Summary

Progressives criticized House Democrats for choosing Rep. Gerry Connolly over Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the top Democratic seat on the House Oversight Committee.

The 131-84 vote, reportedly influenced by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sparked backlash against the party’s “gerontocracy,” with critics like MSNBC’s Joy Reid and others arguing it prioritizes seniority over fresh ideas.

Connolly defended the decision, citing his experience, but progressives argued it reflects the Democratic Party’s resistance to change, hindering its ability to address future challenges and energize younger voters.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-2 points
*

She’s trying to play the game. She tried bucking them for the first couple years of her tenure in that seat. And they locked her out of everything. Pelosi lead the charge in that. AOC has been trying to ingratiate herself to that bitch but it has not helped because Pelosi is fucking cancer to the Democratic party. She sucks up all the oxygen in the room and gives literally nothing back. The reason Obamacare started out as such a god-awful mess is because pelosi refused to even consider a public option. And now it’s truly completely humped because the Democrats basically gave the Presidency, the House, and the Senate to the Republicans.

The only answer is chemotherapy. Meaning we need to kill most of the party by voting progressive independent instead of towing the party line. Because clearly they don’t give a shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

What a shit take. If you wanna get away with just making shit up like that then you should just go on right wing talk shows and pretend to be a pundit. They’ll love you

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s been almost 10 years since Bernie was screwed out of the primary.

If progressives give a shit about actually fixing this country they will not be allowed to do that from within the Democratic party.

We need a third party, and if progressives aren’t interested in splitting then they are complicate in the status quo

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Pelosi refused to even consider a public option

Nope. Version 1 of the ACA from the Pelosi House: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3962/summary/00

This is the 2nd time I’ve come across someone lying specifically about this in the past day. Not sure if Zoomer hyperbole or Vlad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

First off. That’s not how bills work. You don’t introduce one and have it fail and that’s the “first draft”. Secondly this bill didn’t fail. It passed and it has become law. Thirdly this is a simple Medicaid and Medicare expansion bill. It did not create a public option for people. It just made Medicaid and Medicare available for a few more people than it previously did. You should actually read the stuff you link to.

Here is the actual Affordable Care Act with its “first draft” AKA the introduction.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590

And finally I’m Gen X not a Zoomer. I was there when they wrote this shit, I was there when they were debating it and paying very close attention. And I watched Nancy Pelosi go on television and tell everyone that a public option was not on the table because they wanted “bipartisan support” and Republicans wouldn’t support it with a public option attached. (Biden echoed this later while running for president) This, even though at that time they owned both the House and the Senate and the Presidency. And they were still trying to play nice with the goddamn Republicans. They were “afraid of a filibuster”. And they didn’t have the spine necessary to do away with the 2/3 majority overrule. Which, BTW, the Republicans have no scruples about doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

He’s arguing in favour of letting Republicans win every election from now on, so my money’s on Vlad, with a sidebet on single-digit IQ.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 479K

    Comments