Dems ready to dump Pelosi after Conor Lamb win: "We have to make this change"

This is just the GOP targeting a powerful Democratic woman, the same way they targeted Hillary Clinton. Pelosi's good at her job. The last thing any Democrat should do is fall for the GOP's trap here.

Pelosi's the reason that the Democrats hold the line in Congress. No scandals either.

Nancy Pelosi will be the next Speaker of the House. Deal with it bitches.

but she's eighty.

[quote] This is just the GOP targeting a powerful Democratic woman

Um, actually, it's the newly elected Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania - Conor Lamb.

Oh, look. A wetbot gracing his with divisive shit.

Who should replace her? Democrat friends want to dump Pelosi, but don't have an answer to this question.

Agreed, R1! I was avoiding commenting on this thread because it came across to me as some Republican or right-wing sympathizer (yes, the gay republicans) just trying to stir up trouble as their own party shows daily what shits they are and that they are part of that shit!

Look...Nancy Pelosi is extremely effective at her job. She holds her coalition together. She gets things done. She raises money for the party like no one can at this point. Let's not fall into the trap. If Democrats cannot defend their party leader then shame on the Democrats. But, if it is time for a change their will be more than ample evidence available to support that change.

I wish she was more left wing, but she's gotten stuff done.

I like her personally, but if she's that much of a right-wing lightning rod then I'm not so sure she should stick around?

stunt trap. Do not fall.

She's pretty leftwing R8, what the hell are you taking about?

She's not R9. Theres no evidence that Pelosi is holding the party back. She's one of the best fundraisers in the Dem party . of course Republicans want to kneecap her for that reason. Dems can't be that stupid, oh, wait, yes we can.

Anyway, it is easier to lash out at the powerful woman than it is to examine our own misoginy. Did these fuckers learn nothing in 2016.

Plus let's not forget Lamb has to still win his new district in the fall.

The histrionic responses by R1, R5, R7 and R8 is why Donald Trump got elected.

You are absolutely NOT ALLOWED to voice dissent within the Democratic party. If you do, then you are a republican shill, and a traitor, and you will be punished!!!!

We will plug our ears and shout "lalalalalala" until you stop speaking.

People were saying throughout the 2016 election that Hillary was a flawed candidate and a gop weapon. But we weren't allowed to say it. We weren't allowed to speak. Anyone who did, would be VILIFIED.

Then look what happened, because of these militant cunts. DONALD FUCKING TRUMP GOT ELECTED.

So heaven forbid anyone mention that Pelosi is a weak link for the Democratic party, despite the fact that she has accomplished NOTHING in the last 8 years. NOTHING.

Now we're being labeled again, as "divisive" and "republican operatives."

Go fuck yourselves. Conor Lamb is not a republican operative, nor is he a gop-bot.

He has a grasp on reality, unlike 1, 5, 7, and 8.

Her replacement will also be a lightning rod. Dems never stand up for each other. Remember how many candidates distanced themselves from Obama in past midterms?

Are there a lot of articles from the liberal media calking for Paul Ryan's head? He's deeply unpopular with voters and with Trump's base.

[quote]Are there a lot of articles from the liberal media calking for Paul Ryan's head? He's deeply unpopular with voters and with Trump's base.

And, this is a problem for the Democrats. However, that's a GOOD thing! Who has time to spend devising strategies and marketing campaigns to demonize the opponent? That's why Republicans can't govern. They spend all of their time trying to find a bad guy to target and make that person the face of the Democrat party. Democrats lose control of the narrative. And, whoever posted that Democrats don't stick up for each other is spot on. For Democrats to allow Al Franken to be drummed out of Congress like he was was reprehensible. What happened to the Republicans that did worse than Franken? They're still sitting in their comfy seats in Congress.

Pelosi has been in the minority 8 years. As majority leader she got a ton of stuff done.

[quote] Conor Lamb is not a republican operative, nor is he a gop-bot.

Not only that, but he was able to WIN an election in a conservative republican district.

That's something that Hillary was not able to do, nor Pelosi, if she were to try to run in that district.

But yeah, keep hollering, keep criticizing, and keep trying to shut guys like Lamb up. And keep losing in these districts.

[quote]You are absolutely NOT ALLOWED to voice dissent within the Democratic party. If you do, then you are a republican shill, and a traitor, and you will be punished!!!!

Oh, stop whining, R12! You have to know how to pick and choose your battles. You cannot be afraid when you Republicans, Bernbots, or chicken-shit Democrats throw nonsense 24/7 and fall into their trap. Democrats need to have the proper and appropriate rebuttal to throw the shit back into their faces.

Nancy Pelosi has a better record of getting things done better than John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel put together.

[quote]But yeah, keep hollering, keep criticizing, and keep trying to shut guys like Lamb up. And keep losing in these districts.

Did it ever cross your mind that Lamb just said whatever needed to be said just to get into office? And, then his performance will speak for itself.

[quote] Theres no evidence that Pelosi is holding the party back. She's one of the best fundraisers in the Dem party

That is true, but what's also true is that Nancy is polarizing. Some republicans could never ever support her.

The truth is that most democrats are too damned lazy to vote. The deplorables go out and vote in the local and state elections. There's no getting around that. Since that's a fact, the democrats need to realize, in order to win, they are going to have to start appealing to republicans and undecided voters. The democrats haven't changed in decades. It's almost like they enjoy not having control of the house and senate. They are just the lather, rinse and repeat party. Well guess what? that's not working

Conor Lamb is a very conservative Democrat. He's along the lines of a Joe Manchin in WV. Doyle really want a Blue Dog dictating the future of the party?

Trump is trying to destroy Pelosi. That's why we are talking about her.

Spare me the histrionics R12, if anything Democrats are far too open to dissent--like Bernie Sanders constant blathering when he's A) not a Democrat and B) an adverdant tool of the Putin propaganda machine.

So what if some Republicans will never vote for her. They don't have to. Pelosi's already shown that she'll let Democrats do what they need to stay in office. She knows how to set priorities and not insist on certain votes.

Sorry, I'm not for dumping an effective Democratic leader because the Republicans whine about her. Republicans are corrupt, short-sighted and in a demographic death spiral. Fuck 'em.

I wanted her to impeach Bush and convict those liars of war crimes. Oh and single payer.

I think not so much the theory that Republicans will never vote for her, but that voters will refuse to vote for Democratic candidates because of her.

[quote]Trump is trying to destroy Pelosi. That's why we are talking about her.

Trump is only doing what Republicans always do. Try to find someone to demonize and make them the face of the party. He raises Clinton's name and no one cares. He raises Obama's name and he is too well liked for it to stick, etc.

Meanwhile Democrats say nothing about the Republicans that should be demonized and drummed out of office. Where is Gillibrand? How come she is not demanding those republicans guilty of sexual harassment held accountable?

[quote]I wanted her to impeach Bush and convict those liars of war crimes. Oh and single payer.

