367
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

The problem with your scenario is that she is in a democratic strong hold. A Boebert or Santos cannot possibly win but a younger, more progressive and truly representative candidate could win. She's preventing that progress by holding onto power till they can't weekend at Nancy's her corpse anymore.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The problem with your scenario is that you have another young person that is really enthusiastic about changing everything but doesn't know how anything works and can't get anything done. You may love people like AOC, but what legislation has she actually gotten passed?

Pelosi knows how the system works and knows how to actually get legislation passed. Sure if you're young it feels like compromise is selling out, but it's at least something. Saying a lot while doing nothing gets internet likes, but it's not actually progress. It's just talk and political theater.

If the Democrats win the House the new Speaker will benefit from the many years of experience that Pelosi has. That is if you want legislation that will actually improve things instead of just talk.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
367 points (95.3% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS