What wrong with Nancy Pelosi?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Nov 12, 2018.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Can someone point at something, anything factual as to why she is hated? Even among many on the left she is hated, with claims she is corpitists, cronyist, clintonite style democrat... but can someone provide proof on policy positions and bills she has supported? People she has sucked up to for money, anything???

    I personally think the republican propaganda against her has penetrated deep among even liberals, this propaganda is simply tribal hate with no real reason behind it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Trump, etc. hate her because she has proven to be an effective leader. On the left there are some who may insist on all or nothing.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, I agree with Mathman. She has been around for quite a while and was in power for quite a while. You don't please everyone.

    She is also realistic/moderate on many positions and many young democrats want big change. Those who want to actually get something done know that you have to win over moderates from both parties and you don't do that (or even get elected) if you promote too much change too quickly.

    In the early days she may have been talked about for how she got ahead. In her day she was a looker, socialite, married wealth (I believe) and there was some resentment there. She has big boobs, the flat chested are envious. It's always something.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    douwd20 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    "Pelosi is coming for your guns!" Enough for the hard right.
    douwd20 likes this.
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    A strong, smart, articulate, determined woman.
    What could be more anathema?
    douwd20 likes this.
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Yep, she hit the three strikes rule: Not pregnant, not barefoot, not in the kitchen.

    The crazy thing is that the vote against Trump should have been ALL the women and most of the men.
    douwd20 and pjdude1219 like this.
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    There are still plenty of wives in Stepford. Plenty of American women for whom it's more important to oppress other people than liberate themselves.
    Somewhere, deep in an exhauseted fracking site, they're replicating the standard blonde Republican apologist in D cups and stiletto heels.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    She has opposed single payer health care reform, sold Romneycare as a Democratic program (Obamacare, as it's known today), has backed compromisers and the complicit in Democratic politics, was complicit in several several security state authoritarian expansions (including W's torture program, NSA surveillance inroads, etc), and has taken a couple of other not so progressive authoritarian stances - she is not a hero type, despite running in a very safe district. And we do need some heroism, these days. So there is reason to generally dislike her, from the libertarian left pov.

    I cut her a lot of slack on the heroic front, because she voted against (i) both (/i) Iraq Wars - actually voted, not just rhetoric. That plus unarguable organizational competence booked her much credit with me, and she didn't burn it all on the Patriot Act vote and Clinton's Misery. But the folks who don't want her running things do have arguments. (Not the Republican ones - they're just full of shit as usual).
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    My only real issue with her (off the top of my head) is that she, like so many other politicians, is old. She's 78 for crying out loud - she, and others her age and social status, aren't likely to have any clue what it's like to be a young middle class person today.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    There is that. Conservative propaganda, however, does not necessarily penetrate as deeply on the left. It's much like what happened with Hillary Clinton: The right wing has nothing better; the left wing doesn't really like the Democrats. In the end, Americans have a vicious party on the right that would destroy the place for the sake of self-gratifying fantasy, and there is a threshold after which the farther left we go, the more willing people are to see the whole thing burn down for the sake of revolutionary theory general or particular.

    It's like Bernie: He could have run something other than a determined loser's campaign exploiting prejudice, but in the end he needs the Democrats out of the way if there is to be whatever revolution he thinks he's after. That is to say, the GOP wants to burn the place down and the Bern apparently can't have a revolution unless they do. The only reason he was able to do so, however, was the fact of a female opponent. Anecdotally, it's a pretty simple routine: A longtime friend was whining about Trump, and I mentioned, because some old friends of ours are right-wing conspiracist podcasters, that we could have had a competent president but enough people didn't want to; he raised a boilerplate anti-Clinton bit and I made my point about how that's unbelievable because people vote for other politicians who are, quote-unquote, "corrupt"; faced with the prospect that what he complained about was a woman being better at the politicking he easily and happily votes for when men behave that way, the only thing he came up with after two drags of a cigarette was, "You might have a point," which after all these years is a sentence that has at least some rarified meaning to us. That is, it's what we say, in a particular semicomedic tone, when we don't have anything else in the moment.

