• someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    When asked if impeachment was a top priority, Jeffries said “of course not” during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”

    “I’ve made clear from the very beginning that our top priority is going to be to drive down the high cost of living,” the House minority leader added.

    Sounds like he’s trying to win the midterms.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Sure, drive down the cost of living … by impeaching Trump and getting rid of his dumbass tariffs.

      • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Impeaching Trump will not remove him and is political theater since there is no way they will have 67 senate votes. It should be done anyway as a matter of principle, but should not be a top priority.

        • OwOarchist@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          since there is no way they will have 67 senate votes.

          They somehow found the Senate votes for making the Epstein files release into law. (A law which the regime is now blatantly and unapologetically violating.)

          What would have happened there if House Dems just sat on their thumbs and said, “There is no way we will have the votes in the Senate for this”?

          The Dems have got to stop assuming defeat before they even try.

          • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s also not beneficial to waste political capital on extreme long shots. Impeach as a matter of principal, but don’t make it a primary focus.

            • OwOarchist@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I kind of take objection to the entire concept of ‘political capital’, spoken of as if it’s an exchange currency that gets used up and permanently goes away when you spend it. It stinks of corrupt and opaque backroom deals and quid pro quo. And, as is the case here, it creates and justifies self-defeating attitudes, where politicians very often don’t dare to do the right thing, because they can’t risk ‘spending’ their precious ‘political capital’ on the right thing when they’re saving it up for something else they might possibly need it for later. How many politicians have ended their terms with ‘political capital’ still left unspent in their account? That shit has an expiration date – it makes no sense to hoard it!

              Instead, just do the right thing (to the best of your ability to determine what the ‘right thing’ is) immediately and unrelentingly, at every turn. Never hold back.

              And I also only ever hear it as an explanation of why Dems “can’t” do the right thing. When have you ever heard Republicans talking about how they can’t do something because they ‘don’t have the political capital’? No, they just do it. And if their bill/resolution/whatever fails to pass, they just do it again. And again. How many times did they try to repeal the Affordable Care Act? They obviously didn’t have the ‘political capital’ to pull that off, but it didn’t stop them from trying over and over again anyway. Why can’t the Dems have a bit of that energy when it comes to doing things that might benefit the country? (I know, trick question. The real reason they can’t do that is because they’re bought and paid for by corporate interests. ‘Political capital’ is just another convenient excuse they trot out in the all-too-frequent case of when the interests of their donors aren’t aligned with the interests of their voters.)

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sounds like you don’t understand where we’re at as a nation.

      Or what Americans actually want. it’s not a “vocal minority” that want the pedophile, racist, bigoted asshole of a president that is jacking up our cost of living so he can be a fucking king gone. So ignoring that and saying you will do nothing about it IS NOT A WINNING STRATEGY.

      doing nothing except writing stern letters is not going to solve the problem, either.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          that’s excessively simplistic.

          Trump did not win “because of the economy.”

          He won because he was able to motivate his base to vote where Harris had been less able to do so.

          Yes, Trump utilized “the economy” as a talking point, but he also utilized deregulation, and immigration (read: general bigotry and scapegoating) as well as LGBTQ+ and christofascist culture war bullshit. Trump’s voters are too stupid to understand that he’s lying to them, so that kind of messaging actually works.

          Harris on the other hand also campaigned on “the economy”- and the cost of living and continued work to supporting not-millionaires; as well as shit like Trump’s former immigration plan and continued support for Israel and so on. harris/Democrat voters are not too stupid to see the problem with some of the things she adopted(immigration, supporting israel) and such like; while souring on economic messaging because Biden had been constantly running that out as if it were amazing while most Americans were struggling. (it took him until like the October before the presidential election to even acknowledge most Americans were still struggling.)

          Basically, Trump won because Harris did exactly what the Jefferies is now doing; and that’s summed up as “Ignoring the American people”.