Kyle

Dem caucus needs to have a procedure in place for these situations to allow the elected official an appropriate opportunity of time to make the decision themselves (or for health to improve) before the caucus takes action to “invite” them to retire (removing seniority, removal from committees, etc.)

This! They need to give up this institutional “courtesy” of letting aging colleagues (who behind closed doors are actually in cognitive decline and/or poor physical health) decide WHEN it’s appropriate to retire. It frequently puts everything at risk cause they can’t be trusted to self assess.

In 2016, I was a big Hillary supporter (and I thought some Bernie supporters were real assholes during that primary) but I absolutely would have voted for Bernie if she lost. I believed the rest of the party would do the same. This shit is making me question how many would have refused to back him.

Not being elitist, but this man is the only sitting senator without a bachelor’s degree and it shows. He doesn’t know shit and doesn’t care to.

Considering her mom is the reason that the legal goal of American feminism (the ERA) never became a reality, it’s a stretch to blame feminism for the unhappiness. Perhaps if the ERA had become law, women would have had the full rights that feminism promoted. Instead, they were given pieces only.

In those cases, if they end up working out for those people long term, then great. But my point is that Chuck gave up the only leverage Dems had (and got nothing in return); leverage that could have prevented or drastically reduced the harm of Trumps OBBB that will harm millions.

Those are such poor comparisons that I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation.

Considering it hasn’t made one lick of difference, I’m not sure what your point is. He’s ignored court orders and SCOTUS has let him. The courts might as well not been open since they can’t stop him.

Right “message” vs best outcome ⚖️ Forgive me, but your moral panic about what is the right message to send matters less to me than the fact that it would lead to less abuse of adult sex workers and minors being trafficked, if the industry was regulated and operated in the light.

Plus, it was a flimsy argument even then. Plenty of scholars, elected leaders, and experts in the courts pointed out that courts move to emergency funds and prioritize cases. So cases related to Trump and unconstitutional actions by the executive branch would have been heard FOR WEEKS or even months

WHAT PROGRESS AGAINST TRUMP!?
That is the most laughable part because what have we seen: Trump ignored all the court orders anyway! And then took stays to SCOTUS who ruled to let him act with impunity! So none of it mattered anyway. Schumer bet wrong.

Yes, that’s why when it is decriminalized and regulated, those things don’t happen nearly as often in other countries. When industries operate in the shadows, it makes it easier to do very bad things. It’s true of abortion, marijuana, alcohol, and countless other things.

Just because those things happened at the same time doesn’t make them relevant to THIS discussion. What are you even talking about?!

And I think Schumer has been a very weak Senate leader. Harry Reid was better and it’s too bad he had to retire early because of losing his vision. Chuck has no fight and, specifically, he caved on the debt ceiling (when the House Dems held strong), but got nothing out of giving in. He needs to go.

I am by no means a person who expects a politician to be a savior or anything. I like AOC but I’m not enamored by her. But I do think that to many of our Dems in Congress are too old (out of touch, don’t understand technology, are rich now, will die before most problems will effect them anyway).

Sex work (by consenting adults) is work, criminalizing it is incompatible with the human right to bodily autonomy, and in other countries (where it is decriminalized), it helps improve the lives and conditions of sex workers, who will be engaging in that work regardless of if it is illegal.

Yes, I forgot how relevant early 1800s elections are to today’s voters and political discourse. My apologies for assuming you were referencing a more recent example.

And I don’t like that there’s a double standard for women being political or calculating, but it is unfortunately what happens (it’s exactly what happened to Hillary and countless others). Being aware of the reality of sexism within the electorate doesn’t make me sexist; it makes me a realist.

Okay, I’ve never been a huge Bernie person, but that’s a misrepresentation of his history. He moved to Vermont and worked a variety of jobs before running for mayor of a town there (Burlington), then for Congress, and eventually Senate. You’re suggesting AOC move there just to run for Senate.

No, it’s called not destroying or tarnishing your brand. She’s a proud Puerto Rican New Yorker who represents a very diverse electorate currently (ethnically, socio-economically, etc.). You’re suggesting she give that up (and being authentic) to represent one of the least diverse states: Vermont.

I think you’re a centrist, establishment Dem who would prefer to keep the Democratic senator status quo by having AOC replace Bernie, so the progressive caucus doesn’t grow in the Senate. Rather than her replace either of the centrist Dems from NY, if AOC were to run for Senate there.

No, they would be recognizing that she moved there to run for Bernie’s seat and see it as being calculating and “political” rather than authentic. Why do YOU want her to move to Vermont so bad?

Political acumen must not be your strong suit. That or you just want to create a controversy where there isn’t one. If she runs for Senate, she’ll want to represent her home state of NEW YORK. Not Vermont.

Does that make sense for a life-long New Yorker (except for college in Boston) who has built her reputation and political brand on being authentic and on representing people like her? She’d lose all credibility with her base, destroying the progress she and Bernie made.

I don’t trust Google AI to do my research for me, but even the AI doesn’t say he’s above water among Dems. You don’t win reelection by having a “52% favorability” in your own party, especially when there are viable/popular challengers. He’s just lucky his term runs through 2028.

If he has someone in mind to replace him in Vermont, it’s probably someone WHO LIVES IN VERMONT. How many times do people on this app have to explain to you that he can’t endorse AOC for Senate in Vermont when she lives in NY?

Bipartisanship “for the sake of” bipartisanship means valuing the concept or perception of bipartisanship over the outcome, or whether or not you know the other side is not acting in good faith. I do not see the value in doing this in situations when we know the GOP is not acting in good faith.

No, that’s not what that means. “In and of itself” means the inherent or intrinsic aspects of bipartisanship. For me, this means is there value in bipartisanship as method of governance or of accomplishing goals? I think there can be, especially if both sides enter in good faith.

I do NOT think she enjoyed having to work with him (I’m sure she’d have preferred that Dem Claire McCaskill still held that seat). But she was in Congress to serve her constituents to the best of her ability. Our new rep, Wesley Bell, will likely have to do the same eventually. It is unfortunate.

When you are a Dem rep (especially for a majority black district) and BOTH of your senators are MAGA Republicans, you unfortunately may have to hold your nose to get help in the other chamber to get what your constituents need. And Hawley cared about the issue so she took him up on it to help people