21
submitted 3 weeks ago by kreskin@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] homes@piefed.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Jeffries incumbency no longer a top priority for dems once they win House majority

this just in from everyone hearing his weak-ass bullshit

I can't believe I voted for this bullshit motherfucker twice just because I thought he was cute and he flirted with me once. like I organized for him. I knocked on (possibly thousands of) doors for him. I marched through streets for this useless motherfucker! canvassing and al that endless campaign bullshit.. FOR MONTHS!!!!

and all for this? FOR THIS MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT NOTHING OF A STATE REP?? AAAARRGHH!!!!

[-] Wilco@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 weeks ago

And it begins.

"Let's move past thus" "We have to think about the future" "We need to reach across the table"

Fuck these corrupt politicians. They know what Trump is and just want more after a short break.

[-] justaman123@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

The sound of the ratchet clanking shut as the overton window locks into place so that it can shift right once more.

[-] homes@piefed.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I mean, I’m not even gonna say Hakeem Jeffries is corrupt (because I don’t really know), but I sure as shit am gonna say that he’s a do-nothing coward piece of shit. And that’s just as bad. He needs to go!

[-] somehacker@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

We can get rid of him in the primary.

https://www.vancebforny8.com/

[-] Freeposity@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

One of the problems with the Democratic Party is that the number one quality for choosing leadership is how well they fundraise. Obviously this makes leadership beholden to those with the biggest pockets, like AIPAC.

We need to primary every Democrat incumbent who isn't a progressive in action as well as rhetoric.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

If it makes you feel any better, he's still undoubtedly better than whatever Republican ran against him.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago

Is this idiot trying to lose the midterms?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

I suspect the answer is actually "yes". AIPAC has spoken, they like trump.

[-] redsand@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago

Controlled opposition. Like Chuck the cuck or rich bitch Pelosi

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

When asked if impeachment was a top priority, Jeffries said “of course not” during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I’ve made clear from the very beginning that our top priority is going to be to drive down the high cost of living,” the House minority leader added. 

Sounds like he's trying to win the midterms.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

Sure, drive down the cost of living ... by impeaching Trump and getting rid of his dumbass tariffs.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Sounds like you don't understand where we're at as a nation.

Or what Americans actually want. it's not a "vocal minority" that want the pedophile, racist, bigoted asshole of a president that is jacking up our cost of living so he can be a fucking king gone. So ignoring that and saying you will do nothing about it IS NOT A WINNING STRATEGY.

doing nothing except writing stern letters is not going to solve the problem, either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] akilou@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Is there some way both parties can lose the midterms?

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

If enough people vote for a different party.

[-] BioDriver@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I really hope he gets primaried

[-] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's fine, it's failed three times now.

But if they have the votes to remove him & don't, that's going to be a huge problem.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Crystalbound@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

For real. Im voting for candidates who are going to flip the script and show them how Trumps new precedents can be flexed back.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

If only we can work hard to get him a majority, Jeffries promises he will only use it to play games strictly in his lane instead of actually leading and actively opposing trumps wild overreaches and global shenanigans. Thats heartening.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] pno2nr@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The democrats only want to bring us back to the exact conditions that brought us Trump.

[-] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Removing Trump requires 67 votes in the senate. There is no mathematical way to get those numbers in November. I don't agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from.

[-] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Now is the time for a bold declaration of what we're not going to do!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Is there a progressive or, you know, anyone with a pulse running against this useless lump of flesh in the primary?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It shouldn't be, because unless there's a 2/3rds majority in the Senate it will be the exact same as the last two times.

Performative impeachment is pointless. Draft good legislation, then either let the Senate shoot it down or Trump veto it, and hold them all accountable in the '28 election.

[-] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I can think of three problems with this way of thinking:

  1. Trump has committed impeachable offenses, and to act otherwise cedes reality itself. It loses the game before even playing, and normalizes impeachable conduct. For a narcissistic sociopath like Trump and his Wormtongue Miller, this is an invitation to continue to ignore the Constitution. Their conduct will get worse without impeachment.

  2. The impeachment process itself changes public opinion. A recent story said that Trump's approval is already at Nixon's lowest point during Watergate. Republicans likely will do nothing, I get it, but impeachment forces them to stand up for a traitor. When push comes to shove, they may flinch. We won't know until we try.

