top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 88 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

They need to be removed any way they possibly can.

They're compromised AIPAC dems.

Dems need to understand if they cause a red wave next election they will ALL be on the chopping block. Hiding from flock cameras and the American gestapo

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago

    I signed the petition then sent emails AND called both my senators stating AIPAC as primary concern.

    I praised Merkley for not being in their pocket and gave shit to Wyden for being a tool of Apartheid encouraging both to seek better leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    Everyone in leadership is compromised by AIPAC, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, and so on.

    1. Israel was formed by USA and is doing its job well (that job being dominate the Middle East) so that's a no-brainer. It's a symbiotic relationship, they're like our 51st state. D or R... are not really "compromised" in my opinion, but Israel has a lot of leverage with US foreign policy, more than any other nation.
    2. Corporations are in firm and undeniable control of all US leadership, as is to be expected when "corporations are people" and "dollars are free speech". There's no other possible result.

    To change either relationship would require fundamental reconstruction of our "donor" funded elections and reversal of 70 years of US foreign policy. As long as we ("we" being the USA) want to dominate the middle east, Israel will remain maximally influential.

    You can replace Schumer and Jeffries, but their replacements will also be pro-Israel and pro-billionaire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago

    Everyone in leadership is an compromised by AIPAC, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, and so on.

    Everyone currently in leadership is compromised. But we just voted in new blood who isn’t, and there are also more established congresspeople who aren’t compromised by corporations or AIPAC/Zionist influence.

    You can replace Schumer and Jeffries, but their replacements will also be pro-Israel and pro-billionaire.

    This is speculation and it is unhelpful. Right now, we have a window of time to pressure our congresspeople to replace Schumer and Jeffries with people who have proven themselves to fight against billionaires and Zionists. Is it an uphill fight? Yeah, but the outcome has not been decided yet, let’s not accept defeat without trying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 169 points 1 day ago (51 children)

    Hard to imagine the dem establishment letting this happen but it’s nice to read news like this for a change. Progress ebbs and flows and the last few days the conversations seem so much more healthy for us all.

  • source
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    If they do than Americans need to take the gloves off, dox their asses and protest at every place they seek rest/peace until they resign.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 day ago

    Tbh, I'd obviously rather they were gone, but I think we'd survive them being in leadership for the next two years. The Dems aren't likely to get much legislation through with Trump in the Whitehouse anyway, and they should be focused on Epstein & corruption investigations, getting us out of Iran, and inflation relief. In 2 years, Schumer will 100% lose his seat, Jeffries likely the same, and we can push even more DSA candidates into office and also take the white house back. That's when the Dems will really have a mandate and things like medicare for all, a wealth tax, housing and infrastructure investments, etc are all on the table. At that point, it is non-negotiable that both of them are out of leadership and ideally congress. I wonder if the liberal "centrist" Dems would compromise on Schiff or Raskin for speaker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 113 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (44 children)

    When Dems are in power, we have the luxury of pushing back against the establishment wing of the party. When the GOP is in power, we need to focus our energy on getting them out, even if that means working with less-than-ideal Dems until we can shift focus back to our internal disagreements.

    This is why it isn't helpful to be defeatist about both-sidesism during general elections. We all know the Democratic Party isn't perfect. But little by little, we can shift the overton window to the left.

    That's all I have to say about it. Obviously that part is behind us for now. Looking ahead, it'll finally be time to roll our sleeves up and get to work on the issues that matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

    I don't think you'll shift anything. The ratchet has been ratcheted. The amount of judges and overall reform needed is just too much and requires spines that don't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (4 children)

    Every ratchet has an opening latch

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (3 children)

    And a famous chef once said, if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.... There has been no evidence in our lifetime that the US has what it takes to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 hours ago* (2 children)

    yeah, nice sentiment if it worked but it doest. The election is over. The centrists dont need anything from us for 2 years. The time to demand action was when we had a way to threaten them. Got a sternly worded letter ready to send huh?

    And in the meantime while these fuckwit centrists sell us out--and they will--, it'll depress the voting base and we'll suffer from anger at democrats next election. Do you understand how that cycle works?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 child)

    Dude, reread the title of the post. There are elected congresspeople right now who are working on trying to replace the centrist dems from the key leadership positions.

    You can't take an honest look at the recent elections and see the sheer number of progressives who did well, and then tell me that we didn't move the needle at all. You can try, but I won't believe you're doing so honestly.

    Be a part of the solution or a part of the problem, it's your choice. But whatever you choose, you're either in or you're in the way. So hop to or hop out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 47 minutes ago*

    One second you're all in on not fighting centrists and concentrating solely on repubs, and the next you are pretending that the battle for progressive outcomes has all but been won already. We wont see progressive outcomes soon, despite the won seats. The time to fight for those has now passed until the next election. You are too easily deceived. What you dont/cant understand is the number of congressman in both house and senate that AIPAC owns amongst the dems (and the repubs just as much I guess, but they as usual do not bear ta;kling about since we have no hope of changing them).

    Dems are not your friends and they hate progressives. We needed to vote out centrists, but people like yourself always yell at everyone to do it later. Enjoy the next two years of being ignored by your own party, herr armchair-general.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -57 points 1 day ago (34 children)

    "You guys better do what we say or we'll vote for you again." is a heck of a threat there little buddy. How do you expect to actually 'push back' against the establishment wing of the party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 1 day ago (20 children)

    Take your unhelpful intentional misinterpretations and propaganda somewhere else there, little buddy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 1 day ago* (11 children)

    It's a fair point. We don't have much leverage in a two party system. Letters to reps aren't going to cut it, protesting against the "good" guys just as hard as we did against the fascists is basically the only option at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Voting in primaries is for voting with your feelings. Voting in the generals is for voting with your head. Basically vote in primaries if you don't like how the dems did and vote blue no matter who in the generals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    I'm saying that we need to properly pressure them instead of expecting them to save us willingly. Waiting for the next round of primaries isn't enough, they simply won't make the needed choices if they don't have to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Well that's entirely the point then, isn't it? Tell them that if they don't do their job properly, then they'll be fired. I don't get why that's such a crazy hard to understand concept, but whatever makes it so hard to understand is probably what got people like Trump into office in the first place

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    If you mean during the primaries, yes. If you mean when it's Democrats vs Republicans, then it's an empty threat because not voting is monumentally stupid and hurts us more than it hurts them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Exactly that's what got Trump in office, was firing democrats.

    So... again what do you expect people to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    No, it's not a fair point. You seem to either not fully understand what voting is or how elections work. The 'leverage' is that if they don't do what we want them to do, they lose their jobs. I wish there were more severe consequences to abandoning the voters, but we don't have those yet and the only way to get there is to vote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -19 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Answer the question. The DNC has and will again simply stop people from running in the democratic primaries. There is no law to stop them from just refusing entry to the party or revoking the party affiliation.

    So primaries do not work for this. As history shows. So how, exactly, are you going to threaten someone if the party says they're the only blue candidate?

    What if the DNC just stops having primaries? There's no law that says they have to have primaries, or have to have public primaries. It's all convention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Abdul El-Sayed won his primary then became Senator. Primaries work, focus your energy on getting people to vote in them. DNC isn't getting rid of primaries, that's a completely baseless claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago

    https://ivn.us/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules/

    In the case Wilding vs DNC in 2016 the DNC argued that they have no duty at all to run a fair primary. DNC attorneys argued that the organization is a private political corporation with the right to select its nominees internally and that statements of neutrality were general political or aspirational remarks rather than legally binding contracts.

    Spiva (DNC lawyer) stated in court: “We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have.”

    The DNC won that case. The judge said, "To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary."

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Yes, a completely baseless claim from the party that didn't have a presidential primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    What are you talking about? The Democratic party had a presidential primary in 2024. Biden won them.

