AkivaMCohen

I've got someone passionately arguing right now that the sum-total of his job is whipping votes in the House

And, I mean, it's fine that you think that. It's wrong, but you're allowed to be wrong.

No, we've entered the "you've made known your incorrect opinion about the scope of the job, which drives everything else, and further discussion of the disagreements that are downstream of that is pointless" part of the conversation

You don't think "communicating with the public" is part of the job

Ha. The yes was to the second question

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion on that

You literally just typed "the problem with the party is the voters" Molly

yes

His role is not only to whip votes. But if you think it is, that certainly explains why you don't care that he's not great in front of a mic

Yes, yes, the party can never fail, it can only be failed

He's not useless. He's just not very good at this particular aspect of the job

I mean I appreciate that you'd rather argue against a position you made up than against reality, but that's not doing you any favors

Her post has a grand total of 5 replies. That's not a dogpile

LOL no. I trust my followers, and they've generally validated that trust. Hence the utter lack of dogpile

No, Molly. He doesn't have to shout to speak passionately, when he holds the floor he isn't "showing off"; you've made up a character in your head to argue against and I'm just not sure why.

Johnson is a vile, amoral, hypocritical pile of oleaginous waste. What's to talk about?

No. My issue is he should either get better, very quickly, at holding press conferences, or that he should get someone else from the leadership team who is better at holding press conferences to take on that "lead speaker to the press" role

?

Weird that he keeps being the one to hold press conferences then.

It's both

That's *part* of the job. He's done that part well.

And again, literally *none* of this is a reason to think only people living in Jeffries' district get to have opinions on how he performs as Minority Leader

Obama was plenty rhetorically persuasive. The Dems actually have a large number of people who are good in front of a mic; I don't love her policy positions but AOC oozes charisma, to pick one obvious example. It's part of the job.

I don't want to be entertained. I'd like the people doing the speaking to be persuasive.

You not understanding the difference between the two is a you issue

And I honestly don't know why anyone would think it would be; the Minority Leader (like Majority Leader, Speaker, etc.) position is a role that affects the entire country

But whether you agree with that or not, "are you in his district?" is an irrelevant question. That matters to someone criticizing his legislative performance or saying he doesn't belong in the House. It's not relevant to someone criticizing his performance as Minority Leader

The thread started from my post, yeah, I've read it. The way Jeffries communicates isn't meeting the moment and the Dems need to have someone who is better at communicating in front of the microphones. That doesn't mean Jeffries is terrible, or a bad leader. But they need someone else at the mic

Is this actually a discourse? Are people legitimately this far gone? I saw one or two random people posting in Nick Grossman's replies, is it wider than that?

I gotta say, the "do you live in his district" comments about criticism of Hakeem Jeffries' performance in his role as House Minority Leader is just *wild*

Like, what even is the thought process that would lead someone to think that's relevant?

"I, the much-detested sheriff, am going to tell this priest to take down his nativity display because it makes me, the guy kidnapping his parishioners, look bad" is the kind of thinking you usually see in like, 16th century England shortly before something called the War Of The Creche breaks out

There has never been a President that has worked as hard as me! My hours are the longest, and my results are among the best. I’ve stopped Eight Wars, saving many millions of lives in the process, created the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country, brought Business back into the United States at levels never seen before, rebuilt our Military, created the Largest Tax Cuts and Regulation Cuts, EVER, closed our open and very dangerous Southern Border, when previous Administrations were unable to do so, and created an “aura” around the United States of America that has led every Country in the World to respect us more than ever before. In addition to all of that, I go out of my way to do long, thorough, and very boring Medical Examinations at the Great Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, seen and supervised by top doctors, all of whom have given me PERFECT Marks — Some have even said they have never seen such Strong Results. I do these Tests because I owe it to our Country. In addition to the Medical, I have done something that no other President has done, on three separate occasions, the last one being recently, by taking what is known as a Cognitive Examination, something which few people would be able to do very well, including those working at The New York Times, and I ACED all three of them in front of large numbers of doctors and experts, most of whom I do not know. I have been told that few people have been able to “ace” this Examination and, in fact,

most do very poorly, which is why many other Presidents have decided not to take it at all. Despite all of this, the time and work involved, The New York Times, and some others, like to pretend that I am “slowing up,” am maybe not as sharp as I once was, or am in poor physical health, knowing that it is not true, and knowing that I work very hard, probably harder than I have ever worked before. I will know when I am “slowing up,” but it’s not now! After all of the work I have done with Medical Exams, Cognitive Exams, and everything else, I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean “THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.” They are true Enemies of the People, and we should do something about it. They have inaccurately reported on all of my Election Results and, in fact, were forced to apologize on much of what they wrote. The best thing that could happen to this Country would be if The New York Times would cease publication because they are a horrible, biased, and untruthful “source” of information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Every part of this is bonkers. The intro is bonkers. The transition to his health is bonkers. The mention that other presidents didn't need cognitive exams is bonkers. The claim that this screening test is somehow hard is bonkers. The idea that criticism of him is treason is bonkers. All of it.

55, obviously

Correct