Should Pelosi Step Down? (1 Viewer)

[Stinger]

According to FEC findings two PAC's which Nancy Pelois runs are guilty of violating the law.

" According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.
The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:
"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.""


You can go here to read the details

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/1/103918.shtml

So should she step down from her leadership post?

 

[aps]

According to FEC findings two PAC's which Nancy Pelois runs are guilty of violating the law.

" According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.
The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:
"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.""


You can go here to read the details

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/1/103918.shtml

So should she step down from her leadership post?

Assuming that is true, yes, she should step down. I don't think she is a good representative for the democrats, so it won't bother me at all.

 

[BWG]

If she is indicted by a grand jury, YES. A news article, NO.

Rather than referring the case to the Justice Department for prosecution, however, the FEC allowed Pelosi's two committees to negotiate "conciliation agreements" under which they were fined a total of $21,000.

It seems that according to this last line in the article, it has been taken care of.

According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.

Mr. DeLay, by then under investigation for his own campaign finance problems, reacted sharply to the news about Pelosi's campaign finance irregularities, saying: "She has violated the law. It's in the facts."

By these two statements, does DeLay indicate that he is guilty?

 

[Stinger]

If she is indicted by a grand jury, YES. A news article, NO.

She settled, so should she resign on the basis of the wrong-doing.

It seems that according to this last line in the article, it has been taken care of.

Yes she settled, so should she resign on the basis of the wrong-doing?

By these two statements, does DeLay indicate that he is guilty?

No, but this is about Pelosi, should she step down on the basis of the illegal activity her PAC's engaged in?

 

[Stinger]

Assuming that is true, yes, she should step down. I don't think she is a good representative for the democrats, so it won't bother me at all.

It is settled so I think we can proceed on the premise it is true. So will the Democrats call for her to step down from her position or show their hypocracy?

 

[JOHNYJ]

She comes across as a democrat hack.What ever the Republicans do its a major crime or disaster. Everything is a big deal .Yet she and the democrats haven't had a new Idea in years.

 

[Cremaster77]

She comes across as a democrat hack.What ever the Republicans do its a major crime or disaster. Everything is a big deal .Yet she and the democrats haven't had a new Idea in years.

Sadly this is true. As badly as the Republicans have been at running this country the past 5 years, the Democrats stand for nothing except being against Republicans.

Moderator: Sen Kerry, if you were president what would you do differently?
Kerry: I would do everything differently.
Moderator: Can you give a few examples?
Kerry: Sure. In Iraq, I would have done it differently.
Moderator: How so?
Kerry: I would have, um, done it better?
Moderator: Any other examples?
Kerry: How about the economy?
Moderator: What would you do?
Kerry: Um, I would make us more money. And then use that money, what's the word? Um...Wisely!

 

[Pacridge]

Sadly this is true. As badly as the Republicans have been at running this country the past 5 years, the Democrats stand for nothing except being against Republicans.

Moderator: Sen Kerry, if you were president what would you do differently?
Kerry: I would do everything differently.
Moderator: Can you give a few examples?
Kerry: Sure. In Iraq, I would have done it differently.
Moderator: How so?
Kerry: I would have, um, done it better?
Moderator: Any other examples?
Kerry: How about the economy?
Moderator: What would you do?
Kerry: Um, I would make us more money. And then use that money, what's the word? Um...Wisely!

Where's that quote from?

 

[Cremaster77]

Where's that quote from?

It's not a quote. I made it up, but it's largely paraphrased from Kerry during the elections. The general sentiment explains part of why the Democrats have been getting killed in elections the past 8 years. The only thing Democrats seem to stand for these days is not being Republicans. They don't have a unified vision of America. Their stance on Social Security has been, "Well, it won't be a problem for 10-20 years, so let's not address it now.". Their stance on Iraq has largely been to set a timetable to bring troops home, even if that means having the new Iraqi government collapse and the country taken over by religious extremists, yet they think they can handle Iraq "better".

We need a viable alternative to the Republicans, but the Democrats have not shown themselves to be that alternative.