    There's lots of things to complain about the Democratic party, you don't need to make up things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (1 child)

    The Dems had a primary for some states right. The DNC arbitrarily decided to nullify the New Hampshire Dem primary because they didnt follow the schedule change the DNC preferred, in putting right-leaning South Carolina first so a centrist would have a leg up in the Dem selection process. What kind of party just declares that the votes of a whole state just dont matter? what kind of fair election process changes the rules so a more rightwing group has first say?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 hours ago
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I’m keeping a record of everything my elected officials do right, and everything that they do wrong. And every time I call them, I tell them that we’re keeping track of whether they’re listening to their constituents, we will organize accordingly when they’re up for re-election.

    It sounds like an empty threat, but for those of us who actually care, we’re making shit happen.

    In my district, we just got rid of an establishment dem representative, and got our first progressive representative in decades.

    We can, and are, moving the needle left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    And when the DNC just stops allowing people to run as democrats if they don't accept AIPAC? The DNC has pulled funding from candidates before for progressive ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago

    Then we run as our own party. But until that point, the way to most effectively move the needle to the left is to shift an already-existing dominant party to the left.

    I hope we eventually overthrow the two party system entirely, that’s the dream.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Do you address people as "little buddy" in real life? Do you find it motivates them to consider your views with an open mind?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Uh oh someone doesn't know the difference between a primary and the general election

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago

    You're being down voted by people that cheerfully vote for politicians they know don't represent them. To be fair, they're still going through waves of ecstasy over voting in "bad" over "worse," and that really is probably pretty good harm reduction, if Schumer and Jeffries don't just give Trump everything he wants in the name of "bipartisanship" and an alignment of donors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    It's hard to imagine in normal condition but if we put pressure on them, contact our senators and representative we might be able to achieve that. I already contacted mine, please contact yours.

    This is so Democrats don't vote for them to lead the party. They are not fit for current landscape and are not what people want. Even ignoring their "centrist" positions, they aren't even skilled for those positions. They showed us this past 2 years. I forgot the name but I think he was assistant to Jeffries, he was so much better at speaking.

    Edit: looking up, maybe it was Joe Neguse

    Edit2: yeah that was him: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/84taa_D99sQ so much better speaker than Jeffries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    Media has a vested interest in sowing division on the left. I don't think they've decided to be journalists all of a sudden. Still, this gets the word out and we can use that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Aww, but who will soak the rich and throw the working class under the bus?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 day ago (15 children)

    AOC or Ro Khana. Bernie in the Senate

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Somehow I don't see an independent being elected by the Democrat electees

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I want Elizabeth Warren for the Senate. Bernie is out due to being an independent, and it's a bad position for anyone with a future in politics because whoever is picked is going to get some mud on them, but Warren is never going to be president and she's hit retirement age so if not now it's never. The far left of the base justifiably hates her for not dropping out of the primary against Bernie but she's legitimately progressive enough to be a good choice while still being able to wrangle the right wing of the Democratic party.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -21 points 1 day ago (12 children)

    Enough of the social cultural emphasis. Our economy and environment needs the attention. We don't need more controversial people in charge.

    Find someone middle of the road. Same goes for the other side. We have two sides of politics and we need to find common ground to find the path to affordability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 18 hours ago

    I remember when Clinton got elected in 1992, and it felt like a breath of fresh air after a dozen years of Reaganism. His Centrist campaign protected him from cries of “bleeding heart liberals” and felt like a safe way to move the country slightly left after Ross Perot split the conservative vote.

    “It’s the economy, stupid” was the catch phrase that cemented so many economic conservative policies in place while providing enough of a bare minimum safety net that people stopped pushing for real change. In the meantime Newt Gingrich pushed the party harder to the right and really helped develop the attack-at-all-costs demonization that has gotten us into partisan hell these days.

    Finding someone middle of the road in modern times gave us Biden, who made some real changes that proved fleeting and easy for MAGA to sweep away after Trump turned real anger at the stagnant state of affairs into a second victory.