The Democrats other problem. The tantrums of the far-left who will stomp their feet, hold their breath, and not vote unless they get their way...

So far several states, including Vermont and California, have tried to make single payer work, r24, and couldn't. Not sure what you expect from Pelosi in that regard.

[quote]So far several states, including Vermont and California, have tried to make single payer work, [R24], and couldn't. Not sure what you expect from Pelosi in that regard.

SINGLE PAYER, DAMN IT!!!!

[quote]People were saying throughout the 2016 election that Hillary was a flawed candidate and a gop weapon. But we weren't allowed to say it. We weren't allowed to speak. Anyone who did, would be VILIFIED.

You kidding, right? There was no end to you and your ilk bitching about "flawed" Hillary for months during the primaries and the general. In fact, you NEVER stopped. And I have no doubt if someone asked you to name these unforgivable flaws, you'd go down the Repub and Sanders generated grievance list.

Pelosi time needs to come to an end because we need new, younger leaders to take over the reins. I admit that I am not a fan. In fact, when the DNC called me for a donation my response was I am happy to help my President (Obama) but only you get Pelosi to stop with villainizing others. She is equally guilty .

Where are the new, young leader. It time for Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, Shumer et al to make way for the future.

That's ageist, r31. I don't care how old someone is as long as they are effective.

What the fuck is a Conor Lamb? The wind blows the other direction and it's Congressman Saccone. How about you get sworn in before trying to dictate what the Dem party should be doing? Your little PA district win is cute and all, but I don't think it's representative of much of anything, especially in 2018. Maybe duplicate your win two or three times (with greater margins, I'd hope) and then you can break out your rudder and start steering.

[quote]Pelosi to stop with villainizing others. She is equally guilty .

Bullshit! Just another item to store in the tickler to prove that you're a Republican, Benrbot, trying to stir up dissension

[quote]Your little PA district win is cute and all, but I don't think it's representative of much of anything, especially in 2018. Maybe duplicate your win two or three times (with greater margins, I'd hope) and then you can break out your rudder and start steering.

Well, someone hasn't been paying attention...

R33, I don't think you understand that in the PA election, the seat that was being filled was held by republican, Tim Murphy, who ran unopposed the last few elections. While the district does have more registered Democrats than Republicans, the Democrats weren't reliable voters.

My issue with Lamb is that he is a Blue Dog in a party that is moving in the other direction. A progressive wouldn't have won the seat in PA18, but Conor Lamb would never win a Democratic primary. He wouldn't fly in places like NY, California etc.

Democrats had better craft their message. What is happening is that the people are speaking but that does not necessarily mean that they are on board with the Democrat party. I've said this for the longest that Democrats are just along for the ride.

Democrats need to be looking at these kids and how they are going after the NRA. The Black women of this country. Also, figure out why Trump got the majority of White women to vote for him. They have WORK to do! Things may look good today but it can turn on a dime.

SLAP HER FACE VICIOUSLY

R37, what the media isn't showing you is that there are just as many kids that don't support a lot of the gun ban stuff. You can't just look at what you see in the media and take it as face value.

For example, Conor Lamb is pro-gun and pro-assualt rifle. He ran, AND WON, on only universal background checks.

[quote]what the media isn't showing you is that there are just as many kids that don't support a lot of the gun ban stuff.

And, I call bullshit on that too! Don't you people have FOX and the rest of conservative media to get those images out and distributed? Those Parkland kids have moved the needle AND they are registering new voters too. Nuh-Uh... The NRA know that they have a problem.

You sound like the idiots...err supporters of Ben Carson. "He's such a fine man", "Don't believe the media" etc. KNOWING GOOD AND WELL had this been a Democrat and God forbid the Obama Administration that they would be FOAMING at the mouth like a rabid dog! PEOPLE ARE PISSED OFF! AND, THEY'RE REALLY PISSED OFF WITH REPUBLICANS! Even so, Democrats can't rest a second! This is the opportunity to pounce with VERY targeted and specific messaging.

She's only will be about 80. Let the kid keep working.

This month's Atlantic has an excellent article on Nancy Pelosi. She is one of the most accomplished legislators of modern times. Unfortunately, she is a woman. A strong woman.A strong woman who is holding the Democratic Party together is naturally the Republican's worst enemy.

Nancy Pelosi is almost 80 it is time for her to go.

[quote]That's something that Hillary was not able to do, nor Pelosi, if she were to try to run in that district.

except that you cannot compare the 2016 with anything before or after. There was collusion in the 2016 election, in fact, Lamb's win was direct result of that. People are waking up to the fact that Hillary won the election and the win was stolen from the Dems. Lamb would not have won under normal circumstances.

Pelosi is already one of the most centrist members of the Democratic Party. Whomever Democrats replace her with, Republicans will accuse of being an unhinged anti-American Stalinist. And with part of the electorate - mostly white straight Boomers - these laughable attacks will work. If Democrats refuse to back one of their own on the basis that he or she is disliked by too many right-leaning voters, then they're never going to find a suitable replacement for Pelosi.

There are many strong reasons to criticize Pelosi. But her being unpopular with right-wingers isn't one of them.

#TheResistance is upset at Conor for taking this position. I can see where they're coming from. But they would not be in this position if they'd joined forces with Bernie supporters in order to elect more progressives. Instead, purely to spite the Bernie wing, they decided all the Dems need is more anodyne centrists without a clear set of political principles. Hence this man. The Resistance made their bed - I take no pleasure in saying that but that's the truth.

Nancy has served her time...She's 78. Time to retire.

R8 No, she hasn't. The Dems lost thousands of seats at all government levels in the last 10 years, under her watch. The only reason gains are being made now is that people are weary of Trump - not because she's good at what she does.

R11

I'm available. Call me. I have a new outfit with polka dots too!

R11

I think the Democrats need to change, but I don't trust this Conor Lamb guy. I have a feeling he might turn out to be like that asshole Joe Lieberman and side with the republicans a lot

How many times are you going to be corrected R47? Under her watch what? That distinction goes to Obama and the DNC.

Why would the House leader be responsible that people voted Democrats out because they were too stupid to understand that Obamacare was a good thing?

Why dump Pelose? I don't get it. Trump sounds as if he is completely insane, yet Republicans are not talking about dumping him, why not?

Lamb overturned a district that voted Trump by 20 points (!) to win. He is pro-choice, pro-medicare, pro-unions. His voting record probably won't be as bad as you think it will be and he WON this very red, gerrymandered district. Would you rather a much more right wing Republican just because he wasn't 'pure' enough? That's the question. Dems have to find a way of talking to people who have voted republican but who might be open to voting Dem. Republicans are the ones who are in power right now so Dems have to find a way to win, in a nutshell.

I like Lamb, but singling out Pelosi is suspect. Especially when he aligns with her voting record 99% of the time.

[quote]The histrionic responses by [R1], [R5], [R7] and [R8] is why Donald Trump got elected.

Oh, fucking can it, r12. Everything you disagree with is "why Trump won." You're saying it day in and day out and it's just trolling. Long-winded trolling, but trolling nonetheless.

Unmitigated bullshit, r45. BernieBros refuse to ally with mainstream Democrats. You can pretend that the mean ol' Dems gave the bros an unfair shove-off but the bros to this day spend every waking hour attacking Democrats and saying that a vote for a Dem is worse than a vote for Trump. They're constantly trolling and baiting on Twitter, making up conspiracy theories and holding Dems to a standard they wouldn't even think of holding themselves to.

They were recently riled up by people pointing out Bernie's voting history on guns. Lies, fake news articles, harassment, mass reporting of people to get them autobanned, and even threats abounded on Twitter. All because they literally cannot accept the truth.

They are not Dems. They are divisive and destructive and in no way were they the victims of mean Democrats.

[quote]But they would not be in this position if they'd joined forces with Bernie supporters in order to elect more progressives. Instead, purely to spite the Bernie wing, they decided all the Dems need is more anodyne centrists without a clear set of political principles. Hence this man. The Resistance made their bed - I take no pleasure in saying that but that's the truth.

Holy shit, what bullshit this post is.

I am not going to go conservative just because Connor Lamb won one election, NO THANKS.

If conservatives want to be conservative...let them join the Republican party. I want no part of them.

She's old and out of touch with the Democratic voters. We need youth and vitality to come back! Pelosi IS a limousine liberal in the worst possible way. Raise money behind the scenes, of course, but we need youth, vigor and leaders willing to get their hands dirty to fight the alt right!

Pelosi is far too prim and proper. We need someone in that position who is a fighter. Who'll fight the GOP fire with fire. Someone who'll take names, call names, reveal the dirty deeds the GOP gets up to, and frankly be willing to get down in the mud with them and roll around in it, appearances be damned. That's what the American people like in their politicians. That's why this current piece of shit in the White House won.

Yes, we should force her to resign on the advice of an anonymous DLer who loves the phrase "limousine liberal."

Pelosi knows how to work the machinery to get things done and get money, but her brain is filled with helium when it comes to policy.

If Obamacare hadn't been such a shitty piece of cobbled-together legislation and had it been rolled out with just a smidgen of professional competence, the Democratic party might actually still hold one if not both houses.

Remember back to '08 - the Ds had their foot right on the neck of the Republican party across the board, and they took it off. She's a brand and policy liability, can't craft a message ("A better deal"? On what? My car insurance?), always overplays or underplays when the opposite is required, can't think on her feet, won't let a strong bench of multiple talents rise, and is unlikeable.

Same thing over and over, and still expecting a different result.

A well used phrase, asshole at r63 because we have too many of them in control of the party. Take a seat!

[quote] If Obamacare hadn't been such a shitty piece of cobbled-together legislation and had it been rolled out with just a smidgen of professional competence, the Democratic party might actually still hold one if not both houses.

Well whose fault is that? The GOP's, that's whose. The finished product was nothing compared to what Pres. Obama wanted in the first place. But the Repukelicans wanted me make sure, just as with all Obama's good policies he tried to implement, that NOTHING that would help the American people would get through Congress if they could possibly get it killed. The GOP is terrified of anything good coming from a Democratic president because they know it will show the American people just how horrible the GOP is. Every fucking one of them in the GOP should be boiled in oil.

[quote]If Obamacare hadn't been such a shitty piece of cobbled-together legislation and had it been rolled out with just a smidgen of professional competence, the Democratic party might actually still hold one if not both houses.

Oh gosh, now I know you are a Republican or a troll looking for friends. ObamaCare, even with its problems, is one of the best things that has ever happened to the USA. It is a baby step but a step none the less that is moving the country toward universal healthcare like other civilized societies. R66, is right about Republicans.

"Democrats must learn how to support a very important part of their coalition - other Democrats"

I'm actually from Nancy Pelosi's district and she has been a great leader. She's 77 and it's time to usher in a new era should the Dems re-take control of the House. I'm not sure who's on the short-list, but Joaquin Castro of TX should be a consideration.

R40, if you put my post on ignore you will see that I'm not spewing Fox News talking points. What you fail to understand is that the country is made up of red and blue states. The gun culture in this country is so ingrained in people in red states and in it begins when they are children.

So instead of yelling and screaming that I'm a Fox New hack, understand the country you live in.

I'm SHOCKED to hear that gays are pretty intolerant of others and others' opinions LOL

"impeachment is off the table"

I was pretty much done with Pelosi after that.

R72 Yes, she said that but she also left the door open to the possibility, saying that if ongoing investigations into Russian election meddling were to turn up any sort of concrete criminal evidence, lawmakers might reconsider the matter. "If that's there, perhaps it will come out in these investigations" she said.

R22's assertion that single payer didn't work in Vermont is wholly untrue. It worked and was effective before the ACA got involved and forced the marketplace on us. Tell the damned truth and stop the lies. Massachusetts also had a successful single payer program, though they also gave us the tax return penalty. We didn't have that in VT.

R72, impeachment is off the table because they don't want to start a process they can't finish. After this November, when the Dems win the majority, it will not only be on the table, it will be the main fucking course. Pelosi was smart enough to read the numbers and be patient. You, on the other hand, are not.

I'm an old timey liberal and not fond of the centrist positions of people like Lamb, but I'd vote for him and anyone like him to keep a self-serving Republican out of the service to people.

In order for impeachment to happen, r72, both congress and senate need to be either democrat controlled or have a majority vote to impeach. Since the election, both houses have been republican controlled and they don't have enough votes to impeach.

So I ask people like you...is Pelosi supposed to hand over a whole new, set of talking points that the republicans can use against the Democrats? Did you want to make it difficult at the time for Democrats to get rel-elected/elected in conservative areas?

Sorry, R22, that would be R28 with the erroneous information regarding single payer health care in Vermont.

[quote]if you put my post on ignore you will see that I'm not spewing Fox News talking points. What you fail to understand is that the country is made up of red and blue states. The gun culture in this country is so ingrained in people in red states and in it begins when they are children.

Even the most ardent gun supporters know that there is something wrong here. Something very, very, VERY wrong. They did grow up with mass shootings, teachers with guns, etc. What went wrong with this picture? Good try R70, but Nu-Uh

[quote]"impeachment is off the table" I was pretty much done with Pelosi after that.

The children have awakened...

[quote]Since the election, both houses have been republican controlled...

And I wonder who took responsibility for this and stepped down to led a new generation of leadership win back control.

Not Nancy.

R76, I'm r28...

You need to get your facts together, this is easily Googled.

Vermont voted on a single payer plan in 2011...AFTER Obamacare. Vermont abandoned single payer in 2014 after three years of trying. It was never implemented because they couldn't get it to work. Taxes would have been too high. Vermont voted on single payer knowing the details of .

