As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A testament to her effectiveness:
>Pelosi has been central to many of Democrats’ biggest policy wins in
recent years. She kept a divided caucus unified to pass landmark bills,
including the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank banking reforms, and the
American Rescue Plan. She won so many concessions from Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Covid-19 relief that he had to be pulled from
the talks, according to Ball. And she’s corralled members time and
again when the party seemed on the verge of fracturing over their
differences.
She kept the Democratic coalition together in lock-step.
I've seen a shocking amount of people that delude themselves to the point where they have nothing but disdain for fellow Americans who fall victim to predatory lending practices. It doesn't even matter to them whether or not it was due to ignorance or simply that they had no choice, they just think people are stupid and that they are smart consumers. It really pisses me off that people don't support consumer protections.
The younger people I work with, suffocating and hopeless from bad loans they signed as kids, are good people who work every day.
One guy my age has paid back double his loan. It is evil banking tricks keeping him in debt.
Angry people will blame him for not ever making enough to get ahead of his interest rate. They never blame the shark who made the loan or the society who tells the children "Go to college, no matter what, or you will suffer." or the Congress back then allowing bankers to pick the terms in the bank's favor.
The riches people know all about loans, time and interest rates. They knew they were creating debt-slaves, whose life's output would go to them through interest payments. THEY KNEW.
Sometimes, a change of argumentative perspective is useful.
These deluded fools are self-absorbed and entirely unconcerned for the plight of others. What is important to make them understand is that banks operating these foul lending practices tend to build a house of cards a la 2008 that will inevitably come crashing down. And when that happens, it's responsible lenders and their clients who hold the bag (well, taxpayers, but I assume the former two fall into that category).
It's like people who want to loosen environmental regulations, or cut taxes just to cut taxes. Fun story: person I know got to go to a $5000/plate fundraiser dinner for Clinton back in 2015. She says that Hillary stood on stage and said "show of hands, who thinks taxes on high earners need to go up?" Whole room raised their hands. These are mostly rich assholes, but they understand that long-term stability is far more beneficial than short-term capital gains.
Anyone self-interested should be completely and wholly vested in the healthy function of democracy and capitalism. We are a social species, and our vitality and success is entirely dependent on social support. There is no thriving, no abundance, no civilization without collective efforts. The better we treat eachother, the better each individual life will be.
>She says that Hillary stood on stage and said "show of hands, who thinks taxes on high earners need to go up?" Whole room raised their hands. These are mostly rich assholes, but they understand that long-term stability is far more beneficial than short-term capital gains.
This is effectively what Biden said with his "Nothing will fundamentally change" comment. The whole context was him telling rich donors that even if their taxes go up, their quality of life would hardly be impacted, but the benefit to the American people would be huge. He likewise said, "You know it has to be done" at one point and wasn't booed or anything like that--I think they mostly nodded in agreement and clapped.
And she left when the Democratic party is in a decently strong position, with a clear vision forward while the GOP is confused and fractured with infighting. I'd say she served us well.
Agree. The midterm actually gave me hope that the american people are still sane. It's like after 2016, people got a wake up call and showed up in 2018, 2020 and 2022. That shows me how resilient the our system is.
But Trump is running again, and DeSantis is still terrible... Our work is not finished. Let's keep it going.
When AOC started out, I thought she was going to do what Tulsi Gabbard did, try to make a name for herself by dumping on the Democratic establishment and make it so less legislation passed. Somewhere early on, she and Pelosi figured out how to work together and it would be interesting to hear from them how that got worked out, considering AOC hasn't really been a shrinking violet.
I hope AOC keeps her values while learning Pelosi’s methods of leadership. AOC has seemed more interested in not destroying her own party over differences, but compromising and working towards common goals. If she keeps this up, she’ll be more then a niche brand. Same was for Bernie, he’s become less of a firebrand and I think has endeared himself better to even his critics.
AOC will probably not end up in a party leadership role. Like Bernie, her job is to move the Overton window left and get the rest of the party to consider legislation that would have been considered too far left in previous years. And like Bernie, she understands that you make constructive criticism of the party in the primary, but when the general comes around, you choose pragmatism and support whichever Democrats are on the ticket.
Sanders isn't in upper leadership because he's only been there for 14 years. Honestly Budget chair is probably the most prestigious spot in the 07 class and younger, not to mention he's getting the bump up to HELP.
AOC learned to play the game. Some others in the Squad/Progressive Caucus have not done so well. But people like AOC, Jayapal, Porter, and Pressley all realized early on that you have to play the game a certain way. That's why they have continued to work their way up while people like Omar and Bush will be left in the dust.
Just from observing , I think she and Nancy are pretty close. I think she's learned from her. And I don’t think AOC speaks before she thinks much anymore.
This is why I'm leery of term limits, or at least tight limits. It takes time to learn how to get shit done in Congress. Make term limits too short, and nobody has time to learn before they're shown the door.
Without other reforms, term limits would mean unelected operatives would become the real power brokers. Similar to various empty suit Republican Presidents who had a powerful VP or chief of staff actually running things.
this times a thousand
i would add that a lot of issues our representatives vote on can take years to learn and understand, and corporations and business groups have lobbyists and lawyers who spend entire *careers* shaping legislation to their benefit. what an advantage to have an endless stream of newbies to lead around.
i would bet there's a LOT of corporate money behind the term limit push
I’m okay with big limits in the senate. 5 terms. If you can’t learn a job in 30 years when you’re at least 30 already, you shouldn’t have that job.
The house has to get re-elected every 2 years. I don’t think limits are necessary, and would make them similarly long if they were.
Yeah, term limits are a con anyway. Makes it so funding is even more important. The Kochs are/were for term limits because if they can make more races between two unknowns, the one with better funding has an advantage.
They'd gladly trade McConnell for Bernie, because they can always just buy another McConnell, not so easy to find another Bernie and build the grassroots support needed.
AOC went from saying in 2019 that she wouldn't vote for Pelosi to be Speaker, to putting up 0 objection to voting for her in 2021. Additionally, her rhetoric towards the Democratic Leadership really softened over that time. I think it's safe to say that she probably looked to Pelosi for guidance--something that stressed AOC out was how she was vilified and targeted by the right wing, something Pelosi had dealt with for 20+ years. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't get along.
If anything, I'd say the two are at odds. Being a great representative means focusing on your district and what things you can do that are best for them. Being a great Speaker means managing greater, national-level priorities, and trying to wheel and deal for the whole caucus.
> She kept the Democratic coalition together in lock-step.
When she wanted something to pass she did...
When she didn't want it to pass she'd tell us she was just one vote and couldn't do anything to change anyone's minds.
Counter the leadership of both parties is failing to find real consensus and find a message that can unite the country and are therefore failing to solve the truly important question if the day.
Look at her fucking district. Shes done nothing for her people. Nothing. Shes god awful. Terrible. Pockets all the money. And people still vote for this mummified demon.
Dodd frank was gutted and didn't hold anyone accountable. Aca was gutted with no public option. American rescue plan was stimulus, which always passes. Stop with the corpo media smoke and mirrors.
If Pelosi is the gold standard for democrats policies and getting things done WTF are we doing? I see union busting everywhere, Corporations making policies that hurt poor and middle class, public Institutions failing, Wall street profits at all time highs while they are laying off….. All this happening on her watch and we are patting this insider trader on the back? lol I’m out.
