June 22, 2017
Kudos to Cher’s plastic surgeons. These people are geniuses. Maybe they should be put in charge of the Democrat Party.
So I bet she’s got that Rolling Stones’ song “Angie” playing in her head, with “Angie” being replaced with “Nancy.”
That’s where I’d be right now if I were her.
“We can’t say we never tried.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats put a brave face on Wednesday morning after a disappointing loss in the Georgia special election, yet there is no disguising the unhappiness in the party ranks.
There is no challenge to Pelosi’s leadership, and none is going to happen at this point, said numerous Democrats. But it’s clear frustration is growing with the longtime Democratic leader following the extensive losses Democrats have suffered over the past half-decade.
And the fact that Republicans spent millions of dollars on TV ads tying Democratic hopeful Jon Ossoff to Pelosi — and the brand of progressive policies she represents — shows that she will once again be an issue for Democratic challengers in the very districts that the party needs to win to make her speaker again.
Yeah but where are they going to go other than Nancy Pelosi’s brand of progressivism?
The problem here is not even Nancy Pelosi. It is the agenda she represents, which to be fair, she is a very good representation of. A sort of archetypal form of it. In the same way that Jeb Bush was the archetypal form of the cuckservative.
I don’t think there is any way to salvage the Democrat party at this point, other than simply basing it entirely on unifying groups that hate Donald Trump, which is exactly what they are doing.
We have mocked the Democrats for refusing to logically confront quantified data, but on this point, they really are correct.
Some of their troubles include:
- Bernie Socialism can’t be sold to colored people.
- Mass non-white immigration can’t be sold to working class or otherwise at all normal whites, save for single white women.
- A white candidate can’t convince a large enough number of blacks to vote at all.
- Gays are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with mass Islamic immigration.
- Their economic programs are all insane globalist schemes hidden from the people by social welfare programs they pay for with debt, their funding depends on this, so they have to focus on bizarre social agendas exclusively.
- They have become inextricably tied to neoconservative-type interventionist war policy, their funding depends on this, and the only distraction from this is weird social agendas.
The biggest problem is that the weird social-engineering programs are themselves becoming so bizarre that even the people they are supposed to be benefiting are becoming disillusioned with them.
The point here is: Nancy Pelosi did nothing wrong, based on the current situation the Democrats are in. The only role they have the option of playing is of opposition party, held together by hatred for Trump, under the veneer of some type of great social transformation into a nation of transsexual Islamic mariachi hip-hop Pepsi street parties.
Some Democrats want to replace Pelosi atop their caucus, as they have since last November’s poor showing at the polls; they say there is no way to get back in the majority with her as their leader. And others who backed her in last year’s leadership challenge have now flipped their stance.
“I think you’d have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top,” said Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), who supported Pelosi in her last leadership race. “Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons.”
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who backed a challenge to Pelosi last year, said the results of the Ossoff race further underscore that Pelosi should let someone else take the reins.
“There comes a time when every leader has to say, ‘For the good of the order and for the betterment of the party, it’s time for me to step aside.’ And I wish that that would happen right now,” Rice said in an interview. “This is not a personal thing. I want to get back in the majority.”
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who challenged Pelosi for minority leader in November, wouldn’t comment directly whether she should step down, saying only, “My position hasn’t changed.”
“I think it’s very concerning that that tactic still has some punch,” Ryan said. “Again, it’s part of the broader national brand that average people don’t feel connected to the Democratic Party. Walk up the street and ask 10 people what the Democrats stand for, you’ll get 10 different answers. That’s no way to build a national party.”
And yet, you don’t have a solution. No one has any solution. Combining globalist economics and mass-immigrationism with deranged social-engineering programs was always about “how to best Jew the goyim,” and it’s now reached the point where the whole thing is so absurd, no one can make any sense of it.
I have thought a lot about this. I think it is a very important skill and mental exercise for anyone concerned about politics to be able to put themselves in the position of the opposition. And there is nothing that can hold the Democrat party together, that would be a cohesive, logical agenda, because “always doing what is most harmful to white men” as policy has created too many internal contradictions.
The only real option is to switch out Pelosi for someone who is more charismatic and capable of delivering a nonsensical non-agenda as if it makes sense. Someone who is less of a physical embodiment of the the manic nature of the agenda itself.
