Should Pelosi step down as speaker?

[gaiilonfong]

Due to the new revelations that Speaker Pelosi, has not been defending our constitution, but instead has been enabling the MOST criminal administration our country has ever witnessed.

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Get over this already

Loaded crap. Besides:

SHE.
CAN'T.
BE.
IMPEACHED.

[gaiilonfong]

3. UH NO......... I won't get over it.

If you don't agree thgat is fine, but I have the same rights to NOT GET OVER IT!
Pelosi is an abomination!

[JackBeck]

6. Who would you like instead?n/t

[paulk]

77. Steny Hoyer, apparently

he's next in line

[butterfly77]

78. Impeach his ass too...

he is the one who tells her what to do..

[EstimatedProphet]

11. Wow! She was in the Bible too?

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. I thought the question was should she step down?

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Read the second option.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Gotcha - thanks - I was reading the title.

[liberalmuse]

14. FUCK no, I won't "get over it".

And I will offer a huge, sincere, heartfelt, "FUCK YOU!" to anyone who posts this common, idiotic, assinine, right wing slogan, especially on this board. Pelosi needs to either resign, or start impeachment proceedings immediately.

[Blue-Jay]

19. Yes....

Everyone who thinks this poll is idiotic is probably a right-winger.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

[liberalmuse]

28. It's not idiotic to expect Pelosi to resign over this. Or do her job. Is it?

I don't care if a right winger posted this. That's irrelevant to the issue. Someone we trusted to fight against Bush and his assault on The Constitution is actually playing right along with him. That's reprehensible.

[Blue-Jay]

29. It's idiotic to suggest impeachment for the Speaker.

Unless you have access to a different Constitution than everyone else.

[EstimatedProphet]

40. Well, I think you should get over it

Because the original post as it was written at first was an attempt to shove someone's ideas down everybody's throat. If that's what you think is the right thing to do, then don't talk to me.

[la la]

2. how about adding

NO! f'n NO! to the poll?

that would be my answer---

why do 'we' do this?

[gaiilonfong]

7. ok I will do that

You are right to be fair it should have that option...Sorry!

[la la]

21. thank you---

and I just voted!

:dem:

[JackBeck]

4. Push poll.

And an offensive one, at that.

[Lisa0825]

5. Looks like a Fox News Poll.

No real "no" answer. :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

8. I would like another option:

No.

[Blue-Jay]

10. Shit poll.

A simple "yes or no" would have sufficed. You ask a Y/N question, and then don't provide the means for people to answer.

Would your opinion of Nancy Pelosi change if you knew that she was mother to an illegitimate black child?

[gaiilonfong]

17. Flame away,

I am not going to be as bad as the RETHUGS and think it is ok for a person in a leadership position to enable war criminals .

[Occam Bandage]

22. I've got some news for you, then.

By posting a bullshit push poll like this, you are as bad as the "RETHUGS."

[Blue-Jay]

23. No flames. Just be honest.

Don't post a poll without adding the correct options.

[liberalmuse]

24. Oh brother. Now I've seen it all today. This is not a push poll.

You're free to not vote and post here in the comments, as you've just done. In a real push poll, all you can do is decline, and your opinion is never registered.

[Blue-Jay]

25. Apparently, you have NOT seen it all.

If you'd seen more, perhaps you'd be able to recognize a dishonest question.

[liberalmuse]

44. All polls are 'push polls'. You get limited options with any poll.

WTF? People are crying "Push Poll". That cracks me up. This is a silly DU poll, no worse than any poll I've seen here. It's not being tabulated to be put in a research journal, and you don't have to participate. 'Now I've seen it all' is an expression of frustration that is recognized as such by intelligent people who don't take it literally.

[Blue-Jay]

51. Even the OP admitted his/her dishonesty, and changed the poll options.

I'm glad that you're all cracked up about dishonesty. You still don't know what a push poll is, however. (Either that, or you just don't give a shit in this particular case.)

I'd guess the latter.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Push polls are not designed to be put in research journals. They're not even

tabulated at all. The push poller doesn't give a shit what the results are; they're disguising a message as a poll.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Why is it so hard for people to learn the definitions of words? This is a push poll.

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of marketing masquerading as a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.

This is an attack on Pelosi masqueraded as a poll. (The fact that it didn't even have "no" as an option made that extraordinarily clear, though there are many other things one could point to suggesting that.)

[gaiilonfong]

32. Listen

I left the NO option off and I corrected it. I was sorry and said so.You can think what you want, but there were already 2 or 3 other threads attacking Pelosi. I was interested ot see how many peopl would like to see her resign(step-down) as Speaker. If you don't agree...fine, but it is what it is, if you think it is a push poll...bash away, it is up and people are giving their opinion, this is a democracy...well I think it is ?

[Occam Bandage]

43. It isn't bashing. This is objectively a push poll.

Let's look at the poll itself. You start with a lead-in: "Due to the new revelations that Speaker Pelosi, has not been defending our constitution, but instead has been enabling the MOST criminal administration our country has ever witnessed."

First of all, that's an extremely charged statement. It's largely speculative, and relies mostly on emotionally-explosive generalities. This is the equivalent of writing, "Due to new revelations that the Democrats are more concerned with surrendering to terrorists than they are about defending America from the greatest threat our country has ever witnessed." This alone makes it a push poll. You aren't trying to get information, you're trying to get results.

Now, then. Your first two questions are the same thing, only the second also suggests that she ought be "impeached." First, that's meaningless, because she can't be impeached and you look like and idiot for suggesting she can be. Secondly, you're "raising the stakes" here; the emotional narrative is one of increasing shock and outrage.

Next, your "I don't know" response is "We need more information." That suggests that the viewer is struggling between the obvious Awfulness of Pelosi and the possibility that she isn't so awful. Again, kinda charged.

Next, you have the "She's a Dem so she did nothing wrong." This isn't an actual response; it's a mockery of people who believe that she actually has not done anything wrong.

Finally, you have "no," which:
1. Does not have any rationale behind it, as the others do, making it less attractive, and
2. Was only added after it was repeatedly pointed out that you had made a poll with only one option.

It's a bullshit push poll, designed more to suggest that she should resign than to determine opinion.

[gaiilonfong]

50. OYE

I am not a polling expert, I am simply an ordinary citizen posting on a board of fellow Democrats and Progressives. I put up a poll albeit imperfect, I will give you that. As I said Flame away, My intention was to find out what people thought, nothing else. IF you think it is a push poll and you have gone to great lenghts to show people here you are an expert on push polling, than THINK IT. I just think it is an ordinary poll to find out what others think. AND ...it is MY opinion that she has NOT been defending the constitution and not only on this subject. Sorry if I'm not perfect, but I think this board is for people to tell others what they think, and my motives were just what I said they were, nothing more!

[Blue-Jay]

52. You don't have to be a goddamn "polling expert"!

Ask a yes/no question, and offer yes/no options for people to reply. See how easy that is? You can even offer an "Other" option and give people the means to offer their nuanced opinions.

You know what you did, and now you're denying it. Well done!

[Occam Bandage]

55. One doesn't have to be a "polling expert" to say, "Hey, this is bullshit."

You're saying that you have the right to say what you think about others, but others don't have the right to say what they think about your dishonest methods of expressing your thoughts?

[gaiilonfong]

58. Reading comprehension

I said, think what you want, but what you are claiming were my intentions are WRONG!

[Blue-Jay]

61. Did you or did you not reword the "poll"?

Did your little "poll" include a "No" option that wasn't shitty and snarky in it's original form? (Democrats can do no wrong?)

Bonus: are you showing a lack of understanding of the Constitution by suggesting that the Speaker can be impeached?

[gaiilonfong]

62. Last response to you

It is OBVIOUS to me by reading this and your other posts that all you want to do is demean and attack posters personally. So have a bash, you obviously have another agenda than having a debate about pelosi....CIAO and have a good evening!

[Blue-Jay]

79. Asking yes/no questions is now "bashing".

Gotcha.

No wonder you don't want to reply to me anymore. Good riddance.

[JackBeck]

30. Push polls are more than what you state.

They are underhanded ways of influencing opinion. This poll didn't even have a "No" option until it was asked for by the respondents. As far as this poll "She is a Democrat so she did nothing wrong" is a perfect example of what types of questions are asked in push polls.

[L. Coyote]

12. BULLSHIT ALERT> IGNORE NOW!!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Yes she should step down

She is complicit in the crimes of the bush administration.

[L. Coyote]

16. Welcome to my IGNORE list.

[gaiilonfong]

20. Happy to be part of it.

NO PROBLEM!

[Blue-Jay]

27. How does one go about impeaching a member of congress?

Please show your work when you answer.

[Occam Bandage]

31. I have become convinced in my short time here

that DU believes "impeach" and "treason" to be words that carry no actual legal meanings.

[blondeatlast]

36. Sadly true that many do, and furthermore, have no clue how Congress works--

even the basics of it.

[Breeze54]

37. Why?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

48. When you have people suggesting that

Pelosi can be impeached, that Cheney and Bush can be impeached and removed, and that Pelosi, Cheney, or Bush have committed treason, then they are demonstrating complete ignorance of:

A. The legal definition of the terms in the first and third case, and
B. A lack of political knowledge (regarding the impossibility of getting 67 conviction votes in the Senate) in the second case.

[Blue-Jay]

38. RWers & DUers alike throw around the word "treason" like it has no meaning at all.

It makes me wonder if people are being willfully ignorant or actually stupid.

[davidinalameda]

42. my vote is for actually stupid

[EstimatedProphet]

73. I think it's intentional

[Breeze54]

35. The House can impeach and the Senate can try for impeachment.

It's in the Constitution. Article 1 Sections 1 & 2 ?

----

looking it up...again!!

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach a government official,
in effect serving as prosecutor. The Senate then holds the impeachment trial, essentially serving as
jury and judge, except in the impeachment of a president when the chief justice presides.

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
(Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... (but)
no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present." (Article I, section 3)

---

I was close! :P

[gaiilonfong]

41. Thank you for that post

It is what I thought !

[Breeze54]

47. Thank You for the Thank you, gaiilonfong !

Much appreciated. :D

and to DU! :hi:

(I thought you might like the fish, being from FL.)

[gaiilonfong]

54. I love fish

I didn't realize, that I was an expert at "push polling"...LMAO...I guess I opened up a can of worms here.
I have just been disgusted with Pelosi, reid, Rockefellar and DiFi and this just put me over the top. I am so over them.
Thanks for the Fish, they are my favs!

[Breeze54]

60. With that list? You'll fit right in!

:P

Welcome "home"! :P

[Occam Bandage]

45. And Representatives are not covered by that.

[Breeze54]

49. How so?

[Occam Bandage]

53. Because they aren't considered to be "civil Officers of the United States."

Generally speaking, those have been legally held to be people who are appointed by some body, be it the President, the Congress, or an agency created by either. Senators and Representatives are elected by states, not appointed by the federal government.

[Breeze54]

63. But that doesn't hold true, according to this--->

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

So grave is this power of impeachment, and so conscious is the Congress of this solemn power, that impeachment proceedings have been initiated in the House only sixty-two times since 1789. Only seventeen federal officers have been impeached: two presidents, one cabinet officer, one senator and thirteen federal judges. Sixteen cases have reached the Senate. Of these, two were dismissed before trial because the individuals had left office, seven ended in acquittal, and seven in conviction. Each of the seven Senate convictions has involved a federal judge.


If what you say is a fact, then how did they impeach a senator? :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

66. In 1799, and it was a somewhat messy case.

The House impeached, but then the Senate stalled, due to belief that the House didn't have jurisdiction to impeach. They settled for simply expelling him from the chamber, which either house can do its members. As such, the Senate never officially ruled on it, and the House never again attempted to impeach a sitting member.

Since then, the legal perception has settled against the ability to impeach Senators and Congressmen.

[Breeze54]

67. But the Constitution doesn't.

;)

[Occam Bandage]

68. Edited to clarify.

The Senate didn't convict, because they believed the House had illegally impeached outside its jurisdiction. To settle the matter, they voted to expel him (which they can do regardless), allowing the impeachment case to become legally moot.

[Breeze54]

69. Same as what happened with Nixon... almost.

Except he stepped down before they could impeach him.

Thanks for clarifying. ;)

[Occam Bandage]

70. Only vaguely

Nixon stepped down to avoid being humiliated with impeachment. Here, on the other hand, the Senate found itself with what seemed to be a completely illegal impeachment. The proceedings stalled, because they didn't quite know what to do. On one hand, they didn't want to vote to keep him in, because everyone wanted him gone. On the other, they didn't want to suggest that the House was correct to impeach a Senator. Therefore, they avoided the matter by kicking him out themselves.

[MasonJar]

33. Pelosi should have resigned immediately or never taken the post

since she was also culpable. She now needs to do the patriotic thing and resign, but if we get that DLCer Hoyer, it will only get worse. It is better Pelosi stay than for Hoyer to become Speaker. That said I am so disappointed in Pelosi, the first woman in the post.

[kansasblue]

34. Let's hear her side of the story. nt

[shadowknows69]

39. Not just yes but, HELL YES!

[Swamp Rat]

71. ditto

brother ;)

[gaiilonfong]

72. Swamp Rat I just love your work.

I have admired you for a long time. Even when I only lurked here, I would look for your posts.

[Swamp Rat]

80. Thanks

Very nice of you to say that. Nevertheless, like you, I'm just one of the gang. :D :grouphug:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

59. Go over to Independent Republican Enabler Underground, if you want to push 3rd parties.

[Breeze54]

65. Third Parties running against Democrats

are not allowed to be promoted in DU.

See The Rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Just letting you know! :)

[cali]

64. yawn

simply another vehicle for outrage, not real problem solving.

[Nite Owl]

74. I'd like to see her step down but

who would we get instead? If we were to end up with Hoyer or Emmanuel I'd rather keep her.

[Nite Owl]

75. I'd like to see her step down but

who would we get instead? If we were to end up with Hoyer or Emmanuel I'd rather keep her.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

76. If the stories are true, I think she should be replaced as Speaker

but not resign. We'll never get every legislator in the Democratic Party to represent every one of our values. But we need to send a warning shot across the bow of our Congressional leadership that we're not going to stand for perfidy and double cross (if the stories are true). I don't deeply respect very many politicians, even among the Democrats. I think many of them are whores who get drunk with power and forget about the people who put them in office. We can't toss out Pelosi, because she's not the worst Democrat in Congress. We just need to strike a bit of fear into the hearts of the professional money-raisers and lobbyist mouthpieces in Congress. A bit of fear in their hearts won't hurt them. Keep Pelosi but give someone else the Speaker's job. That demotion might have a sobering effect on the others.

[mmonk]

81. No question.

But she won't.