I'm So Disappointed with Schumer and Jeffries. They Don't Agree with Me 100%.

[MineralMan]

How dare they adjust their demands to make them possible to achieve? Who cares whether we have majorities in the House and Senate? I mean why can't we ram what we want through anyhow.

Why, I'm tempted not to vote at all if that's how it's going to be! That'll show them, dammit!

[Permanut]

1. Well played.

[FalloutShelter]

14. Absolutely!

[Ilikepurple]

111. What are we playing? Own the libs?

I know there are some who didn’t vote in the last election for the reasons Mineral Man stated, but this sarcasm reeks of trying to chill critical discussion of the best tactics to take here. As stated later, if he knows that this doesn't apply to a single cited DU comment, what’s its purpose other than to rally those satisfied with the status quo against those who are not by mocking this borderline straw man. There are arguments for both Schumer and Jeffries position on this matter, but making fun of those that disagree isn’t one of my favorites.

[mcar]

123. Please define critical discussion

Most of the Schumer/Jeffries bashing here is along the lines of "weak, spineless, Turd Way, blah, blah."

Oh, and Jeffries mentioned God in a tweet last year so there we go.

I'd love to see actual critical discussion.

[Ilikepurple]

168. It's not this response. I imagined something closer to the discussion you and Cirsium had below.

Here you kind of just prove the point that OP just wanted to rally their troops to conflate any criticism of Schumer and Jeffries with the weakest or unsubstantiated criticisms. Who people vote for isn’t even at the emotional core of this discussion. Critical discussion often involves analysis of situations and their potential effects. Your opinion isn’t invalid just because some who have the same opinion issue it without reason or by derision, so I don’t know why you find offense. All criticism of Schumer and Jeffries is not bashing just because some chose to call them names instead of articulating their criticisms. Schumer and Jeffries are professional politicians that should be able to handle a bit of name calling, especially when they are not direct recipients. Is the best way of defending them making two-dimensional caricatures of fellow DU members? I understand that the “bashers” want Jeffries and Schumer to either change tactics or step aside. What is it you want besides insulating our leaders from criticism? Exactly what we are doing now because anything else would be “ridiculous”, “hysterical”, and cartoon level derision.

[Orrex]

207. Excellent post.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

180. I agree

[msongs]

2. abolish ICE is not gonna happen and it is a bad look. there are some things I would like to see happen

at minimum:

get rid of masks
get rid of GI Joe costumes and go back to old school uniforms
get rid of the military grade equipment

follow DUE PROCESS at all times.

Probably a few more items I forget at the moment.

Obama/Biden deported many people but they did not put on a public gestapo display.
Immigration reform is a related but different topic not included in this post.

[Escurumbele]

50. OK, did Shumer and Jeffries meet that minimum?

If they didn't then why is anyone defending them? They keep bending to the whims of republicans, no hiding from that.

[mcar]

124. Seems to me they have

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220997229

[Cha]

177. Mahalo for Link, mcar... Turns out this is my fave

OP today.. the one we're on now.

[we can do it]

163. Already bending on masks.

[mcar]

166. Nope

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220999017

[sboatcar]

71. Also stop the roving kidnap patrols

They're still going on daily here in Minneapolis

[sheshe2]

3. Well done.

Thank you 😊

[617Blue]

4. They're hiding under the couch hoping GOP unpopularity will propel them to majority. Won't work.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

5. People keep forgetting we have a MINORITY STATUS in Congress

And we have to fight for every little thing, so making large demands are simply not going to work.

[MineralMan]

7. You're right. If we don't understand that,

and we don't understand how our federal legislature works, how the hell are we going to ever get anything done?

I'm depressed about the level of misunderstanding I see right here. It's shocking to me.

[Gore1FL]

15. The solution is not to roll over hoping for a belly scratch.. NT

[LearnedHand]

136. Sorry that doesn't hold water

The republicans ground congress completely to a halt when they were out of power. I guess the dems just don’t understand how to use procedural tactics to do the same.

[lapucelle]

214. When did "Republicans grind Congress to a halt" when they were out of power?

Republicans were last out of power from January 2021 to January 2023.

What Democrats achieved – and didn’t – in two years controlling Congress
December 2022

In January, Democrats will lose their unified control of Capitol Hill, ending a remarkable legislative streak that saw the party deliver on many of their campaign promises.

While Joe Biden and his party did not accomplish everything they set out to do, Democrats in Congress spent the last two years marshalling their thin majorities to pass consequential legislation that touches nearly every aspect of American life from water quality to marriage equality. Some of the most notable measures even earned Republican support.

The US president tweeted at midnight on New Year’s Eve: “I think it’s going to be a great year. Why? Because we get to start implementing a lot of the things we passed last year.”

snip========================

- American Rescue Plan Act
- Protections for same-sex marriage
- Government funding bill
- Ukraine aid
- Reform the Electoral Count Act
- Inflation Reduction Act
- Aid for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits
- The Chips and Science Act
- Gun-control legislation
- Bipartisan infrastructure law
- 235 Article III federal bench seats filled (one Supreme Court justice, 45 appeals court judges, 187 district court judges, and two judges on the Court of International Trade; President Biden's four year total)
- House committee to investigate the Capitol attack
- Establishment of Juneteenth as a federal holiday

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/01/democrats-congress-control-achievements-joe-biden

[Prairie Gates]

6. Abolish ICE

[MineralMan]

8. Great Idea. Now...How do you do that in reality?

Great Ideas are easy to come by. Effective ideas are somewhat more difficult.