  3. The corollary of Democrats' choice to "focus on other agenda" is true here: Republicans can't focus on Project 2025 if they're spending all their time defending against impeachment. Right now a depressing amount of Project 2025 has been pushed through, so ending their offensive is itself a win.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago
  1. People want Trump to face consequences; and that's a not-insignificant motivation for voters. If they want to win in november, and win in 2028, they're going to have to be seen as doing everything within their power to fight this bastard; and they're simply not.
  2. this message screams of "who the fuck cares about justice anyways?"
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

He absolutely has committed impeachable offenses, the problem is we need 67 votes in the Senate to convict him and the Senate absolutely will not do it.

So we'd end up with the same results as the last two times, Susan Collins and "I think he learned his lesson" and all that.

Nobody held the Senators accountable either. So there's no point even pretending at this point.

What moves the needle is flipping the House in '26, getting good legislation passed, then holding the House in '28, flipping the Senate, and winning the Presidency.

THEN we can talk about the best ways to change the system.

I'd start with upper end age limits across the board for all three branches. It would need an amendment to do that.

Ideally, make it so convicted felons can't be President.

And term limits.

[-] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry to respond so abstractly, but, I think the main lesson the modern political era has is: be a tactician, not a strategist.

A strategist may plan twelve moves ahead, but has a huge Achilles heel. They won't move until they are sure there is a winning path.

A tactician weighs the costs and benefits of acting in the moment, and acts in a way that improves position even without having a clear path to victory.

Putin is a tactician. For example, he flooded the US with propaganda and leaked emails starting in 2015 to do nothing except destabilize an adversary, kept it up as a cheap side-bet, and ended up getting two Trump terms in return. He attacked Ukraine without a clear plan, and will probably end up (I hope not, but probably - in conjunction with the last sentence) with semi-legitimized control of Donbas and Luhansk.

Republicans are tacticians. They kept attacking "Obamacare" despite healthcare being a top issue with voters and offering no alternative, and eventually the weight of their attacks made it so unpopular, voters were voting in politicians promising to remove it, despite that it would remove their own healthcare. They have been tacticians for a years with voter suppression (they succeeded in getting many state governments, the House, and so on). Stephen Miller is a tactician, and we saw it in how he kept pushing ICE's unconstitutional policies.

The point is that each move we make, even without a clear strategy to the final goal, itself changes the reality on the ground. And tacticians are winning because their maneuvers take weeks, each time a free swing and way of moving the reality, the Overton windows, a little closer to their goal. If they fail, they have five other plans brewing, all free swings. Meanwhile, strategists' maneuvers take years to show any effect. No long-term strategy adapts fast enough to counter those tactics.

We have become the stereotype of that republican quote: They act, we react; and while we react, they act again, changing the reality and killing our still-gestating plans.

So I'd humbly argue: The only way out of this is not to wait until 2028 (2029, actually, before a new president is hypothetically seated). It's to act, now, using every legal tool we have, even if we don't know the full path to victory.

[-] Mantzy81@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

Shouldn't be so ham-tied that it's not possible. Hell, why wait till mid-terms, get drafting now so things are ready on day one. Not like they're doing anything productive or meaningful at the moment.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Except impeachment lets the Republicans play the victim card in '28. So impeachment both does nothing, and lets the Republicans go "See those Democrats are just mean!" in '28.

Instead, you pass good legislation and if the Republicans kill it, you hang them with it in '28.

"Living minimum wage? Republicans say no. Universl health care? Republicans say no. Functional immigration? Republicans say no."

Way harder to do that if you hand them the loaded gun of a 3rd failed impeachment.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] switcheroo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Getting that fucker out of office should be a priority. Along with Schumer and any other trash that voted along with the Pedo Party.

Then impeach the Pedo-in-Chief.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Trying to get impeachable grounds on JD before moving on Trump?

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Wrong answer

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Fuuuuuuuuuck you, buddy.

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

Fuck that, even without the votes in the Senate, make them go through the process anyway. Get all the evidence in public.

[-] AshMan85@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Holy fucking shit! Why not? Because AIPAC/Isreal controls him

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

I’m so tired of Congress abdicating their responsibilities as elected officials.

Impeach Jeffries!

Trump deserves far more than impeachment for the breadth and depravity of his crimes.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

Fuck this guy

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Jefferies never was impressive to me

[-] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

Please VOTE Democrats in the Primary so we can ~~Impeach Trump!~~ ~~Repeal Trump's HURTFUL Legislations!~~ ~~Pass MEANINGFUL Legislation!~~ Do what Trump asks us to Do!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29863 readers
435 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS