all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 14 hours ago (14 children)

Fuck Hakeem Jeffries.

I mean, what more needs to be said at this point.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 12 hours ago* (10 children)

    I understand he got the position by being the only person who wanted it.

    It might be more productive to name a candidate rather than the more nebulous "anyone but Hakeem Jeffries". Ro Khanna seems like he could do a good job but I have heard no indication that he wants to do the job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 12 hours ago (8 children)

    Ro Khanna for Speaker, that I can get behind!

    Some more options: Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Robert Garcia

    Feel free to add to the list, and mention your top choices when you email your representatives to say No to Jeffries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

    I'll respect your opinion but I'd be cool with either one.

    Is there a reason you're against Jamie? He always struck me as stellar, but if there's something I don't know... (I'm bracing myself for heartache...)

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

    Corporate Democrat. Blumenthal too.

    Oooh look, zio funded by j-street too.

    https://fundvoter.org/politicians/jamie-raskin#fundraising

    Normally I'd prefer open secrets but it wasn't behaving for some reason (non-responsive buttons).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 hours ago (2 children)

    That's disappointing... :( I thought he was a progressive?

    I've seen him do great work on committees on CSPAN

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

    Whoops, it looks like I edited while you replied. Honesty, most if not all are rotten.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 8 hours ago

    Oh, I see. Looking at his fundraising profile, it looks like he mostly receives donations from individuals, and only 5% came from PACs

    screenshot

    And I hear your concerns about J Street, but at least he doesn't take AIPAC money. And J Street supports a diplomatic resolution and a two-state solution, so they're not nearly as bad as AIPAC.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

    Don Lemon referred to him as "AIPAC Shakur" - love it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 7 hours ago (2 children)
    [–] 12 points 6 hours ago* (2 children)

    He represents AIPAC and AIPAC won the majority so I guess it makes sense that he is the speaker of the genocide supporting majority

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 hours ago*

    The reach of israel in american politics is insane. Forget the fact that tiktok is owned by an israeli billionaire. Zohran endorsed Jefferies and now Mamdani has been acting weird endorsing it and doing nothing when he promised to arrest nethanyahu for his war crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • If you are an American with either a Democratic senator or house rep (or senate/house elect rep), you should write them as well.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 hours ago

    One million SO FAR

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

    Trump wasn't listening. Now the democrats aren't listening. Shall we ler them hear us next week at the street side demonstrations?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 7 hours ago

    Sure, feel free to organize demonstrations. That might convince them to choose other leadership. As well as contacting your representatives of course.

    Don't claim they aren't listening though. Some may be deaf, but others hear. Politics is about numbers. So don't give up without trying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    We need to get this number another digit

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    It depends on what you mean by "effective". The vote to elect House Speaker is done in a closed door election, so we the people won't get to see who votes what, so there is no direct connection between a petition and this vote.

    However, politicians are reluctant to do unpopular things, so stuff like a big petition or wide scale protests or even lots of people being interviewed saying the same thing can set the stage for politicians to feel comfortable going against the party apparatchiks. Hakeem Jeffries is a deeply political creature who has benefitted in the past from being popular in his area, but with all the hullabaloo being made about his feckless nature, his career is in deep trouble. He doesn't have much more social capital to spend and if he isn't careful, the gravy train he's been enjoying for so long will come to an end.

    This is the exact situation he was trying to avoid in the midterms. Because of this blue wave, the Dems have a lot of power they can exert in Congress. However, Jeffries doesn't actually want to do his job, so he spent a lot of time and effort trying to depress Dem voter turnout during the midterms. He is still trying to dampen enthusiasm to excuse not doing his job in the future.

    If Jeffries is smart, he'll quietly step aside to salvage what remains of his career. If he can read the room, he should see that the petitions and protests and interviews are signs that public sentiment has turned against him. He would have a reduced role, and probably a reduced amount of bribes, but he'd still have a career.