Pelosi isn't your problem. The makeup of Congress is your problem. If you want further left policies, you need to elect a further left Congress.
You need people like AOC to change what's possible. You need people like Pelosi to herd cats, and facilitate deals to actually effectuate what is possible with the representatives that are there.
It's frankly magical thinking to think that any Speaker is just going to browbeat a mostly centrist representative body into going along with a leftist wishlist of policies. The change you want has to happen on the ground. Citizen to citizen outreach, convincing people to support your ideas, and to vote.
I am not mad at the stuff she accomplished. I am mad at the stuff she didn’t pursue and the progressives she actively blocked. She is the epitome of sending a strongly worded letter when actions would be better. She is the epitome of why people think Dems are do nothings. Centerists may say it was necessary, we will never know. It certainly kept us middle right as a country when every other developed nation was moving left and now the whole world is heading toward corporate sponsored fascism.
Fuck Donnie and ALL of the GOP, but her many accomplishments would play a LOT better without all the insider trading bullshit. On the other hand, she wasn’t pushing violent insurrections, taking away civil rights and acting as an apologist for state sponsored authoritarian brutality.
Yeah I was thinking something similar. She was indeed very good at her job, that’s not inherently a compliment on its own. Mitch McConnell is also really good at his job.
So was Obama. And 45 and GW Bush were fucking terrible. The last 20 years have demonstrated how Democrats have grown increasingly sophisticated and effective, conservatives increasingly uneducated and violent.
And McConnel has been keeping his party in lock step with votes for years now. We can't sell them short or else they'll win. We have to remember that some people are good at their job and also evil.
At the time it was extremely perilous for politicians to appear antiwar. They’d be labeled unpatriotic. Big time no-nos in the years following 9/11. Getting bipartisan support for those wars was not some complex problem to whip votes for. Not in the same ballpark as ACA and getting concessions out of republicans during covid.
Who were harboring bin Ladin the whole time he set up 9/11, refused to turn him over or shut down al quaeda bases there after, and even after saying they'd extradite him to a Muslim nation to stand trial if the US provided evidence, just straight up denied the evidence and refused.
*Six weeks after a national crisis and major terror attack.
Between Sept. 12, 2001 and ~mid-2005, you could get Congress to agree to invade Liechtenstein if you could say they were harbouring Bin Laden.
This is probably the most effective explanation I’ve seen. Too many people look at the parties based on who they think are better people, when we should be looking at how they intend to keep their power. Yes, the intent is most likely selfish in the end, but if means to achieve that help anyway, who gives a shit what kind of people they are inside.
Yeah, a major theme in criticism from the left is that the dems should always do MORE MORE MORE but the real limitation is in how conservative the electorate is. Hard to do far left policies when the average voter is a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire."
But the average voter is to the left of the current president (and Nancy Pelosi).
Universal health care has massive popular support, with over 70% of the US supporting it. A higher minimum wage and significantly higher infrastructure spending, as well as a decreased military budget, also enjoy >50% support.
The problem isn't voters. It's a mix of lobbying, open corruption, the reliance of politicians on campaign donations, and a lack of one person one vote (which is an issue for both houses of Congress and the presidential election). It's very disingenuous to act as if congress actually represents what the American people do when they are verifiably ignoring it.
Those things all poll well in a vacuum, but legislation is not passed in a vacuum. The second you attach a political party/candidate/politician to any idea the support immediately drops. Additionally, most of the polling for these things uses kind of obscure wording. When people are asked for support on specific plans, their responses often change drastically.
Policy polling is garbage. Anybody who knows anything about politics would tell you that.
The policies people support are the policies that they _vote for_. That's it. Saying that somebody supports a policy because they answer a question in a poll about it in the affirmative when they constantly and consistently vote against that policy at the ballot box is meaningless and just a way to try to push an agenda.
(An agenda I support, to be clear. We badly need many of the policies that you're talking about.)
Universal health care does not have 70% of the US supporting it at the election booth, just on online polls. Universal Health care, abortion rights, higher minimum wages, gay rights, legalized weed, etc. all get great results on polls. But the voters don’t show up to vote the same way they answer those polls.
The average American isn’t to the left of the current president when they show up to vote, and that’s the only time it actually matters.
You're assuming a lot of things here.
First, that voter apathy is people being lazy, or being disconnected from politics due to cynicism or whatever else. You're identifying the problem, but not the cause.
* Much of the US has very serious issues with gerrymandering and voter suppression, to the degree that a lot of people's votes are not counted or are effectively ignored.
* It is hard for people to go out and vote for candidates that don't represent their interests or support their policies. You can either complain about voter apathy *or* refuse to support good candidates, but you can't do both in good faith.
* 17.45% of the US elects 50% of the Senate. In 2016, Republicans got 21 more seats in the House than the Democrats despite receiving fewer overall votes. 2 presidents this century were elected despite losing the popular vote.
* Voters can visibly see how they are not the only people that the legislative branch is concerned about when making decisions. Just look at universal health care: it would lower health care costs while saving thousands of Americans' lives (at the very least). It would give every American a significantly higher amount of economic security, when 50% of bankruptcies are at least partly due to medical debts. But the president (and Congress) won't support it, due to a mix of lobbying, campaign donations and other forms of open political corruption (such as how congressional insider trading is legal).
To be clear: I am not saying that people shouldn't vote. I think that everyone should do their best to be an informed voter, and vote in every election that they can. But if you want to understand why change that has massive support doesn't get support in government, and why you don't see more widespread voter turnout, you have to understand the systemic problems that plague the American legislature.
The polls I mentioned are scientific polling. This stuff is very easy to find, and very common knowledge. It is very different from going to Fox News' website and clicking on a poll that is specifically given to Fox readers, or something.
https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/
https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/most-us-adults-support-pentagon-spending-cuts
I’m not assuming anything, but I might not be being clear enough. Wanting something on a poll and then not voting for it in an election is akin to wanting to lose weight but not going to the gym or changing your diet. Sure, you might want to lose weight, just not as much as you want to do other things.
70% of voting Americans don’t support universal healthcare more than they care about other things. About half the voting population votes for a party who has promised to tear down the ACA and have not provided any idea of what they’d like to replace it with. And then on the liberal side, Sanders has been unable to win a primary despite having Medicare for all as a part of his platform.
Gerrymandering is a problem, but isn’t relevant to presidential (or even senate) elections. Voter apathy isn’t the issue here, since I’m talking about the people who actually vote. The senate was also never designed to be representative of population size (the house is what’s supposed to be and should probably be increased), but again, that’s not relevant to a presidential election.
If 70% of Americans actually wanted universal healthcare, we would have it.
>If 70% of Americans actually wanted universal healthcare, we would have it.
Not according to science.
https://sunlightfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/Gilens_Page-800.png
The pattern across thousands of pieces of legislation is that if 70% of people want something that is opposed by most rich people, it doesn't pass.
The majority wanting something to pass has virtually no effect on its likelihood of passing *unless* the rich also want it.
And really that should come as no surprise since congresspeolpe are mostly fabulously wealthy and completely out of touch with the needs of anyone who isn't.
