***Official Political Discussion Thread***

When your “lesser of two evils” looks like this , you’re already in hell.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5aaab803e4b0fcbdb4a3510a
You do realize that those presidential appointments are subject to the whim of whoever is in office right now, don't you?
The decisions taken by Congress, on the other hand, are much more resilient to change. The choices made by the White House are not more important than the future laws that Congress will vote on, and in order to face a cornered, shrinking, but still reliable Republican base and political leadership, Democrats have to be able to publicly show unity behind their proposals. It is a task that will only get harder if we don't have someone like Pelosi at the helm, someone who can convince their fellow members of Congress to rally behind a bill.

The GOP fears Pelosi because she can convince most Blue Dog Dems to support more progressive policies. Without someone like her as speaker, Republicans can continue their policy of divide and conquer within the Democratic party (see how they are basically feeding some factions of the left with talking points).
 
It seems like the main arguments against Pelosi are:

- She is not black, Latina, young or blue collar and thus has trouble connecting with the former demographics, who are our Party's core, nor can she appeal to the latter two groups whom we must win/win back.

- She should have resigned after the 2010 midterms, the way that a British Prime minister resigns, whether it is fair or not, after any sort of major defeat.

- Her name acts a s powerful cudgel in House races all over the Country.

- She does not excite the center left or the hard left base.


The main arguments for Pelosi are:

- She has to get elected every two years and she does just that.

- She is a skilled parliamentarian and that is the minority leader/speaker's main requirement for those jobs. The DNC chair is in charge of winning elections.

- Who ever replaces her will quickly become a lightening rod for conservatives. I could imagine Tim Ryan, within six months, being painted as a gun grabbing, Volvo driving, socialist, cultural Marxist. That's to say nothing of Keith Ellison or Barbara Lee or Maxine waters.


She's a LIB. Nuff said.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...moves-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-to-federal-court
Stormy Daniels Faces $20 Million in Damages in Trump Lawsuit
Stormy Daniels may face more than $20 million in damages for violating a "hush agreement" that requires her to remain silent about an affair she alleges she had with President Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007.



The potential damages against Daniels, an actress in adult films whose real name is Stephanie Cliffords, were disclosed Friday in a filing in federal court in Los Angeles by Essential Consultants LLC, an entity that was set up by Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in 2016 to pay her $130,000 in exchange for her silence.



The company moved the lawsuit, filed by Daniels last week in California state court against Trump, to federal court, saying that neither Daniels, Trump nor the LLC are California residents and the amount of damages exceeds the $75,000 limit for a case to proceed in state court. Trump supports the transfer of the case between courts, according to Essential Consultants’ filing.



“It could be a strategic move to intimidate them,” said Joseph Rothberg, a lawyer with Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP in Woodland Hills, California. “They may be saying, ‘We’re not going to make it easy for you.”’



Federal judges, who are appointed by the president, are perceived as somewhat more conservative than California state court judges, who are elected, according to Rothberg, who isn’t involved in the case. On top of that, the anti-Trump sentiment in California may have played a role in the decision, Rothberg said.

Daniels faces $1 million in damages for each violation of the agreement, according to Friday’s filing. Essential Consultants said it will file a request at the earliest opportunity to force Daniels to arbitrate the case privately rather than to litigate it in open court.

She sued on March 6 to nullify the confidentiality agreement she says she struck with Cohen in October 2016, before the presidential election, to keep quiet about the alleged affair. She argues the document is invalid because Trump didn’t sign it, even though she took the $130,000 offered in exchange for her silence. Cohen has said he paid it himself, through a company he set up.

“The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus ‘damages’ against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is truly remarkable,” Michael Avenatti, Daniels’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. “We are not going away and we will not be intimidated by these threats.”
 
Whyd she even take the hush money? I would think youd make more than 130k telling the story, and sharing whatever media she has.
 
What are you mentioning me in regards to this?

I am on record in this thread with shading Dems for the way they treat black women, them coming up short for black people in general and more specifically how they need to use the primary system as a way to unite they party.

The Democratic Party needs far and open primaries. Even if this were to identical candidates running against one another, tipping the scales like this is wrong and extremely asinine given the current political climate.
 
But Sessions' decision is apparently based on a recommendation from the FBI's own disciplinary officials and Inspector General Horowitzer's report. It plays into Trump's hands of course who wanted him out regardless but it was reported that the IG would ready his report by today.
 
Back
Top Bottom