    The problem is easily identified if we are at all familiar with "horserace" rhetoric. Whenever the press needs to justify the latest market escalation in electoral politics, the old-hand political commentators including television hosts and pundits alike, will invoke the "horserace" of ritual expectations for candidates, and as we've seen, those expectations can be enforced against a candidate even when the other refuses them; when we say 2016 broke American political norms, we're not exaggerating—as the prospect of "Liberty and Justice for All" has, over the seventy-six years has drawn ever closer, certain political blocs would call the whole thing off before they see a Negro or woman or homosexual or Muslim as their equal under law, and they managed to elect a president. We might the context of the horserace insofar as the underlying metaphor actually works; running for office is a grind, and much like some would argue a university degree like a baccalaureate mostly symbolizes the job applicant can follow instructions and behave ritually, so also is the horserace of knocking doors, shaking hands, meeting voters, reciting talking points, and all of that, to some degree symbolic of a candidate's ability and will.

    But working hard is often dirty and sweaty work, and that's just not ladylike. For the studly stallions, the horserace is a badge of merit; for the mares and nags, though? Those who might chide, tsk, or cluck in doubt should also bear in mind the consistent social sciences results indicating that Americans, and people in general, judge women more harshly. Indeed, approximately during election season a study emerged reinforcing the literary corpus, and in this case, being female wasn't even necessary; people judged teachers more harshly if they simply believed the educator was a woman↱.

    Remember, this also takes place in a context by which telling women to quit moaning about misogyny is apparently an acceptable response.

    Politics is a dirty business, and Hillary Clinton is one of the best there has ever been; she literally cannot be four times better than any male counterpart, but neither has the adage, "twice as good for half the credit", ever been scientifically proven; we know the disparity exists, but it's really hard to measure when the most direct method of gathering data is a self-reporting survey of neurotic supremacists pretending they aren't.

    Society spent a quarter-century wrapped up in a weird hate-myth about Hillary Clinton, and if we look at what distilled from the GOP, the question starts to become about everyone else; David Brock↱ penned a piece, recently, about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, urging against his confirmation:

    Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

    At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

    When we stop and think about the fact that Republicans, after decades of screeching screeds about corruption, nominated and elected Donald Trump, well, one might expect Americans to learn their lessons about trusting the GOP with anything, but we're market-driven dualists, so ... mumble, murmur, something, something ... right.

    I remember once asking how to pitch the Sanders platform, and the answer was a diva screech about how Hillary Clinton isn't on my side. That particular acquaintance, actually, recently noted he did in fact vote for Hillary Clinton, but did so in a weird way by which what really stands out is his perpetual campaigning against her right up to the bitter end. We heard a lot about "Bernie Bros", but in these United States, the Barry Williams Show↱ version of misogyny in America would be "rapemongers and the women who love them"; the end of Hillary Clinton would require a much greater contribution from the Sanders crowd than merely the young brotastic bloc.

    And any given episode is what it is, an episode along the way, but there is a reason we take a moment to consider Hillary Clinton.

  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Much of the argument against Pelosi relies on similar misogynistic myths of manipulative woman, and flourishes on the very same prejudice against women. Toward this end, we might consider a couple of contrast points:

    • People might have whatever sentiments they will about Senator Chuck Schumer, because in the end New York will as New York does. To the other, if we don't have a show of hands the result ought to be the same as if we did, because who the hell can back the way Senate Minority Leader Schumer has been behaving? In terms of Democratic compromises and what voters will tolerate, he better damn well have some notion of a plan other than schmoozing people who lack good faith and decent principle.

    • How many times did Harry Reid compromise, and while there was often chatter about his leadership it was never of the same scale or vice, and certainly not worth as much in fundraising appeal to Republicans and their supporters.

    • On the Republican side, Speaker Boehner repeatedly pulled Republican bills because they came to the floor without enough votes to pass; on one occasion, he pulled an immigration bill, announced the House wasn't up to the job, and told President Obama to use his executive authority, and then sued when the executive orders came down. In the Senate, then Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for reasons that he apparently thought were clever, proposed an amendment in an ongoing PPACA process; and Majority Leader Reid agreed, and when he came to the formality of checking for objection, McConnell objected, filibustering his own amendment.

