“she intends to pass the torch to the next generation of leadership but will stay on as a backbencher” – regarding Pelosi

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | “she intends to pass the torch to the next generation of leadership but will stay on as a backbencher” – regarding Pelosi

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #498033
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,791

      Seems like it’s from a credible Twitter poster, she’s followed by Aaron Mate and Saagar Anjeti.*

      *Edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Palmeri

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

    • #498034
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,791

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries

      A corporate lawyer by occupation, he worked for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, then Viacom and CBS, before running for and serving in the New York State Assembly from 2007 to 2012, representing the 57th Assembly district.

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

      • #498035
        Passionate Progressive
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 5,510

        I could have guessed that he would have such a background.  ‘Future leadership’ is code for the ruling class to someone who has no innovative ideas and that fundamentally will change zero.

        The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.....Martin Luther King '63

        It takes all the technical proficiency our system can provide to make up for the woeful lack of popular support and political savvy of most of the regimes that the West has thus far sought to prop up.........Bernard Fall

    • #498036
      Utopian Leftist
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,192

      So if he has only been in CONgress for ten years, then why would anyone vote for him as Speaker of the House?

      Why? Because Mama Bear said so? Oink! Oink!

      “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” ~ Krishnamurti
      "Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voter will choose a Republican every time." ~ Harry Truman

    • #498037
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 9,583

      but I thought the Democratic congressmen elected their party leader.

    • #498045
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,791

      Everything will be up for grabs, and both parties should be well placed to raise tons of dough.

      In one corner, the tattered Presidency (or legacy) of a demented Joe Biden swirling in a sea of Hunter Biden corruption connections, yet the Democratic party still advertising as the champions of the right to choose, acceptance of all, and a return to normalcy.

      In the other corner a Republican party “blessed” with a plethora of embarrassments, and framed as the party of limiting women’s choices, January 6, racism, intolerance, and whipping immigrants at the border, and yet with the other half of the country seeing them as the only sane voice on securing the border, reversing the crime waves across our country, shutting down partial birth abortions, and holding the line on governmental overreach.

      People will spend money, and even actively support campaigns, when the battleground looks like that.

      Pelosi has raised staggering amounts of money, and will commit to breaking all records in exchange for being the power behind the throne/the conductor behind the curtain.

       

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

    • #498049
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,916
    • #498054
      mrdmk
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,408
    • #498074
      closeupready
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,725

      Anyone else heard about that?

      The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

      • #498094
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,748

        Over at SV, someone proposeded making Liz Cheney speaker.  I was expecting Chelsea or Hillary to be floated, too.

        America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

        "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" GRRM

        A YouTube comment – we need new conspiracy theories – the old ones have all come true.

    • #498078
      Dunatus
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 825
    • #498095
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,748

      IMO, she has no intention of giving up the power, and will still arrange all of the Democrats’ votes with an eye to letting some appear progressive, so as to bring in progressives’ money, but making sure nothing that would actually help the people passes.  Looks bad for Biden to veto that stuff, ya know.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" GRRM

      A YouTube comment – we need new conspiracy theories – the old ones have all come true.

    • #498129
      chknltl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,843

      back in 2016 I participated in a Class Action Lawsuit against the Democratic Party.

      Our issue: We spent gobs of campaign contributions on Bernie Sanders.

      The man was filling arenas and stadiums while Hillary was struggling to fill a coffee shop.

      Then the Democratic Party chose Hillary-someone many of us did not support.

      From what I understand those campaign contributions to Bernie immediately went to Hillary.

      The Democratic Party claimed that they are private corporation which could pick and choose whomever it wanted.

      Before we went dark, I had been assisted with my thoughts on this matter by fellow member Jim Lane so I hope he clarifies my thinking here.

      If the Democratic Party (who are anything but Democratic imo), is indeed a private organization, then it stands to reason that they can pick and choose whomever they want to replace Nancy Pelosi.

      ( @JimLane :a little help here please, and thanks)

      • #498131
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,748

        of the Party and its owners, so to me, this is just sort of interesting.  SV is touting Chelsea Clinton.  Except for its power to hurt people and countries, the entire construct is pretty much a joke.  Not related to democracy in any way.

        America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

        "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" GRRM

        A YouTube comment – we need new conspiracy theories – the old ones have all come true.

      • #498252
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,061

        @chknltl

        In the class action lawsuit you joined, the allegation was that people who had contributed to Bernie’s campaign or to the DNC had been defrauded because the DNC made false representations about the nomination process. Contrary to the misinterpretations of the Bernie-bashers, the judge did not find that the allegations were false. Contrary to the misinterpretations of the DNC-bashers, he did not find that the allegations were true. Instead, without ever reaching that question, he dismissed the case on technical grounds concerning the limited jurisdiction of federal courts.