If I were these people, I would be demanding Jon Stewart.
He’s not a politician, but that is not even a little bit relevant. There is no actual political skill involved here, given that there is no possibility of altering course as far as any policy or position.
Stewart (Liebowitz) is charismatic with extremely high verbal intelligence, and most importantly he is Jewish, so he is going to be 100% committed to this agenda without injecting some personal bias. Any of these blacks or actual true-believer progressives they’re looking at would have some form of personal bias that would eventually cause problems,
Pelosi told her members in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday morning that Ossoff was “a candidate who was young and enthusiastic, and attracted national support,” according to Democratic sources. Pelosi also pointed out that Ossoff lost by only a small margin in the 6th Congressional District race — 3.8 percent — far smaller than the previous Democratic candidate for the seat lost by in November.
Pelosi, though, admitted: “A loss is a loss. It is a setback. Unfortunately, a loss for us. But not good news” for Republicans. Pelosi also cautioned her members not to overreact to the results of this specific race.
Pelosi didn’t talk to members about the GOP ads focusing on her. No members brought up the issue of her leadership or said she should step aside.
Pelosi pointed out that Democrats won the special-election fights during the 2009-10 cycle, only to lose 63 seats in November 2010, while in 2005-06 — when Democrats won the House — they lost several special elections.
And Pelosi talked about how the recent shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) may have aided GOP candidate Karen Handel. Republican outside groups tried to tie that shooting to the frenzy of anti-Trump rhetoric among Democratic supporters, as the shooter posted strongly negative comments about President Donald Trump on his Facebook page.
“Republican voters don’t get to select the leaders of the Democratic Party,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi. “Since [Newt] Gingrich, the politics of personal destruction has been a GOP hallmark. They will do this to any and every Democratic leader because the only thing sustaining their majority is desperation.”
Wow, that’s certainly some back-against-the-wall reasoning.
But there’s a sort of finesse to it.
The sort of finesse that allowed the Democrats to carry this insane agenda as far as they have, in fact.
Some Democrats said they left the meeting surprised and disheartened that the GOP’s Pelosi attack ads weren’t addressed in some way.
“It was probably one of the more disturbing caucus meetings that I’ve ever been in. And everyone pretty much sat in silence, and I’d like to think that they were as shocked as I was that they were hearing the spin that was being put on this loss,” Rice said.
With President Barack Obama out of office, Pelosi is once again the Democrat that Republicans most love to hate. She has been on the national scene for 14 years, and Republicans have long made the phrase “San Francisco values” a pejorative for any Democratic challenger.
And Democrats — despite the fervor among their base — are being forced to acknowledge that an anti-Trump message is not going to be enough by itself to win in 2018. Trump may have historically bad poll numbers for this point in his presidency, but Democrats are likely to need more than that to get back in the majority.
But is anyone, anywhere, putting forward a genuine, serious option to that?
Because I haven’t seen it. What I have seen is a bunch of totally unworkable reboot ideas that would necessarily alienate necessary parts of their coalition.
I mean, am I missing something here?
The only debate they can have is about Pelosi as a political personality. And they are probably right about that. But the media should stop pretending the debate is something more complicated than that.
The media shouldn’t be dishonest.
The Stones really were as good as they were made out to be. The Eagles though… not really so much.
“Take It Easy” was by far their best song, and that wasn’t even Henley’s.
I’m not even saying that someone somewhere is saying the Eagles were as good as the Stones, but as far as cultural influence – that is, songs that are constantly on in the background for peoples’ entire lives, to some extent, whether they like it or not – they are comparable.
And I’m just going to tell you this straight-up right now: every single single the Stones have ever released is better than “Hotel California.” I am stating that absolutely here, not as hyperbole.
Most rock music was really just “lol let’s give this to the goyim it will fuck them up badly roflmao.”
But Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were actual musical geniuses and deserved at least a quarter of the fame they were awarded on actual merit.
I mean, they wrote one of the top five all-time best country songs about heroin – and they were a rock band.
Townes Van Zandt said the biggest regret of his life was that he didn’t write that song. Or something like that he said, I don’t remember the exact quote.
And this guy knew a thing or two about heroin songs.