• laranis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    Hahahahahah… Oh, that’s rich!

    Downvote me if you must, but just go see Minority Leader Jeffries’s comments downplaying the agenda most of us think should be priority… Like finally holding government officials to account for pedophilia, corruption, and treason. Apparently that’s too “revengey” for their billionaire handlers.

  • stateofaffairs@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 minutes ago

    Hakeem Jeffries needs to go first. Let’s look back at his awful speech on election night, just to get started.

    Standing in front of a crowd of well-wishers and hopefuls, he delivered a speech. A speech that will go down in history as a big ole nothing burger. A speech that is now, less than 12 hours later, largely forgotten in the political and collective memory of an otherwise monumental moment. I surmise this is because he lacks the commanding presence and leadership qualities necessary to serve as Speaker of the House.

    His charisma, if it can even be called that, is more akin to that of a Home Depot bag of paver sand. You search through the poorly stacked pile selecting the one with the least holes. Yet, despite that effort, it still spills it’s contents all over the cart on the way to the register. Not a good look.

    If that does not speak for itself, then consider this. As a potential Speaker, Mr. Jeffries would face the immense challenge of uniting a fractured party that has not managed to maintain a large and diverse tent of voters since Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared Bernie a non-starter. Mr. Jeffries is simply not capable of standing firm in the face of political opposition. Don’t take my word for it. Perhaps, instead, the ever present consumer advocate Ralph Nader may sway you:

    More introspection may lead you to ask yourself whether you are up to leading the House Democrats in their immense and immediate tasks of policy and program restorations and adopting our Constitution’s mandated Congressional independence from the Presidency for the protection and advancement of the livelihoods, peace and freedoms of the American people. There is no indication that you are so willing and prepared. Unfortunately.

    His record in Congress has not demonstrated the kind of bold, decisive leadership that the position of Speaker demands. Instead, he has often been seen as a cautious, moderate voice. Dare I say, a voice coming from a very real human (I swear) with a spine made of NeeDoh.

    Let’s be frank. In times of crisis or when tough decisions must be made, the leader of the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House is not merely about personality. I understand that. Such positions require a deep understanding of the legislative process, the ability to negotiate, and the resilience to withstand the political pressures that come with the position. Jeffries has not consistently shown these traits in his career. For any informed observers, this must raise serious questions about his suitability for such a high-stakes role.

    Finally, to convey my firm belief that Mr. Jeffries is not the right person for the leadership role come January, I paraphrase the amazing Forest Whitaker in his role as PFC Edward Garlick in “Good Morning Vietnam”

    Hakeem Jeffries sucks the sweat off a dead man’s balls. I have no idea what that means, sir, but it seems very negative to me.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      21 minutes ago

      Getting rid of the electoral college does not change anything about gerrymandering. The EC is for electing president. Gerrymandering is only possible for electing district representatives. But yeah, one step at a time.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      31 minutes ago

      Good for them. That kind of thing is exactly why the EC should be abolished, because that minority should not have their votes disproportionately counted such that their candidate(s) could still be put into office even though they clearly lost.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Maybe. I’m not entirely sure on that.

    If you just look at the number of red and blue, sure.

    Then discount the blue that are overred areas who are mainly there for -war -gas -foodcost. How many of them are going to be honest and vote for their people, those people who would definately NOT vote to dump Electoral college because it has served them well for ages.

    Then discount DINO sleepers sitting in Congress who look and talk blue then flip when they are needed?

    Then in the same venn circle in many cases, take the remaining blueish moderates who can be bought by your friendly neighborhood oligarch.

    We’re blue on paper using binary counting; politics is not a binary sport.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Fighting Republican lunatics is step one.

    Step two is fighting all the centrist MAGA Lite Democrats.

    • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      So 95% of the party? Yeah, none of the progressive shit is gonna happen. But don’t worry, the progressives “shift the conversation.” Maybe some day the oligarchs will allow their Dems to enact the will of the people.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    They had votes before but Nevada DNC liked all of political spending over it being a swing state.

    Texas could join now, instead of looking at old 2020 coalition.

    1. DNC is an Israel first outcome, and fundraising driven, instead of having a winning mission. Ken Martin is better than past, but still.
    2. Political class has more power at 50.1% voting differences, and at regional level, more than half the candidates are overrepresented vs underrepresented to their population ratios.
    3. Another proposal that would satisfy some of these “power” concerns is doubling the size of house. It doubles political opportunities for incumbents.

    We cannot have UBI, because UBI distributes power away from politicians who are left with less discretionary budgets and power to “steal” cash away from citizens through boondoggles. Similar power balance calculus happens with proposals like this.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Texas could join now, instead of looking at old 2020 coalition.

      They still have a Republican state Senate looks like.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Dem Lt Gov is gatekeeper for what gets voted on. Some horse trading is possible. Texas is not disadvantaged by popular vote president because it is a large state. Does senate need to approve new gerrymandering?

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It would be pretty screwed if a Governor could unilaterally decide to change how a state’s participation in the presidential election without even a majority of the Senate.

          I would not be shocked that if the pact ever did one day come to actually mean something for someone to come along and sue over it because it ends up going against some state’s constitution and they only passed it as a law not an amendment.

  • neo2478@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The only slim chance this and other positive changes might happen is if the US population thanks a page from France and protest non stop. Demand the progressive changes until it happens. Show the corporate Democrats that they are done.

    • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Protests aren’t enough, we need to unionize, organize tenant unions, create revolutionary cadres and do socialism. It’s the only way to stop the oligarchs from maintaining their ownership of us.

    • Squirrelknight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 minutes ago

      If they fix the problem, what are they supposed to run on in the next election? Have the voters considered that? /s

  • minorkeys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    But they won’t because their leadership wants it. Chuck and Hakeem are corporate dems who like keeping the will of the people in chains.

  • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    They’re going to fuck up like they always do and we’ll be back to a Republican majority in no time

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They think this election represents support for the Dems, but most people (including reliable Dem voters) still have an unfavorable view of the party. This election was about rejecting Trump, and he won’t be dragging down the Republicans in 2028.

      We need to hit the primaries HARD.

    • SalamiDommie@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Just like the Republicans do much of anything with their majority.

      Most of our gov is ineffectual because it is about maintaining status quo for elites. Everyone else be damned.

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The entire point of bourgeois democracy is to give workers the illusion of freedom so that the capitalists can continue extracting wealth.