If you're going to do one thing, contact your Rep and Senator and tell them to change leadership. It'll carry more weight than a change.org petition.
(Yes, I know that's technically two things).
If you're going to do one thing, contact your Rep and Senator and tell them to change leadership. It'll carry more weight than a change.org petition.
(Yes, I know that's technically two things).
If it's truly a new political era, like the pundits have all claimed, then it stands to reason that we should embrace new leadership. I have very little faith in Schumer and Jefferies.
They let MAGA rise and re-rise, and they've done NOTHING since to demonstrate that they've earned or deserve a THIRD chance to fuck it up. It's time for some competence in our government, and these two losers ain't it.
This really should be the nail in the coffin for them. Even if you don't think they're corrupt factional warriors whose purpose is to stymie change, they've been in their positions forever and had no real successes to show for it.
At least Pelosi had the myth that she was a great vote counter and could wrangle representatives well. These two assholes are just incompetent losers.
I have very little faith in Schumer and Jefferies.
That's still a little too much
Where do I sign?
Edit: never mind, found it and signed
The House Speaker should be AOC. Jeffries will hinder the Democrats for 2028.
Get rid of him and get rid of Schumer. Get rid of anyone who supports Israel in their genocide and their apartheid state.
Get rid
Every two years there is a vote for leadership...
Mainstream media immediately jumped on those two shitbirds as the default, but they have absolutely zero claim.
They don't reflect the values of Dem voters, and they're both shitty leaders. There is zero reason to give them leadership, or to keep determining committee chairs based solely off seniority.
People are so used to how neoliberals ran shit for 30 years, they forget there is absolutely nothing making the next congress follow those bullshit traditions.
The petition for Jeffries to not be speaker already has more than 5x as many votes as Jeffries had to get elected
I'd say that Ro Khanna or Pramila Jayapal in terms of seniority and experience and proven progressive streak should become Speaker.
For US Senate, I see nobody better than Senator Sanders who is actually the visionary who helped set this all in motion, unlike Schumer. It's a perfect role and way to cement his legacy in a substantive way.
For both these positions, age is less of an issue and more respect, experience, and understanding of chamber rules matter more.
Being the Senate majority leader requires a different skillset than retail campaigning. We need a progressive in that role, though, definitely, someone who will take risks and bend only when absolutely necessary.
You also don't want to put any potential presidential candidates in there--legislators have a lot of exposure to attack ads by voting for bills they don't 100% agree with but are worth the tradeoffs and a majority leader is going to have less freedom to vote No.
I feel this is exactly why Sanders is perfect for the role, though.
The mere signal this would send to say that progressives are here to stay for the Democratic party would be massive alone.
That said I'm open to other suggestions, but the options are somewhat limited for experienced progressives who understand Senate rules and decorum and have relationships with much of the Senate.
He's 85. We wouldn't let an 85-year-old manage an Arby's. I love Bernie, but we gotta get off the gerontocracy.
But he's already a US Senator, repeatedly elected, and part of the most powerful chamber. The US Senate Majority Leader role is all about age and wisdom, frankly and little different than the duties he's already fulfilling effectively.
I can see this concern for the President, but in this case if the worst happens, Dems can just appoint someone else. It's Low Risk / High Reward.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
The second question: If not him, then who?
He's 85 years old. It's safe to assume cognitive decline. We let people retire at 67 without an exam, and we should be able to retire our legislators the same way.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
Pretty much everything he's ever said about the AI bubble. He's either drunk the fearmonger Kool Aid or some awful staffers. Either way, he's dropped the ball entirely, up to going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon to talk about a sci-fi concept that has nothing to do with LLM tech or the real stakes of the bubble. It's been an awful show of face for him.
going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon
I take issue with the way one framed this. It feels disingenuous.
He did not go on stage "with" Steve Bannon; he had a speech on the same stage that Bannon gave a speech on at the same event, detailing mutual if not tangential concerns about AI and its effect son humanity. That seems completely different than seemingly trying to imply they're buddies or something.
Seems that while Bernie may be overextending the capacity for AI to be fluidly intelligent, I actually think he and his advisors are threading the needle very effectively in saying that, "Hey look, we know AI in some shape or form is likely here to stay. If it is, then it should be regulated, perhaps nationalized, and in the hands of public interests to be used for good -- like combating disinformation or pursing advancements in healthcare, etc."