We need to move in a direction. If we don't move at all, we move backwards.

If nothing gets done, nobody gets anything.

Reality. It sucks!

[Prairie Gates]

9. Abolish ICE

[MineralMan]

11. You already said that. It's a great idea.

How do you plan to accomplish that?

[Prairie Gates]

13. Abolish ICE

[beaglelover]

20. So you got nothing.

[Prairie Gates]

22. Abolish ICE

[MineralMan]

24. In two words.

That's the only thing we need, right? Just "Abolish ICE." How ridiculous, eh?

[Prairie Gates]

26. Abolish ICE

[tritsofme]

64. I want a pony.

[Prairie Gates]

66. Abolish ICE

[tritsofme]

84. I want TWO ponies!

[Prairie Gates]

94. Abolish ICE

[Cirsium]

117. huh?

"Disband the Gestapo" equals "I want a pony?"

[Prairie Gates]

139. Imagine thinking antifascism is wanting a pony!

Imagine still running the whole pony line after it has been shown to be so clownishly wrong, this many years later.

[Cirsium]

142. When I started hearing that "pony" nonsense

I first started hearing that in 2008 from right wingers who were mocking Obama and his supporters.

[Prairie Gates]

145. The same supposed realists now asking how many mask wearing fascists should be allowed

on the head of a pin were running it close to home in several subsequent elections. Their inability to face the actual reality of capitalist fascism is part of the reason why we're here.

[Cirsium]

152. Naming reality clearly

I think that’s the core issue. What gets called “realism” too often turns out to be a refusal to face conditions as they actually are. We’ve seen over multiple cycles that minimizing the nature of the threat and narrowing demands hasn’t preserved power or prevented losses. At some point realism has to mean naming reality clearly, not endlessly adjusting around it.

[tritsofme]

191. Abolish ICE is a performative slogan, not an actual policy demand.

If it makes you feel good to scream it out, then have fun, I guess. But let’s not pretend it’s a serious policy option in 2026.

[Cirsium]

198. I agree - slogans aren't policy

I agree that slogans are not policy. The issue is whether the problems people are pointing at get addressed, or whether labeling them “performative” becomes a way to avoid the conversation entirely.

You don’t have to like the phrase “Abolish ICE” to acknowledge that it reflects unresolved questions about immigration enforcement, due process, and institutional design. Dismissing the slogan doesn’t answer those questions—it just avoids them.

Very few policy changes begin as “possible now.” They become possible because people argue about them, define them more clearly, and apply pressure over time. Calling that process “performative” skips the part where politics actually happens.

Saying something isn’t possible now is fine. What matters is whether it’s allowed to be discussed, refined, and moved toward. Declaring issues off-limits because they’re not immediately actionable freezes policy where it already is.

“Not possible now” isn’t a rebuttal; it’s a status report. The question is whether we’re allowed to challenge the status quo or only manage it. "Not possible now” is an argument about timing, not about legitimacy.

[leftstreet]

205. +1

[tritsofme]

208. What I'm objecting to is the imposition of impossible demands aimed at Democratic politicians

and then proceeding to excoriate them when said impossible demands are not met.

It’s a pattern that repeats itself over and over

Abolish ICE can be an aspirational goal. The issue is when it’s treated as a litmus test for elected officials who simply cannot deliver it under current conditions.

[Cirsium]

212. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I think this is where we still diverge a bit. I agree that it’s a mistake to treat aspirational goals as if they can be delivered by individual officials under current conditions. That would be unfair.

But there’s a difference between a litmus test and a directional demand. “Abolish ICE” doesn’t have to mean “deliver this tomorrow or you’re a traitor.” It can mean: don’t expand it, don’t normalize it, don’t fund it without conditions, and be honest about the harms and alternatives.

If elected officials are insulated not only from impossible demands, but from any sustained pressure or critique until conditions are magically perfect, then nothing ever moves. Aspirations are how conditions change in the first place.

[tritsofme]

221. I'm not disagreeing with that in theory. I'm saying that people who typically use this rhetoric behave as if it's

the former, not the latter.

The issue isn’t aspirational pressure. It’s directing maximalist anger at actors who lack the governing capacity to deliver it under current conditions.

That dynamic often functions more as internal purity enforcement than as a strategy for building the power necessary to achieve the goal.

[Cirsium]

222. Yes, indeed

I think that’s a fair description of how the rhetoric often lands in practice. I don’t disagree that maximalist language is frequently paired with maximalist blame, and that can turn inward and corrosive.

Where I still think we differ is on what conclusion we draw from that pattern.

If the problem is that some activists weaponize aspirational language as purity enforcement, then the fix seems to be challenging that behavior, not retiring the aspirations or narrowing the range of acceptable demands to only what existing institutions can already deliver.

