this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2025
164 points (96.6% liked)

politics

25556 readers
3092 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 37 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

But it’s been about six months since Schumer decided that it wasn’t the time for a fight, that neither he nor the country was ready. Democratic leaders have had six months to come up with a plan. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders.

We already know the Democrats need new leaders. Or more precisely, they need leaders, period.

Schumer and Jeffries aren't leaders - they're high-ranking tools.

That's what they've demonstrated with their treatment of Mamdani. They hold the positions they hold because they have no principles and no integrity - because they're owned by the donors and can be counted on to serve the interests of the donors regardless of any other considerations.

And for the time being at least, the donors - even the most generally leftist of them - aren't sufficiently opposed to what Trump is doing. They'd probably rather the tyrants have [D]s after their names than [R]s, and they're undoubtedly personally offended by Trump, since he's petulant and gauche and gross, but they don't have any particular opposition really to a program to benefit the wealthy few (which necessarily includes themselves) at the expense of the common people (which is just a bunch of shabby people they don't know), so while they'd certainly welcome efforts to make Trump look bad, they're not really committed to stopping him. And I guarantee that some significant number of them are already daydreaming about what they'll be able to do if/when the power that Trump has accumulated falls into the hands of a Democrat.

And again - Schumer and Jeffries are their tools. We already see that with their refusal to support Mamdani.

And I have little doubt that we'll continue to see it in their failure to meaningfully oppose Trump.