Will Nancy Pelosi be the first female POTUS?

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   After the reporting about Mike Pence also being involved in strong arming the Ukrainian govt--along with his boss of course--this puts the Speaker of the House in direct line to being the first female POTUS in American history.
   
   Ironically, the people who hate her the most have made this possible by putting a criminal in the Whitehouse. Be careful what you wish for, righties! 

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's a shocking possibility, but I don't think Pelosi is dumb enough to take it that far, even if there is proof that Pence broke the law.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure Pelosi would want to be President.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed. I think she's also smart enough to know that pushing out both Trump and Pence would be an overreach, just like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton.
            
            Now Trump is throwing Pence under the bus. It will damage Pence's credibility if he gets the nomination next year instead of Trump.

            replyreport
   2. 82

      peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It would not be very democratic. I hate those constructions that the second person in power automatically becomes president. If a president fails to hold a government for whatever reason there should be a new election.
      It's incredibly undemocratic. The UK has a Prime Minister who is not chosen by the people but by the elite of the party.
      With a system like this the result can be that the second person in command could want the first person in the party want to fail.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. I believe at first the president was from the winning party and the Veep was the loser, but that didn't work. So they concocted a new law that they would have to run as pres and veep from the same party. It only makes sense that if the pres commits a criminal act, Clinton excepted, that the veep is probably implicated. (Which makes it all the more stupid and political that Clinton was impeached for a sexual offense, which is something Trump openly brags about.)

         replyreport
   3. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can answer your question I one word --- No

      replyreport
2. 59

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   
   
   If that comes to fruition I know the first memo the white house staff will put out.
   
   HIDE THE LIQUOR.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think Trump's WH staff likes working for him? It certainly doesn't seem that way. I heard they have to hide their wives and daughters.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Ok. I realize my comment was insulting, without clear evidence. As is yours.
         
         But, there's another thought. If they have to hide their wives and daughters with Trump, if Biden wins whatever will they do? Probably send them into hiding out of DC.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 59

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 82

                  peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Deleted
                  1. 59

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Deleted
                     1. 82

                        peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Good to hear Live and Learn, but not all men talk like that. Only men who have no respect for women and see them only as a sex objects talk like that. I don't think you can say "all men", that's simply not true. And Trump is not all men but represent the USA, and so he also has to represent all the women of the USA. A bit more respect wouldn't be a bad thing would it?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           If you've never said something in one setting that might seem inappropriate in another....wait a minute. Everyone has done that.
                           
                           
                           I'd recommend growing up.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              No, I'm sorry. I've never talked about women that.way. I knew some guys who did when I was a teenager but I found and find it disrespectful. Even in my puberty. when the hormones rose high I did not use language like that.
                              I do not consider it normal language, and I do not think people should accept it as normal.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 LOL. You missed the point. But, hey, if you're perfect you stand alone.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    I’m not perfect Live to Learn, but I do nut talk about women in the disrespectful way Donald Trump does. And I would not accept it from my friends, my boss or the head of my favourite party and it would be a major reason to look for somebody else to vote for.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hopefully, in the next election, the opposition will give us a viable alternative. Hillary was not, nor will she ever be, acceptable.

                                       report
                                    2. 82

                                       peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       I Agree with you LivetoLearn, Hillary was not a viable alternative. To bad that in the end you can only choose between two candidates.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hillary Clinton was not a good option unless you want someone who is mentally stable, not racist and not depending on Vladimir Putin to win the Oval Office.

                                          report
                                       2. 59

                                          Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          And that's the problem. Trump may have won even if Clinton hadn't strong armed the DNC into unfairly helping her. But, at least they would have put up a people's choice candidate. In that instance I think he could have gotten more support durng the election contest.
                                          
                                          We should have more parties. If what the two are giving us are the best they've got.

                                          report
                                          1. 90

                                             MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Historically, the two-party system developed and retained their powers because after the American victory over the British, there were two factions:  those who wanted a strong Central government (Federalists led by Hamilton) and those who wanted states' rights and a weak central government (Democratic-Republicans called Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison). But if you listened in history class, I think you know that. Basically, those two parties have kept themselves in power, sometimes flip-flopping their names, regardless of what a minority of other people wanted. After the war, the Hamiltonian Federalists were vilified and Hamilton was falsely accused of wanting a king. (Before he was basically assassinated by Aaron Burr. Hamilton fired into the air to avoid hitting Burr, and then Burr aimed directly at him and shot him, according to history.) Later the evolution of the Bill of Rights did remove certain rights to abuses and give previously not-allowed freedoms to citizens of individual states.
                                             
                                             Even today special-interest states' righters try to take away many of the rights of their own citizens and are chipping away at selected freedoms, and it is up to the Supreme Court to either allow or strike those down. I just wonder how long the U.S. would have been a nation if the Constitution had been written entirely in favor of a weak central government. Would Europe, especially England, Spain and France, have been able to pick them off one by one? As John Dickinson wrote in his song prior to the Revolutionary War "united we stand, divided we fall."
                                             But our history has made it difficult for the rise of parties beyond the basic two.

                                             report
         2. 79

            hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ha ha..I don't know, it's possible.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You're spot on about his staff. They're spilling the beans left and right.
         
         No pun intended.

         replyreport
      3. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   2. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, It was leaked by the WH that George Bush was on Antabuse and couldn't be trusted near the liquor cabinet.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         So the memo may still be around. That'll save paper.

         replyreport