California tried LAST YEAR.

R77, really, it may suprise you that a kid in Ohio was suspended for not participating in the walkout.. He was suspended because he stayed in his classroom because he didn't want to make a political statement either way instead of going to study hall with the others who chose not to walk out. In the reporting of his suspension, it was also reported as an aside that most of his school chose not to participate. Sorry, but the media is only reporting one side to this.

Jesus Buddha and MARY, the stupidity in some of these comments. She is the House Democratic leader, she is only responsible for what goes on with Democrats in the House, not anywhere else. She was Speaker for 4 years from 07-11, and has been Minority Leader before that and after. In those 4 years, every major piece of liberal legislation passed, from card check to the carbon tax, but the Senate Republicans filibustered all of it. She is long in the tooth and should consider stepping down after one final go at the Speaker's office, but her ability to raise money and keep her caucus organized, especially in the four year majority, are points in her favor. The best thing would be to troll the GOP and have a black or Hispanic woman become Speaker while she holds the Majority Leader position, that would drive them crazy.

AND you need to read further, R80. WE had single payer BEFORE ACA, and when it came time to get out of the marketplace afterwards, it failed because they had destroyed the infrastructure in the attempt to adopt the marketplace model. Don't tell me what's happening bitch, I live here. We only have what we have now because we got rid of the self-serving asshole DEMOCRAT who ruined it and elected a jerkoff REPUBLICAN who refuses to reform it.

Does she need to be minority leader to continue raising money successfully for the party?

Succession planning is important. She's been elected and re elected for more than 30 years. That's her district's right. But playing the game for thirty years is a mixed blessing. You learn it, and you get used to what you've learned. I think its time for her to step back to more of an emeritus role, using her moral influence.

It's just a perception thing. The meme is sticking enough. That isn't helpful. I am surprised she doesn't recognize that herself. She's past her sell by date, if only perhaps in terms of optics. I love Joe Biden but I'd say the same thing about him, much as I love him.

People are worried that she's going to drop the ball on impeachment, because she's already done it once. It's a valid reason for concern.

And the trolls taking issue with this fail to realize that we're in this mess now in part because of Democratic willingness to let things slide and focus on the future. The Republicans have only been emboldened in recent years because there's been no accountability held by the democrats.

[quote]impeachment is off the table because they don't want to start a process they can't finish. After this November, when the Dems win the majority, it will not only be on the table, it will be the main fucking course. Pelosi was smart enough to read the numbers and be patient. You, on the other hand, are not.

Do not blame democratic voters for having doubts. That is completely on Pelosi.

And let's hope you're right. For the sake of this country.

It should not surprise anyone that the rightwing spin R80 is spewing is total bullshit. The Ohio student was NOT suspended for not participating in the walkout. The school designated a location for for students not walking out and he didn't follow the directions. And the media's not having any problem reporting how many kids actually participated.

"School district officials said that “well under” half of the student population participated in the walkout — but that the majority of students were “comfortable and confident” in their decision not to participate.

On Wednesday, Jacob Shoemaker sat in his classroom, by himself, for about an hour. A scribbled note on the suspension slip he was handed read: “Student refused to follow instructions after being warned repeatedly by several administrators. Student not permitted on property 24 hours.”

...

Students had the option not to participate but had to be supervised because the walkout took place during school hours, district officials said.

“We do not leave students unattended in classrooms. This is the same practice our district implements when students opt out of other school programs or activities. We provide an alternative, supervised location,” district officials said."

Typical rightwing privileged assholes thinking the rules don't apply to them. How's that for spin? Sure, it's not accurate, but no less so than R80's version.

The fact is Nancy is a polarizing figure, just as Hillary is. There were/are democrats that would not vote for Hillary no matter what. If you can't get democrats to vote for a candidate how do you expect to get independents and moderate republicans? I admire Nancy and all that she has accomplished, but I'm a liberal and the reality is conservatives and moderates don't feel the same way.

We'll never know if Lamb had taken a hard left if he would have won. I'm not a fan of Blue Dog Democrats, but the alternative is a repub.

The problem with democrats is messaging, they just don't do it well. The fact is the economy and people do better with democrats in power. Democrats in conservative states have had to take moderate stances in order to win election/reelection. Clair McCaskill is a good example. There is a good chance she will not win reelection. Her messaging now seems to be local, what she wants to do for Missouri and its citizens.

"People are worried that she's going to drop the ball on impeachment, because she's already done it once. It's a valid reason for concern."

This.

IF the Democrats manage to regain the house, and IF Cheetolini is President in January 2019, and IF she pulls the "impeachment is off the table again" shit she is fucking toast.

R86: We'll never know if Lamb had taken a hard left if he would have won. I'm not a fan of Blue Dog Democrats, but the alternative is a repub.

Lamb did win. What are you on about?

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit R88. Let me make this as easy as possible for you. Lamb is a moderate democrat. If he were more liberal would he have won. I am aware he won, but would he have if he took more liberal positions.

Oh, dear. "We'll never know if Lamb would have won if had he taken a hard left position." would be the proper way to word such a statement. Your statement makes it sound like he lost and would perhaps have taken a hard left position if he had won the election. Clarity is important.

Girls, you're both mildly idiotic.

Your reading comprehension is your problem R90. Read your own stupid comment, "What are you on about?"

r64 you're right, she has a great nack for rallying House members and raising funds, but she isn't a communicator on the national stage. But, the majority of Democrats in the House worked under her Speakership and see her as a competent leader. She will survive.

Nancy and Harry Reid (who I miss everyday) knew how to play defense. They took the necessary hits to move much of Obama's agenda. Don't discount this woman's ability to get shit done.

Let's talk about getting rid of Tom DNC is Broke Price. He is leading the DNC without a nationwide message and no funds. What the heck is he doing all day?

R82, Google is your friend. Get acquainted.

No, it didn't.

And neither did Massachusetts as you say above. Massachusetts was the basis for the ACA.

R85, no shit. As I said in my post in R80 that he was suspended for staying in the classroom while the students who participated went to another location. Seriously...learn to read.

And, not only that, but your own link backed up the other assertion in my post. You own link says that...

WELL UNDER HALF THE STUDENTS PARTICIPATED IN THE WALKOUT.

Thanks for making the case for me.

She'd be great....if she were actually still a democrat.

R95, you are a complete idiot. Learn what words mean before you use them.

So did the republican concede the race yet? Do we know for sure Conor Lamb won?

Look this all part of how Dems are struggling with messaging and party focus. And by that I mean how to win back the Rust Belt. Pelosi appearing on Drag Race and delivering challenges to the contestants or getting back with Unions and focusing on economic equity.

And both the Ds and the Rs have a really, REALLY old guard that needs to go.