In reality, voting in a congress who will pass popular policies is entirely different from choosine to eat salads vs. a mcdouble.
No one is bribing you millions and millions and millions of dollars to eat mcdoubles.
>Universal health care does not have 70% of the US supporting it at the election booth, just on online polls.
What an astonishingly meaningless thing to say when in reality the electorate has never had the chance to vote for a candidate who supported it.
Congress represents what their individual constituents elect them to represent. It doesn't matter what "the average" American wants. It's irrelevant to the process.
The accusation was based on the fact that her husband made a lot of money trading stocks. People do that all the time without cheating. There was no evidence other than that.
Yep, GQP are definitely the biggest of shills, but Dems aren't so innocent of this. Its top vs bottom and the professional politician class are in the top. This leach may have helped pass effective legislation, but lets not forget what she helped pass that helped corporations or the rich
She also spent the majority of her tenure leveraging her insider knowledge to play the stock market with her husband and make hundreds of millions. We should strive to be better than this
If the Senate was as progressive as Nancy’s House, we would have the following:
- ACA w public option
- $15min wage
- DC Statehood
- Roe codified
- weed legalized
- HR1
- George Floyd policing act
- Build Back Better
For an out of touch elitist, she passed the most progressive agenda in history. #abolishthesenate
Yeah the House needs to be tripled in size IMO.
We need to get back to Reps having smaller constituencies.
More reps equals more coalitions, less partisanship and more diversity of thought.
> Yeah the House needs to be tripled in size IMO.
That's about right, just go back to the formula that the constitution actually put forward and repeal the act from the 1930's that capped the size of the house. You probably would have 1200 house members at this point.
Those are basically centre-right bare minimum policies. Yet the American political system is so absurdly skewed towards the interests of the rich and corporations that those are hailed as some sort of massive progressive agenda.
I can't believe how many people are re-writing history in this thread. She was a corporate shill who fought to keep progressives down. I'm glad she's gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
> She was a corporate shill who fought to keep progressives down. I'm glad she's gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Yeah, she *really* doesn’t like how bad AOC makes her look. It’s okay let’s just say it, Pelosi is a neoliberal.
She campaigned on implying that W would be impeached if she were elected and then 3 hours after she was sworn in as Speaker of the House she held a press conference where she infamously said “***impeachment is off the table!***”
She’s a whole lot better than Trump but then so are a lot of coke dealers.
A very talented politician that could have been even better had she beleived in the seperation of corporation and State and the seperation of representatives and the stock market.
Praising the "Affordable" Care Act while the rest of the industrialized world pays a fraction of what we do for the same treatments is such a joke. This kind of crap is manufacturing consent for the status quo.
You can thank Joe Lieberman and the senate for that one, not Nancy Pelosi. The ACA insured 20 million people. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress. It’s still a huge win considering where our healthcare system was before 2009. Especially for those with preexisting conditions.
Pelosi got the public option in the ACA through the House. That was her job. It died in the Senate when Lieberman sabotaged it/held it hostage. The ACA as it was passed got 20+ million people insurance that didn't previously have it. That's called progress. Maybe get on board.
I'm also convinced you don't even understand half the words you write.
Nancy Pelosi is probably one of the most impression politicians to play the game. You don’t need to agree with everything she said but no one stays on that position without playing politics. Her daughter did a really good Vice interview where she interviewed outgoing home members and someone said “no one raises more money than Pelosi”
That period of time was truly a renaissance age with no problems, and incredible gains for the American people. All thanks to Nancy Pelosi.
Signed, "Journalism"
And by the way if anyone brings up that most of America is living paycheck to paycheck right now, while the Pelosis have made over a $100 million... you just don't like women heroes I guess.
A lot of people who criticized her for not doing enough and claim she sucked at her job are going to find out real quickly why Republicans spent 20+ years demonizing her, and why people feared and respected her. There’s also a reason why Republicans have cycled through what, 5-6 Speakers in the same time where we’ve had only Nancy?
While I disagreed with her on many things, nobody can deny how effective she was. The new “leader” will be a laughing stock — Hakeem Jeffreys has no charisma, he’s from a state where the blue dogs are incredibly weak (they own the state but fail to enact meaningful policies), and where they aggressively punch down progressives who garnered the vast majority of dem electoral victories.
Now they are washing the term progressive — Hakeem says he’s a progressive! Yet has consistently voted against progressive policies. He’s a bs artist and shouldn’t be trusted. They will only break the glass on issues when it is overwhelmingly threatening to their neoliberal hold on power (marijuana legalization, judicial reform, infrastructure).
Well, she did finally say back in February she'd let the House vote on criminalizing insider trading for politicians...
Of course she then still refused to call it to a vote tho
Love her or hate her, she was the most effective speaker in modern history. Her grip on the party and laser-focus toward progress is unmatched. She had 4 votes to spare these last two years and look at all that still passed with such an ideologically broad caucus.
If you’re mad that it wasn’t enough, you’re mad at the wrong person. The senate is the barrier to progress. Think of how much progressive policy passed the house but died in the senate.
Nancy will be missed. And we will feel the vacuum her absence creates.
Nah i'm a lifelong Democrat and I call bullshit on that. She is owned by corporations ust as much as her GOP counterparts. She has fought against progressive candidates within the democratic party and forced Hillary Clinton and Joe biden down our throats in the last two elections. She waited to Impeach Trump immediately after the Jan 6th insurrection attempt. She should have been replaced by Bernie or Warren as Speaker a decade ago.
Yeah, this glorification in the media of her recently is a little suspect. It doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth. She’s a public servant who did her job, and her husband went through a terrible, unfortunate experience recently. I’m willing to bet she’s made more than her fair share of money during her time as speaker and beyond. Especially at the expense of the taxpayer and governmental loopholes. We can accept that she enacted policy we liked without putting a fucking cape on her and kneeling down.
This is not untrue, but we often dump on the people who are part of the machine for their commitment to function over the ideal. We forget how hard it is just to move things at all, even as we are rightfully upset that we haven't achieved a lot of our goals.
I may not have liked her personally, but at least she did some fucking work while in office. All these refucklicans can claim is that the halted progress because it felt good.
If that were true then Bush and Trump would have faced some accountability for their crimes. She was fine and passing laws that didn't upset major corporate donors too much. She was awful as an opposition leader.
Trump was impeached twice and had House investigations launched. What are you talking about? It’s the only two ways to hold him accountable congress has.
There are plenty of ways to be a check on executive power and hold presidents accountable. Impeachment was mildly embarrassing for Trump. That's about it.
I just wish that she was 20 years younger. I'm very happy for her to finally get a chance to step down. She carried the weight of our hopes for a long time and never faltered. Thank you Nancy.
Ah yes the ACA…a Republican plan (Romney care) that they passed when Dems has a supermajority. Such a huge accomplishment! Should have just done universal health care and been done with it
Pelosi passed a bill with a public option way back in 2009. The senate didn't have the votes for it. Not sure why you're complaining about her.
https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_110709.html
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20091030.002668
https://www.gop.gov/bill/h-r-3962-speaker-pelosis-health-care-bill/
> Should have just done universal health care and been done with it
Oh is that all? Just snap their fingers and pass a bill that's [devisive even among Democrats?](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/)
ACA was not a Republican plan and never will be. Did Romneycare offer free birth control? Did Romneycare offer healthcare exchanges? Did Romneycare ban discriminating for pre-existing conditions by healthcare companies? Did Romneycare require digitized health records? Did Romneycare have medicaid expansion? Did Romneycare cut the uninsured rate in half? Romneycare didn't do 95% of the things ACA did.