Because the flip side risk is this: if elected officials are effectively shielded from sustained critique unless they already possess the power to act, then aspiration gets postponed indefinitely. Conditions never quite become “right,” and pressure quietly drains away.

I’m not arguing for yelling at people who can’t do the impossible. I am arguing that directional demands matter precisely because they shape what becomes politically thinkable over time. Movements don’t usually succeed by waiting for capacity to appear; capacity is built in response to pressure that initially looks unrealistic.

So yes—misdirected anger is real and counterproductive. But the alternative can’t be a politics where ambition is treated as irresponsibility and restraint becomes the default virtue. That’s how stasis wins without having to argue for itself.

[FoxNewsSucks]

41. Not really. Just "pull the plug" basically.

End funding. Fire them. Transfer the equipment to the military where it belongs. Let deportations go back to being handled by the border patrol.

That's what we should be demanding.

The points itemized in a post above (no masks, follow the law etc) are an adequate compromise, but they aren't even standing up to get that.

I'm sick of the store being given away right up front. Apparently they didn't learn anything from Obama's habit of opening with what we really want.

[mcar]

126. Well, then they can scream that Schumer/Jeffries "caved"

Perhaps that is the actual goal.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. My idea?

When we have a Trifecta we revoke the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or alter it to removed the function of Immigration Customs Enforcement Officers.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/03_0116_hr_5005_enr.pdf

Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection stay along with the Customs Modernization Act of 1993. I'm in trade compliance for a US Manufacturer. This ICE thing is slowing down refunds and drawback of all types.

It's not in the Constitution.

It's also why we need to position ICE as a Bureaucratic Paramilitary. It's easier to get rid of than a law enforcement agency.

It's pretty simple. This is a high level of what I've written to Senators Kim and Booker - and Rep Kean Jr asking for.

[Gore1FL]

19. Use the Senate rules to stop ICE funding.

The GOP doesn’t have 60 votes.

But as you admitted in post 7, some folks don’t know how our Federal legislature works. Welcome to that club.

[MineralMan]

23. Both of my Senators would vote that way.

How about yours?

I've addressed the issue with my Senators. How about yours?

I know exactly how it works. I've been involved with influencing legislators I've helped to get elected for decades.

[calguy]

90. No help from my Senators, unfortunately

One is Tom Cotton, and the other John Boosman, who we never see except for when running for re-election, and even then, all he does is hire an agency to run ads for himself. The man rarely makes a public appearance.

[Ilikepurple]

103. So using your voice to influence legislators is okay or not?

I get so confused as to how we are supposed to interact with and talk about our representatives and leaders.

[Gore1FL]

149. Neither would. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt are into white nationalism.

That's no excuse for the Democrats in the Senate to roll-over, however. Those that do are not meeting the moment and need to be primaried and replaced.

[leftstreet]

25. +1 GOP poll numbers make them vulnerable

That's what I'd be working on

Pleading, blackmail, whatever it takes. And it shouldn't take much

[JustAnotherGen]

30. I'm going beyond that

Tear it out of the Homeland Security Act when we have a trifecta. I don't care if a future Senate lifts the filibuster rules to end a deadly, murderous paramilitary that executes US Citizens.

[Prairie Gates]

38. That's the bottom line

Abolish ICE should be 100% the goal and starting position of any Democratic legislation or negotiation. This idea that somebody might disagree on getting a murderous, unaccountable agency off the streets, and that refusing to accept that disagreement is "purity policing" or "unrealistic" is grade A bullshit.

Get the fascist thugs off the damn street and abolish the auspices under which they are operating. There is no margin for disagreement on that, period, full fucking stop. How you get there, obviously, adults will disagree on, but pretending that we can disagree on Abolish ICE is a fucking deflection masquerading as seriousness and maturity. It is, in fact, the childish position. Abolish ICE. Antifascism is non-negotiable. Abolish ICE. I am not voting for anyone who is not starting from that basic position.

[W_HAMILTON]

33. ICE has already been funded, it will continue to operate during a shutdown, and...

... if we did manage to get Republicans to agree to go along with us and defund or abolish ICE -- we won't -- Trump will simply veto it and/or illegally divert funding from elsewhere like he already has.

If people wanted Democrats to save everyone and wield powers they do not have, they should have voted for them.

[FoxNewsSucks]

43. probably, but instead of rolling belly up, Dems should MAKE tRump do that.

WE do what's right, force them to cheat instead of just giving in all the time.

[mcar]

128. Who is "rolling belly up?" nt

[JustAnotherGen]

56. We do it when we have a trifect

And we do it by repealing and replacing the HSA of 2002.

I look at it like this - I'm a Democratic Party member for one KEY pet issue only - Voting Rights.

If they (the Magapubs) could and did strip the VRA of its teeth -

We can do the same. We don't have to just go along to get along. We can do big things because we've lost our sense of liberty.

[FoxNewsSucks]

161. That's a nice idea, but a Sinema/Manchin/Fetterman/LIEbermann du jour

will stab us in the back.

That's how it always works.

[Gore1FL]

100. So, They have money now and if we try to stop them from getting more...

The GOP will do and say mean things.