[quote][R77], really, it may suprise you that a kid in Ohio was suspended for not participating in the walkout.. He was suspended because he stayed in his classroom because he didn't want to make a political statement either way instead of going to study hall with the others who chose not to walk out. In the reporting of his suspension, it was also reported as an aside that most of his school chose not to participate. Sorry, but the media is only reporting one side to this

^that is what I posted in R80, r97... Not my problem that 1) you can't read and 2) you posted a link in r85 that backed up my post.

I wouldn't be calling anyone an idiot if I were you.

I like Pelosi, but yes, it's time for her to go.

Because the Republicans have made her the Democratic Boogeyman, of course Democrats fall in line and try to oust her. It's the same thing when after Trump's election they said we needed to turn the party inside out to get those racist blue collar white people. We can get rid of Pelosi, but they are just going to demonize someone else and then the next person and then the next person. Pelosi works hard, she raises money and she does what a leader is supposed to do. I don't disagree that the party needs an injection of youth but you 'don't forget the one who brung you to the dance' as my Grandfather used to say. The Democratic Party is a big tent with a lot of different stakeholders with similar, but often competing, interests. I would like to see someone else herd all those cats as well as Pelosi has done for as long as she's done it.

[quote] The fact is Nancy is a polarizing figure, just as Hillary is. There were/are democrats that would not vote for Hillary no matter what. If you can't get democrats to vote for a candidate how do you expect to get independents and moderate republicans? I admire Nancy and all that she has accomplished, but I'm a liberal and the reality is conservatives and moderates don't feel the same way.

The fact is that Republicans and the Republican attack machine will diligently work to turn any powerful threat (e.g. Pelosi, Clinton, Obama) into an extremely polarizing figure. And of course in the United States its very easy to turn women and nonwhites into polarizing figures. That new blood for which some are so hungry can very easily suffer the same fate.

Bernie supporters want to get rid of Pelosi. She's an older powerful career politician and has a long list of achievements. They want Bernie to stay and become president. He's an even older career politician with much less power and no achievements.

R100 your statements

" kid in Ohio was suspended for not participating in the walkout"

and

"the media is only reporting one side to this"

are 100% FALSE. Not coincidentally, they are also wingnut talking points. None of your attempts at gaslighting are going to change that.

R104, read your own link.  The kid says one thing the school says something else.  The kid says he didn't want to choose sides.

Also, the media IS reporting only one side to this... How many stories have you read about the kids who chose not to participate?  Your own link, mentions, as an aside, that the majority of,the school district chose not to participate in the walkout and were confident in that decision.  That is in your very own link as an aside.  It wouldn't have made the news if the kid wasn't suspended.

And I got into this rabbit hole of an argument with you for pointing out that Lamb was pro-gun and ran on a pro-gun platform.  He is for universal background checks, but that's it.

I'm not a wingnut.  I'm someone who lives in both the rust belt and NYC.  And if you think what I'm posting is a wingnut position then you don't understand middle America.

[quote]Also, the media IS reporting only one side to this... How many stories have you read about the kids who chose not to participate?

And so then, where is the conservative entertainment media to come to the aid of this young man's "plight"? They're there for anything else.

[quote]The fact is that Republicans and the Republican attack machine will diligently work to turn any powerful threat (e.g. Pelosi, Clinton, Obama) into an extremely polarizing figure. And of course in the United States its very easy to turn women and nonwhites into polarizing figures. That new blood for which some are so hungry can very easily suffer the same fate.

Exactly, R103. That's the Republican strategy. And, that is to divide and maintain division. God forbid they work on creating policy which could be acceptable to most,

How long are people going to keep pushing this "people are sexist; therefore, women like HRC and Pelosi need to step aside" crap?

And who honestly thinks all Dems are going to dump Pelosi because of some newbie Representative who hasn't even been sworn in yet?

R17, you and R12 (who may be the same poster) are fucking morons. Pelosi was responsible for getting the ACA passed in the House. She raises a ton of money to elect democrats and helps with a lot of elections. I just saw a tweet from someone in Florida who said that the state party is weak and disorganized. But he said Pelosi found a woman candidate, who was able to win a House seat in a republican district there. Some of you are as dense as the deplorables.

R106, that wasn't even the whole point to this pointless argument.

My point initially was do you really want a Blue Dog democrat like Conor Lamb dictating who should represent the party?

I pointed out that Lamb is pro-gun. And was challenged. He is.

Then I pointed out that red states think differently than blue states on substantive issues and continued using gun control as an example. And was challenged. They do think differenly about guns and other isses.

I said that the other side of the student walkout isn't being covered by the media and that support from pro-gun students is larger than the media would lead you to believe. I was challenged. I used an example of a kid who was suspended, not because of why he was suspended, but to support my argument that only one side of the pro/anti gun student protest is being covered in the media. The article notes that "well under half" the students in the DISTRICT (not the school, but a DISTRICT covering multiple schools) chose to participate in the walkout. It was an aside in an article about something else.

If you want to understand why Lamb won, you need to understand the district that elected him. He wouldn't have won if he was a liberal. He's not faking that he's a Blue Dog.

Which brings me back to pre-rabbit hole...is this the kind of democrat you want naming leaders?

I am not comfortable just having the target on Pelsoi, it way past time for the older members in office to pave the way to the younger members in both parties to take over. Having Pelsoi step down because conservatives don't like her is wrong, but allowing newer, not new, members to take over is past due.

If I have any complaints about Pres Obama it was the selection of Joe Biden as his Vice President. Now don't get me wrong, I love Joe and will always be grateful for him taking the lead on gay marriage. However if Pres Obama had selected someone around his own age who could have run at the end of Pres Obama's second term. We might not have this disaster in office now.

Most of the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate need to relinquish their leadership roles, not their seats but their leadership roles and help guide newer members into those leadership roles.

R105, the student never claimed he was suspended for not walking out. You wrote that, parroted from wingnut social media, and it's a lie.

I've read a bunch of stories about the number of students who did and didn't walk out. One of the most covered was the NC school where only one student walked out. But I don't rely on lying wingnut media for my news, so that's why I know these things and you spout already-debunked lies.

Even if Pelosi stepped down, whoever replaces her will be just as big a target by the GOP, then labeled a liability by the media... so long as she or he is as effective. The whole reason Pelosi became a target is because she is a skilled fundraiser and in her brief time as Speaker the House passed a slew of substantive legislation. The House under GOP speakers slows to a crawl, and Pelosi showed all of their excuses for doing nothing and petty squabbling to be bullshit. THAT'S why the GOP put that big target on her back, and the "both sides!" media lapped it right up.

Remember, Paul Ryan is the "serious" policy wonk, even though he's been caught straight up lying about numbers to support his slash and burn policies and has zero legislative accomplishments except a huge tax cut for the rich. This is the environment where Pelosi has been derided as a liability.

R112, ABCNews is right wing now???? When did that happen??????

Anyway, see r110. I'm not going to continue to go down this path of pointlessness with you.

That link does not say he "was suspended for not participating in the walkout." YOU said that, and it's false.