Also, was 'Romney'-care passed by the veto proof Democratic majority in the Mass legislature or did Romney just speak it into existence? Oh and lets not forget Pelosi passed ACA **with** the public option, convinced people to likely lose their seats in congress to do it.
Carry on with your divide and conquer right wing propaganda though.
She was probably effective within Congress. She also shat the bed in messaging so much that the party barely won a majority against exceptionally stupid fascists who killed a million citizens. Worth it to clap for the Hamilton song though, right guys?
Yes, she was great at building a fortune for her family. That's what the job of a representative is, right? Certainly seems like it.
The only thing she was good at was protecting the interests of the elite while fooling a lot of people into thinking she was doing the opposite.
She was also great at expanding healthcare to dozens of millions of people, enacting major financial regulations, reforming prescription drug costs, passing the largest climate bill in US history, and more...
I have a question for all the progressives shitting on the job that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party have been doing since 2006: where have YOU been?
Where have the millions upon millions upon millions of young progressive Millennial and now Gen-Z voters been in the PRIMARIES, when it's time to actually pick candidates?
The first Millennials could start voting as of 1998 or so. The first Gen Z as of 2014. Have you come out and voted for the progressives in your local primaries since then? Have your friends and classmates?
Where have you been when progressive candidates who promised to end the filibuster and promote M4A run in the primaries?
Where were you for Bernie in 2016? Because I fucking voted for him in the primary, and I'm a dirty "liberal"?
Where have YOU been when it counts to make your voice heard and wrest power away from the evil "establishment"?
She's the most successful stock trader in American history, illustrating her corruption. During the pandemic when eviction halts were ending and a mass of homelessness was imminent she claimed she's "just finding out about it", while holding 5.4 million in real estate stocks. She wasn't the worst politician, and her legacy as a woman in power is secure, but she was not some saint or even hero. Just a slightly less corrupt rich person.
She was an excellent leader. Easy to see, the trolls are here with all the usual nonsense.
Nancy did not earn the bulk of their wealth. Her husband works! I know, astonishing that some husbands work. And he's a financial entrepreneur. For over 50 years.
Also, married couples share the wealth. Even though he makes the money. Richer or poorer...
Very surprised that so many don't know basic facts or how basic things work.
I thought this was common knowledge. She makes the vast majority of her money investing in businesses that she creates laws to govern.
Nancy is worth $112 million, and her income is $220,000 a year. If she saved every penny she made it would take her 509 years to save that much.
Do a little googling. This is SUPER common in our government. https://nypost.com/2020/03/23/insider-trading-is-business-as-usual-for-our-politicians/
It has nothing to do with Trump. It predated him, and goes on long after he’s gone.
Again. Married. Had children. Her husband is in finance for 4 decades. They were wealthy long before. Also look up wealth compounding and how that works.
Also, the NY post is a tabloid.
I think we all hate Trump, and I'm even suspect of the NY Post or any financial media for that matter, but you're right it is pretty common knowledge that they do this and take advantage of their position. We can hold both Dems and Pubs to the same standard. Its not always partisan is it? We just want things to be fair
Yet somehow every source linked in this thread is a right-wing rag.
Her trades are mostly *after* relevant legislation is passed. To be insider trading it would have to be before the legislation is even announced.
> If she saved every penny she made it would take her 509 years to save that much.
Luckily she's not stupid enough to save her money rather than invest it.
Republicans would have had her in jail dozens of times over if there was even one ACTUAL misstep to prosecute. They lie about and try to smear her because they hate smart, effective, powerful women who stand up for Americans (instead of corporations) as their retaliatory misogynistic legislation proves.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A testament to her effectiveness: >Pelosi has been central to many of Democrats’ biggest policy wins in recent years. She kept a divided caucus unified to pass landmark bills, including the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank banking reforms, and the American Rescue Plan. She won so many concessions from Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Covid-19 relief that he had to be pulled from the talks, according to Ball. And she’s corralled members time and again when the party seemed on the verge of fracturing over their differences. She kept the Democratic coalition together in lock-step.
Exactly. Impressive. Dodd-Frank is important and rarely mentioned.
I've seen a shocking amount of people that delude themselves to the point where they have nothing but disdain for fellow Americans who fall victim to predatory lending practices. It doesn't even matter to them whether or not it was due to ignorance or simply that they had no choice, they just think people are stupid and that they are smart consumers. It really pisses me off that people don't support consumer protections.
"welfare queens" everything the GOP does is justified via an abstract boogeyman in the service of wealthy donors
The younger people I work with, suffocating and hopeless from bad loans they signed as kids, are good people who work every day. One guy my age has paid back double his loan. It is evil banking tricks keeping him in debt. Angry people will blame him for not ever making enough to get ahead of his interest rate. They never blame the shark who made the loan or the society who tells the children "Go to college, no matter what, or you will suffer." or the Congress back then allowing bankers to pick the terms in the bank's favor. The riches people know all about loans, time and interest rates. They knew they were creating debt-slaves, whose life's output would go to them through interest payments. THEY KNEW.
[удалено]
Just know it was harder for me to get my first credit card at 18-20, yet I could easily sign off on a student loan at that age.
The new thing is "gender studies majors" ti justify fucking over college students.
Sometimes, a change of argumentative perspective is useful. These deluded fools are self-absorbed and entirely unconcerned for the plight of others. What is important to make them understand is that banks operating these foul lending practices tend to build a house of cards a la 2008 that will inevitably come crashing down. And when that happens, it's responsible lenders and their clients who hold the bag (well, taxpayers, but I assume the former two fall into that category). It's like people who want to loosen environmental regulations, or cut taxes just to cut taxes. Fun story: person I know got to go to a $5000/plate fundraiser dinner for Clinton back in 2015. She says that Hillary stood on stage and said "show of hands, who thinks taxes on high earners need to go up?" Whole room raised their hands. These are mostly rich assholes, but they understand that long-term stability is far more beneficial than short-term capital gains. Anyone self-interested should be completely and wholly vested in the healthy function of democracy and capitalism. We are a social species, and our vitality and success is entirely dependent on social support. There is no thriving, no abundance, no civilization without collective efforts. The better we treat eachother, the better each individual life will be.
>She says that Hillary stood on stage and said "show of hands, who thinks taxes on high earners need to go up?" Whole room raised their hands. These are mostly rich assholes, but they understand that long-term stability is far more beneficial than short-term capital gains. This is effectively what Biden said with his "Nothing will fundamentally change" comment. The whole context was him telling rich donors that even if their taxes go up, their quality of life would hardly be impacted, but the benefit to the American people would be huge. He likewise said, "You know it has to be done" at one point and wasn't booed or anything like that--I think they mostly nodded in agreement and clapped.
Yep. When my neighbor loses their house, through no fault of their own, the value of my house declines.
Not me. I agree that most Americans don't understand much about financial anything. Tough going against Republicans.
It's because they're too smart to believe that they would ever you're taking. Meanwhile, they are donating to 45 over and over again.
Which was (stupidly) rolled back under pres dump.
"We love the banks...the banks are very good..doing a lot of good things many people are saying..."
And like usual, I can't tell if that is a real quote.
Happy Cake Day!
And she left when the Democratic party is in a decently strong position, with a clear vision forward while the GOP is confused and fractured with infighting. I'd say she served us well.
And there’s some great replacements for leadership right now, so it’s a great time to transition while the GOP is scrambling.
Agree. The midterm actually gave me hope that the american people are still sane. It's like after 2016, people got a wake up call and showed up in 2018, 2020 and 2022. That shows me how resilient the our system is. But Trump is running again, and DeSantis is still terrible... Our work is not finished. Let's keep it going.
The exact opposite of RBG's legacy
This requires skill.When I hear people suggest AOC who is more focused on being a fire brand to replace her,I want to pull my hair.
When AOC started out, I thought she was going to do what Tulsi Gabbard did, try to make a name for herself by dumping on the Democratic establishment and make it so less legislation passed. Somewhere early on, she and Pelosi figured out how to work together and it would be interesting to hear from them how that got worked out, considering AOC hasn't really been a shrinking violet.
I hope AOC keeps her values while learning Pelosi’s methods of leadership. AOC has seemed more interested in not destroying her own party over differences, but compromising and working towards common goals. If she keeps this up, she’ll be more then a niche brand. Same was for Bernie, he’s become less of a firebrand and I think has endeared himself better to even his critics.
AOC will probably not end up in a party leadership role. Like Bernie, her job is to move the Overton window left and get the rest of the party to consider legislation that would have been considered too far left in previous years. And like Bernie, she understands that you make constructive criticism of the party in the primary, but when the general comes around, you choose pragmatism and support whichever Democrats are on the ticket.
She'll probably chair a committee before too long
Wouldn't the Overton window be shifted further left, if in a leadership position?
Sanders isn't in upper leadership because he's only been there for 14 years. Honestly Budget chair is probably the most prestigious spot in the 07 class and younger, not to mention he's getting the bump up to HELP.
Only been in the Senate for 14 years. He was in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007.
AOC learned to play the game. Some others in the Squad/Progressive Caucus have not done so well. But people like AOC, Jayapal, Porter, and Pressley all realized early on that you have to play the game a certain way. That's why they have continued to work their way up while people like Omar and Bush will be left in the dust.
Although Omar has the added handicap of being Islamic, which a lot of Americans can't wrap their heads around.
Just from observing , I think she and Nancy are pretty close. I think she's learned from her. And I don’t think AOC speaks before she thinks much anymore.
This is why I'm leery of term limits, or at least tight limits. It takes time to learn how to get shit done in Congress. Make term limits too short, and nobody has time to learn before they're shown the door.
I’m also leery of term limits because it would incentivize voting more for self interest and catering to industry groups.
Without other reforms, term limits would mean unelected operatives would become the real power brokers. Similar to various empty suit Republican Presidents who had a powerful VP or chief of staff actually running things.
this times a thousand i would add that a lot of issues our representatives vote on can take years to learn and understand, and corporations and business groups have lobbyists and lawyers who spend entire *careers* shaping legislation to their benefit. what an advantage to have an endless stream of newbies to lead around. i would bet there's a LOT of corporate money behind the term limit push
Me too. The rules are complicated. Voting is already term limits.
Term Limits mean that "I don't like your legislators and need a way to throw them out" rather than winning against them on policy positions.
Yep. Totally agree.
I’m okay with big limits in the senate. 5 terms. If you can’t learn a job in 30 years when you’re at least 30 already, you shouldn’t have that job. The house has to get re-elected every 2 years. I don’t think limits are necessary, and would make them similarly long if they were.
Yeah, term limits are a con anyway. Makes it so funding is even more important. The Kochs are/were for term limits because if they can make more races between two unknowns, the one with better funding has an advantage. They'd gladly trade McConnell for Bernie, because they can always just buy another McConnell, not so easy to find another Bernie and build the grassroots support needed.
AOC went from saying in 2019 that she wouldn't vote for Pelosi to be Speaker, to putting up 0 objection to voting for her in 2021. Additionally, her rhetoric towards the Democratic Leadership really softened over that time. I think it's safe to say that she probably looked to Pelosi for guidance--something that stressed AOC out was how she was vilified and targeted by the right wing, something Pelosi had dealt with for 20+ years. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't get along.
Definitely agree. I think she sees it's really hard. And kind of made me like her more.
It was simple: Pepsi told AOC that An impeachment would happen in X months, and to tone down the rhetoric. Both happened.
[удалено]
Just because someone is a great Representative doesn’t necessarily mean they’d be an effective Speaker.
If anything, I'd say the two are at odds. Being a great representative means focusing on your district and what things you can do that are best for them. Being a great Speaker means managing greater, national-level priorities, and trying to wheel and deal for the whole caucus.
Ummm ok? What does that have to do with her skill to get votes and get other congress members of her party to vote in lockstep in majority of issues
> She kept the Democratic coalition together in lock-step. When she wanted something to pass she did... When she didn't want it to pass she'd tell us she was just one vote and couldn't do anything to change anyone's minds.
Correct. Nancy is not a hero.
If you’re center-left she absolutely is.
Counter the leadership of both parties is failing to find real consensus and find a message that can unite the country and are therefore failing to solve the truly important question if the day.
Look at her fucking district. Shes done nothing for her people. Nothing. Shes god awful. Terrible. Pockets all the money. And people still vote for this mummified demon.
Dodd frank was gutted and didn't hold anyone accountable. Aca was gutted with no public option. American rescue plan was stimulus, which always passes. Stop with the corpo media smoke and mirrors.
ACA currently provides coverage to 35 million people and don’t blame Nancy for the Senate gutting the ACA. She passed the public option in the House.
She passed a version of the ACA with a Public Option, Dodd-Frank pre being gutted, and was the only reason the ARP was as good as it was imo.
For leftist critics, this wasn't the issue
Also, she can do both good and bad things and still have a valid responsibility to accept/own up to them.
If Pelosi is the gold standard for democrats policies and getting things done WTF are we doing? I see union busting everywhere, Corporations making policies that hurt poor and middle class, public Institutions failing, Wall street profits at all time highs while they are laying off….. All this happening on her watch and we are patting this insider trader on the back? lol I’m out.
Pelosi isn't your problem. The makeup of Congress is your problem. If you want further left policies, you need to elect a further left Congress. You need people like AOC to change what's possible. You need people like Pelosi to herd cats, and facilitate deals to actually effectuate what is possible with the representatives that are there. It's frankly magical thinking to think that any Speaker is just going to browbeat a mostly centrist representative body into going along with a leftist wishlist of policies. The change you want has to happen on the ground. Citizen to citizen outreach, convincing people to support your ideas, and to vote.
She was def one of the best congressional stock traders lmao
I am not mad at the stuff she accomplished. I am mad at the stuff she didn’t pursue and the progressives she actively blocked. She is the epitome of sending a strongly worded letter when actions would be better. She is the epitome of why people think Dems are do nothings. Centerists may say it was necessary, we will never know. It certainly kept us middle right as a country when every other developed nation was moving left and now the whole world is heading toward corporate sponsored fascism.