 

[cnredd]

Sadly this is true. As badly as the Republicans have been at running this country the past 5 years, the Democrats stand for nothing except being against Republicans.

Moderator: Sen Kerry, if you were president what would you do differently?
Kerry: I would do everything differently.
Moderator: Can you give a few examples?
Kerry: Sure. In Iraq, I would have done it differently.
Moderator: How so?
Kerry: I would have, um, done it better?
Moderator: Any other examples?
Kerry: How about the economy?
Moderator: What would you do?
Kerry: Um, I would make us more money. And then use that money, what's the word? Um...Wisely!

This conversation is an obvious forgery...

Where's the 459 references to Vietnam?...:2wave:

 

[Pacridge]

It's not a quote. I made it up, but it's largely paraphrased from Kerry during the elections.

I made it up? That's not much of a debate strategy, is it?

The general sentiment explains part of why the Democrats have been getting killed in elections the past 8 years.

Not sure I call winning the popular vote in 2000 and losing the 2004 election by less then 3% "getting killed."

The only thing Democrats seem to stand for these days is not being Republicans.

I don't believe that. I think what you're seeing is a party that's been placed in a defensive position.

Their stance on Social Security has been, "Well, it won't be a problem for 10-20 years, so let's not address it now."

I don't believe that is their position. I think they simply disagree with the GOP's plan. Which sounds, to me, a lot like "hey, SS is going to be running in a deficit in 15-20 years...so to solve that deficiency let's stop putting so much money into it now."

Their stance on Iraq has largely been to set a timetable to bring troops home, even if that means having the new Iraqi government collapse and the country taken over by religious extremists, yet they think they can handle Iraq "better".

While they're many voters who have called for the removal of troops right away. I think the vast majority of the leadership of the party have publicly stated a need for our troops to remain until the country is stabilized. Though you're right some leaders have called for a time table to remove our forces. However so have some GOP leaders.

We need a viable alternative to the Republicans, but the Democrats have not shown themselves to be that alternative.

Basically... I agree. Some of the more moderate GOP leaders may well be that alternative.

 

[Stinger]

Not sure I call winning the popular vote in 2000 and losing the 2004 election by less then 3% "getting killed."

The popular vote is specious, and the Republican winning a clear majority was substantial.

I don't believe that. I think what you're seeing is a party that's been placed in a defensive position.

They are the minority they should be on the offensive, but then when you don't have an ammo...........

I don't believe that is their position.

SS that is, OK what specifically is their position other than oppose everything?

While they're many voters who have called for the removal of troops right away. I think the vast majority of the leadership of the party have publicly stated a need for our troops to remain until the country is stabilized.

If that is so then why are engaged in such vile and vindictive demoralizing rhetoric? Why aren't they doing everything they can to help Bush complete the objectives so we can get out?

 

[Pacridge]

The popular vote is specious, and the Republican winning a clear majority was substantial.

The GOP did not win the majority of the popular Presidential votes in 2000 and they lost seats in both the House and Senate. Two in the House and 4 in the Senate. They also lost one state Governor.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

In 2004 the wins and losses almost reverse themselves. The Gop gains 4 and 2. And they won popular vote in the Presidency by something like 3%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

I just don't see that as a "substantial majority" or "killing them."

They are the minority they should be on the offensive, but then when you don't have an ammo...........

Exactly they don't have the ammo to be on the offensive.

SS that is, OK what specifically is their position other than oppose everything?

I believe Dems have consistently stated they favor a plan of increasing the retirement age and the limiting the income subject to SS withholdings. Every Dem leader I heard speak on the subject as mentioned this, along with the belief they do not see how removing funds from a system facing a funding shortage resolves the problem.

If that is so then why are engaged in such vile and vindictive demoralizing rhetoric? Why aren't they doing everything they can to help Bush complete the objectives so we can get out?

I think that vile rhetoric you hear is coming from both side of the political fence.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
The popular vote is specious, and the Republican winning a clear majority was substantial.

