As I wrote in the comment he is not my politician. I have the same issues as you with him. However, I think going in blind about what’s really happening makes any move lacking in reason and material evidence and arguments that are based in reality. It’s better to know what really is going on and argue from that standpoint rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction that ignores things.
For example, I don’t know anything about proposed alternative speakers, but I have seen people suggest that El-Sayed be the speaker… He’s my kind of guy. He punches back speaks clearly and seems to be the kind of person that I’m like, but I feel like we barely know how he can operate as a savvy politician who needs to get a handful of Republicans on the Democrat side to finally bury Trump. That requires someone who really knows how to maneuver within the system. Chuck knows how to do that so I’ll give him that. But you’re absolutely right about all the other things that are terrible about him. Can we get someone who’s not terrible who can actually maneuver?
I don’t know about you but this is the first time I’ve heard about this Van Hollen character. Maybe I don’t follow inside baseball enough, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that we should keep Chuck because we know who he is. But I also don’t think just going in blind on some one. We don’t really know much about make sense either.
Amusing that you think I’m blind. Neither El-Sayed nor any of the new progressives can effectively be Speaker because they have not been in the Senate. You have to have spent at least some amount of time in the chamber to do the job. It’s not for beginners, and I never said it was.
And I also note that you have entirely ignored – again – the most salient points of all, which are the reasons WHY Schumer should not continue as Senate leader.
In the new Senate there are 57 Democratic senators, plus or minus, to choose from, along with an absolute wealth of collected wisdom there to help whoever is chosen, and the plain fact of the matter is that people get replaced all the time. Even politicians. And the world goes on, for better or for worse.
But it WILL NOT be Schumer if we are to have change.
“I have many jobs as [Senate] leader… and one is to fight for aid to Israel — all the aid that Israel needs,” Schumer said
“I will continue to fight for it,” Schumer continued. “We delivered more security assistance to Israel, our ally, than ever, ever before.”
The US now has $40 TRILLION in debt and this motherfucker wants to continue to bleed us dry.
Tell you what. YOU, personally, can whip out your wallet, scrape everything you have out of it, send it to some Israeli defense fund, and rest easy in the knowledge that your own cash will be used to fund genocide.
I want no part of it. Stop coming at me with your willfully ignorant bullshit.
There will not be a second Chuck Schumer: whoever gets selected will be his or her own self, with their own strengths and weaknesses. But that person will be the choice of their party, and have the help of those there – including Schumer himself to help, if he is even a fraction of the citizen you think he is.
You elided past all the rest of what I wrote, so I came to the point: there are others who can do the job. I can’t name them, because it has to be someone the Senate likes personally and can get the votes, as well as who knows the Senate and the senators: all of this is something a noob can’t do. But even LBJ had to start somewhere.
My guess is that you are getting caught in the details as you write, but what you may not realize is that you are coming across as incredibly insulting. Those of us downvoting you are neither ignorant nor blind, for myself I’m probably three times older than you (at minimum), and it doesn’t take much to understand the basics of what a Senate Majority Leader does. But you don’t credit anyone else with even that much.
TL;DR: Better a lesser politician with full allegiance to his own country and people, than the best political operative with an allegiance to billionaires and Israel.
As I wrote in the comment he is not my politician. I have the same issues as you with him. However, I think going in blind about what’s really happening makes any move lacking in reason and material evidence and arguments that are based in reality. It’s better to know what really is going on and argue from that standpoint rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction that ignores things.
For example, I don’t know anything about proposed alternative speakers, but I have seen people suggest that El-Sayed be the speaker… He’s my kind of guy. He punches back speaks clearly and seems to be the kind of person that I’m like, but I feel like we barely know how he can operate as a savvy politician who needs to get a handful of Republicans on the Democrat side to finally bury Trump. That requires someone who really knows how to maneuver within the system. Chuck knows how to do that so I’ll give him that. But you’re absolutely right about all the other things that are terrible about him. Can we get someone who’s not terrible who can actually maneuver?
I don’t know about you but this is the first time I’ve heard about this Van Hollen character. Maybe I don’t follow inside baseball enough, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that we should keep Chuck because we know who he is. But I also don’t think just going in blind on some one. We don’t really know much about make sense either.
Amusing that you think I’m blind. Neither El-Sayed nor any of the new progressives can effectively be Speaker because they have not been in the Senate. You have to have spent at least some amount of time in the chamber to do the job. It’s not for beginners, and I never said it was.
And I also note that you have entirely ignored – again – the most salient points of all, which are the reasons WHY Schumer should not continue as Senate leader.
In the new Senate there are 57 Democratic senators, plus or minus, to choose from, along with an absolute wealth of collected wisdom there to help whoever is chosen, and the plain fact of the matter is that people get replaced all the time. Even politicians. And the world goes on, for better or for worse.
But it WILL NOT be Schumer if we are to have change.
From earlier this year:
The US now has $40 TRILLION in debt and this motherfucker wants to continue to bleed us dry.
Tell you what. YOU, personally, can whip out your wallet, scrape everything you have out of it, send it to some Israeli defense fund, and rest easy in the knowledge that your own cash will be used to fund genocide.
I want no part of it. Stop coming at me with your willfully ignorant bullshit.
Wow, wtf? That was beyond
No. It really wasn’t.
There will not be a second Chuck Schumer: whoever gets selected will be his or her own self, with their own strengths and weaknesses. But that person will be the choice of their party, and have the help of those there – including Schumer himself to help, if he is even a fraction of the citizen you think he is.
You elided past all the rest of what I wrote, so I came to the point: there are others who can do the job. I can’t name them, because it has to be someone the Senate likes personally and can get the votes, as well as who knows the Senate and the senators: all of this is something a noob can’t do. But even LBJ had to start somewhere.
My guess is that you are getting caught in the details as you write, but what you may not realize is that you are coming across as incredibly insulting. Those of us downvoting you are neither ignorant nor blind, for myself I’m probably three times older than you (at minimum), and it doesn’t take much to understand the basics of what a Senate Majority Leader does. But you don’t credit anyone else with even that much.
Meanwhile, a Senate Majority Leader can block as much legislation as he allows, and Schumer has done so in favor of Israel.
TL;DR: Better a lesser politician with full allegiance to his own country and people, than the best political operative with an allegiance to billionaires and Israel.