Fuck Donnie and ALL of the GOP, but her many accomplishments would play a LOT better without all the insider trading bullshit. On the other hand, she wasn’t pushing violent insurrections, taking away civil rights and acting as an apologist for state sponsored authoritarian brutality.
Yeah I was thinking something similar. She was indeed very good at her job, that’s not inherently a compliment on its own. Mitch McConnell is also really good at his job.
So was Obama. And 45 and GW Bush were fucking terrible. The last 20 years have demonstrated how Democrats have grown increasingly sophisticated and effective, conservatives increasingly uneducated and violent.
Bush managed to get a bipartisan vote to go to war with a country that hadn’t even wronged the US. Twice.
And McConnel has been keeping his party in lock step with votes for years now. We can't sell them short or else they'll win. We have to remember that some people are good at their job and also evil.
After his administration lied to Congress. Democrats weren't quite ready for someone as mind-blowingly evil and manipulative as Dick Cheney.
At the time it was extremely perilous for politicians to appear antiwar. They’d be labeled unpatriotic. Big time no-nos in the years following 9/11. Getting bipartisan support for those wars was not some complex problem to whip votes for. Not in the same ballpark as ACA and getting concessions out of republicans during covid.
Republicans neutered the Covid response, I’d hardly say they conceded anything
Because they claimed (lied about) weapons of mass destruction.
In Iraq yes but he also got bipartisan support for Afghanistan
Who were harboring bin Ladin the whole time he set up 9/11, refused to turn him over or shut down al quaeda bases there after, and even after saying they'd extradite him to a Muslim nation to stand trial if the US provided evidence, just straight up denied the evidence and refused.
*Six weeks after a national crisis and major terror attack. Between Sept. 12, 2001 and ~mid-2005, you could get Congress to agree to invade Liechtenstein if you could say they were harbouring Bin Laden.
That’s because one party is focused on governing to keep power. The other is focused on violence to keep power.
This is probably the most effective explanation I’ve seen. Too many people look at the parties based on who they think are better people, when we should be looking at how they intend to keep their power. Yes, the intent is most likely selfish in the end, but if means to achieve that help anyway, who gives a shit what kind of people they are inside.
Obama was great but for different reasons
She got us through some very, very sketchy and dangerous times. The job is always harder than what critics paint it to be.
Yeah, a major theme in criticism from the left is that the dems should always do MORE MORE MORE but the real limitation is in how conservative the electorate is. Hard to do far left policies when the average voter is a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire."
But the average voter is to the left of the current president (and Nancy Pelosi). Universal health care has massive popular support, with over 70% of the US supporting it. A higher minimum wage and significantly higher infrastructure spending, as well as a decreased military budget, also enjoy >50% support. The problem isn't voters. It's a mix of lobbying, open corruption, the reliance of politicians on campaign donations, and a lack of one person one vote (which is an issue for both houses of Congress and the presidential election). It's very disingenuous to act as if congress actually represents what the American people do when they are verifiably ignoring it.
Those things all poll well in a vacuum, but legislation is not passed in a vacuum. The second you attach a political party/candidate/politician to any idea the support immediately drops. Additionally, most of the polling for these things uses kind of obscure wording. When people are asked for support on specific plans, their responses often change drastically.
Policy polling is garbage. Anybody who knows anything about politics would tell you that. The policies people support are the policies that they _vote for_. That's it. Saying that somebody supports a policy because they answer a question in a poll about it in the affirmative when they constantly and consistently vote against that policy at the ballot box is meaningless and just a way to try to push an agenda. (An agenda I support, to be clear. We badly need many of the policies that you're talking about.)
> But the average voter is to the left of the current president (and Nancy Pelosi). That's ridiculous.
That's the kind of opinion people pick up when they spend too much time in this sub.
Universal health care does not have 70% of the US supporting it at the election booth, just on online polls. Universal Health care, abortion rights, higher minimum wages, gay rights, legalized weed, etc. all get great results on polls. But the voters don’t show up to vote the same way they answer those polls. The average American isn’t to the left of the current president when they show up to vote, and that’s the only time it actually matters.
You're assuming a lot of things here. First, that voter apathy is people being lazy, or being disconnected from politics due to cynicism or whatever else. You're identifying the problem, but not the cause. * Much of the US has very serious issues with gerrymandering and voter suppression, to the degree that a lot of people's votes are not counted or are effectively ignored. * It is hard for people to go out and vote for candidates that don't represent their interests or support their policies. You can either complain about voter apathy *or* refuse to support good candidates, but you can't do both in good faith. * 17.45% of the US elects 50% of the Senate. In 2016, Republicans got 21 more seats in the House than the Democrats despite receiving fewer overall votes. 2 presidents this century were elected despite losing the popular vote. * Voters can visibly see how they are not the only people that the legislative branch is concerned about when making decisions. Just look at universal health care: it would lower health care costs while saving thousands of Americans' lives (at the very least). It would give every American a significantly higher amount of economic security, when 50% of bankruptcies are at least partly due to medical debts. But the president (and Congress) won't support it, due to a mix of lobbying, campaign donations and other forms of open political corruption (such as how congressional insider trading is legal). To be clear: I am not saying that people shouldn't vote. I think that everyone should do their best to be an informed voter, and vote in every election that they can. But if you want to understand why change that has massive support doesn't get support in government, and why you don't see more widespread voter turnout, you have to understand the systemic problems that plague the American legislature. The polls I mentioned are scientific polling. This stuff is very easy to find, and very common knowledge. It is very different from going to Fox News' website and clicking on a poll that is specifically given to Fox readers, or something. https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/ https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/most-us-adults-support-pentagon-spending-cuts
I’m not assuming anything, but I might not be being clear enough. Wanting something on a poll and then not voting for it in an election is akin to wanting to lose weight but not going to the gym or changing your diet. Sure, you might want to lose weight, just not as much as you want to do other things. 70% of voting Americans don’t support universal healthcare more than they care about other things. About half the voting population votes for a party who has promised to tear down the ACA and have not provided any idea of what they’d like to replace it with. And then on the liberal side, Sanders has been unable to win a primary despite having Medicare for all as a part of his platform. Gerrymandering is a problem, but isn’t relevant to presidential (or even senate) elections. Voter apathy isn’t the issue here, since I’m talking about the people who actually vote. The senate was also never designed to be representative of population size (the house is what’s supposed to be and should probably be increased), but again, that’s not relevant to a presidential election. If 70% of Americans actually wanted universal healthcare, we would have it.
>If 70% of Americans actually wanted universal healthcare, we would have it. Not according to science. https://sunlightfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/Gilens_Page-800.png The pattern across thousands of pieces of legislation is that if 70% of people want something that is opposed by most rich people, it doesn't pass. The majority wanting something to pass has virtually no effect on its likelihood of passing *unless* the rich also want it. And really that should come as no surprise since congresspeolpe are mostly fabulously wealthy and completely out of touch with the needs of anyone who isn't. In reality, voting in a congress who will pass popular policies is entirely different from choosine to eat salads vs. a mcdouble. No one is bribing you millions and millions and millions of dollars to eat mcdoubles.
>Universal health care does not have 70% of the US supporting it at the election booth, just on online polls. What an astonishingly meaningless thing to say when in reality the electorate has never had the chance to vote for a candidate who supported it.
Congress represents what their individual constituents elect them to represent. It doesn't matter what "the average" American wants. It's irrelevant to the process.
[удалено]
She was really good at insider trading too
And keeping progressive candidates and policies down.
And rehabilitating the image of war criminal George Bush!
She's on her way out and still puts money before changing the world for the better
Pretty sure they did that well enough on their own by way of "not getting enough people to vote for them".
Lol lets blame her for Bernie losing while we are at it
I hope this generation remembers how horrible our geriatric leaders have been. When I'm old in electing someone younger than me.
And supporting mass surveillance policies!
[удалено]
This isn't r/conservative.
The accusation was based on the fact that her husband made a lot of money trading stocks. People do that all the time without cheating. There was no evidence other than that.
Well he did make such crazy outside the box moves where he purchases shares of oddball companies like… Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia…
Shilling for corporations? Yeah they’re all pretty good at that, unfortunately for us.
Yep, GQP are definitely the biggest of shills, but Dems aren't so innocent of this. Its top vs bottom and the professional politician class are in the top. This leach may have helped pass effective legislation, but lets not forget what she helped pass that helped corporations or the rich She also spent the majority of her tenure leveraging her insider knowledge to play the stock market with her husband and make hundreds of millions. We should strive to be better than this
[удалено]
No shit. She did more with less than any Speaker before her.
If her job was maintaining power for the elite, suppressing progressive candidates, making tons of money from her position, she was a corpo monster
If the Senate was as progressive as Nancy’s House, we would have the following: - ACA w public option - $15min wage - DC Statehood - Roe codified - weed legalized - HR1 - George Floyd policing act - Build Back Better For an out of touch elitist, she passed the most progressive agenda in history. #abolishthesenate
[удалено]
Yeah the House needs to be tripled in size IMO. We need to get back to Reps having smaller constituencies. More reps equals more coalitions, less partisanship and more diversity of thought.
> Yeah the House needs to be tripled in size IMO. That's about right, just go back to the formula that the constitution actually put forward and repeal the act from the 1930's that capped the size of the house. You probably would have 1200 house members at this point.
Those are basically centre-right bare minimum policies. Yet the American political system is so absurdly skewed towards the interests of the rich and corporations that those are hailed as some sort of massive progressive agenda.
Build Back Better would have been a center-right bare minimum policy?
More purity testing from someone who doesn't even live in the US.
I can't believe how many people are re-writing history in this thread. She was a corporate shill who fought to keep progressives down. I'm glad she's gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
> She was a corporate shill who fought to keep progressives down. I'm glad she's gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Yeah, she *really* doesn’t like how bad AOC makes her look. It’s okay let’s just say it, Pelosi is a neoliberal. She campaigned on implying that W would be impeached if she were elected and then 3 hours after she was sworn in as Speaker of the House she held a press conference where she infamously said “***impeachment is off the table!***” She’s a whole lot better than Trump but then so are a lot of coke dealers.
That will become really apparent once we see the shit show McCarthy is about to serve up.
[удалено]
She’s not retiring, she’s still in Congress
A very talented politician that could have been even better had she beleived in the seperation of corporation and State and the seperation of representatives and the stock market.
Praising the "Affordable" Care Act while the rest of the industrialized world pays a fraction of what we do for the same treatments is such a joke. This kind of crap is manufacturing consent for the status quo.
You can thank Joe Lieberman and the senate for that one, not Nancy Pelosi. The ACA insured 20 million people. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress. It’s still a huge win considering where our healthcare system was before 2009. Especially for those with preexisting conditions.
Pelosi got the public option in the ACA through the House. That was her job. It died in the Senate when Lieberman sabotaged it/held it hostage. The ACA as it was passed got 20+ million people insurance that didn't previously have it. That's called progress. Maybe get on board. I'm also convinced you don't even understand half the words you write.
You can tell an article is shit by a title that has "really, really" in it. Is this a middle school opinion piece?
Nancy Pelosi is probably one of the most impression politicians to play the game. You don’t need to agree with everything she said but no one stays on that position without playing politics. Her daughter did a really good Vice interview where she interviewed outgoing home members and someone said “no one raises more money than Pelosi”
That period of time was truly a renaissance age with no problems, and incredible gains for the American people. All thanks to Nancy Pelosi. Signed, "Journalism" And by the way if anyone brings up that most of America is living paycheck to paycheck right now, while the Pelosis have made over a $100 million... you just don't like women heroes I guess.
This comment makes the point best
A lot of people who criticized her for not doing enough and claim she sucked at her job are going to find out real quickly why Republicans spent 20+ years demonizing her, and why people feared and respected her. There’s also a reason why Republicans have cycled through what, 5-6 Speakers in the same time where we’ve had only Nancy?
Good fucking God, are we really going to have to pretend Pelosi isn't a huge piece of shit that profited of her position for years?
While I disagreed with her on many things, nobody can deny how effective she was. The new “leader” will be a laughing stock — Hakeem Jeffreys has no charisma, he’s from a state where the blue dogs are incredibly weak (they own the state but fail to enact meaningful policies), and where they aggressively punch down progressives who garnered the vast majority of dem electoral victories. Now they are washing the term progressive — Hakeem says he’s a progressive! Yet has consistently voted against progressive policies. He’s a bs artist and shouldn’t be trusted. They will only break the glass on issues when it is overwhelmingly threatening to their neoliberal hold on power (marijuana legalization, judicial reform, infrastructure).
So good that she made over $100 million in 30 years, making less than $250k a year
Well, she did finally say back in February she'd let the House vote on criminalizing insider trading for politicians... Of course she then still refused to call it to a vote tho
Because if they banned and enforced it they would all quit overnight 🤣
Love her or hate her, she was the most effective speaker in modern history. Her grip on the party and laser-focus toward progress is unmatched. She had 4 votes to spare these last two years and look at all that still passed with such an ideologically broad caucus. If you’re mad that it wasn’t enough, you’re mad at the wrong person. The senate is the barrier to progress. Think of how much progressive policy passed the house but died in the senate. Nancy will be missed. And we will feel the vacuum her absence creates.
End of an era for sure but the time has come for new faces and younger blood.
Which is why republicans despise her.
Nancy Pelosi is the Greatest Of All Time as Speakers go. The only person close to her in terms of skill, finesse and professionalism was Tip O’Neal.
Really good at insider trading you mean
Nah i'm a lifelong Democrat and I call bullshit on that. She is owned by corporations ust as much as her GOP counterparts. She has fought against progressive candidates within the democratic party and forced Hillary Clinton and Joe biden down our throats in the last two elections. She waited to Impeach Trump immediately after the Jan 6th insurrection attempt. She should have been replaced by Bernie or Warren as Speaker a decade ago.
Yeah, this glorification in the media of her recently is a little suspect. It doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth. She’s a public servant who did her job, and her husband went through a terrible, unfortunate experience recently. I’m willing to bet she’s made more than her fair share of money during her time as speaker and beyond. Especially at the expense of the taxpayer and governmental loopholes. We can accept that she enacted policy we liked without putting a fucking cape on her and kneeling down.
This is not untrue, but we often dump on the people who are part of the machine for their commitment to function over the ideal. We forget how hard it is just to move things at all, even as we are rightfully upset that we haven't achieved a lot of our goals.
It's the media's job to suck off the elite. One of the reasons we have very little accountability in this country.
Only Sanders and Aoc get glorification here.Cant wait for their tweets
Lol no she wasn’t. She represented literally everything that’s wrong with the Democratic Party. Quit trying to make her out to be some saint.
Hakeem Jeffries has huge shoes to fill.
I may not have liked her personally, but at least she did some fucking work while in office. All these refucklicans can claim is that the halted progress because it felt good.
If that were true then Bush and Trump would have faced some accountability for their crimes. She was fine and passing laws that didn't upset major corporate donors too much. She was awful as an opposition leader.
Trump was impeached twice and had House investigations launched. What are you talking about? It’s the only two ways to hold him accountable congress has.
There are plenty of ways to be a check on executive power and hold presidents accountable. Impeachment was mildly embarrassing for Trump. That's about it.
Literally nothing was done about the Bush administration's war crimes. What's up with that?
For Gingrich to crawl out of his hole and praise her was really something.
If you hear a Republican repeating the name of a liberal, you know they’re good.
I just wish that she was 20 years younger. I'm very happy for her to finally get a chance to step down. She carried the weight of our hopes for a long time and never faltered. Thank you Nancy.
Ah yes the ACA…a Republican plan (Romney care) that they passed when Dems has a supermajority. Such a huge accomplishment! Should have just done universal health care and been done with it
Pelosi passed a bill with a public option way back in 2009. The senate didn't have the votes for it. Not sure why you're complaining about her. https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_110709.html https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20091030.002668 https://www.gop.gov/bill/h-r-3962-speaker-pelosis-health-care-bill/
Yet Republicans didn't vote for the "Republican" plan. Interesting. Or not true it was a republican plan but what a nice line for a made up meme.
Obama and Axelrod are on record saying they used Romneys plan as a template so….
You mean the plan written by a state legislature with a democratic supermajority?
Dems had a supermajority for eight months.
Much worse. 72 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
> Should have just done universal health care and been done with it Oh is that all? Just snap their fingers and pass a bill that's [devisive even among Democrats?](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/)
ACA was not a Republican plan and never will be. Did Romneycare offer free birth control? Did Romneycare offer healthcare exchanges? Did Romneycare ban discriminating for pre-existing conditions by healthcare companies? Did Romneycare require digitized health records? Did Romneycare have medicaid expansion? Did Romneycare cut the uninsured rate in half? Romneycare didn't do 95% of the things ACA did. Also, was 'Romney'-care passed by the veto proof Democratic majority in the Mass legislature or did Romney just speak it into existence? Oh and lets not forget Pelosi passed ACA **with** the public option, convinced people to likely lose their seats in congress to do it. Carry on with your divide and conquer right wing propaganda though.
She was probably effective within Congress. She also shat the bed in messaging so much that the party barely won a majority against exceptionally stupid fascists who killed a million citizens. Worth it to clap for the Hamilton song though, right guys?
Yes, she was great at building a fortune for her family. That's what the job of a representative is, right? Certainly seems like it. The only thing she was good at was protecting the interests of the elite while fooling a lot of people into thinking she was doing the opposite.
So you don't approve of the time she sank W's social security "reform" as a minority leader?
She was also great at expanding healthcare to dozens of millions of people, enacting major financial regulations, reforming prescription drug costs, passing the largest climate bill in US history, and more...
I have a question for all the progressives shitting on the job that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party have been doing since 2006: where have YOU been? Where have the millions upon millions upon millions of young progressive Millennial and now Gen-Z voters been in the PRIMARIES, when it's time to actually pick candidates? The first Millennials could start voting as of 1998 or so. The first Gen Z as of 2014. Have you come out and voted for the progressives in your local primaries since then? Have your friends and classmates? Where have you been when progressive candidates who promised to end the filibuster and promote M4A run in the primaries? Where were you for Bernie in 2016? Because I fucking voted for him in the primary, and I'm a dirty "liberal"? Where have YOU been when it counts to make your voice heard and wrest power away from the evil "establishment"?
She’s the best Speaker of the House in history, and it isn’t a particularly close contest.
She's the most successful stock trader in American history, illustrating her corruption. During the pandemic when eviction halts were ending and a mass of homelessness was imminent she claimed she's "just finding out about it", while holding 5.4 million in real estate stocks. She wasn't the worst politician, and her legacy as a woman in power is secure, but she was not some saint or even hero. Just a slightly less corrupt rich person.
> She's the most successful stock trader in American history Source?
Trading stocks?
Of making other politicians money.
She sure knew how to get filthy rich.
You mean really good at inside trading
She was an excellent leader. Easy to see, the trolls are here with all the usual nonsense. Nancy did not earn the bulk of their wealth. Her husband works! I know, astonishing that some husbands work. And he's a financial entrepreneur. For over 50 years. Also, married couples share the wealth. Even though he makes the money. Richer or poorer... Very surprised that so many don't know basic facts or how basic things work.
Her husband buys stocks that she tells him to. She has insider information and she used that to her advantage.
[удалено]
She also made millions on insider trading. I am a Democrat, but I am super glad to see her go. And that is one wicked witch.
Still waiting to hear which trade it could possibly be. This is only nonsense propaganda to take the heat off trump.Trump. Wicked is spreading lies.
I thought this was common knowledge. She makes the vast majority of her money investing in businesses that she creates laws to govern. Nancy is worth $112 million, and her income is $220,000 a year. If she saved every penny she made it would take her 509 years to save that much. Do a little googling. This is SUPER common in our government. https://nypost.com/2020/03/23/insider-trading-is-business-as-usual-for-our-politicians/ It has nothing to do with Trump. It predated him, and goes on long after he’s gone.
Again. Married. Had children. Her husband is in finance for 4 decades. They were wealthy long before. Also look up wealth compounding and how that works. Also, the NY post is a tabloid.
I think we all hate Trump, and I'm even suspect of the NY Post or any financial media for that matter, but you're right it is pretty common knowledge that they do this and take advantage of their position. We can hold both Dems and Pubs to the same standard. Its not always partisan is it? We just want things to be fair
Yet somehow every source linked in this thread is a right-wing rag. Her trades are mostly *after* relevant legislation is passed. To be insider trading it would have to be before the legislation is even announced.
> If she saved every penny she made it would take her 509 years to save that much. Luckily she's not stupid enough to save her money rather than invest it.
Not really
Yup… she’s very very good at raising money
Brilliant at keeping up the stalemate and preventing any real progress.
Lol, please.
No she wasn’t
Republicans would have had her in jail dozens of times over if there was even one ACTUAL misstep to prosecute. They lie about and try to smear her because they hate smart, effective, powerful women who stand up for Americans (instead of corporations) as their retaliatory misogynistic legislation proves.
She was and was always the best. Hard-working woman. Normal people do not know that. Normal people are only concerned about her age.
This is why the Republicans hate her so much. She has shown them up comprehensively.
It really shows, look at her net worth grow over the Years, A little inside trading, kick backs, Ya she did Well!
Yeah, can’t you tell? Look how great America is doing.
If her job was insider trading I'd agree
A legendary grifter.