    If he's stupid, he'll try to continue leading the party to sit on their hands. A delusional man would fight against the wave and, unfortunately, probably do a lot of damage while trying to have his cake and eat it too. There is no way he would be able to thread the needle of, "do just enough to look competent" and "do nothing enough to keep getting bribes" and eventually lose his job.

    If he's a fuckin asshole, he'll try to sabotage the Dems as much as he can to go out in a final blaze of glory. Shamelessly wreck things while taking money from anyone interested in hurting the Dems and then run away with his ill-gotten gains instead of running for re-election. Probably to Isreal.

  • source
  • parent
  • 45 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 118 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Now do one for Schumer, also keep doing this one ..

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Senate leadership:

    We hear you loud and clear. Schumer is out. Unfortunately, for convoluted reasons, the best we can do is Senate Majority Leader Fetterman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 day ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago

    I'm shocked with how blatant of a scam that website is.

    I started to create a petition as a test to see if they really pay you per signature and it automatically created an AI Slop sob story about a woman that needs help giving her a name and everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    They aren't dumb enough to think this is going to go away. The only reason they'd keep him on is if a great enough number of members of congress want to further stall a progressive agenda to feather their own nests.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    This is why I cant stop bitching about dems. They keep doing the things we are asking PLEASE DO NOT.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago

    In two years, people who are politically inactive will project and say you waited until election season to campaign to them.

    Do not allow them that excuse. We demand better and we'll get it from independents like Bernie if we have to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I reached out to my congresswoman who would be voting for whoever is running and asked her to not vote in more of the same old problem. I cannot do it for the Senate since my my senator is republican.

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

    Sure you can. Your Republican senator needs to hear the exact same thing, and I commend your willingness to even try.

    What you could do with your Republican senator is write a letter that says now that [your senator] has seen the winds of change blow mightily across the country against MAGA, you fully expect [your senator] to change course along with the American people and work across the aisle to represent the will and welfare of the entire country, not just those at the top.

    You could further add that if you don't see this change from [your senator], you will gladly not only vote for his/her replacement, but you will knock on doors and donate and organize and protest and do whatever else lies within your power to ensure that someone more American at heart than [your senator] gets to be a part of the changes that are coming regardless, whether [your senator] likes them or not: [your senator] can get on board or get voted out.

    Don't worry about the words or the polish. When you're writing from the heart, even the clumsiest wording gets a pass. Concentrate on how you feel, write it out, wait an hour, go back and read it: more than any specific policy points, does it convey that you personally are very serious about what you are saying? Letters with some emotional weight have impact far beyond the blander ones, but they all count so send what you want. Just don't get yourself put on a watch list, lol.

    Or, send the senator the same exact thing you sent your rep. Your senator needs to hear it even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Who’s up for a general strike if they pick Jeffries?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    If everyone can coordinate well enough for a general strike, then why wouldn't we just ratify a new constitution and start over? All government is imaginary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    What’s the link for the “Fuck Schumer” petition?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 18 hours ago

    These fuckers are not gonna leave willingly and if they are removed from power they will be replaced with more stooges of the rich. There has to be a relentless and complete purge, and it has to be maintained for years. Wave after wave of progressives need to run for everything from local dog catcher to Senate. Kamikaze progressives, devoted to policy, willing to be one term politicians, and a deep bench of replacements ready and waiting to step up and replace them. This is fucking war.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Agreed. We need far more progressives in leadership than that neo liberal Jeffries

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago*

    Not nearly enough. And let’s get 1 million signatures on the Chuck Schumer petition!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Where do I sign? I've been saying this since before it was popular, not to talk myself up.

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

    It's been posted multiple times in here, but: https://c.org/HFvJTNwhCw

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

    Thanks! Signed.

    Jeffries and Schumer have to go, that there have not in living memory been a leadership challenge in the democratic party, is an indictment of the party nd their bending their constituents over for the rich.