        He specifically made his dismissal “without prejudice” – a legal term meaning that the plaintiffs were free to pursue the same claims in a state court, which would have had jurisdiction. That’s what they should have done. Instead, the lawyers decided to pursue an appeal. The appeal failed, deservedly in my opinion, because the judge was correct on the jurisdictional point.

        You write:

        Our issue: We spent gobs of campaign contributions on Bernie Sanders.

        The man was filling arenas and stadiums while Hillary was struggling to fill a coffee shop.

        Then the Democratic Party chose Hillary-someone many of us did not support.

        The party was split, so it was inevitable that the nominee would be someone whom many voters did not support. That wouldn’t be the basis for a lawsuit.

        How should the party choose between two candidates, each of whom had at least 40% of the support? I know the prevailing myth on JPR is that, before the campaign even started, some DNC bigwigs got together in a smoke-filled room and selected Hillary, after which all the primaries and caucuses were just kabuki theater with a prearranged outcome. I don’t find that view remotely plausible. The total for the primaries was 16.9 million votes for Hillary and 13.2 million votes for Bernie. Saying that your favored candidate lost because of widespread fraud in multiple states affecting millions of votes is on a par with Trump’s bogus claims about the 2020 election – the evidence just isn’t there. Apparently the plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed with me, because they didn’t try to make that the basis of the lawsuit against the DNC, either.

        The lawsuit actually alleged fraud, which requires a showing of a misrepresentation. The alleged misrepresentation was that the DNC said it would be neutral and then it wasn’t. The big substantive problem for the case was that, under the law of fraud (established precedent from before Bernie was even born), a plaintiff must show not only that there was a false statement, but that the plaintiff acted in reliance on the statement. IIRC, the named plaintiffs had all been loudly denouncing the DNC for non-neutrality at the time they made their donations. If you’re lied to, but you know you’re being lied to, you don’t have an action for fraud. This would have been an issue even if the case had been re-filed in state court, to avoid the jurisdictional problem.

        You write:

        From what I understand those campaign contributions to Bernie immediately went to Hillary.

        I’ve never heard anything to that effect. There’d be no mechanism for such a diversion. I think this is a garbled version of something that actually happened. The DNC offered each candidate the opportunity to participate in a joint fundraising operation, proceeds to be divided between the candidate and the DNC. I consider this perfectly okay. The non-neutrality came in because the DNC struck an additional, separate deal with the Clinton campaign, one not offered to the Sanders campaign. I forget the details, but it was along the lines of the Clinton campaign providing money for a particular DNC endeavor, with the campaign having veto power over the DNC’s choice of a responsible person to be in charge. That was clearly improper (because unequal). It didn’t involve any diversion of Sanders campaign contributions, though.

        You write:

        The Democratic Party claimed that they are private corporation which could pick and choose whomever it wanted.

        In the class action lawsuit, the party’s lawyers argued, for some reason, that the party could have decided that it would actually choose its nominee in a smoke-filled room, without bothering to hold any primaries. I say “for some reason” because this was an irrelevant hypothetical. The judge rejected this argument on the obvious basis that the party had promulgated rules about the nomination process and therefore had to follow those rules, notably by holding a convention of delegates selected based on primary and caucus results. No one is actually suggesting the abolition of the primaries. The only effect of the inclusion of this argument in a brief is that it would be cited on JPR over and over and over as proof of the perfidy of the Democratic Party.

        A side note about the idea that a party can choose to dispense with primaries: Apart from its irrelevance, I don’t know whether this contention is correct. A political party is a private entity that can promulgate its own rules. I’ve lived through at least three different versions of Democratic Party rules about superdelegates, and all three were set by the party, without any requirement of Congressional approval or the like. OTOH, the Supreme Court held during the jimcrow era that a party could not choose its nominee through a “whites only” primary. So a political party is a private entity, but one with some restrictions on its internal processes.

        The nomination for President and the selection of Congressional leadership are two different issues. You write:

        If the Democratic Party (who are anything but Democratic imo), is indeed a private organization, then it stands to reason that they can pick and choose whomever they want to replace Nancy Pelosi.

        Since the very first Congress, the procedure for party posts in Congress has been that the party’s members in that chamber elect the leaders. What’s the alternative? A state-by-state campaign, with primaries and caucuses to pick delegates to a national convention, at which all leadership posts will be filled? A campaign-weary public would vehemently oppose such a change.

        On the subject of leadership posts, @jbnw writes: “I thought the Democratic congressmen elected their party leader.” Of course they do. Jeffries has declared his candidacy and is widely expected to win. If he becomes Minority Leader, though, it won’t be because Pelosi appointed him. It will be because the members of the Democratic caucus voted for him. For example, he’s currently in a lower-ranking position (chair of the House Democratic Caucus). That position opened up because the former occupant, Joe Crowley, was defeated for his seat in the House by AOC. Crowley’s replacement as caucus chair was selected in a contested vote, which Jeffries won by 123-113. My guess is that there won’t be anything that close this year, but it’s still open to any other member of the caucus to challenge Jeffries for the top job.

        • #498271
          chknltl
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,843

          Thank you for responding.

          I knew from our last conversation that at the very least there were holes in my knowledge on this topic.

          Having my attorney win two traffic cases, both where I was at fault, I can easily understand how a judge can dismiss a case on purely technical grounds.

          That said, a further point of confusion on my part comes from the fact that Hillary never came close to having the same size crowds in attendance as Bernie did at their individual rallies.

          To my way of thinking, the person with the largest, (by far), draws during the runup to the nomination should be the one nominated.

          Where I heard that our campaign contributions to Bernie had been given to nominee Hillary is now lost to time in my memory, (sorry), but that is where-(until you just cleared it up)-that is where I came up with the notion that we were cheated out of our campaign contributions.

          It now further makes sense to me why a party can pick who to post where.

          After months of speeches, the citizenry would indeed be weary about further electioneering.

          (The costs to taxpayers for doing further electioneering in order to choose who gets what posting in a Party would be another important limiting factor.)

          Again, I knew you were someone I could count on to clarify these things for me Jim Lane, I knew that you could fix the holes in my logic regarding this matter and imo you did just that.

          Thank you

          Saved and strongly reccomended.

          @Jim Lane

           

           

           

          • #498282
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 1,061

            @chknltl

            You write: “To my way of thinking, the person with the largest, (by far), draws during the runup to the nomination should be the one nominated.”

            This touches on a long-standing issue, of numbers versus enthusiasm. If support for two candidates is split 55%-45%, but those in the minority feel much more strongly, their enthusiasm generally won’t matter. No matter how many rallies they attend, each person gets only one vote. (There may be an exception at the margins in terms of turnout – the candidate with the fervent 45% may win if there’s a blizzard on Election Day.)

            One practical reason is that it’s easier to count votes than to measure enthusiasm. Getting an exact count of the crowd at a rally is difficult, and do we recognize small-donor contributions as another measure of enthusiasm? There’s also a fairness issue. I oppose disenfranchising people who can’t make it to a rally (infirmity, work schedule, child care responsibilities). Voting is an imperfect method but we’re pretty much stuck with it.

            • #498315
              chknltl
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,843

              To my thinking, one could explain our representative democracy as, (for the most part), being the will of the majority.

              So I agree that ferver does not replace votes, nor should it.

              Setting aside that it currently appears that the citizenry has little to no control over our government, I never once seen where Hillary was drawing even close to the actual attendance at her rallies that Bernie was drawing.

              Bernie drew about the same attendance Trump ended up drawing after he had received the nomination…Hillary, not so much.

              I watched video after video where Hillary barely drew 100 fans while Bernie was drawing 10,000 and more. He may have come close to filling the stadium where the 49ers play their home games at that particular rally at one point.

              I attended two Bernie Saanders rallies, one at Hec Ed Pavilion, (where University of Washington plays home game basketball) and another at the Tacoma Dome. Both were almost filled to capacity.

              Yes, we did have our ferver but never once did I see us Bernie supporters as being in a minority to Hillary supporters during the nomination process…I never seen it come close.

              I’ve heard some of the arguments, for instance that Bernie supporters consisted of college kids who, for whatever reason, chose not to show up to push Bernie on to the nomination.

              I assure you, while there were college kids at both Bernie rallies I attended, I would have to say that the median age we shared was well over 40.

              Perhaps I am missing something here Jim Lane, but I am in the camp that never felt like we were in a minority to Hillary’s supporters. I was disappointed of course and felt cheated but had Hillary matched even close to the same draw that Bernie was drawing I would not have felt cheated.

              Vengeance may indeed have played part in my early thoughts too.  Evenso, it is a good thing to discuss the past openly in order to determine if something needs repair and ifso, how to accomplish those repairs.

              This is an old wound, one that could easily erupt in a flame war with other fellow members here at JPR, (attention fellow members: a flame war is something I strongly wish to NOT cause), so I’d like to sum up by both agreeing with you on one point and disagreeing with you on another: I can see where a minority can feel wronged when they lose an election but I think, at least in the Sanders vs Clinton nominations, the Sanders camp were in the majority.

              My feeling that we Sanders supporters were always in the majority, may have compounded my feeling of being cheated by what I saw as the Hillary minority. That’s how I remember things at any rate.

              Always a pleasure and always an education, thank you,


              @jimlane

    • #498149
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,916

      You can’t be speaker if you aren’t in Congress so it’s not going to be any Clintons or other Pelosis.

       

       

      • #498153
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,748

        Traditionally, the Speaker has been elected from incumbent members of the party in control of the House.    But they can pretty much nominate anyone they want;  all they need is enough votes. Chelsea Clinton’s name has popped up over at SV, and this also was the key to Hillary getting The White House Which She Deserves To Have, in hilbot fantasyland.  Biden resigns, and then Harris resigns to make way for the Queen.  Heh, bet that would be a cage fight to watch.  Brendan Boyle, a Democratic Rep. from Pennsyvania, introduced a bill that calls for the speaker to only be selected from sitting representatives, but IMO that was a reaction to Trump possibly being named, and I don’t know where the bill stands today.

        America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

        "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" GRRM

        A YouTube comment – we need new conspiracy theories – the old ones have all come true.

        • #498162
          Pam2
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 10,916

          @djean111

          You are right. I looked it up. Seems strange this loophole in the Constitution was never changed.

          Speaker of the United States House of Representatives – Wikipedia

          The Constitution does not require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been.[

          • #498172
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 8,748

            That loophole, IMO, will always be there.  It is too useful as a tool for either party to close it.  Some want(ed) to use it for Hillary, some for Trump, SV would like to weasel in Chelsea.

            America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

            "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'" GRRM

            A YouTube comment – we need new conspiracy theories – the old ones have all come true.

            • #498185
              chknltl
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,843

              I don’t follow the workings of any party but it sure seems to me that the Dems would consider for House Speaker someone a bit more mature than Clinton.

              Michelle Obama comes to mind. (Nope, I am done voting for anyone named Obama…the Dems can choose Zelensky for all I care. It’s not like they haven’t been overly chummy these past few years).

              • #498195
                Babel 17
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 6,791

                If Trump were to be Speaker, he’d have to delegate a lot of the traditional workload of Speaker to others. Same would apply to Michelle Obama, imo.

                Trump I assume would have an advantage in that he could brow beat members of his party by holding over their heads that he could cause massive funds and support to be deployed against them in a primary challenge. And he could have them investigated to hell and gone. Then he could take any dirt on go on Twitter with it. lol 😉

                Don't Kill the Whale
                Don't feed the trolls

        • #498226
          Haikugal
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 2,356

          That sounds exactly like what they’ll do. LOL What a fucking joke. My ex is so reactive if I say any of this to him he explodes…it’s amazing seeing this from a man who couldn’t muster an emotion to save his marriage…LOL

           

    • #498194
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,791

      If they got four other Republicans to go along, then they could say that all the Democrats in the House had a choice, caucus for Gabbard, or McCarthy would be Speaker as he would then get their votes.

      If every Democrat plus a handful of Republicans went for Gabbard, she would be Speaker, in other words.

      It would never happen, but it would be funny to correctly say that they preferred McCarthy over Gabbard.

      A Democrat with no fracks to give could do the same, in protest over Pelosi trying to handpick a successor. A few Republicans might go along with the joke, at least until things got real.

      AOC could try to become Minority leader, and lock up enough votes until she won concessions. The Democrats have been coasting for too long, imo, on insisting that they get unanimous votes. I see that as part of why we have a Forever War.

      Obama’s “Look forward, not back”, and “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” being the other half of the coin. We see shit bills that enable the war criminals of the Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian, frack-ups to continue to wage their wars, and Democrats are told to be good little boys and girls and sit on their hands while their mommies and daddies make things happen.

      Sure, more brown people get killed, maimed, made homeless, have their countries blasted, and their natural resources stolen, but there’s money in the budget that goes to your district, so shut up and vote “Aye”.

      Just to be clear, I don’t see AOC seriously trying to cut back on our wars as part of any concessions she’d seek if using the leverage of being able to hold hostage a coalition of votes.

      Don't Kill the Whale
      Don't feed the trolls

    • #498236
      doh1304
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,899

      Yeah, but what’s she going to do with the gas can?

      • #498276
        chknltl
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,843

        You win the interweb but you almost cost me my smart phone!

    • #498253
      Junker
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 489

      The torch of the primacy of corporate interests and personal money grubbing will certainly be passed. It is going to take more than one speaker of the house resigning to extinguish that flame.

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.