edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 08:39 am
@snood,
You obviously have not looked into the activities of the Democrats who will control the key positions of the House. I will not argue with you. But, when the Republican agenda advances unchecked, you will see too late that we are being had once again. We have two years to make the voters feel they are making the right choice to vote Democratic or to vote at all. If it makes scant difference in their lives that Democrats have a modicum of power, why should they believe in us anymore. I don't look for purity of ideology as some have charged. Just honesty and accountability.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 08:49 am
@edgarblythe,
I have zero interest in arguing with you, either. But just tell me one thing - what issues do you have with Elijah Cummings or Maxine Waters? They are two who will take on leadership roles. And please don't assume that you're the only one who looks at people's histories or does any research.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 09:32 am
Cummings, despite a few missteps, appears to me to be a good man. He has not been mentioned in any of my posts on this thread, because, when he was attempting to get some good out of the Trump presidency, I mentally wrote off reading about him. I don't like to read about the people who enable the man all that much. I actually did not realize he had made such a turnaround.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 09:45 am
I have not targeted Maxine Waters because, even though I disagree with her support of Clinton, she is a positive in the mix. The persons I am concerned about have actually been mentioned in this thread countless times.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 10:46 am
@edgarblythe,
Well, you said I "obviously" haven't looked into who will be in positions of influence after the Dems take the House. I have, and those are two examples. I am careful about who I support in word or deed, and I am not naive.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 10:57 am
@snood,
I often misspeak. But my opposition to Pelosi, and a couple mentioned in that last Young Turks video is unwavering. They are the key to holding the line and they are pulling in the wrong direction.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 11:05 am
Senate Delivers Powerful Rebuke to Trump, Saudi Arabia

Headline I just saw. It was a baby step. Hopefully the move will help them to grow a pair.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 11:53 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I often misspeak. But my opposition to Pelosi, and a couple mentioned in that last Young Turks video is unwavering. They are the key to holding the line and they are pulling in the wrong direction.

Jeffries over Barbara Lee, for instance.

A Tweet by a person I don't follow:
Jeffries is a big money Democrat and a member in good standing of Andrew Cuomo's New York machine. There is no way to spin his victory over Barbara Lee as a sign the party is moving in a progressive direction.Zach Carter added,

Michael Whitney

@michaelwhitney
Only 1.3% of Hakeem Jeffries' money in the last election came from small-dollar contributions.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 12:31 pm
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Verified account

@Ocasio2018
29m29 minutes ago
More Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted Our Revolution
Say it again for the people in the SenateAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez added,


@OurRevolution
$0. $0 is what should be allocated for this president's racist border wall.
394 replies 2,964 retweets 16,144 likes
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 01:58 pm
@edgarblythe,
Yeah, I don't like Jeffries much. Or Corey Booker.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:13 pm
Let's take a look at a progressive city.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:17 pm
@snood,
The people like Jeffries are willing to negotiate the wall and will deny universal healthcare, my mainest objection.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman841
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
Just one question...
Did you show this much concern when Obama also used tear gas on illegal immigrants?

If not, why not?
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:21 pm
@mysteryman841,
I show concern any time a person is illegally attacked, if I know about it. I have spoken up for just treatment of illegals since before we were on Abuzz instead of a2k, well before Obama. Are you suggesting it would be good that Trump teargassed babies if I didn't protest when Obama used teargas?
mysteryman841
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
Nope.
I am suggesting that most of the people criticizing Trump for the tear gas usage on the border, never said a word, or actively supported that same action when Obama did it.
Its called selective outrage.

And before you ask, yes I supported the action.
Tear gas is non lethal, and actually better than CS gas.
If people knowingly rush the border and attempt to enter illegally, I support any non lethal way to stop them.

Why do so many on the left oppose the enforcing of our laws, and the protection of our borders?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:40 pm
@mysteryman841,
Because human migration is a time honored practice. When people are in dire circumstances, they have to seek shelter. It's simple self preservation. The people coming here are industrious hard working souls, who add to the nation's well being. They pay taxes and they rarely mooch. The United States is in large part responsible for the circumstances that put them on the road to begin with. I have been around and even worked with these people for many years and I have more confidence in them than many legal residents. - And tear gassing babies is not a harmless exercise, regardless of what your orange face hero claims.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:43 pm
The Democratic Caucus Nominated Its Leadership.

Here’s What It Means.



Published November 28, 2018
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Democrats ushered in their leadership on Wednesday for the 116th Congress, including more than 200 returning and incoming members signaling that come January, they want Representative Nancy Pelosi of California to reclaim the speaker’s gavel.

Here are some of the takeaways from the caucus’s votes.

The real test for Ms. Pelosi is in January — and now there’s a road map for her allies and dissenters.

Without a challenger, Ms. Pelosi was expected to easily claim the nomination for speaker. But with 203 yes votes, offset by 32 no votes and three ballots left blank, she fell short of the 218 votes she’ll need to win in a floor vote on Jan. 3.

Even though the vote was conducted by secret ballot, it gave both Ms. Pelosi and her detractors a sense of how strong her majority is.

Allies argue that earning more than 200 votes of support is a sign that Ms. Pelosi can wrangle her way to victory in January. In 2016, when Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio tried to challenge her for minority leader, she had 63 detractors, so there is confidence that she can garner the support she needs on the floor next year.

But her opponents say that Ms. Pelosi faces a sizable number of colleagues who need to be swayed, even despite her relentless deal making. (She has already persuaded two representatives to revoke their opposition vows and cut a bargain moments before the vote.)

Opponents are calling for a change in leadership, but that sentiment didn’t extend to Nos. 2 and 3.

Ms. Pelosi’s opponents have said that their objection to her bid for speaker is not rooted in discontent with her leadership of the House Democrats, but in a desire to see new faces at the top.

Without term limits on leadership, Ms. Pelosi and Representatives Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland and James E. Clyburn of South Carolina have maintained their hold for more than a decade.

“This is not personal,” Representative Kathleen Rice of New York, one of the lead voices advocating a replacement, told reporters after the vote on Wednesday. “It’s not even just about her. It’s about her entire team.”

But the caucus allowed Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Clyburn — both of whom also ran unopposed — to remain in the second and third highest leadership positions.

“There was no opposition to them,” Ms. Rice said, when pressed on the contrast in support.

Ms. Pelosi was the only unopposed candidate in the top races who did not receive unanimous approval.

A new generation of leaders is starting to emerge from the wings.

While three septuagenarians remain at the head of the party, there were signs that the next generation of Democratic leaders are heading toward center stage.

Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, 46, buoyed by his triumphant leadership of the House’s campaign arm, will ascend to the job of assistant majority leader, the fourth-highest position of the party.

And Representative Hakeem Jeffries, 48, who has already prompted comparisons to former President Barack Obama, narrowly clinched the No. 5 leadership position. By 10 votes, he edged out Representative Barbara Lee of California, who would have been the first black woman in the position — and the fourth septuagenarian in leadership.

The most emotional race wasn’t for speaker. It was for caucus chairman.

The most emotional and visceral race on Wednesday was actually for caucus chairman, as Mr. Jeffries and Ms. Lee, both members of the Congressional Black Caucus, faced off.

The secret ballots exposed division in the party, as members who had reportedly promised their vote to Ms. Lee used the cover of anonymity to instead endorse Mr. Jeffries.

Representative Jackie Speier, a fellow Californian of Ms. Lee’s, said that eliminating the secret ballot system would ensure that Democrats “have the guts to say who we’re for and say it publicly.”

“There could’ve been some ageism, there could’ve been sexism,” she said of Ms. Lee’s defeat. “Could’ve been a lot of things.”

But even with the disappointment over the outcome of Ms. Lee’s second attempt, some of her supporters still saw a reason to celebrate.

“It was just wonderful to see how this world has evolved,” said Representative Frederica Wilson of Florida, who said she voted for Ms. Lee. “I grew up during the days when something like this could not even be possible, and to see Hakeem Jeffries triumphant this morning is just phenomenal.”

Maybe, just maybe, there will be a little less gridlock under a Speaker Pelosi.

As part of her bargaining for backing in the caucus and on the House floor, Ms. Pelosi made some concessions to the Problem Solvers Caucus, a handful of members who withheld support until she accepted some changes to House rules.

Theoretically, the changes are meant to ensure that more bipartisan action is possible on the House floor. Notable proposals that Ms. Pelosi accepted would make it easier for bills and amendments with a certain amount of bipartisan support to reach the floor or their respective committees. She also agreed to a provision that would essentially prevent a single member from forcing a vote of no confidence in a speaker.

It remains to be seen how successful they will be in carrying out the rules.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-democratic-caucus-nominated-its-leadership-here%e2%80%99s-what-it-means/ar-BBQerTD?ocid=UE13DHP
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 02:57 pm
@Real Music,
I read that earlier. It doesn't dig into the issues as seen and acted on by people such as Jeffries. Just a hype piece for the crowd.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 03:18 pm
@mysteryman841,
Like trump ordering the FBI to not investigate a supreme court nominee so the senate can pass on him without much payback because the allegations against him weren't proven?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 03:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Because human migration is a time honored practice. When people are in dire circumstances, they have to seek shelter. It's simple self preservation. The people coming here are industrious hard working souls, who add to the nation's well being. They pay taxes and they rarely mooch. The United States is in large part responsible for the circumstances that put them on the road to begin with. I have been around and even worked with these people for many years and I have more confidence in them than many legal residents. - And tear gassing babies is not a harmless exercise, regardless of what your orange face
hero claims.

Also to consider: These people did not break any laws by asking for asylum.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 02:10:23