this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
172 points (97.8% liked)

politics

21724 readers
4130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The two highest-ranking Democratic members of Congress both call New York City home, but even with their personal connection to the city where immigration agents abducted a recent Columbia University graduate for his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have had little to say about Saturday night's arrest.

Amid mounting calls from House progressives and advocacy groups for the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil on Monday evening, Jeffries released a statement that one local rights group derided as "word salad," starting by accepting the Trump administration's narrative about the former student who helped organize last year's Palestinian solidarity encampment.

"Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are not the men for this moment in history," saidNew Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang. "So obvious and gets more obvious by the day."

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They haven't been the men for a long time. We can't keep acting like things are normal. The Dems don't have any message or platform to combat the GOP, and if we stick with these two, they won't in 2028. They need actual progressive policies and a clear, simple message. Otherwise the best we'll get is Biden 2.0 in 2028 who doesn't undo anything Trump will do because of "norms" or "decorum", then Trump 2.0 in 2032.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Dems have already decided there will be no progressive in 2028. Nor ever after that. If you are hoping for a progressive better start organizing around a third party.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Third parties are doa.

At this point consider that electoral politics may not be the way forward.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If popular "progressive" Democrats would leave the party it could bring enough momentum. But those figures, like Sanders, appear hell bent on having a final Cheney for the road.

Lesser evilism. Has started to reach its ultimate destination. Fascism vs slightly less fascism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It would not, due to the game theory problems of first past the post voting: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

I'm not arguing for lesser evilism. I am pointing out a fact that you must contend with if you want to succeed. Third parties are doa. You must think more laterally.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you stick to FPTP and both parties deteriorate your conditions you will never reach improvement.

Your argument has led to what we see now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Your argument just as much as mine has lead to what we see now. Third parties have repeatedly failed to surmount the duopoly, and not for a lack of trying. My argument is not a recommitment to the duopoly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Not enough of the democrats base pay attention for that to be true, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I heard it is best to only vote democrat or personal freedoms may be lost. And only republicans will win. I disagreed.

Surprisingly I was not downvoted to oblivion elsewhere; which in my mind is a huge

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

better start organizing around a third party

Or considering a run. The 2016 and 2024 cycles were both fertile ground for a new party.

Now might be a better time than ever: Democrats are deeply unpopular and so are Republicans.

If nothing else, one should seriously consider the value of running as an independent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, tbh I'm really just weighing my options. I want to help, and I was thinking of volunteering for my county's democratic party but to your point is my time better spent on a different party.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Relying on the Democratic cast of characters which handed the election to Trump will get us no where.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Jeffries won't say anything substantive about Khalil's abduction because doing so would contradict what I assume are his orders from his AIPAC handlers. AIPAC is Jeffries's largest donor, to the tune of $866,425 (as reported by OpenSecrets).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

They're not the men for any moment in history. They're stuffed shirts.

Anyone expecting the Democrats to save democracy need to get their heads examined.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Increasingly seeing Jefferies and Schumer as aiding and abetting this criminal violence.

More Luigis are needed to fix this kind of problem.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Vichy Democrats