state, which I believe has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, currently has a minimum wage of$11.50/hr. $12.00 on Jan. 1, 2018 and $13.50 on Jan 1, 2020. This is one of those things the market ends to take care of, as do state legislatures.

 

Sure the Feds should up the wage, but it won't be $15 and it will be like the tail wagging the dog.

I don't understand. You show a map that lists the percentage of people earning equal to or less than $7.25 per dollar. What does that have to do with proposals to raise the minimum wage? It seems entirely irrelevant to me. Now, maybe if you had a map showing how many people earn less than $72.5 + x, y, and z dollars per hour, that would be at least somewhat relevant. 

 And currently the democrats plan on introducing a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15. 

 

In addition, as you may recall, under Obama an order was issued to raise the minimum wage a person need to be counted as supervisory personnel. I think right now if you earn $23000 or so per year companies don't have to pay overtime.The right wing courts ruled against that saying only Congress could do that. There's another opportunity for the Democrats to show Republicans for being the catspaws of corporations.

 

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 There's another opportunity for the Democrats to show Republicans for being the catspaws of corporations.

 

I understand, it's gamesmanship. What do think would happen if the Republicans voted down or held up the $15/hr proposal and introduced one of their own @ $12/hr. Do you think it would get any traction in the House?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

I understand, it's gamesmanship. What do think would happen if the Republicans voted down or held up the $15/hr proposal and introduced one of their own @ $12/hr. Do you think it would get any traction in the House?

Would you want it get traction in the house? The more relevant hypothetical is what would happen if the Republicans support the $15/hr minimum wage bill in the Senate? 

And please, keep in mind that in several red states increases in the minimum wage were enacted via referenda over the opposition of Republican legislators and governors. Quite a potent issue for the Democrats.

And I still don't understand what that minimum wage map was supposed to prove.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Would you want it get traction in the house? The more relevant hypothetical is what would happen if the Republicans support the $15/hr minimum wage bill in the Senate? 

And please, keep in mind that in several red states increases in the minimum wage were enacted via referenda over the opposition of Republican legislators and governors. Quite a potent issue for the Democrats.

And I still don't understand what that minimum wage map was supposed to prove.

 

The map shows the Federal minimum wage is largely irrelevant as market conditions set wages. I can't get anyone to come to my house and do any unskilled labor for 3 times the Federal minimum wage.

 

I wouldn't mind if it went to $15/hr. A benefit of that would be less people would qualify for assistance programs and might actually have to pay income taxes. Assuming employers dont cut hours of course.

[spidermike007]

I think is it safe to say the democratic party desperately needs fresh blood, new talent, more vision, and new leadership. Pelosi is compromised beyond repair. She is beholden to hundreds of interests, and like Trump, has a very hard time saying no to a lobbyist. I am one of those democrats who is hoping that she is not installed as the leader of the house, and that someone else, who is not a dinosaur, and a long time career politician, who is fully bought and paid for, is appointed. Lessons need to be learned, from the past few years. They will not be learned under her leadership. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The map shows the Federal minimum wage is largely irrelevant as market conditions set wages. I can't get anyone to come to my house and do any unskilled labor for 3 times the Federal minimum wage.

 

I wouldn't mind if it went to $15/hr. A benefit of that would be less people would qualify for assistance programs and might actually have to pay income taxes. Assuming employers dont cut hours of course.

It shows that the current minimum wage is largely irrelevant. It doesn't show that a 12 or 15 dollar minimum wage is irrelevant. 

A $15 Minimum Wage Would Give Almost Half of American Workers a Raise. Is That Crazy?

https://slate.com/business/2016/03/how-many-workers-earn-less-than-15-per-hour.html

[Cryingdick]

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think is it safe to say the democratic party desperately needs fresh blood, new talent, more vision, and new leadership. Pelosi is compromised beyond repair. She is beholden to hundreds of interests, and like Trump, has a very hard time saying no to a lobbyist. I am one of those democrats who is hoping that she is not installed as the leader of the house, and that someone else, who is not a dinosaur, and a long time career politician, who is fully bought and paid for, is appointed. Lessons need to be learned, from the past few years. They will not be learned under her leadership. 

 

The trouble is the fresh blood is even wackier than the current crop. Many of which are way left of Pelosi. This is why i think Trump prefers Pelosi. He is hoping to cut off the new faces of the left wing fringe before they can become established.

 

It won't be too much longer before they go cannibal and start eating each other the way things are going.

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The trouble is the fresh blood is even wackier than the current crop. Many of which are way left of Pelosi. This is why i think Trump prefers Pelosi. He is hoping to cut off the new faces of the left wing fringe before they can become established.

 

It won't be too much longer before they go cannibal and start eating each other the way things are going.

 

 

Your comment makes no sense. Wouldn't it be to the Republicans' advantage to have the Democrats show as "wacky" a face as possible?

And what are these wacky views they espouse? Higher minimum wage? Protections for pre-existing conditions? Improved environmental protection? I keep on asking Trump supporters about the actual issues and never get an answer. I wonder why?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your comment makes no sense. Wouldn't it be to the Republicans' advantage to have the Democrats show as "wacky" a face as possible?

And what are these wacky views they espouse? Higher minimum wage? Protections for pre-existing conditions? Improved environmental protection? I keep on asking Trump supporters about the actual issues and never get an answer. I wonder why?

You're expecting logic from the fans of a president that is the biggest TROLL that has ever lived? Dude, that's a black hole. 

[Cryingdick]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Your comment makes no sense. Wouldn't it be to the Republicans' advantage to have the Democrats show as "wacky" a face as possible?

And what are these wacky views they espouse? Higher minimum wage? Protections for pre-existing conditions? Improved environmental protection? I keep on asking Trump supporters about the actual issues and never get an answer. I wonder why?

 

No the wackier ones would be investigation hell. They would try the impeachment thing. Trump wants the Mueller thing to go away and that's the end of it.