    • By contrast, we might complain of the myriad compromises about Obamacare, but even when it came to a Republican defending his place at the table with Democrats by arguing that he was only trying to sabotage the bill, Democrats did manage to pass the bill, and if we want to talk about single payer, Pelosi's role comes in second at least to Obama giving it away early in his endeavor, and we might also account for the point that between the Clinton presidency and today neither Democrats, Socialists, nor Communists, nor anyone else, really, has brought forward a bill or even general package strong enough to force the discussion. It does, after all, take a village.

    • Former Speaker Pelosi also accomplished something that maybe, just maybe, we would not have noticed save for Boehner's blithering incompetence. In her time as Speaker, she knew her whip counts, and never pulled a bill for having brought it to the floor without knowing she had the votes. It is part of what makes her really, really annoying to anxious progressives, because it is a slow sausage grind to get there, but it's also the sort of complaint that can, some days, seem like a luxury. Yeah, we'd all like something better, and it really is too bad we don't have the numbers to force Pelosi to negotiate with the Left the way she needs to accommodate conservative Democrats. The color labels changed; remember, the Blue Dog Caucus was not pandering leftward. But give Pelosi the numbers, for instance, instructing her to bring single payer, and she will.​

    That last, ultimately, is what people are afraid of. Not necessarily the policy itself, but what such a notion represents. With conservatives, the fear is obvious. With the middling "centrists" and "independents" swinging about for the sake of their own aesthetics, it's a broader, less defined phenomenon built of familiar components. Pelosi is powerful, and within certain specialized definitions applied and accepted about what she does, she is very, very effective. To her most direct opponents, i.e., Republicans, this makes her extremely dangerous. To her left-flank dissenters and opponents, the danger perceived is, similarly and not at all ironically, that she succeeds. The fundraising and FOX News hysteria are powerful influences, and it's certainly easier to demonize her as freakishly radical and unhinged than, say, her male counterparts. Three words: Gingrich, Livingston, Hastert. How does Newt, for instance, have any credibility at all? His place in history is what it is, but he ought to show up on cable TV about as much as George Nethercutt. Wait, who? Right. So, in Washington Five, once upon a time, we had the Speaker of the House Tom Foley. In a throw the bums out year, eastern Washington dumped the Speaker of the House of Representatives in favor of a lawyer whose résumé included staff counsel and chief of staff to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK); Rep. George Nethercutt, who won on a campaign of a three-term limit for House members, served five terms before failing to unseat Sen. Patty Murray (D), and then became an energy-industry lobbyist whose firm found itself entangled in the Abramoff scandal and rebranded. He was succeeded in Congress by Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, a conspiracist and Trump supporter who achieved the station of fourth most powerful House Republican; coincidentally, as she has chosen to not run for a House minority leadership position in the coming session, The Hill notes, "McMorris Rodgers will instead focus on seeking a ranking member position on one of the subpanels for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a source close to her decision said".°

    The thing with energy can also be a coincidence less than sinister; WA-5 is also where the Hanford waste site is located. But in another question, the Fifth Congressional District also happens to contain the state's Fourth Legislative District, where Spokane Valley voters just sent Rep. Matt Shea (R) back to Olympia. The conservative radio host actually wants to break the state into two according to our traditional east-west rivalry, and also happens to be a genocidal Christian supremacist. No, really.

    And yet in all of that, no matter how much voters in Washington state's Fifth Congressional District embarrass themselves, it's true, sure they dumped the only Speaker of the House to be unseated by losing a Congressional re-election bid, and largely for being an institutionalist since calling him radically leftward didn't work. Still, nobody hates him like they do Pelosi, yet between him and Tip O'Neill, the likely returning Speaker seems rather quite dignified about her manner of grinding sausage. O'Neill, for instance, had this ridiculous bit where he would call a general voice vote and roll through it before anyone could actually vote: "All in favor say, 'Aye', all opposed say, 'Nay', the 'Ayes' have it", and nobody on the floor would have actually said a word. Or, rather, the opposition would be yelling and all, but it was a both-sides thing from once upon a time, a dreg of bosstime corruption, and it just happed that Tip was really, really good at it.

    But they never despised him quite the same, and still don't, as Republicans do Nancy Pelosi, and while some part of that is the product of latter-day marketing, the parts having to do with the fact that she is a woman become inescapable over time.

    When we cut away that part, what remains is a somewhat striking discussion involving largely dualistic assertions of theses about governance, but even still, such prejudices find their way back into the discourse as we account for questions of function and magnitude alike, although toward the latter perhaps amplitude is the better metaphor. The point, however, being that even if we try to cut away the question of prejudice, it eventually influences the discourse, anyway, and will continue to do so until we have, as a society, reckoned with it.


    ° There is also a question of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), including an unnamed quote from a senior GOP aide explaining, "Members have been frustrated for a long time with the tired messaging coming out of conference and the election made it even clearer that a new direction is needed"; what comes through is general GOP confusion, and a question remains what anyone means by a new direction; the next sentence in the article is that the Distinguished Member from Washington Five will not challenge Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA01] for minority whip, which says whatever it says about where the Party is going, as nobody has yet challenged him for the position.​

    Basu, Tanya. "Students Are Kind of Harsh When Evaluating Their Female Professors". The Cut. 25 January 2018. TheCut.com. 13 November 2018. http://sciof.us/1ZakjIq

    Brock, David. "I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court." NBC News. 7 September 2018. NBCNews.com. 13 November 2018. https://nbcnews.to/2x1byK1

    Brufke, Juliegrace. McMorris Rodgers won't run for GOP leadership". The Hill. 8 November 2018. TheHill.com. 8 November 2018. http://bit.ly/2RQ3XXj

  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, yeah Tiassa, sure its all Bernie fault. Look Hillary could not win in 2008, was that Bernie's fault as well?

    But I am willing to concede that the republicans seem to have a deep throbbing hate for democrat women and find what ever dirt they can and sling it over and over and over again, and it seems to stick a lot more than on male democrats either because the republicans throw a lot more on the female democrats or because of general misogyny or both.

    I wonder though, is our disdain for Sarah Palin or Michael Backman also just misogyny?

    From what I have read if it was not for her then something even more watered down the obamacare would have passed. Has she made compromising decisions beyond that, sure, but if no one better is going to run against her, what choice do we have? At least she has experience and proven ability.

    Look Nancy is further to the left then Hillary, and I was willing to vote for Hillary, so frankly I can live with Nancy.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2018
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    And do young middle class persons have any clue what it's like to be middle-aged and homeless or working-class of any age?
    Old people have actually been young, seen much, heard much, and some have good memories.
  17. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    shes part of the "illuminati" group that is actually in control of everything. Her agenda is the same as trumps. Keep the nation divided. Keep increasing the wealth gap. Keep the public misinformed.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I'm not saying the Dems have a better choice, I'm saying there are good reasons for lefties and liberals and progresives to dislike Pelosi. She's been on the wrong side of several important issues, and she has a wide authoritarian streak.
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    and I sort of agree, but I think the only solution is the nuclear option and to rid the need for 60 votes to end a filibuster in the senate. If we had done that we could have done way with the 'blue dogs' and got a public option then and there, but that was technically outside of the Pelosi or Obama's power, though they never demanded such action to my knowledge, that was up to the senate leaders ... Joe Bidden and Robert Byrd?
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    thats a bad idea for reason that should be obvious
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Yeah, yeah, you ... uh ... have a clue. Is there some reason you need to change the subject?


    It's both.

    It's kind of like grim joke about "rapemongers and the women who love them"; it's a bit more complicated an expression, but has always been a curious phenomenon involving "supremacist conservatives and the ostensible liberals and leftists who love them". It's one thing to consider the conservative misogynistic hateon, but that says nothing, in and of itself, of people who identify as liberal or, at least, Democratic supporters, who buy into the rhetoric of prejudice and hatred. Sure, concede that Republicans have a problem, but it sticks more to women because people who identify as something other than Republican are so willing to accept and promote it.

    Like email: We get it if Republicans suddenly aren't so interested in email practices when it comes to Colin Powell, who conducted some State Department business via Yahoo Mail, an account that was hacked; or the twenty-two million missing, possibly hidden emails including evidence relevant to known misconduct, but, hey it's George Dubya, so, whatever, y'know; or Donald Trump willfully violating security protocols; or Scott Pruitt and his years of private email servers; Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, Stephen Miller. And we get that Republicans will say things like "illegal", even if the Clinton server was legal when it was established. And, sure, when Republicans wail about the investigative process and standards in a manner pretending they are somehow ahistorical, yeah, that makes sense, too. And Republican voters? Well, sure, they're going to believe it.

    But what about identifying Democrats and Democratic supporters? Why do they so anxiously buy into what Republicans say? And what about Leftists who are supposed to be smarter than all that?

    Yeah, the part about Republicans is pretty obvious, but that only begs the question of what anyone else's problem is. Like the friend I recalled↑; if he had believed Hillary Clinton was so awful the whole time (he didn't) and had, over the years, refused to vote for any politician showing elements of what counts in its anti-Clinton context as corruption, incompetence, danger, or otherwise disqualifying behavior, that would be one thing, and pretty damn impressive. But virtually nobody does that.

    But there is also Ivanka Trump doing White House business on private email, among other behavior much criticized for mixing public and private concerns. And, meanwhile Kirstjen Nielsen is apparently about to depart DHS, and the scuttlebutt is that she isn't malicious and incompetent enough to satisfy the President. That misogyny drives some part of the disdaining backlash against these women in societal discourse is inevitable; if it seems more difficult to discern, or its portion harder to determine, it is because they are effing up in truly spectacular terms such that it doesn't matter what sex they are inasmuch as people are going to notice. And many days Melania seems loathsome in her own human dimension, but the fact of her womanhood seems nearly intrinsic about how society measures her.

    As it goes, so it goes; even if an underlying complaint is in and of itself fair, society is virtually unable to avoid some degree of misogyny in its assessment and response. With Palin, a particular human stupidity that, we have learned over time, is as stubborn and domineering as it is human, manages to complicate the question. She has a habit often seen in conservative circles of overreacting in particular ways; I recall a passing moment that seems nearly quaint, in which she responded to someone disagreeing with her by complaining on behalf of her First Amendment rights as if the disagreement itself was a violation, and if I have a hard time finding that one, it's because she has managed to bury it under an avalanche of breathaking stupidity in the time since. Nonetheless, in the question of misogyny, I have no idea how to account for the part when Republicans complained that asking a vice presidential candidate what she reads was misogynistic, except perhaps to recall the Couric interview as such and leave it to make its own point. Palin has deliberately blurred the boundaries of misogyny around her such that, sure, there's some stuff we can obviously tell is misogyny when we see it, but Bill Maher once called Palin, Bachmann, and O'Donnell the "lovely MILFs of the New Right", or some such, and the thing about the misogyny is that they all advocate judeochristian patriarchy; the punch line version↗ was that they remind men of something they want back, what Maher called the "traditional idiot housewife". It's worth noting that while we know what he means, "traditionalist" might be the better word; the idiot housewife is not entirely a myth, but if you've ever actually known one, there is no question that her existential status is that of a victim. In other words, what men want back, in Maher's setup, is a sex fantasy that never quite came true.

    Some of our willingness to pick a given issue, or how the discourse goes about it, reflects inherent cultural misogyny. To the one, if Palin and Bachmann are somehow literally stupid because they are women, that, too, would be a result of misogyny; again, what existential status such outcomes describe. In more human terms, Palin is just a loud, low idiot. Bachmann's problem is something else; she has a Master of Laws from William & Mary, for phuckall sake, and shouldn't be so damn stupid. Extracting the particular misogyny even she describes is difficult in its particular contexts; generally speaking, though, she is, after all, an End Times Christianist so afraid of the Second Coming she preaches that people should find someone to blame. No, really, think about it: Only Michele Bachmann could be so damn stupid as to go on the radio and say Jesus is coming so find someone to accuse; Christ the King returns, be angry, be afraid, blame Obama. It's not misogyny to think she's being an idiot. If we count it off as another reason why she's a bitch, sure, that would be misogyny. In between, the range might seem mysterious, but attending matters of purpose, function, and priority about our critiques reminds it isn't so difficult to figure out.

    The thing that seems confusing is how conservatives can largely say whatever they want and people will run with it or, at least, shrug it off. Compared to everything else, Bachmann's line about blaming Obama for the Second Coming, or an obscure moment when Sarah Palin seemed to describe mere disagreement as a violation of her constitutional rights, might seem somewhat trivial; but compared to what passed for normal political doublespeak and nonesuch, these moments of vicious simplicity should actually count for something. What about the way Republicans have governed under Trump defies the bizarre epistemic surrogacy of conservative alternate facts and beliefs extant and effective before, during, and after the height of Palin, Bachmann, or even, as such, O'Donnell?

    And in the question of society being unable to avoid a certain dose of prejudice about various responses, such as misogyny affecting the assessment of these women, or even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN07), who just got a promotion to the U.S. Senate, the appropriate questions do in fact include what we can do to purge those elements of irrationality from our assessment. Blackburn might make no sense when she argues that women would be insulted if their rights were enforced under law, but it's what the Party needed her to say, and she seems happy enough to play the role, but who knows, these days, after what happened to Ellmers. In no context, though, should prejudice about women in general drive or directly shape our assessment and response to her nonsense. The only part prejudice against women has to play in our assessment is where it comes up in what we must assess, such as what role it plays in Blackburn's argumentative construction. Like the point Maher chose to exploit about Palin, Bachmann, and O'Donnell, the underlying trope of Blackburn's appeal to conservatives is found in the subordination of women.

    In any case, stupidity and antisociality ought to be sufficient denunciations. Calling them assholes works well enough.

    I don't know if you remember an old Anthrax↱ line about, "And this ain't sexist, either!" but neither would it work if I went out of my way to call Donald Trump a spent tampon and say it ain't sexist because I'm just declaring him worthless bloody trash. That is to say, at some point it's just putting effort into laying on. And he still wouldn't be facing the same societal prejudice assholes like Blackburn, Palin, Bachmann, or O'Donnell do.
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Hey you brought up bernie as if it was his fault that Hillary is a complete fucking loser, he is not, and we can leave it at that if you want.

    And I'm willing to agree with that assessment, but that brings up a problem of electability: if female canidates for president have inherent misogyny against them, then maybe we should not run female canidates. Hey Obama won so clearly being black was not an impedement enough, but his voice was not "shrill" his appearance was not criticized constantly (frankely he was rather good on the eyes). This is one reason I advocate for Tulsi Gabbard to run (which she refuses), use misogyny to our advantage because she is gorgoues: we will get voters that want a "hot" president... then again that did not do Sarah too well, maybe as you say it not enough people wanted a "traditional idiot housewife" as president. Tulsi on the other hand:

    Not from a presidental canidate.

    Pointing out his penis is small, not a problem, frankely extra societal prejudice is not my concern when it works aginst those whom I don't want in goverment, then again tiny hands is president so it did not work against him.

    And I agree, but where are in times where there are no good options left.

  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do it for Patricia.

    You remind again why it is an utter waste for anyone to show you good faith.

    You speak well enough for yourself.

    Actually, dick size can, under certain circumstances, be relevant. It's worth noting this because, like your hillariphobiphilia, there's more going on than ... er ... ah ... you're willing to acknowledge ... or perhaps capable of recognizing ... or ... y'know, whatever.

    To the other, the American discourse is parsecs away from the subtlety of understanding what the size and shape of Donald Trump's wang has to do with how the Not-A-Republican identifying voter feels about Nancy Pelosi.

Share This Page