Quite an argument not to fight for our values.

[iemanja]

63. Vote against funding ICE for starters

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump needs Democratic votes to fund his Gestapo. The Senate has more power than the House because of the filibuster. Presenting Democrats can't exercise that power without a majority is false.

[Cirsium]

77. It starts with advocacy

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously.

Advocating only for what is possible is not advocacy at all.

[intheflow]

91. In reality, the next president can just issue

an Executive Order abolishing it. Say all ICE personnel to be transferred into Border Patrol. Any of the new hires with minimum training have to pass traditional BP training before they can be accepted into that org. If immigration enforcement needs to happen over 50 miles from the border, Feds can work with local law enforcement to apprehend actual bad guys.

[Gore1FL]

10. Missed the point, again, I see.

Don’t gaslight the issue, please.

[MineralMan]

18. No, I did not. I missed nothing.

I've missed nothing for a very long time. I'm old. I'm even more tired that I used to be about nonfunctional opposition to a Republican majority.

Something's missing, and has been for quite some time. It's called solidarity. A commitment to moving things forward.

If you don't see that happening, I'm afraid I'm out of suggestions for you.

[Gore1FL]

98. So the intention is to gaslight?

Interesting.

[Cirsium]

118. OK

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Is this you, then, building solidarity? Seems pretty provocative and divisive to me.

Or perhaps "solidarity" for you means "agree with me or I'll accuse you of being disloyal?"

[mcar]

129. Is constantly bashing Schumer/Jeffries,

and misrepesenting what they are saying (as some here are doing), building solidarity?

[Cirsium]

132. "Bashing" vs accountability

Calling out Schumer/Jeffries for what they are doing or failing to do is not “bashing” unless one assumes leadership is owed deference rather than scrutiny. Solidarity isn’t silence. In democratic politics, especially in moments of crisis, accountability is part of solidarity with the people who are harmed by policy choices.

You are using “solidarity” to mean alignment with leadership for tactical unity. I am using it to mean alignment with the people most affected. Those are not the same thing. When leadership positions diverge from justice or reality, solidarity with leadership can come at the expense of solidarity with the vulnerable.

Solidarity with whom is the real question here. Criticizing party leadership isn’t the same as attacking allies, especially when the criticism is about substance and consequences, not personalities. Movements don’t build power by suspending judgment indefinitely; they build it by being clear about what they stand for and who they stand with. If that clarity makes leadership uncomfortable, that’s not a failure of solidarity — it’s how accountability works.

Implicit in the question is: “Is now really the time?” History shows that this question is almost always asked when pressure is working. If criticism were truly irrelevant or unhelpful, it wouldn’t provoke this response.

[murielm99]

79. He did not miss the point.

This is the DEMOCRATIC underground. Did you miss that point?

[Gore1FL]

101. I didn't know the point of DU was to cower in the corner.

I guess it’s easier than fighting, but it isn’t what I joined for in 2001.

[Prairie Gates]

141. I'm a purist when it comes to fascist gangs kidnapping and murdering people in the street

Good Lord! They're going to be lecturing us about "realism" while we're being marched to the shooting pits!

[murielm99]

170. If I ignored your bashing,

I would be cowering.

So, you joined in 2001 and I guess that makes your opinion superior! Poor me. I didn't join until 2003.

Stop bashing Democrats. If I said some of the things about AOC and Bernie that you and your fellow bashers say about our leadership, I would be banned from DU.

[Gore1FL]

173. WTF?

I'm not trying to get into a dick matching contest with you.

I am not bashing Democrats. I am simply asking our elected representatives to seek our ideals and not cower.

How dare you accuse me of anything. Either put me on ignore, or fuck off.

[mcar]

202. This is true.

[FoxNewsSucks]

162. Sooooo when elected Dems want to grease the skids for

shitty republicon policy, we should blindly follow along?

Shouldn't the "opposition party" do any and ALL opposing possible, even if it's eventually overcome?

[murielm99]

171. Don't try to put words in my mouth

and stop bashing our leadership.

[FoxNewsSucks]

174. See the question marks? that's NOT

putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm ASKING if that's what you meant.

Your faux outrage gives me my answer.

And stop with the "bashing" BS. Unless you'd like to acknowledge that thugs literally bashing in the skulls of Americans is OK. I don't think it is, and I don't think enabling it is OK either.

[Ilikepurple]

178. I'm also sick of the "bashing" BS. It feels facile and counterproductive.

I’m not sure where the “bashing” narrative started, but it runs hard amongst a certain group that seems strangely overprotective of every decision our leadership makes. I’m willing to listen to arguments that the criticism is unfair, unfounded or even just rude. I might even learn something as has happened on occasion. Some who identify as progressive paradoxically insist we fall in line with the status quo. I’m not sure they understand progress requires change. It’s also okay if you don’t identify as a progressive, but if that’s the case defend your platform rather than not very democratically principled demand for conformity. What shape that takes is up for debate and that’s where divergent views may become useful. Regrettably, I think the idea is that then left leaning part of the party should concentrate on criticizing republicans because the center right has their hands full fending off any incursion from the left? They seemingly like to bash progressive constituents rather than left leaning politicians as to not betray their actual political views, although it sounds like Murielm99 has a word or two she’d like to share about Bernie and AOC, which contrary to her statement is surely allowed by DU’s TOS. If she was so bold to do so, we could then have a political discussion rather than this siblings in the car “he punched me first” nonsense. Who will bash the bashers? I think this thread provides some clues.