The GOP did not win the majority of the popular Presidential votes in 2000

Which is an interesting piece of trivia but has no official bearing on anything. We do not elect presidents by popular vote. In fact the people don't even elect him/her the states do.

and they lost seats in both the House and Senate. Two in the House and 4 in the Senate. They also lost one state Governor.

Yes. Most of the Republican gains were in the state legislatures.

In 2004 the wins and losses almost reverse themselves. The Gop gains 4 and 2. And they won popular vote in the Presidency by something like 3%.

And they won the Presidency by a majority of the vote, unlike most of the previous elections along with the gains in the congress and on the state level it was quite an election for Republicans and a stunning defeat for Democrats.

I just don't see that as a "substantial majority" or "killing them."

53 - 47 is a substantial majority especially these days when most presidents get electe by a plurality.

Exactly they don't have the ammo to be on the offensive.

the Dems that is, yes and the ammo being issues and solutions and policies

I believe Dems have consistently stated they favor a plan of increasing the retirement age and the limiting the income subject to SS withholdings.

Can you cite a formal proposal to that? And if they limit the income subject to SS withholdings then how will they make up the deficit that creates?

Every Dem leader I heard speak on the subject as mentioned this, along with the belief they do not see how removing funds from a system facing a funding shortage resolves the problem.

No funds are removed that are not offset by cuts in benifits. The Dems simply do not believe in impowering people with their own money nor giving up control over it. There is only one way we are going to get out of the SS mess and that is to get a higher return on the money it takes in and that should be done with personal accounts.

I think that vile rhetoric you hear is coming from both side of the political fence.

No there is no alternate to the Pelosi's and the Sharptons and the Jackson's and the Farrakhans on the Democrat side.

 

[Pacridge]

Which is an interesting piece of trivia but has no official bearing on anything. We do not elect presidents by popular vote. In fact the people don't even elect him/her the states do.

You claimed the Republican winning a clear majority was substantial

I pointed out some stats as to why I believe that's false, now stats are "an interesting piece of trivia?" Again I do not see how the numbers, whether you see them as trivial or not, show "a clear majority was substantial."

Yes. Most of the Republican gains were in the state legislatures.

That might well be, I didn't go look at State Legislature results. I'll go do some research when I get some time.

And they won the Presidency by a majority of the vote, unlike most of the previous elections along with the gains in the congress and on the state level it was quite an election for Republicans and a stunning defeat for Democrats.

So now winning the "majority of the vote" isn't so trivial, it's a "stunning defeat for Democrats."?

the Dems that is, yes and the ammo being issues and solutions and policies.

I'm honestly unable to understand what it is you're saying here. Could you clarify?

Can you cite a formal proposal to that? And if they limit the income subject to SS withholdings then how will they make up the deficit that creates?.

I'm sorry I didn't phrase that very well. I mean they're proposing the limit of income subject to withholding should be increased.

As for the formal proposal question- When I get a moment I'll go see if I can find some quotes for you. I know every time I heard a Dem leader speak about this that's been their plan. So I'm sure the quotes have to be out there. What exactly could they do that would equate a "formal proposal?"

No funds are removed that are not offset by cuts in benifits. The Dems simply do not believe in impowering people with their own money nor giving up control over it. There is only one way we are going to get out of the SS mess and that is to get a higher return on the money it takes in and that should be done with personal accounts.

No funds are going to be removed? Then why does the Presidents plan call for borrowing funds to make up for the short fall? According to the VP that borrowing could be in the trillions of dollars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3260-2005Feb6.html

No there is no alternate to the Pelosi's and the Sharptons and the Jackson's and the Farrakhans on the Democrat side.

Farrakhan? One could easily claim that the extreme right of the GOP make up it's sum as well, couldn't they?

 

[Navy Pride]

I hope she does not step down........Next to Howard Dean she is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party in 50 years.......

 

[ShamMol]

I hope she does not step down........Next to Howard Dean she is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party in 50 years.......

I was hoping the same for Delay because, let's face it, everybody needs their fodder.

If she settled...it was a civil suit and thus that doesn't matter. What delay is facing is criminal, not civil charges. If it was civil, that would just be fodder for critics, but a criminal trial is something completely different because that means under the rules of the House, he (Delay) cannot serve while indicted, and Pelosi can since she was never indicted...if I understand correctly that it was a civil suit filed by the government.

 

[Navy Pride]

I was hoping the same for Delay because, let's face it, everybody needs their fodder.

I have to disagree with you on that one, surprise, surprise.........Say what you want about Delay but he is one of the most powerful people in the HOR and has stuck it to the dems time and time again.......

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This conversation is an obvious forgery...

Where's the 459 references to Vietnam?...:2wave:

:rofl Thats funny.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

According to FEC findings two PAC's which Nancy Pelois runs are guilty of violating the law.

" According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.
The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:
"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.""


You can go here to read the details

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/1/103918.shtml

So should she step down from her leadership post?

Yes, she should step down. Her actions were not quite on the level of Delay's in that Delay could possibly face life in a Texas Prison. Moreover, Delay has been admonished by his own Republican Controlled house 3 times for ethics violations. Delay was even tied up with Westar Energy whose former CEO is now in prison. I mean hell, Delay damn near makes LBJ look honest. However, I am sick of all of them, so I think she should step down.

 

[Stinger]

Wait, so if she doesn't actually step down due to this hypothetical situation, then it would show actual hypocricy?

It's not hypothetical.

" According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.
The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:
"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.""

If she's indicted, she should. She probably won't, but she should. I'm really quite indifferent to what party she is, corruption is not acceptable.

Then should Delay be indicted if Pelosi wasn't. He didn't direct the PAC while Pelosi did direct hers. SHE is corrupt by your own definition, she has been found to have been in violation, no need for an indictment. Shouldn't she step down?

 

[scottyz]

Then should Delay be indicted if Pelosi wasn't. He didn't direct the PAC while Pelosi did direct hers. SHE is corrupt by your own definition, she has been found to have been in violation, no need for an indictment. Shouldn't she step down?

Do you think Delay should step down?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

According to FEC findings two PAC's which Nancy Pelois runs are guilty of violating the law.

" According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.
The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:
"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.""


You can go here to read the details

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/1/103918.shtml

So should she step down from her leadership post?

Pelosi step down...? I thought ALL liberals had the inside track of fair play, decency, & morality, & would NEVER stoop to the very same similar deeds that they charge the GOP with?

Huh huh, ...welcome to the democratic party, ..where they don't think that their own shyte doesn't stink!

I had said in some different threads that before Tom Delay's smear job was complete there would be "some" democrats wishing that they had fallen on their own swords instead of helping to engineer Delay's assasination, & in their glee they failed to look at themselves. (typical trait of most liberals)

Pelosi will NEVER step down; ...when have you ever met a god queen who never saw herself anything except "superior" to her contemporaries?

Pelosi, Boxer...& Hillary= wouldn't those man hating bytches n' boots make a fine 'menage e trois' among themselves?:smile:

 

[python416]

All of this comparing Pelosi to DeLay is funny.

She may not be the best politician out there, but DeLay is the dirtiest around. He has had more ethics problems that Pelosi or almost anyone else. And it is not because he is being "made an example", it is because he is pals with dirty lobbiest like Abramoff, and pull of dirty moves like that whole FAA thing, ALL THE TIME.

Same thing with Karl Rove, he has been pulling things like telling the 2000 primary voters about McCain's "black baby". And now that these guys are getting in crap, even if those charges are weak, well what goes around comes around.

The thing with DeLay is that it is VERY difficult to identify him with standing for anything other then getting himself, and therefore the GOP also, MORE POWER!

There are increasingly more Republicans in Congress that are willing to admit that they don't have the confidence of DeLay as the leader of the party, because he does not properly represent their desire for responsible government.

This is the flashpoint of things going very wrong for the GOP. If the Iraqi vote on the 15th doesn't ratify the constitution, this GOP will pay for it in the mid-terms. And right now, the election is looking not so good.

 

[Stinger]

Do you think Delay should step down?

He did already.