America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Phil222. 58 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Speaker of the House
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I don't like anything about Nancy Pelosi.
Shocked?

But it would be foolhardy for the new House to elect her Speaker.

Think about what lead to electing our current POTUS: The business-as-usual old school life-long politicians are the problem on both sides of the aisle.
The Democrats just earned a power position in DC, and they're on the verge of setting themselves BACK by leaps and bounds.

I know very little of the new school democrats. Maybe they are all buffoons (gasp!) and maybe they deserve Pelosi.

But in a moment of non-partisan honesty, if the Dems want to build on the subtle momentum gained during the midterms then they ought to put some of that diverse young blood up front and choose progressive rather than obstructive leaders.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to fight division with the most divisive Democrat in the House?



dstieger Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Not certain what most important functions/roles are for the Speaker, outside of providing evening news sound bites. I wouldn't be surprised if vote-whipping and fund raising are at the top. If so, Pelosi might actually be a reasonable choice. I don't like her at all, but she'd provide OAN, FoxNews, Newsmax, et. al with tons of silly quotes to feed the outrage...like 'crumbs'....lol
frankj1 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I don't like anything about Nancy Pelosi.
Shocked?

But it would be foolhardy for the new House to elect her Speaker.

Think about what lead to electing our current POTUS: The business-as-usual old school life-long politicians are the problem on both sides of the aisle.
The Democrats just earned a power position in DC, and they're on the verge of setting themselves BACK by leaps and bounds.

I know very little of the new school democrats. Maybe they are all buffoons (gasp!) and maybe they deserve Pelosi.

But in a moment of non-partisan honesty, if the Dems want to build on the subtle momentum gained during the midterms then they ought to put some of that diverse young blood up front and choose progressive rather than obstructive leaders.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to fight division with the most divisive Democrat in the House?




I said something similar on a recent post election thread.
You probably are not a Seth Moulton fan, but he is invested in replacing her and a couple of her old cronies.

Dave makes a point I did not consider, but I would like to see changes made.
Buckwheat Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
The Democrats have a huge power vacuum in their leadership. One of the reasons trump was elected over played out Hillary. They will play the suckers again if they don't come up with a viable non-retread candidate for 2020. They need a top to bottom shake up to have a chance. Even though, this could be said for both parties. fog
tailgater Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I guess I'm just a little bit surprised that she's still considered viable.
Sure, she can raise donations with the best of them. and she'll remain one of the top dogs.

But going into the midterms, and in the fallout afterwards, everyone was talking about the "new wave" within the democrat party.

Why ignore their recent success?


DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
She's power hungry.. I pity da fool who gets in her way... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I guess I'm just a little bit surprised that she's still considered viable.
Sure, she can raise donations with the best of them. and she'll remain one of the top dogs.

But going into the midterms, and in the fallout afterwards, everyone was talking about the "new wave" within the democrat party.

Why ignore their recent success?



and the new wave is theoretically closer to center, which is where I think more Americans of both major parties reside, even if the elected officials of recent years do not.
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Julian I agree.
delta1 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I dunno...there's not a lot that the Dems can do during the next two years...other than bite at Trump's ankles...this talk of bipartisanship is not worth the paper floating in a portapotty...

so just for entertainment value alone, Pelosi would be a good choice... just to see the outrage over her from the right...any other Dem who takes that spot in this environment will not gain much, and potentially lose a lot...see Devin Nunes...


I find the political jousting more entertaining and cheaper nowadays than cinema...thanks Trump...
Phil222 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Plenty the Democrats can do over the next two years. They should start by finding new leadership as soon as possible. Polling shows that the majority of Democrats don’t even support Pelosi anymore. I think they need a Tulsi Gabbard or Ro Khanna type as speaker, but almost anyone other than Pelosi would do.

Second, they should push their agenda through the House even though it’s not gonna pass in the Senate (If they have an agenda?). Show the American people what you want to get done if they choose to vote Democrat in 2020. I read somewhere that Democrats were trying to push through a bill for auto-voter registration? That’s a good start.

I feel like a big problem with voting Democrat is that people don’t seem to think they have a real message (polling has shown this to be true). Ask a Republican what they want to get done in government, and I bet they shoot off like four or five things...lower taxes, less regulations, gun rights, cut entitlements, balance budget, blah, blah, blah…

Ask a Democratic politician what their platform is or what they believe in, and you will get nothing but platitudes. This is a problem that needs to be addressed before 2020. If they spend the next two years “resisting” and not doing much else, I think it could come back to haunt them in 2020. Just my two cents.
SteveS Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
tailgater wrote:
I don't like anything about Nancy Pelosi.
... they ought to put some of that diverse young blood up front


think there's a chance that her plastic surgery has them fooled into thinking she's part of the young blood crowd ??
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Number one goal is making Trump look bad... Open borders and free health care no matter how much it costs the tax payer seems to be the others... Mellow
Mr. Jones Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
Pelosi needs to ride off into the distance and hang up her skates...
She is OLD NEWS and just a fancy-classy whiner...

The Democrats need new blood...
A worse choice would be crybaby chuck shummer...
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I mean giving Sharpton credit for saving America..?? WTF..?? Huh
frankj1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
mid term elections should have clarified what the people who actually vote care about.
Biggest winner was health care.
RomneyCare, incorrectly called ObamaCare, is actually doing well.
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Not nation wide tho... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
Not nation wide tho... Mellow

yes, nationwide.
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I dunno man.. I heard lots of stories about Carriers dropping it and rates quadrupling and stuff... Mellow
Phil222 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Something like 1 in 5 Americans still don't have health insurance. That number probably triples when you factor in the people who don't have "adequate" health insurance. Still the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. Prices are still the highest in the world. I think we can do better than RomneyCare and I hope the Democrats try.
frankj1 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
I dunno man.. I heard lots of stories about Carriers dropping it and rates quadrupling and stuff... Mellow

actually, rates dropped and new carriers entered the market place the last few months. and new subscribers joined.
frankj1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/05/06/insurers-post-obamacare-profits-with-little-interest-in-trump-plans/#275c70a41667

couldn't find the article I read in da Boston Globe a month ago but the 3rd quarter 2018 saw a rise in sign ups and more companies getting involved.

RomneyCare began in MA so we had a jump start, but almost everyone is covered
SteveS Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
ObamaCare by any other name is still a complete cluster f*ck ...

sure, lots of people like the pre-existing conditions factor ... hey, if I didn't have auto insurance until after I was involved in an accident but could then buy some and the carriers would be obligated to sell it to me ...
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
SteveS wrote:
ObamaCare by any other name is still a complete cluster f*ck ...

sure, lots of people like the pre-existing conditions factor ... hey, if I didn't have auto insurance until after I was involved in an accident but could then buy some and the carriers would be obligated to sell it to me ...

after a lot of fanfare and bluster, Trump (and the GOP in general) seems to have moved away from caring. And Trump promised the same coverage for pre-existing conditions for even less money!

But if there were no profits to be made due to stuff like pre-existing conditions, there certainly wouldn't be more insurance companies snooping around.

They could even offer better options if fantastically obscene bonuses for CEO's et al were drastically reduced into lower millions of dollars.
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
If only there was just a little bipartisan cooperation.. Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
If only there was just a little bipartisan cooperation.. Mellow

then again, I could be wrong.
dstieger Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
frankj1 wrote:


They could even offer better options if fantastically obscene bonuses for CEO's et al were drastically reduced into lower millions of dollars.


I don't begrudge the CEO's for their pay....much....However, I'd love to see an insurance company board make cost controls a major part of the CEO incentive goals
frankj1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
dstieger wrote:
I don't begrudge the CEO's for their pay....much....However, I'd love to see an insurance company board make cost controls a major part of the CEO incentive goals

I don't count anyone else's money, but it does become different for me when they say their company can not make money in various states, or can only afford to offer inferior products/services.

I'd like to think huge bonuses would come from huge profits.

Speyside Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So Steve, what would you suggest for people with pre existing conditions? Just let them die? As far as the ACA, what would you suggest there? End it and let the uninsured people die?
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
DrafterX wrote:
I dunno man.. I heard lots of stories about Carriers dropping it and rates quadrupling and stuff... Mellow


you should switch channels from time to time...does your remote work OK or do you have to get up off the couch...
rfenst Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
delta1 wrote:
you should switch channels from time to time...does your remote work OK or do you have to get up off the couch...


LMAO!
tailgater Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
MSNBC wrote:
after a lot of fanfare and bluster, Trump (and the GOP in general) seems to have moved away from caring. And Trump promised the same coverage for pre-existing conditions for even less money!

But if there were no profits to be made due to stuff like pre-existing conditions, there certainly wouldn't be more insurance companies snooping around.

They could even offer better options if fantastically obscene bonuses for CEO's et al were drastically reduced into lower millions of dollars.



tailgater Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
So Steve, what would you suggest for people with pre existing conditions? Just let them die? As far as the ACA, what would you suggest there? End it and let the uninsured people die?


That's the $20,000 question.

If I were 22 and just ending college and healthy, why the hell would I pay into a $10,000 per year policy?

I'd simply pay cash for doctors visits and prescriptions.

Then, if I caught the Hep C or or the Big C, I could just sign up for Blue Cross.



In fact, it would be STUPID to have insurance before you actually needed it.
Well, at least financially irresponsible.




tailgater Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
I don't count anyone else's money, but it does become different for me when they say their company can not make money in various states, or can only afford to offer inferior products/services.

I'd like to think huge bonuses would come from huge profits.



It should.
But we can't legislate it anymore than we can legislate morality.

frankj1 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
It should.
But we can't legislate it anymore than we can legislate morality.


no argument with that.
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:

frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:

MSNBC wrote:
after a lot of fanfare and bluster, Trump (and the GOP in general) seems to have moved away from caring. And Trump promised the same coverage for pre-existing conditions for even less money!

But if there were no profits to be made due to stuff like pre-existing conditions, there certainly wouldn't be more insurance companies snooping around.

They could even offer better options if fantastically obscene bonuses for CEO's et al were drastically reduced into lower millions of dollars.


that was good, wizearse.

but I honestly couldn't tell you what channel they ar eon on my Comcast cable network.
tailgater Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Press the microphone button and say "Rachel Maddow is hot"

Speyside Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail, I agree with you. But there is a problem. If someone is uninsured all they have to do is go to an ER. They cannot be refused. This is an outrageously expensive way to get treatment for various illnesses and injuries. This cost is passed on to you and I through increased medical costs which lead to increased insurance premiums.
SteveS Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
Speyside wrote:
So Steve, what would you suggest for people with pre existing conditions? Just let them die? As far as the ACA, what would you suggest there? End it and let the uninsured people die?


well, there's the rub now isn't it ? ... which is why Trump and the Repubs have "moved away" from the issue ... there's no solution to the mess we now find ourselves in ... Obama and Pelosi counted on there being an uproar if there were an effort to take away the bennies they built in once those bennies were handed out ...

problem is, there might have been a better solution if there'd ever been any effort made to find a win-win way to address an obvious problem but those nit-wits just rushed to cobble together a package then lied to rush it through Congress with no examination ...
ZRX1200 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Gotta get that Medicare for all to protect our political power!!!


We love America!


Vote for us!
delta1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Here's a website that describes the effect of Obamacare on health insurance coverage and premiums and state and federal costs from implementation through 2017.

Numbers and impact vary tremendously from state to state with some highly populated states with robust participation among the populace and large numbers of providers doing well in holding down costs, while low populated states with only one or a few providers not doing so great....



https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_premiums_before_and_after_the_Affordable_Care_Act
dstieger Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Dems chose uncontested Pelosi. Not sure how it works when it goes to full House. I suppose 18 dems could then defect and turn this thing upside down...also not sure why minority party gets a vote anyway....silly stuff.
Karen Bass chose not to contest Pelosi, but was handed Congressional Black Caucus leadership. Dunno who will lead Congressional White Caucus
Gene363 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
The democrats will condemn white guys then chose an old whit lady, Pelosi, for Speaker.
frankj1 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
dstieger wrote:
Dems chose uncontested Pelosi. Not sure how it works when it goes to full House. I suppose 18 dems could then defect and turn this thing upside down...also not sure why minority party gets a vote anyway....silly stuff.
Karen Bass chose not to contest Pelosi, but was handed Congressional Black Caucus leadership. Dunno who will lead Congressional White Caucus

LIKE!
MACS Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
There's no white caucus. That would be divisive. Oh, wait...
RMAN4443 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
MACS wrote:
There's no white caucus. That would be divisive. Oh, wait...

Ive got a white Cawkus...not gonna win any contests with Frankie Tripod though...or with the Black Cawkus for that matter...Anxious
Phil222 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
dstieger wrote:
Dunno who will lead Congressional White Caucus

Steve King?
frankj1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
John Birch?
tailgater Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The more I hear about Pelosi winning the Speaker nod, the more I laugh.

Just a couple weeks ago we heard about the NEW Democratic party being led by fresh ideas and throwing out the old regime.

DrafterX Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
She's promised to turn a new leaf... Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>