|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Maybe if I try asking another way.
So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?
EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine. Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: ... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction. What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience. 1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates.
Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."?
|
On November 06 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 05:25 Jankisa wrote:On November 06 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On November 06 2026 04:28 Jankisa wrote:
If all of that is true, electing Jeffries and Schumer again who are signaling, as they always do, fecklessness and "unity" despite GOP laughing in their faces for 20 years is a very stupid idea. Where did they say this? I don't think most people realize that party leaders in Congress aren't supposed to be popular. They take the heat for unpopular decisions that are politically unfeasible/unrealistic, that's why they always come from safe seats. Most intra-party fighting you see is just keyfabe so congresspeople can run against them. Having said that, sure, Schumer and Jeffries have said and supported a lot of things that don't sit well with me, but people thinking Congress is going to behave a lot differently if they're ousted is not a realistic expectation. If AOC became Speaker and Ossoff became Senate Majority Leader they'd become hated for the same reasons Schumer and Jeffries are. That's just an unprovable "point", so why would you even bring it up? No progressive, non-corporate and super popular Democrat was even elected to either position, so throwing out a statement like that makes no sense. Schumer and Pelosi never worked outside of politics in their lives, Jeffries was a corporate lawyer for 9 years, similarly, Harry Reid was a lawyer for a bit, Tom Daschle has no private sector experience and Dick Gephardt was a lawyer for 6 years before becoming a professional politician. People are sick of those people, especially if those people try to present themselves as their champions while refusing to support bipartisan bills to stop stock trading and enriching themselves while in office. Democrats never tried to actually put popular people in these positions, but you are certain that it wouldn't work for, reasons, I guess. I really didn't say that, but ok. Did you have strong feelings about either Schumer or Jeffries before they became party leaders or did you only notice them doing unpopular stuff afterwards? Show nested quote +That is a stupid thing to say. That is 100 % playing into hands of the Republican "lawfare" bullshit, holding people accountable for the crimes they did while in office is not revenge, it's justice, and this guy in his first move after the election says something like this. Uh, that's the exact point he's making, he's not going to do lawfare, he's going to seek justice. People really want them to be like "my fellow Americans. We come here today to start a brutal partisan witch-hunt to string up our enemies for their sins of defiance. To any court who may hear any litigation arising from these acts I want to make myself clear: no, this is not an earnest attempt to find the facts. It is revenge. Pure, bloody, and sweet. Republicans accused us of weaponizing the Justice Department. They will now learn how wrong they were when we show them very meaning of weaponizing. They will feel the boot of the Democratic Party on their neck. They think they know dirty politics. We were dirty politics when they were a bunch of free soil log cabin hicks. They will pray for justice which, though severe, would be merciful compared to what we will do to them. No questions at this time." I mean, it'd be funny as shit but I don't think it's a good idea after we're done laughing about it.
I've been around for about 3-4 years here, Jeffries is not a good minority leader, he will not be a good majority leader, it's pretty simple. He is not a good speaker, he has horrible messaging (why I posted the stupid baseball bat picture), Schumer is even worse, his idiotic "I speak to imaginary people and they advise me on how to do politics", his frankly moronic "I have many jobs as leader… and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs." in 2024 as Gaza laid in ruins, aided by the 2000 LBS bombs from that important aid...
I'm not familiar with every member of congress or Senate, but Jeffries was a pretty obviously bad choice, Schumer has sucked for a long time, longer then I've been paying attention to US politics. Pelosi I knew about as Jeffries predecessor who is most famous for being very, very rich due to her career in politics and stock trades, Jeffries being her hand picked successor never really instilled a lot of confidence, given how he performed, that lack of confidence was warranted.
No, people want them to skip the part where they put their foots in their mouths because they are horrible at messaging.
By Jeffries saying what he said, he implied that going after Republicans form Trump regime who did corrupt shit would be revenge, this is not that complicated, and it's pretty obvious that even you can see that and can't really address it so you continue with your absurd posting of things no one said or tried, frankly not too many steps removed from Jimmy rants.
Pretty weak shit, Garland defense level obtuse.
|
They're shitty speakers and have some bad positions, sure, but those aren't important skillsets for a party leader in a legislature. Their job is to fundraise, keep the caucus unified, take the heat for people in vulnerable districts, and so on.
Like I don't like Schumer's positions on Israel either, but that's on him as an individual congressman. His personal opinion doesn't affect the rest of the party's positions.
You mentioned Merrick Garland and that's actually a great example of something a party leader is supposed to do. Mitch McConnell refused to schedule a floor vote for Garland as a SCOTUS nominee because he knew Republican Senators would look bad for voting No on him after literally saying "Obama should nominate someone like Merrick Garland". Now everyone pissed about that was pissed at McConnell with a safe Kentucky seat, not the Republicans in purple states that would've otherwise taken the damage.
Not to say I love that McConnell did that obviously, but nobody cares if McConnell was a good public speaker or had a great platform. That wasn't his job as Senate leader.
If you want Democrats to move left, and that's what I want too, more leftwing Democrats need to win primaries. Once the primary is over Schumer and Jeffries only care if the nominee wins or not. Schumer dropped a ton of Democrats' cash on getting El-Sayed across the finish line even though the two of them have an almost perfectly inverted stance on Israel/Palestine. When Haley Stevens betrayed the party, Schumer condemned her and took AES's side. That's what a party leader is supposed to do.
If you think Schumer and Jeffries are bad at those jobs then so be it, but their public speaking skills are not extremely important as party leaders. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were great party leaders because they won races, not because they're great orators.
|
Their job is to lead.
Usually, you lead by example and usually, it's preferable that leader reflects positions of the majority of the people they lead. The opinion has absolutely shifted away from Schumer's staunch support, I absolutely get that AES doesn't want to be "led" by him considering who he is.
It's also absurd to say that being a good speaker is an important part of being a leader of these two houses, they are, in minority goverment the face of opposition, if the faces are bumbling idiots putting foot in their mouths on regularly basis that's a horrible choice.
|
On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine. Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: ... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction. What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience. 1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."?
Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%).
|
I agree with what former Obama chief of staff Emanuel Rahm said that the first thing the Dems should do is an ethics bill.
The package is designed to apply to all three branches of the federal government (the Executive branch, Congress, and the Judiciary) and consists of the following five core mandates:
1. A complete stock trading ban: Prohibits all federal officials across all three branches from buying and selling individual stocks while serving in government.
2. A ban on prediction-market betting: Stops government officials from participating or betting in prediction markets regarding elections, political outcomes, or official government decisions.
3. Mandatory blind trusts: Requires any federal official with a net worth exceeding $1 million to place their assets and investments into independently managed blind trusts.
4. Mandatory retirement at 75: Enforces a mandatory retirement age of 75 for federal officials (or establishes term limits).
5. A post-government foreign investment ban: Imposes a strict two-year post-employment ban preventing former government officials from working with or accepting investments from foreign sovereign wealth funds.
This would be wildly popular for all Americans, likely in the 90% range.
The next two were raising minimum wage to 20 bucks by 2030 (probably not quite as popular but still popular. And remove the new tariffs and curtail the ability for a president to randomly throw them on. (Again huge bipartisan support).
I also think that the first person congress should go after is Kushner, how you have a guys who’s only qualification is banging the presidents favourite daughter. Making deals with dictators for the US, while personally gaining incredible wealth, and not even having an official title or security clearance is so obviously and blatantly bad and corrupt. They should immediately remove him, rescind any “deal” he made and investigate the fuck out of him.
Hegsmeth would be next, but it looks like the Republicans are going to turf him as their scapegoat on their own.
|
United States10626 Posts
https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/how-leftists-and-moderates-did-in
Interesting read into the data, and I largely agree. We should not look at these election results and start screaming that it's progressive's time. they're still running worse than their establishment counterparts, but the "establishment" is slowly moving more left as time goes on. Talarico is about as progressive as someone can get in Texas without torpedoing his own campaign. Same with Hinojosa who was rated as one of the most liberal state reps in Texas. I think establishment Dems should push as far as they can left, but only so much before they start getting DSA to endorse their candidates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