Overall, across all issues, I think he and his team are pretty much on-point, and splitting hairs on AI is maybe a rare exception, not the norm -- and certainly not an indication of declining cognitive capacity or age. But again, since our options are limited to 100 US Senators and non-freshman generally, I'm very curious who one believes the better pick would be.
I just want to put it here, too:
Elizabeth Warren for Senate Majority Leader!
You're right. I love Bernie, but he's not a strategic thinker.
The current moment owes almost everything to Bernie's first major campaign ten years ago, but he's made some pretty big blunders recently. Going on stage with Steve Bannon to fearmonger about rogue AI, a complete sci-fi concept, WTF?
No real shade. He's old, no one can turn the wheel forever and eventually someone's gotta keep the momentum moving, and that's exactly what I think has happened to Sanders.
Strategic aka always bending to the Republicans?
Bernie is not a Democrat, they'd never let him become Majority leader for their party. I'm not even sure if it would be possible unless Sanders switched from I to D
You've got me curious about what the exact rules of selecting the Senate Leader. I know in the House, literally anyone can be voted into Speaker of the House, they don't even have to be in Congress.
Yes, Speaker of the House is a singular role that overseas the entire House, and everyone votes on it.
It's per-party in the Senate. Each party selects their leader, and depending on which party gets the majority, they get named "Senate Majority/Minority Leader"
Progressives don't have enough clout yet to choose the speaker. A lot of the people who just won new seats are conservative to moderate Democrats.
At this point I just want a fighter who's going to go after maga. I'm pretty progressive but we need to be realistic about how Congress actually works.
No point in preemptively negotiating yourself down though, right? nows exactly the time to set levels
Being a realist will make you no friends here.
If being a realist means compromising your values before negotiations even begin and calling that strategy then yes that is going to be very poorly received.
I'm in favor of Elizabeth Warren. She can fight
Bernie is a million years old let the poor man rest and get someone younger for that job man.
Bernie never does anything he doesn't want to do. I'd let him speak for himself on that, not us.
Speaking for us is the role though.
Sort of, and to that extent Sanders is excellent at that!
But I'm confused. Is this about what Sanders wants to do with his remaining time here with us, or what you want?
It's elder abuse to want an eighty-five year old to do that job when there are plenty of younger people who are willing and able to.
Isn't it ageism to tell someone what they can and can't do?
I'm pro-choice, which means letting him decide for himself.
And who?
Should we have age restrictions on voting? Should a baby be allowed to vote?
If I were to ask the other user if a baby had the cognitive and physical faculties to fulfill their job of their own volition, they of course would say no. When I asked if Bernie could, they would have to answer yes objectively.
I am okay with age limits if we already have age minimums. But until the law actually changes, then I'm going to use the proven assets we have in this very moment for the advantage of good. And so far, I've seen no other substantive reason why Sanders wouldn't be a good pick for House Majority Leader of the Senate. If it was for President, then yes I would be in agreement that he's too old. But a loss of a President is much different than the loss of a Senate Majority Leader.
He gets to be the party sage telling people not to look in the mirror while they’re rolling.
These soft democratic leaders already showed us who they are, and I'm not interested. Get the Pelosi generation tf on out of here. Them and their stupid stock trading and dumb shit kneeling and wishy wishy nonsense.
Jeffries says the agenda is not about "getting even", what he's really saying is he won't allow any real accountability for criminals because they are fellow politicians. He's clearly not fit for the job.
There is nothing in the rules that says the speaker has to be a member of the house, so I say we push for a speaker who will bring some accountability to the criminals throughout our government and demand that Democrats elect Jack Smith as Speaker of the House.
Let's have Jon Stewart as Speaker of the House.
Good point! Does the law say that the Speaker has to be a member of the House?
He needs to go. Schumer too. They should no longer be allowed to "lead" us back to hell. i.e. trump.
The original concept of change.org was that average folks could petition leaders with the backing of many people. You didn't earn money from petition-creation efforts.
According to the petition, "Nicole Whitted is a Change Ambassador who receives compensation in connection with this petition."
I found myself wondering what a "Change Ambassador" was, search said, "Ambassadors receive a flat advance payment plus performance-based compensation—often ranging from $0.30 to $0.50 per signature collected over a specified period.
It seems that as of 2024, change.org has become a way to earn a small fortune. If she gets 50 cents for each signature, and this one hit half a million signatures, then she just made $250,000.
I really need to get into grifting. It seems very profitable.
So this person made somewhere between $150-250k for posting this? How do I become a Change Ambassador?
e: You have to have a social following of >100k. You get an upfront payment based on audience size, then performance-based payouts for each petition on top of that.
I didn't know this was a thing, gross.
But where does that moeny supposedly come from? Ads aren't likely to generate that much per person signing.
I dunno. I could see campaigns being willing to pay a fair bit for a list of email addresses of people who care about a specific topic.
ICE or other three letter organizations would also pay for lists of people who care about certain things.
It straight up asks you for money after you sign
You also may not have realized that you would be on their email list for the rest of your life.
If she gets 50 cents for each signature, and this one hit half a million signatures, then she just made $250,000.
That's of course scummy as hell, but you know what?
If it leads to the permanent ouster from leadership of that corrupt demagogue with zero charisma or other redeeming qualities, I'd say she earned it and should get double if she can do the same thing to Schumer too 🤷🏻
I haven't signed it, I have not decided that Jeffries is corrupt. I also find myself wondering about racism, whether that's at play here. Further, republicans will now change their game, well come Jan 3, they're lame duck now. Take down the democratic leadership?
I am seeing this petition being posted in a lot of threads I'm reading this morning. With 50 cents per signature, that's a good incentive to spam it all over the place.
Well, corrupt or not, he has said he doesn't support going after the corrupt individuals in the current administration. That is enough of a reason for me to not want him in that job.
if you haven’t made a decision yet about him being corrupted, you are either not paying attention or you are paying attention. either way your call that this is based on racism AND that we should not bother because republicans lost power anyways scream you are not being honest about your intentions.
I have not decided that Jeffries is corrupt
You haven't decided that the Pacific Ocean is large either.
I also find myself wondering about racism, whether that's at play here.
Fuck off with that bullshit. Jeffries is the hand picked protégé of Pelosi and in many ways is even more awful than her. His skin color and/or ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
republicans will now change their game
Bullshit. It's not like they were passing much even WITH majorities in both chambers. Their main function was to not stop their Mango Messiah from constantly breaking the law.
In that aspect, ineffective and corrupt leaders like Jeffries and Schumer who haven't ever met a fascist they don't yearn to give concessions are not that different from the current fascists doing the same nothing because they support the crimes.
Take down the democratic leadership?
No. Replace them with others who actually represent the needs and wants of the majority of their constituency rather than the majority of donation dollars.
I am seeing this petition being posted in a lot of threads I'm reading this morning
Because a shitload of people agree that he's an embarrassment in desperate need for replacement.
With 50 cents per signature, that's a good incentive to spam it all over the place.
That's only for the one who first posted it. Unless she's illegally giving some posters a cut, nobody but she and the site are making any money from it being shared.
I was polite and respectful to you, and you tell me I'm full of bullshit, and don't know the Pacific Ocean is large. That's all I need to know I don't ever want to see another post of yours. Adios.
I was polite and respectful to you
Not really, no.
you tell me I'm full of bullshit
Because you are.
and don't know the Pacific Ocean is large
No, that was just my way of illustrating how obviously corrupt Jeffries is regardless of whether you've decided that it's true.
That's all I need to know I don't ever want to see another post of yours. Adios.
I think I might manage to survive without your attention 🙄
To be fair the only reason you were told that is because it’s true.
Despite the downvotes, it sounds like you are responding in good faith. So I'll say, I've been watching Jeffries for a long time, and he is not a fighter. He just makes tepid speeches for even more tepid action still.
I can say with rare confidence there's no racism at play for me or the movement to oust him from leadership - everything I say about him is interchangeable with Schumer.
The bottom line is we need a wartime consigliere to seize this moment or we'll backslide in two years, and Jeffries ain't it.
top 96 comments