    Maybe we need someone controversial that is able to push real and substantial changes to convince people that their lives are getting better instead of slowly slipping into neofeudalism. Someone middle of the road is likely to continue to preserve the status quo that is suffocating the lower classes, which will lead to another authoritarian populist fascist down the line.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

    Find someone middle of the road.

    Bro wants us to go halfway between doing something for the people and doing nothing. Or halfway between helping people and fascism if I'm not reading that charitably ("2 sides of politics." Cause reality famously only has black and white issues.)

    Like c'mon. Social and cultural issues like what? Money out of politics? Healthcare? Education? Public investment? Holding billionaires and the criminal administration accountable? Because that's what we voted for. And all of those things make things more affordable. ESPECIALLY the accountability part. They're the whole reason nothing is affordable. The working class needs protections against capitalist bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    I get your point, and yeah common ground and lowering the crazy cost of living are important. I think maybe you're being downvoted because the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that these days, middle of the road is too far right for many people to be able to support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago*

    "Middle of the road" doesnt actually exist in the US. Thats the real problem. Your DNC middle of the road is unfettered capitalism, no health care, no jobs, no food safety, no care for the environment, Epstein coverage, ICE support, regressive taxation, and funding war crimes. Thats where the middle of the road dems always lead us, and they pretend they are the far left while doing it. They are the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    You're not wrong but they are examples of untrustworthy and corrupt politicians.

    Don't get me wrong, I love AOC and Bernie. We still need 60 votes to get bills passed so we need the R votes. I just want the focus on economy and our land. If they start emphasizing identity politics again we are doomed to have the pendulum swing the other way come 2028.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 child)

    If they start emphasizing identity politics again we are doomed to have the pendulum swing the other way come 2028.

    And there you go. Word for word. The real engine that powers 'centrists.' Doesn't take much to goad it out of them.

    Just another 'enlightened' rage scroller addict who thinks the trans are taking over and are going to ruin their stupid sport ball game that they've never played or watch.

    It's just bigotry. The same brain state of people who "I got nothing against the blacks, but they bring on themselves by being so loud and confrontational."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago*

    I honestly don't care about it. That topic of discussion was initially forced down society's throat by the far left. Meanwhile, most of us want to improve the typical life necessities to live a decent life.

    Your attempt to reframe me is actually ironic because it's you has has a exposed nerve over it all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 20 hours ago*

    You do realize having leadership that "works across the aisle" is exactly why we had a focus on identity politics right? It's was platitudes instead of policy, it was effective at sowing division so that democrats didn't need to do anything and still take the same money from billionaires and PACs that republicans do. Jeffries and Schumer both take AIPAC, oil, and healthcare insurance lobbying money. They have no incentive to hold anyone to account and make things better for the people. If they did, they'd lose their funding.

    You can't work across the aisle with fascist capitalists. That's how you get identity politics aimed at stalling and dividing people rather than delivering for them. It's effective at taking the steam out of real, people first movements.

    We have more in common than we don't. Whether MAGA likes it or not, we're going to give them healthcare, education, job protection, paid time off by law, and more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 14 hours ago

    Oh yeah man just keep making your most active political activist bloc homeless and poor by not addressing the harm Trump did. You'll complain about us the whole time but never sit down, shut up, and solve the issue. The pipe IS leaking on social issues and it's not YOUR economy only, cis cracker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    How can you find a path to affordability without taking social cultural differences into account. Because affordability should be affordability for everyone, right? But that is somehow controversial for some people. So what exactly would be the common ground if they can't agree on 'every person deserves basic human rights'?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 day ago

    Driving them out into the street and horse whipping them would be my preference, but we can start with replacing them.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

    I would definitely like to see Van Hollen replace Schumer. AOC for Speaker but can she do that and run a presidential campaign? The country would be able to see her executive experience at display. I just don't know there are enough progressive supporters in both the Senate and House for this to become a reality.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    There are plenty of pissed off liberals that want to give Jeffries the boot just based on his stated opposition to holding Trump accountable. I don't know about Schumer, but there's absolutely no way that Jeffries remains the House Leader with him so misaligned to basically every priority of every wing of the party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I’d like for AOC to primary Schumer, personally. She isn’t ready for President yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    I think she is, but I don't think she'd convince enough people she is. She needs a higher office than congress to convince people, ideally one with executive experience, like governor. It's too bad that she won't have a chance to run for NY governor before 2030. And, she has no real ties to any other state, so she can't go to her second home state and run there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 day ago*

    I slam that neither of them should be the leaders, and need a pair like Sanders and AOC, try that this time instead of these weaksauce guys.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

    They do need to go. Their goal is status quo and treading water.

    I agree with some of the new folks who feel like impeachment shouldn't be the goal. It's too limited. Accountability and legislation need to be the goals. Impeachment is a subset of that. So is going on a press tour rager when legislation is blocked or vetoed.

    Democrats need to wake up and bring the Republicans to bear and fight for the people who elected them. Treading water and whining about Ted Cruz reading Cat in the Hat don't get us there. Make him stand there until he dies of dehydration. Tear them down in a public forum. Do something.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

    As someone who has absolutely 0 belief in Bourgoise Democracy I'll tell you what I think will happen: They'll put up some sacrificial lambs like that lady who was the greek ambassador and Lauren Bobert and a few other mid level crooks. They'll bring them into congress and grill them and then maybe they get 10 years in prison max. More likely some fines and stuff. Trump will probably pardon anyone who is going to see real consequences. They'll then take their money and run. Dems will control the White House and both chambers of congress after 2028, but they won't pass public healthcare, or anything else like that. They'll do some minor reforms and maybe a public option that will become a permanent battle every single budget hearing. By 2030 midterms there will be a snapback and "Red Wave".

    As for the foreign policy stuff I didn't mention it because to quote Biden, "Nothing will fundamentally change."

    I hope I'm proven wrong. I really do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    That's exactly what will happen if we don't completely replace leadership starting with these two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago

    Personally I don't think the issue is just your leadership. It's all of them. The democrats are all just playing you guys for fools. Even the ones who talk about medicare for all and stuff don't intend to actually do it save for very few of them, and once they get in a few months later they'll be voting for Defence Budget expansions, and all that other stuff just like anyone else. Unless Americans get in the street and start burning shit down nothings going to happen. Be French.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

    Legal Eagle put out an excellent video on the subject of we need to pursue every avenue, every method of gathering and publishing information showing what this regime did, will do, so it is at least a matter of public record. So that if the Dems gain more control over politics in 2029 that they can be persecuted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not doing so will just lead us back here again and again and again.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    The Dems won because people rejected Trump. Not because people are happy with the DNC. The DNC was actually more unpopular as a whole than the GOP. Progressives crushed it, even in places where they shouldn't have. Plus with the Michigan lady betrayal, it shows that AIPAC money takes precedent over US needs....again. anyone taking AIPAC money should not be in a leadership role as they don't value Americans first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    This is the time to reach out to these new or revalidated officials and tell them this is the time to take power back.

    I've sent emails to my new senator and house rep, but things like 5calls.org are probably useful too. The calls require (people like me) to be a little more prepared with what we want to talk about, but the time is NOW. Also set a reminder for 1/21 and remind them this was, in fact, a mandate to make things different.

    If you've been disappointed with milquetoast dems... call them right now. Email them at the least.

    Drown them in the proof that we demand accountability for the current regime and progress on the issues that we all want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

    Democrats need new leadership, not just new faces playing the same political games. No more political theater.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago

    Calls for Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer to step down from their leadership positions are growing as the dust from Tuesday’s midterm election settles. The calls—coming from inside and outside of Congress—cite a lack of vision, an unwillingness to go after Trump, the continued acceptance of corporate PAC money, and an extreme deference to the Israeli government. 

    There are lots of questions circulating about Schumer’s future in Senate leadership. Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan declared on election night that it’s “time for new leadership” in the Senate.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›