Back to Pelosi, NRA tangent trolls.

I admire her ability to whip her party and fundraise. But everyone knows their strengths and weaknesses, and she's neither the deepest thinker nor the most effective communicator. Put someone like that in the leader position, and take the #2 chair and you get the best talent and a succession plan for the future. Lamb started something because having to take a no-Nancy pledge will be table stakes in most of those 117 other house elections where the Ds have a chance to flip.

If she had any strategic sense, SHE would take the pledge - you flip the House and I'll stand down. Landslide.

Sorry, r116, I didn't mean to go down that rabbit hole. I took the bait.

Anyway, here's a good article that makes the case for Pelosi.

And here's the link.

R117 & r118

Good article. It summarizes much of what was said here.

Pelosi is a badass. One of the few well known names in the Democratic Party that has an obvious backbone. She was sharp enough to see trump’s negotiating strategy immediately and spoke publicly about it—charm, intimidation and then walks away—while other Dems were still hoping trump might start acting like a traditional politician. She knew that was never going to happen.

Also, she said impeachment was off the table because Dems don’t have the power to make it happen. People acting like that was an example of her capitulating are either dumb or in denial.

Anyone with half a brain knew Trump would never act presidential R120. He is a petulant child.

Because of so many losses between 2010 and 2016, there are not a ton of young, up-and-coming Democrats ready to take leadership positions in the House. People blame Pelosi for not grooming young leadership, but a lot of the existing House Democrats are old.

Pelosi said impeachment for Bush was off the table because her focus would be economic issues. And then she got a ton of economic reform passed--Ledbetter, Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, ACA. She's since said the same about Trump--impeachment isn't her focus, the economy is.

And yet the same echo chamber that criticized Dems for not focusing enough on economic issues is now pushing "Pelosi has to go."

It's all a scam. They want the Dems neutered and Pelosi is one of the few in leadership who isn't afraid to go head to head with the GOP.

Pussy La Nancy?

[quote]She's since said the same about Trump--impeachment isn't her focus, the economy is.

An effective leader should be able to focus on more than one thing at a time. And since one of those involves the possible committing of crimes that go against the laws of this country, I'd say that should take some role of precedence.

What's the point of having a Constitution if you're going to willingly allow one party to blatantly disregard it and make their own rules?

[quote]It's all a scam. They want the Dems neutered

So the democrats can ban together and throw one of their own under the bus immediately over unfounded allegations of sexual assault (Hi Al Franken)

Yet you have a Republican (one who has sixteen allegations of sexual assault, BTW) facing allegations of committing crimes against this country that go against its very laws and foundations. That's just deemed not important enough to focus on! There are more pressing issues!

Just embolden the Republicans more by giving them passes! Hey, it's worked out well for us at this point, hasn't it!

[quote]The whole reason Pelosi became a target is because she is a skilled fundraiser and in her brief time as Speaker the House passed a slew of substantive legislation.

You give them too much credit. Pelosi is a target because she's a woman, she's from San Francisco, and they can bandy about California liberal with all the dog whistling benefits it implies.

It also works.

R125, you are confusing Pelosi with someone else.  Pelosi caught shit for say that she trusted Conyers judgement as to whether or not to step down from Congress.

Al Franken was driven out of the Senate by fellow Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Because there are so many different types of "democrats" it's hard to come up with a one size fits all cohesive message and it's even harder to elect the perfect one size fits all leader. You go to each subset of the party and each group will tell you want the parties needs in order to win elections. I know some of you look at republicans and go, 'man, I would love that whole hive brain approach to politics'. But even as in lockstep as republicans are, even they have leadership problems.

Me, personally... I am a gay, single, moderate, centrist democrat who earns 6 figures annually and who lives in an urban area. My politics can be all of the place on any number of issues and will often put me at odds with many people in my own party. And I'm not only one. My point is, there is no one right way to be a democrat. Nancy Pelosi has proven that she can get all of those different types of democrats to the table. i don't understand why some view that as a bad thing.

And one final point. Pelosi knew that impeaching W wasn't going to give the democrats what they wanted or needed to actually govern. It was going to be nothing but a distraction. The mark of a good leader is having to know when to throw meat to the base and when to save the base from itself.

I know who was in front of the many who led that brigade R127.

The point is that to many voters, the party in general is going to be viewed as one who holds its own to standards while giving complete passes to the other party. A party that doesn't give a flying fuck about them.

R125 Why should she invest her time for impeachment of Trump when she knows the repub will not impeach him? When the democrats have the majority she should than have him impeached.

[quote]When the democrats have the majority she should than have him impeached.

That's my point. I'm addressing posters who think that's it a good idea that she should just completely disregard the issue, even if they have a Democratic majority.

[quote] I'm addressing posters who think that's it a good idea that she should just completely disregard the issue, even if they have a Democratic majority.

It's a fine line regarding using impeachment because someone has done something wrong and made an impeachable offenses versus using impeachment as a political weapon. I prefer the former rather than the latter. Republicans threatened to impeach President Obama. For what?

Many of us can't stand Trump but is there proof beyond doubt that he has committed an impeachable offense at this time?

I would rather see Israel-first Schumer go before Pelosi,

R129, you are the first person on DL to link Pelosi to holding Democrats to higher standards regarding sexual assualt while holding office than republicans.

Everywhere else, both on DL and IRL, Gillibrand is the one (rightfully) getting the blame on that front.

Man, some really stubborn stupidity on this thread.

No, Vermont never had single-payer; neither did Massachusetts, which implemented Romneycare, the precursor to the ACA. No state has ever implemented single-payer. Nor can they without the cooperation of the Federal government, which would have to allow them to hang onto the revenue that they normally send to the government to fund Medicare, etc.

No student was suspended for failing to participate in the march. The one kid who was suspended was given that punishment for failing to follow instructions. This isn't rocket science.

Yes, Pelosi has been vilified by Republicans. So what? Whomever the Democrats elect as Speaker will immediately be branded by Republicans as the most liberal Speaker ever, completely out of touch with the concerns of the American people. They will immediately begin running ads against that individual. There is nobody that Democrats can pick who would be immune from such attack.

Look, every Democratic Presidential candidate of the past 30 years has been labeled by Republicans as the most liberal Presidential candidate ever. Just as every Speaker or Minority Leader has been labeled and demonized the same. It's all bullshit. And if you pick your House leadership or your Presidential candidates on the basis of what Republicans will, or might, say about them, you're playing right into their hands.

It's a given that Republicans will attack Pelosi this year. After all, what else do they have? I have no doubt that they'll also attack Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Again, what else do they have? If any Democratic candidate wants to say that they won't vote for Pelosi, I don't really give a shit. I don't base my support for a candidate on what Republicans or the candidate themselves say about Nancy Pelosi.

If Pelosi really doesn't have what it takes anymore, she'll either refuse to run again or her colleagues will decline to support her. And if she does have what it takes and her colleagues vote her in again, more power to her.

[quote]If Pelosi really doesn't have what it takes anymore, she'll either refuse to run again or her colleagues will decline to support her. And if she does have what it takes and her colleagues vote her in again, more power to her.

And, that's the bottom line. Democrats better be careful falling into this republican trap. It's nothing but nonsense at this point.

R125, it has nothing to do with being able to "focus" on more than one thing at a time. That's a bigger problem with the press and low information voters than it is for politicians. Pelosi isn't going for impeachment if she doesn't have the political capital to spare. And right now she doesn't. Even if the Dems pick up a majority in the House, they don't have the ability to move the Senate numbers much in 2018.

Another major problem is we don't know where Mueller's investigation will be come Nov. 2018. So talk of impeachment now is premature and just gives fuel to the fire that the investigation is a political hit job and sour grapes for 2016, etc.

The biggest problem though is our media sucks and is not at all "liberal." Impeachment is a ratings grabber and would be covered in the most sensationalistic (NOT substantive) way to the exclusion of everything else. And because "both sides!" matter more than accuracy or integrity, every lip-reading, mouth-breathing Republican will be given hours and hours of free unchallenged opportunity to lie about the process and falsely claim that nothing else is getting done because the Democrats are being petty crybabies. The Democrats could pass a stimulus bill that creates 10 million union jobs throughout the rust belt and it would be ignored or villified. The GOP Senate would shut down the government and blame the impeachment hearings and the press would call it a "partisan divide."

Plus, assuming the Dems take back the House, we have to assume a decent number of them will be Blue Dogs and Dems who pick up seats in strong R districts. So the Dems will have a ton of seats that will be super vulnerable in 2020 and 2022. That means they have a very short period of time to get shit done. And as we saw in 2010 and in 2014, too many voters are not following closely enough to what gets done under Dems vs. what doesn't get done under the GOP. (And our media sure as shit isn't making that info easily accessible). Pelosi knows the Dems can't afford the narrative for those 2-4 years to be a long impeachment that the press will allow the GOP to undermine at every turn with no consequence and that will most likely die in the Senate.

Lindsey Graham said Trump firing Mueller would be "the beginning of the end of his presidency" R137. He may not have said impeachment, but it sure was implied. Trump is such an embarrassment I wouldn't doubt if there were many repubs secretly hoping he gets impeached. I doubt they will initiate the proceedings, but they will back them.

[quote] I wouldn't doubt if there were many repubs secretly hoping he gets impeached. I doubt they will initiate the proceedings, but they will back them.

They're COWARDS! I have little respect for Floyd Flake speaking out against Trump or any other Republican who does. It is very clear to me that Republicans truly believe that it is party over the safety, security, and betterment of our nation.

Could anyone tell me and/or explain to me why this thread has been gray-lined?

[quote]Lindsey Graham said Trump firing Mueller would be "the beginning of the end of his presidency" [R137]. He may not have said impeachment, but it sure was implied.

And when Trump does fire Mueller, I'm sure that Graham, along with the other usual suspects, will be "deeply concerned," maybe even "outraged." And he would probably even publicly wring his hands. And then he would move on without anything having changed.

Let's just say that there is reason to be skeptical about Graham's sincerity, or effectiveness.

[quote]Could anyone tell me and/or explain to me why this thread has been gray-lined?

The same reason any thread is marked that way: enough people decided that they didn't like the thread, most likely because they saw it as concern trolling, and so they voted it down by pressing the FF button.

R111, anyone who is that openly ageist probably uses the "N" word in private. And, no you aren't absolved because you are older.

That means, R138, that he can get the House to draw up the impeachment articles and then enough of his republican colleagues in the senate to vote in favor of it. Talk is cheap.

No GOPer is going to support impeachment. Pretty much all the never-Trumpers fell in line.

Only 13 GOPers in the House and ONE in the Senate voted against the tax cuts. Even the "respectable" Republicans who expressed "concern" fell in line.

That's a guess, R137. She knows that the stakes are high and she has a safe district that supports her. My guess is that she will be more than ready to get the House to vote to draw up impeachment articles. Trump is easily the worst president we've had ever because of his combined incompetence and corruptness.

Did you let Rush Limbaugh give you the phrase Limousine Liberal? Because the huge numbers if limousines are all owned by republicans. God you are an ignorant idiot at r65. Wise up, fool and stop listening to right wing propaganda. Our party does not need naive fools, like you.

[quote]The Democrats could pass a stimulus bill that creates 10 million union jobs throughout the rust belt and it would be ignored or vilified

Not true. The Rust Belt was a strong region for the Democrats -- Blue collar and unions. It's why Clinton's loss in a few rust belt strongholds was so suprising. These voters are more loyal to a way of life than to any party.

^ I was referring to how it would be covered in the press.

R137, I could not agree more. Look at how impeaching Clinton made support for him go up by a lot and what's the point of impeachment if the Senate will just reject it since it is Republican-majority? In a way I think it's better to let Trump show voters that he's not what he claims - Dems need to focus on winning the next elections - first, November, then the next presidential election which is now only 2.5 years away. If they win elections, they can overturn what Trump has done plus avoid a sensationalized impeachment war which would probably backfire on them anyway. Pelosi is right on this.

Also, what's the point of impeachment if we get Pence?

[quote] Did you let Rush Limbaugh give you the phrase Limousine Liberal?

That's an obsolete expression. I much prefer 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴. People like Bono, Schwarzenegger, Sting, DiCaprio, Paltrow, Gates, and Gore filling the airfields closest to the latest "Save the Planet" conference with their private jets.

Again, not true, r149. The media was very favorable to Bernie Sanders' economic message and barely covered Clinton's economic plan. She, instead, was painted as the same old-same old centrist.

[quote]...what's the point of impeachment...

To remove the most corrupt and criminal leader and accomplices ever to hold national office, in order to save the union?

Not everything is a tactic, people.

Impeachment isn't totally off the table:

[quote]The California Democrat left the door open to the possibility, however, saying that if ongoing investigations into Russian election meddling were to turn up any sort of concrete criminal evidence, lawmakers might reconsider the matter. "If that's there, perhaps it will come out in these investigations" she said.

That makes sense, r155. Not sure why she gets so much flak over this issue.

r154, exactly

You DO NOT want Pence.

[quote] In a way I think it's better to let Trump show voters that he's not what he claims -

If that hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen. It's time to move on from this scenario.

R137 I agree with your in theory. I agree the Democrats need to win this year and in 2020, but whose to say that the Republicans won't try the same shit again in 2022 or 2024? Only this time we're saddled with an even worse President? Or a bigger and more obstructionist Republican Congress? Then what?

If any Democrat had done half of what this guy has done, impeachment proceedings would have begun months ago. They would have called a traitor to the country by the Republicans, and quite possibly some Democrats would be demanding he/she step down as well for the good of their party and the good of their country. Strategies are great, but they only work when both sides are playing on the same levelled field. The Repubs have treated Democrats like shit for a long time now. Haven't given on thought to them when they're are in power. At what point do the Democrats fully realize this?