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

    Honestly, we should just create a new standing rule going forward. Past a certain level of election loss, everyone serving in say, the three highest ranks, is prohibited from serving in that level of leadership for the next ten years, or perhaps indefinitely. Maybe any time the opposition party gains a trifecta in Washington. If there is one single thing national-level Democratic leadership should be concerned about, it should be preventing the situation that we've been in since Trump was re-elected, with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the White House, and SCOTUS.

    There are plenty of skilled people that can fill those ranks. And the old guard can still offer advice and counsel to their replacements - they just don't get to make real decisions anymore. This should apply to both party leaders and within Congress itself. Maybe the top 3 Democrats in the House, Senate, and top the levels of the hierarchy at the DNC are all barred for ten years from holding such roles, any time Republicans control the House, Senate, and Presidency. (I leave out SCOTUS as that conflict is far too long term for reasonable accountability. Doesn't seem fair to hold folks accountable for problems that take decades to correct.)

    There are plenty of people to fill those ranks. There are plenty of people with national-level party leadership experience, and there are plenty of people in the top ranks of state party leadership that can transfer a lot of those skills to the national level. We do not have a problem of lack of skill. We have a problem of a lack of accountability.

    Is it draconian? Sure. But it would damn well be effective. And no one has a right to these roles. If a few otherwise effective leaders get culled in the process, oh well. A barred Senator can still serve in the Senate; they just aren't allowed to run the Senate. A barred DNC executive could still be involved in DNC circles - still help with campaigns, still help with fundraising. Still, if truly skilled, retain a lot of soft power through their ability to offer wise and sage advice. But they're just not allowed to actually run the party anymore.

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

    I think the main problem is we have two Democrat parties. Long have the Establishment Democrats been in power, but it's time for the progressives to take back the party. Basically seems to be coalescing around the DSA, which is fine by me so far.

    The bad news is that progressives are a minority. But if we can browbeat the establishment in letting us have some victories like in healthcare and other social safety nets, maybe we can sustain enough voter involvement to actually make some progress.

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

    In truth, we can't do anything until we get some white populists challenging for middle america. We have only minorities in inner cities as populists in the dem party.

    Why don't we have a single white populist in the dem party? (Bernie excepted, he's too old and not machavellian enough but that's another story.)

    The answer is they sabotage any white populists, because they could threaten their control of the party. They kill them in the cradle.

    Edit: The moderate sheep and patrons are not that numerous, we have as many as they do, they are coasting on being the "safe choice," despite things. We could call them on that with the public if we had good politicians, which we don't.

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

    Kinda feel if they were going to replace them they would have done it by now. If they keep one or both, dems are shooting themselves in the foot.

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

    AIPAC Shakur should be immediately disqualified.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 5 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    It’s not enough to sign a petition. Third party petitions will be ignored. Emails and form submissions will be ignored.

    Call and physically mail your congresspeople to voice your displeasure.

    The party cabal have every intention to ignore the will of the people and continue serving their bribers.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Do it all. You could probably complete all of this in under an hour, depending on how the phone call plays out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 child)

    37 minutes while having my morning coffee yesterday. I'm gonna do it again Monday. And Tuesday. And Thursday and Friday.

    EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not saying everyone should or has to do this because let's face it it's basically an hour you genuinely might not have. I do it for that exact reason. I do have the time and the means and it gives me good tingly feelings to do it for myself and anyone else who maybe, that day, just doesn't have the time.

    If you have watched other people volunteer their time while you have not for whatever reason ( i very much understand the abject terror of social gatherings, long term commitments and etc) really truly please consider just doing it once. Don't think about or plan anything more than just a "fuck it I'll try it today". If everyone out there just volunteered one or two days a year, even if it's an hour to make an annoying ass series of phone calls, just once in a year please realize it means something to someone out there (me 😁) and maybe a few more. Now is the best time.

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

    I'm doing my part

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    anyone else sign this? just did

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment