Honestly call or email the Democratic party offices and voice that you one hundred percent agree with Sanders.
The Pelosi interview is honestly batshit insane. She doesn’t see the election as a rejection of the party, thinks the Democrats are doing well, Kamala Harris did everything right, Sanders is wrong, and then she made some backhanded comments about how Biden should have dropped out earlier. I know some of that is spin she that she has to say, but it’s still deeply out of touch.
Kamala Harris did everything right
She presented her message of ‘vote for me to keep things the same’ flawlessly. Unfortunately, people who live paycheck to paycheck don’t want things to stay the same.
She presented her message of ‘vote for me to keep things the same’ flawlessly. Unfortunately, people who live paycheck to paycheck don’t want things to stay the same.
Nope. Her plan was “I am going to lower taxes on the middle class and provide additional help n these specific ways”. But she presented that plan in a very flawed way.
That you were not aware of her actual message is partly your fault and partly her fault.
No, it’s her fault.
It’s not… I was aware of her 82 page economic plan. How come you weren’t aware of it? It’s your fault that you weren’t aware of her economic plan while people like me were aware of it. If I did you then you could have done it.
Informing the electorate of the plans is the job of the candidate.
Harris did inform us of her 82 page economic plan. I wouldn’t have known about her plan otherwise. You just were not paying attention. That is primarily your fault. Although it is partly the media’s fault also.
If a candidate’s campaign doesn’t work, it’s always the candidate’s fault.
Pelosi is the best example of what’s wrong with Dems. Literally enriched herself off the pain and suffering of the working class and poor.
Pelosi is wrong about Sanders. But she did not “enrich herself”.
Bernie is literally quoted in the article saying “Nancy is a friend of mine”.
Pelosi is wrong about Sanders. But she did not “enrich herself”.
Are we playing the “it’s her spouse who is the stock investor” game?
https://www.newsweek.com/how-nancy-pelosi-net-worth-vastly-increased-while-house-speaker-1762361
Because if this is how one accumulates wealth, it certainly sounds like it’s “off the pain and suffering of the working class and poor.”
D.C.-based nonprofit OpenSecrets.org estimated Pelosi’s net worth at $115 million in 2020, a rise of $41 million since 2004 - the first year OpenSecrets began tracking members’ personal finances.
Paul Pelosi’s company, Financial Leasing Services, has been highly successful in its investments in recent years and those investments have included shares in major firms such as Disney, Amazon and Google.
The New York Post estimated that the Pelosis had made between $5.6 million and $30.4 million between 2007 and 2020 through capital gains and dividends from investments in five tech companies - Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft - based on public disclosures.
That’s not really good evidence. They could’ve made more money by just holding an SP 500 index fund. Their recent Visa trade is better evidence.
Fair! But personally it’s my opinion that in all but a vanishingly small number of cases, if someone is sitting on high tens of millions of dollars and on up, I feel very certain that fundamentally this description works:
Literally enriched herself off the pain and suffering of the working class and poor.
While there are people who are underpaid and struggling to eat, there’s not a path to that kind of wealth that isn’t directly or indirectly exploiting their pain and suffering.
Their wealth is itself the evidence.
No Nancy. You and your DNC are wrong and that is why you lost the presidency, senate, and house.
Fake party.
Pelosi is wrong. But she is not the owner of the DNC. The DNC is controlled by delegates elected by primary voters. The DNC is not a person or monolithic entity.
The DNC is controlled by delegates elected by primary voters.
I’m afraid thats not entirely true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Also, party leadership constantly changes the rules to suit the election cycle. They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want. In the DNC vs Sanders case, they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose, and had no legal duty to fairness or in representing the will of the voters whatsoever.
I’m afraid thats not entirely true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
It is entirely true. No superdelegate can vote in the initial primary vote.
They are a private entity and can run primaries however they want.
Subject to the DNC charter. They are bound by the DNC charter in the same way that the government is bound by the Constitution.
they successfully argued that they can elect canddates in a smoke filled back room if they so chose
They argued they could change the DNC charter, which it technically true. The USA how the power to change its Constituion, but it is still bound by it.
It is entirely true. No superdelegate can vote in the initial primary vote.
they change that rule as needed every election.
Nope. Superdelegates were created in the 1980’s. After 2016 it was changed so that they cannot vote in any first round (making them powerless). Nothing has changed since then. This rule will likely still be in effect for the rest of your life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-superdelegates-3367439
the rules were changed in 2016 and then again in 2020, and I’d argue 2024 as well They eliminated new hampshire from the primary process altogether in 2024 for that election, which to me sounds like a on the fly rule change, and a complete denial of those citizens vote in the election process. https://apnews.com/article/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-explained-1935530652e371fa3bffdad209ebea82
They also made a bunch of changes before 2016. The party can and does change its nominating process anytime it wants to, and DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules. They can select wheover they want, in a back room if they wanted to. They won that case. They dont even need to follow the rules they state they are following.
So do we call it a rule if it doesnt even need to be followed? its more of a guideline as long as its convenient, isnt it?
DNC lawyers argued in Sanders vs DNC that they are under no obligation to follow any rules.
Nope. The argued they could change their own charter. It’s like the Constitution. The USA can change its own constitution but it sill has the right to follow it.
[From the transcript: “The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule], even though it’s a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva]
Dude your own link contradicts what you said. My quote proved it.