"That's an obsolete expression. I much prefer 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴. People like Bono, Schwarzenegger, Sting, DiCaprio, Paltrow, Gates, and Gore filling the airfields closest to the latest "Save the Planet" conference with their private jets."

Schwarzenegger? Former REPUBLICAN governor of California?

[quote]The Repubs have treated Democrats like shit for a long time now.

And, whose fault is this? You can only be treated in ways that you allow yourself to be treated. Here's my thing and I've written this before; What Republicans have going for them in their favor is that they KNOW that the electorate is stupid. Democrats always assume that people will vote in their best interests. (sigh)

Off topic but this headline that dropped 17 min ago made me laugh:

"Trump unveils plan to combat opioid addiction, will push for death penalty for dealers"

Does MOTUS realize that the dealers are many times the pharma companies and doctors?

She needs to go ASAP.

He won in Pennsylvania because he was willing to say it and call the Dem leadership out on its bullshit. The voters there agreed with him.

Trump is so ignorant and stupid, he does not know anything, about anything.

R153, no Bernie got favorable coverage as a form of attack on Clinton. But his actual policies were written off as idealistic, not workable, etc.

The narrative on Bernie was that he "resonated" with voters while Clinton didn't. But they also made sure to say that he had no real plans to make his promises work (which wasn't entirely untrue). And had Bernie won the primary, he would have been skewered.

R154/R157, ideally, yes. But impeachment is a political tool and thus its use is political.

R162, and watch--the mainstream media will treat this as a serious plan, worthy of discussion because Trump is getting "tough" on a serious problem. It will NOT get the ridicule it deserves. That's reserved for plans that include "free college" and other silly socialist ideas.

How much time/ink will be spent on the fact that the SCOTUS Kennedy v. Louisiana case makes using the DP for anything less than the taking of a life nearly impossible? Little to none, I'm going to guess.

One of the things that really annoys is how much we allow right wing media, basically propaganda, to influence our decision making. You see it on here all the time from posters who religiously watch Fox News and then feel the need to "report back" on what they're saying. There are some posters on here who are more knowledgeable about what happens at FreeRepublic & Breitbart then they are about the stuff here on DL. What is clearly happening is that you are listening to and reading this bullshit and it's getting through to you in some way. And so every political thought becomes a reaction to right right media as opposed to actual policies and what the actual republican politicians are saying and doing.

Now, I'm not one of these people who are going to tell you to just watch MSNBC and other "progressive" media outlets and live in a blissful confirmation bubble, because that's not helpful either. But you need to turn off the Fox News and the other right wing sources. A lot of people are getting their news from social media, but you need to side eye every Facebook post and every Tweet. If someone Tweets something that pisses you off, Google it first before you lose your mind. Confirm and verify.

The thing is MSNBC is a news organization with a liberal slant. Fox is right-wing propaganda first, news second. It's a key difference. There is no left-wing equivalent to Fox/Breitbart, etc. It's a false equivalency to think that there is.

At this point Fox is little more than Trump State news.

Again, r165, that's not correct. To say that the media is against liberals is painting the media with one brush when the truth is that we live in a bubble media world. The conservative right have their outlets like Fox, the liberal left have their outlets like MSNBC and those in the middle are stuck with a media that panders to whatever story is sexy at the time whether it be libral or conservative. Trump was the flavor of the month this election, Obama was the darling in 2008 and 2012.

And you might want to tell outlets like MSNBC, WP, HuffPo and even Fox that Bernie's plans were unworkable. They didn't think so and they pushed him on the public. The only outlet that really questioned him was the NYDN.

So while your post at r137 has merit, it's built on a fallacy that the media isn't liberal.

But R170, while I pretty much agree with what you have written I've grown so tired over the catch-all line that the media is "liberal" What exactly is that? If you support a woman's right (an individual, with intelligence and a mind of her own), to make her own health choices that affect her own body, is that being liberal? And, if you support not allowing that same woman to NOT have such choices is that conservative?

What is a conservative? What is a liberal?

[quote]And you might want to tell outlets like MSNBC, WP, HuffPo and even Fox that Bernie's plans were unworkable. They didn't think so and they pushed him on the public.

Can someone tell me what it is about Hillary Clinton that everyone hates? I'm serious here. Yep! I voted for Clinton (she was definitely the most qualified out of all of them), but I wouldn't consider myself an ardent supporter. What exactly did this woman do? What is she guilty of?

Complete the sentence; "I dislike Hillary Clinton because...."

R171, Until the parties begin defining themselves in different terms then, yes, anti-abortion is conservative and pro-choice is liberal. The parties define themselves based on their platform and the media continues the narrative. We are probably seeing the beginning of a move away from having a platform define the party with Conor Lamb. Yes, I know there's Joe Manchin, but until now he seemed more the exception than what may become the norm. In effect, we may see the Democrats go through their own version of a tea party movement.

And on the media side, using your examples, the conservative media bubble will push an anti-abortion stand and the liberal media bubble will push a pro-abortion stand. Those who are stanchly conservative or liberal will not move from their bubble. Those in the middle again are held hostage to controversy of the day.

Thank you, R173. But, that is the difference that I'm trying to point out. There's something wrong with the conservative platform that wants to take away an individual's rights and freedoms while liberals fight for an individual's freedom to make a choice. I mean... isn't it conservatives who feel that liberals are trying to take away their rights to have guns? Of course, this isn't true. If anything, liberals want certain restrictions.

So, this brings me to the media; Shouldn't they be supporting a person's rights to choice and freedom?

And, then moving this back to Nancy Pelosi... Is that why the right fears her? She believes in rights and freedoms and can get things done to protect those rights and freedoms.

R174, the whole liberal vs. conservative platform is a whole other ball of wax.  The short and less nuanced answer is that religion plays a part in people's thinking and belief system.  But again that's the short, less nuanced answer.

Should the media take a side?  I personally don't think so.  I would love a media that just laid out the facts and then let me decide, but that's not how it works.  Again, the short less nuanced answer is that the media is a for-profit business.  They get ratings, clicks, eyeballs, awards and advertising dollars, all of which dictate their survival.

Why do conservatives fear Pelosi?  She's good at what she does.  She's more effective at what she does than Paul Ryan.

It's too early to know for sure whether Donald has committed an impeachable act - but if he meets with Mueller and lies about anything, that's an impeachable offense. But he lies all the time and Republicans couldn't care less.

And yet perjury is exactly what a partisan Republican House used in 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton.

Double standard? Perish the thought!

Republicans are the biggest hypocrites in the Universe.

A growing number of Democratic hopefuls say they won’t back Pelosi for speaker if Democrats win the House

She needs to step aside and let another leader lead.

Pelosi is old and out of touch.