[beaglelover]

16. Well said!

[yaesu]

17. ICE hasn't been around that long, it was a fascist invention just like the debt ceiling, we can be the go along party or

A fighting party. We The People want a fighting party to fight fascism at every turn, not fighting will get a continues tRump cycle.

[MineralMan]

21. What sort of fighting are you talking about?

We're all fighting. But, there are turning points in US political reality. Every last one of those turning points happens on an election day.

If we miss our chances on those days, we're not fighting. We're giving up.

If we're confusing the points where we can make a different, we lose every time.

[Ilikepurple]

115. I would argue that there are "turning points" in between elections

How’d did MAGA get from January 6 to House wins in 2022 and trifecta 2024? I believe it was by influencing voter thought by hammering certain issues and viewpoints between elections. Political sentiment is often changed by events and actions by the party in power and sometimes even by reaction to events out of the party’s hands. I agree we have to vote to make a difference, but feel it’s simplistic to say political power is only decided on election days. We believe can make a difference everyday not only in influencing coming elections, but also influencing what actions politicians from all parties have to fear voter reprisal.

[FHRRK]

27. This point would have been arguable decades ago

Pre trumps first term maybe. For me it is laughable going back at least three decades. We had the clues back in the 90s, that is Repubs want complete control, they want to criminalize liberals.

After trumps first term, after Jan 6, after the last year, it is a straight up laughable point.

I’m retired, it would be great to kick back, ignore the shit show, let others deal with it. I don’t have grandkids, but I might, and either way, I’m not going to stop fighting to make this Country better. (More accurately, to stop this Country’s slide into fascism)

So with people being murdered by Feds, a private army for the fascists, there is not a simple solution, a few minor points that need to be incorporated.

Compromising and folding is not an option. I will be god damned if I will support short term bipartisan measures to fund a terrorist organization. Because then a quarter later, after the next foreseeable tragedy, the Repubs will be all over the media stating “we had bipartisan support for the funding.”

Point of reference, we are less than a qtr away from the same arguments being made to stop the shutdown. Trump got what he wanted, millions lost healthcare.

If you don’t want to fight, ok, some of us get it. But it is offensive to point fingers at, to condemn the fighters.

Edit to add after reading up thread request for solutions:

1. Furlough every ICE/DHS hired since Jan 1 2025.

We have mountains of video evidence that they are untrained, under misconception that they are the judge, jury, and executioner.

2. Thorough background checks of all remaining employees.

The actions over the last year lead to the logical observation that existing employees have been at best, incapable of mentoring.

[leftstreet]

78. +1

Great ideas

[Quiet Em]

28. It's very frustrating.

The con and Republicans are underwater on nearly everything. The only thing they could attempt to do to lesson the blow they are likely to face in the midterms is to try to create and then exploit a perceived division in the Democratic Party. And I have seen some social media influencers doing that exact bidding for them.

[betsuni]

36. Dividing the Democratic Party is key. Targeting customized anti-Democratic attacks to fit.

Worked before, will probably keep elections close in future.

[mcar]

130. Bingo!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

172. This thread

and many other threads on DU prove that dividing Dems is easy and it works.

Posting "Schumer" (among other buzz words) is like ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs. Works every time.

[Cirsium]

31. Nonsense

Stop applying this purity test. Loyalty tests are not a good look for us. People can disagree with leadership and still be loyal Democrats.

Not having majorities in the House and Senate never seems to stop Republicans from advancing their agenda.

We should only advocate for that which is "possible to achieve?'

Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.

Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.

Robert F. Kennedy

[W_HAMILTON]

34. "People can disagree with leadership and still be loyal Democrats."

That sure wasn't the case in 2016 or 2024.

[Cirsium]

40. I strongly question that

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

You shouldn't tar every progressive with the actions of the few.

In any case, beating up on those with whom you disagree with here is extremely unlikely to have any effect on those who failed to vote Democratic in the past. In addition to being morally repugnant - collective guilt accusations - it is also not effective at achieving your purported goal.

Argue policies and positions and philosophy with the people with whom you disagree. Smearing them, applying loyalty tests, and blaming them for past Democratic party failures is illogical and it is bad politics.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. As a progressive myself, i am cleaning up my own house here.

People can't claim to be progressive while not supporting/refusing to vote for the only people that would have prevented all this Republican terribleness from happening.

"Democrat party failures" -- your mask slipped.

[Cirsium]

76. Out of line

My mask slipped? That is a snide personal attack.

