After Blue tsunami, progressives don’t trust Schumer and Jeffries to lead Congress
(www.commondreams.org)
AIPAC clowns.
post
replies:
After a Democratic “tsunami” in this week’s midterm elections that has been widely seen as “a mandate to deliver big change,”
The whole "voter mandate" thing is thrown around too much these days, and it just isn't always accurate, but in this case I think it was 100% a mandate. But a mandate for what? The people who voted for this blue wave are not necessarily all aligned on every issue, or even most issues, but they are definitely unified in their disdain for Trump and his cronies. I think the mandate is for the Democrats to finally be true, aggressive opposition to Trump. I think Democrats, both left and center, now see anyone who isn't able or willing to viciously oppose Trump, and all the plutocrats and other oligarchs who support him, as a liability or even complicit. That is Schumer, and his ilk. They are ineffectual opposition, so they have got to go.
replies:
Schumer works for Israel, not the American people. No way in hell he should lead the Democrats in the Senate.
"I have many jobs as leader… and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs,” he told a group of pro-Israel Jewish leaders at the time.
“As long as I’m in the Senate, this programme will continue to grow from strength to strength, and we won’t let anyone attack it or undo it,” Schumer said, even referring to US taxpayer aid for Israel as his “baby”.
The Democrats did not sweep the midterms just to keep spewing money at Israel so they can give their citizens free health care and higher education while we pay for their genocide of of the Palestinian.
replies:
With boasts of "My job is to keep the left pro Israel" it is necessarily incompatible for Schumer to be "Americans first" leftist or other positions.
Multiple reports have come out and said the offices are getting hundreds and in some cases close to a thousand calls a day telling them to get new leadership. I think we’re gonna get what we want on this
replies:
Didn't particularly trust them to lead before either
replies:
Aye, ditch ‘em.
replies:
Anyone that trusts those two should not be at all trusted
The question is, will progressives allow Jeffries to retain his leadership position? Historically, even progressives among the Democratic party have been unwilling to play hardball the way conservatives will in the Republican party.
Remember, you need an absolute majority vote in the chamber to be elected House Speaker. To be Senate majority leader, you only need a majority of Democratic senators to vote for you. To become Speaker of the House, you need an absolute majority of House members to vote for you.
This means progressives have real leverage in the House, if they choose to use it. No Democrat is getting elected House speaker without either getting progressives onboard or crossing the aisle to make a compromise with a few Republicans. Progressives can and should use this fact to force a change in House Speaker.
The Senate is different. Here only a majority of Democratic senators will be required. The progressives can't hold that vote hostage in the same way they could House Speaker.
replies:
"after"?!?!?
Nah. We haven't wanted them. Ever. And I think I first started knowing about their fuckery right near the 2025 term start. So. It's not new. But I have seen a lot more people now talk about it. And more people are demanding a change in leadership.
Petitions going around. It's even getting news coverage for once.
Jeffries gotta go!
Get fucked Chuck the cuck!
Fire Fetterman into the sun!
Schumer has done nothing but go on a whole self fellating tour with how he picked the great candidates, candidates like Haley Stevens, winning the elections and not a single actionable plan.
He's not meeting the moment again with the leadership needed to match the anger of the temporary Democratic voters that got Democrats into office across the nation.
Did they trust them before? If so, why?
replies:
True.
We also didn't trust them before.
Schumer is totally out of touch and thinks his 1994 agenda will work again. Jeffries wants to establish himself and not ruffle feathers of the mega donors (Schumer as always).
The DNC is still owned by corporate Democrats and it will operate how it has for the last couple decades. It will talk mean and deliver flaccid arguments.
The base will be fractured on if it's a good direction (on purpose by it's leadership), and the right will be able to once again point to weak leadership. They'll be correct in voters' eyes and that will be just enough foothold to start pushing back.
The DNC needs new blood if things are to change but their endearment to moneyed interests will keep that from ever happening.
Unless a separate form of leadership bursts onto the scene, we'll be back to square 1 in a year. Let's check back in 6 months and see how off I am.
I wouwould love to see a breakdown of congress between Republicans, democrats, and progressive democrats
Begone Corpos
Anyone have a good template for emailing their senators/reps to demand new leadership?
replies:
Yeah; because we've got eyes, ears; and can tell AIPAC shills even when the bastards rebrand to UDP.
replies:
its fine. this is why we have representative democracy! just dispose of them and replace them with ideologically identical AIPAC goons.
Sign the petition. https://c.org/WxDjpC9pwp
replies:
9 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
They're the face of Israel and corporations first. They're gonna whip up enough members to make sure nothing changes, guaranteed.
They weren't the face of this wave ... they should fuck off.
Schumer is looking out for that make-believe Republican family in his head.
replies:
Go on Bluesky and let 'em know. Every time those Zionists show up I bitch them out. Not mindless anger, but I don't hold back either.
replies:
They're not stupid
I'm sure they're both thinking about the AIPAC/Palantir bonuses they'll get as majority leaders. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or wants.
all 58 comments