The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Marc Thiessen: It's Pelosi vs. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib in the battle to control the Democratic Party

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif., announcement that she is "not for impeachment" has caused resistance on the left. Pelosi is not trying to protect President Trump. She is trying to protect the Democratic Party from its lunatic fringe. It's an increasingly difficult challenge.

Poor Nancy getting a taste of her own medicine.. Dealing with Left wing loons
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-th ... GE6BZOgCe4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

From this idiotic post we can only conclude that Pelosi ISN'T losing control of her party ata all.

AOC has no power and can't even get a Bill to the floor for a vote without Pelosi on board, so conservatards pissing their pants over AOC only shows their irrational fear and desperation.

Pelosi has been dealing with various opinions for years because, unlike the Republican Party that wants to outlaw difference of opinion within their Party bylaws, Democrats have always had a variety of sometimes-conflicting opinions within their Party. That is healthy, and a leader like Pelosi can deal with the politics involved.

So, thank you for demonstrating your crippling fear of AOC and Pelosi once again, dumbfuck. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Your handlers are jerking you around again. They are not your friends.

"...AOC has no power and can't even get a Bill to the floor for a vote without Pelosi on board..."

The liberal media is giving AOC all and maybe the only power she needs...
She doesn't need the "floor" or Pelosi....

Example:
Her New Green Deal plan is talked about among liberals as if it was already the law of the land... :lol: :o

Thats what happens when you become a Media Darling ROFLMAO

From sillydummy's idiotic post we can conclude that the New Green Deal plan isn't talked about among liberals as if it was already the law of the land. Because it isn't. And any dimwit should know that AOC does need the floor and Pelosi to get anything done at this stage of her career.

As if sillydummy would have the slightest idea what liberals are talking about. :lol: :lol: :lol:

AOC is highly qualified for the floor -- to mop the floor of the coffee shop where she worked just recently making 26k per year.

Trumpers: Where believing that working people should be able to afford food and shelter and not have to die sick and penniless in the gutter gets you labeled some kind of fucking "socialist."

Oh, come on Elkin.

You don't believe what you typed above.

You are "thinking" in cartoonish oversimplifications.

johnny, that's exactly what 'Trumpers' believe.

Look at namandgulfdumbfuck, for example. He lives entirely by the grace of taxpayers, relies on them for his entire income, food, shelter, and health care, and calls all people (i.e. Democrats) who support such socialist programs in Congress "Socialists".

But then he somehow manages to delude himself that he is not socialist himself, just as the bulk of Trump supporters do the same thing. They're poor and white and male and are the ignorant type who want the government to "keep government hands off my Medicare".

Social Security -- at least the Title II part -- is contributory, and is thus somewhat akin to a 401(k).

A defined contribution pension plan, whether Social Security RIB or a military pension, is not the same as socialism.

Rather, it is an annuity earned from service and from payroll deductions.

But that is not what Social Security is, johnny. Your 'contributions' are simply taxes that pay for the current beneficiaries.

Your benefits will be paid for by future taxpayers. That's socialism.

Also, there is no 'capitalist' pension program where someone can pay in $25,000 and withdraw $200,000. If you know of one, let me know so I can go buy into it.

But if you are going to ignorantly call your compulsory Social Security taxes "contributions" then you must also call your other Federal taxes spent on social programs "contributions" in which case there is no socialism whatsoever in America. So why are conservatives still pissing themselves over what they insist doesn't exist in America?

Clownkicker wrote:But that is not what Social Security is, johnny. Your 'contributions' are simply taxes that pay for the current beneficiaries.

Your benefits will be paid for by future taxpayers. That's socialism.

Also, there is no 'capitalist' pension program where someone can pay in $25,000 and withdraw $200,000. If you know of one, let me know so I can go buy into it.

But if you are going to ignorantly call your compulsory Social Security taxes "contributions" then you must also call your other Federal taxes spent on social programs "contributions" in which case there is no socialism whatsoever in America. So why are conservatives still pissing themselves over what they insist doesn't exist in America?

Face it Jonny, you just cant fix stupid! Period. Something "ClownLicker" has plenty of, Stupidity.

"Face it Jonny, you just cant fix stupid! Period."-namangulfdumbfuck

So clearly, johnny, namandgulfdumbfuck says you will never be able to educate him about Social Security. His inability to refute a thing I said only supports his comment that you can't "fix" his gross ignorance about his complete reliance on socialism for every aspect of his survival.

It's best if you direct your relevant comments on the subject only to me.

As usual "Clown" is high on crack and cant focus on the subject. Pelosi can contorl her mob of nonconformist rag tag loons. Hows she going to control them if Dems take over. talk about a waste of human breath.

Social Security functions on "credits." Yes, title XVI is the welfare part of it, but I'm referring here to title II.

One might contend that SSI is welfare, and that would be a more defensible argument.

However, regular Soc Sec is premised on work credits -- quarters of coverage (your "20/40").