[Ilikepurple]

119. I'm not sure what cleaning house means other than resolving to silence progressive voices

Can one be progressive while arguing against the expression of progressive ideas? The number DU members that didn’t vote for Democratic Party candidates in the last major election is vanishingly small, so I don’t even know who your comment or this entire discussion is aimed at. I understand the “perfect can be enemy of the good” arguments, but I’m not convinced that this discussion is to convince those who didn’t vote as much as it is to attempt to silence progressives as the battle for the Party’s direction and platform moves towards the next election. We all know not voting D is bad. Do you want those with criticisms of party leadership decisions to not say anything and redirect there attention to belittling those who refused to vote for Democrats in hopes that sarcasm brings them to their senses? Threads like this speciously exalt party unity while mainly succeeding in unifying mainline party voices in trying to silence criticism of party leadership decisions. The same people who say for the sake of unity we should solely focus our ire on Republicans find a lot to say about their fellow Democrats with whom they disagree.

[W_HAMILTON]

215. When people like myself were telling everyone the dangers of Trump back in 2016...

...some claiming to be progressives (and Russian troll farms, it turns out...) tried to silence our dire warnings and instead said that we should focus on purifying ourselves (out of office apparently...) rather than criticizing Trump and his MAGA fascists.

And for those that say everyone voted for Democrats, some that spend most of their time criticizing Democrats seem to take personal offense when those on the left that did not are brought up. Why is that? Surely you do not agree with them and their actions that enabled this fascist takeover, do you?

[Scrivener7]

148. And again, everyone here did vote for those people.

[MineralMan]

46. Why do you question that?

Lets hear your reasoning.

I'll tell you what I heard. I heard a half a dozen people who normally vote for Democrats tell me that they voted third party instead of for Hillary and Kamala. That doesn't sound like so many, but it's a significant number, given the number people I know.

So, that didn't have any impact on the outcome here in Minnesota, but that's irrelevant. Next door, in Wisconsin, it had an impact. In Pennsylvania, it had an impact. All you have to do is look at the number of votes for third party candidates. Truly. That was the difference.

You're fond of making broadish statements, but not so strong in supporting you conclusions. So, tell us why you "question that."

[Cirsium]

80. Of course

Yes, people not voting for Democrats hurts Democrats. Not exactly news. But blaming people here with whom you happen to disagree has nothing to do with that.

[W_HAMILTON]

104. "No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood."

My experience mirrors yours.

[MineralMan]

97. Democrat Party?

Own goal!

[Cirsium]

107. Hardly

People here can easily look through my posting history for themselves. Your malicious and unfounded insinuation proves my point, that you are applying loyalty tests on those with whom you disagree in lieu of making good faith arguments to defend your positions.

[W_HAMILTON]

216. Yes, supporting and voting for the Democratic candidate is a loyalty test here.

[Cirsium]

217. There we go

I think we are all onboard.

[crimycarny]

54. Agree--I'm so tired of being accused of not being a loyal Democrat if I disagree with leadership on occasion

Voicing concerns is not the same as demanding perfection. Accusing other Democrats who voice frustration at times of expecting 100% agreement is just as divisive.

[3825-87867]

93. Not having majorities in the House and Senate

never seems to stop Republicans from advancing their agenda.

But MANY centrist Democrats voted with Republicans and for their views over the objections of those on the left who DID voice concerns. And they did it because of lobbyists most of the time.
So what was the use of supporting (and voting for) centrist Democrats who sided with Republicans to cover themselves and the wishes of some over the ignorance and especially apathy of those who chose not to be informed.

[SocialDemocrat61]

112. FYI

RFK was quoting George Bernard Shaw

[Cirsium]

186. Yep

Actually that is Edward Kennedy quoting his brother quoting George Bernard Shaw (at RFK's funeral).

“Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.”

― George Bernard Shaw

[mcar]

131. You're telling Mineral Man to stop with the purity tests?

[Cirsium]

133. Correct

He is expressing intolerance for any divergent opinion.

[mcar]

134. And those bashing Schumer/Jeffries aren't?

I see people on this board, over and over, slam Jeffries because he mentioned God in a tweet a year ago. Is that expressing tolerance for a divergent opinion?

Purity for me but not for thee seems to be the message from some here.

[Cirsium]

140. I agree with that

The criticism of Jeffries because he mentioned God was petty and obnoxious. But that kind of unserious sniping isn’t what’s at issue here, and conflating it with substantive criticism of leadership is a mistake. There’s a long American tradition of labeling any serious challenge to power as “divisive,” “intolerant,” or “purity politics” once it stops being convenient. That move has been used against abolitionists, labor organizers, civil rights leaders, and antiwar critics—usually by people urging patience, unity, and respect for existing leadership.

Invoking “purity politics” here misses the point. Criticism of leadership rhetoric or policy is not intolerance, and it isn’t a demand for personal ideological conformity. It’s a response to public signaling by people exercising power. Throughout US history, appeals to unity and tolerance have routinely been used to deflect substantive critique — especially when that critique comes from those pointing to structural harm rather than stylistic disagreement.

We’ve seen this pattern before. Abolitionists were accused of divisiveness for criticizing Lincoln. Labor organizers were accused of intolerance for challenging party-aligned leaders. Civil rights activists were told they were undermining allies by refusing to soften their demands. In retrospect, those critiques weren’t “purity tests”; they were necessary pressure. Accountability for people in power is not hypocrisy, and solidarity that requires silence is not solidarity — it’s discipline.

[mcar]

144. A. You invoked purity

B. I totally agree that criticizing our leaders isn't intolerant. The problem is, I see little actual criticism, i.e factual discussions of an action/statement/etc. For example, people on social media are screaming that Schumer/Jeffries "caved" on DHS funding - when they haven't.

I see the usual knee-jerk, Dems are weak, spineless, blah - that's not criticism, that's bashing.

I just posted an OP from Meidas Touch showing the Dems demands.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220999017

Is it intolerant of me to ask what is so objectionable in their demands?

[Cirsium]

151. I know

Fair enough. It was somewhat tongue in cheek - what's good for the goose...etc. Probably ill advised. Mea culpa.

The attacks on Jeffries reflect a common blind spot: religion in the African American community has not played the same political role as religion in white America. Historically, Black churches have been centers of resistance, mutual aid, organizing, and moral challenge to power, not vehicles for enforcing hierarchy. Conflating all religious language with political reaction is an ahistorical mistake, and white liberals in particular often miss that.

I think we agree more than we disagree on the need for factual criticism. My concern is less about individual votes and more about the strategic and moral lines leadership is willing—or unwilling—to draw. That’s where I think the real disagreement lies.

[mcar]

153. Thank you Cirsium!

I think we do agree more than we disagree - I think most of us Dems/Progressives agree more often than not.

I appreciate your response.

[Cirsium]

154. Thank you!

[angrychair]

32. Come on

Literally yesterday, at a professional wrestling match, historically a very pro Republican audience, they chanted "fuck ice" so long they had to pause the match.

The sentiment is there for real change weather so e believe that or not (by change I don't mean the normal police level of accountability which is no accountability at all)
. Democrats need to hold the line and demand real change or refuse to vote in any package that does not.
What is the harm in that?

Is your answer really to just do nothing at all and let Republicans have their way in all things?

[MineralMan]

35. My answer has to do with only one thing - Elections.

That's the part you're missing here. The day to day legislative and administrative battle is irrelevant, if we allow those things to interfere with our elections.

Twice in recent history, we have lost the highest office in the land because of people who said things like, "Well, I just don't like her, so I'm voting for (name a third-party candidate). We failed to elect Hillary Clinton and we failed to elect Kamala Harris. Instead, we got Donald J. Trump.

How did that work out, do you think? And we're moving in that direction once again. What will we do in 2028? Hell, what will we do in 2026? Will we shun some candidates who are not sufficiently progressive and let yet another Republican win in some race or races? In actual fact, there is a likelihood that we will do exactly that.

We've done it before and we're likely to do it again.

Those next two elections will likely be my last elections. That sucks, but what sucks more is that there's a fair chance we'll lose again by insisting that candidates meet 100% of our demands. They never will. They never do. We vote for them to avoid a far worse situation. Or, we should, anyhow.

But, we haven't done that far too many times, and it has cost us dearly. I hope we don't do that again - ever again.

I'm not convinced, though, that we will not, once again, make the same lame mistake we made those last two times.

VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS! EVERY LAST F-ING TIME! NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

[we can do it]

39. Yes we need to vote D. We also need to inspire nonvoters to do so.

Aim for the stars, shoot for the moon.

[1WorldHope]

52. No one person will meet 100% of any persons requirements.

I still think cheating has had a lot more to do with us losing than a purity test. I'm going to stop at that because I know I will never win this argument with you MineralMan. I still think if Bernie had been allowed to run he would have won. If you talk to young people, (40 something) and this is their world now, neither D's or R's have taken on the real problems, like climate change, wealth inequality, healthcare ... I disagree with sitting out the vote and people staying home is absolutely wrong. That and cheating is how the plump bump won. I think we are seeing a sea change, kids don't trust the status quo. 🫣

[Seinan Sensei]

59. "Plump bump"

Love it!

[1WorldHope]

68. The full title is plump bump on my rump😎

[crimycarny]

160. And I don't think criticizing leadership on certain issues equates to wanting 100%

That's where I get frustrated.

I voted for Hillary. I was afraid that Bernie was too outside the norm to get wide appeal. I think I got that completely wrong. Hillary would have been an amazing President, of that I have no doubt, but I think her campaign team failed her and took the Bernie voters for granted. I just don't want to see the Democratic Party do the same thing again.

I will always vote Democrat (unless they change into something unrecognizable, as the GOP has). But I will also voice my concerns. Democratic leadership needs feedback; living in an echo chamber is as bad as expecting perfection.

[Jack Valentino]

167. "VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS! EVERY LAST F-ING TIME! NOTHING LESS WILL DO." I agree with that---

but it doesn't mean that we should not push our elected leadership
to be 'less cautious and more bold' in the meantime!---


All of the polling I've been reading calls for funding for ICE,
by majorities, to be either 'cut severely' or 'Cut Off'---
and even the position to 'abolish ICE' has much more support
than it did a year or two ago---

Democratic politicians who vote to further enable ICE with continued funding
now are running the risk of alienating many of their own constituents by such votes---

As the minority in the congress, Democrats have little power---
but they need to exercise what little power they have now,
which seems to be on appropriation bills, particularly those concerning ICE---


The party base has made it clear that they want Democrats who will FIGHT! and I agree with that!

If it means another government shutdown for ICE and the 'Homeland Security Department',
I believe that the American people will NOW SUPPORT that decision,
ESPECIALLY Democrats and Independents!---

and that IS 'about the next elections' !

[Cirsium]

199. Understood

I share your frustration.

But I’m not missing elections. I’m saying elections are necessary but not sufficient.

If the only acceptable political activity is maximizing the next election outcome, then citizens are reduced to turnout machines and politicians are insulated from accountability between cycles. That may feel safer, but it isn’t how representative democracy is supposed to function.

Voting is the floor. Ongoing pressure, debate, and demands are how voters signal priorities before ballots are cast. Without that, elections become exercises in risk management rather than representation—and that’s how you end up with disengagement, not strength.

I think this is where we’re talking past each other. Maximizing the next election outcome short-circuits the process because election results are an effect of social change, not the cause. Social change comes from the ongoing national political discussion—what problems are named, what solutions are considered legitimate, and what expectations voters carry with them into the voting booth.

If that discussion is reduced entirely to “what helps us win the next election,” then the substantive political work never happens, and elections become reactive rather than representative. To be clear, I’m not talking about GOTV—that matters. I’m talking about the harder work that comes before that: advancing principles and expanding the discussion so elections actually have content, not just urgency.

The irony is that this is politics. The discussion we’re having right now—about priorities, limits, pressure, and representation—is the process by which social change happens. Elections don’t replace that work; they reflect where it has landed.

When people insist that only elections matter, they’re often missing the fact that the political work they’re worried about losing is happening right here, in real time.

[MineralMan]

200. If we do not win the elections, we do not have the majority

in Congress. If we do not have the majority in Congress, the Republicans have it. We lose again there.

Elections matter for that and other reasons. First, we have to win the elections.

[Cirsium]

201. Agreed!

100%

Of course elections matter. We agree on that.

Where we differ is in treating “first we have to win elections” as if it means only elections matter. Majorities don’t appear out of thin air—they’re the result of years of argument about priorities, values, and expectations.

If the only message voters hear is “vote for us or else,” without a parallel effort to articulate what we stand for and what we’re trying to change, then winning becomes harder, not easier. Elections are how power is counted; politics is how power is built.

I think we’re closer than it sounds. We agree elections are necessary. I’m arguing about what makes them winnable in the first place.

[MineralMan]

204. I do not know the factors that decide elections, frankly.

They vary from district to district, state to state, county to county and precinct to precinct. There is no single issue that determines how people in this enormous, diverse country will vote. Not even close.

So, elections have to be treated individually, not nationally, and not even by state. People who understand elections recognize that. there are constituencies that will absolutely never elect a Democrat, and their opposites, as well. Smart candidates avoid such elections. It is the elections that can be won by either side that make all the difference. We live in a nation where power flips from party to party frequently and unpredictably.

There is no single issue that controls who is in power in any jurisdiction, and in states and the nation as a whole, no issue even comes close.

Gaining and losing power is a problem of huge numbers of individual elections. There is no single answer. Probably there never will be.

It's just not a simple thing, as much as some of us would like it to be.

[Cirsium]

213. Good post

I agree with almost all of that. Elections are complex, local, and contingent. There is no single issue that mechanically determines outcomes everywhere.

Where I think we still differ is in what follows from that complexity. To me, it doesn’t argue for narrowing political discussion down to “whatever minimizes short-term risk.” It argues for the opposite: sustained, plural, sometimes uncomfortable debate about priorities, because that is how different constituencies come to see themselves reflected in a party over time.

Yes, elections are won district by district. But parties are defined nationally by the values they articulate, the fights they choose, and the lines they won’t cross. Those signals shape the terrain on which all those individual elections are later fought.

I don’t quite agree with your framing. While it’s true that some districts are reliably red or blue at a given moment, treating them as permanently unreachable—and therefore unworthy of engagement—confuses outcomes with causes.

I don’t write any community off. I also don’t agree that our politics should be organized primarily around “swing” districts or “swing” voters.

Focusing almost exclusively on persuadable margins may make sense as a narrow campaign tactic, but when it becomes a governing philosophy it distorts priorities. It encourages parties to speak to a shrinking slice of the electorate while taking everyone else for granted or ignoring them altogether.

A democratic party should articulate what it stands for and show up everywhere. Over time, that’s how constituencies change, trust is built, and today’s “unwinnable” places become tomorrow’s competitive ones.

Constituencies don’t emerge fully formed. They’re shaped over time by whether a party shows up, speaks to people’s concerns, and articulates values they can recognize themselves in. What looks “unwinnable” in one cycle often becomes competitive later precisely because someone chose not to write it off.

Focusing exclusively on swing districts may optimize short-term outcomes, but it can hollow out a party’s long-term reach and identity. Power doesn’t just flip unpredictably; it flips after periods of social and political realignment—and those realignments don’t happen if large parts of the country are treated as politically irrelevant.

[we can do it]

37. Abolish ICE

[Cha]

42. Yeah, that Got Us So Far in 2016 and 2024

Sarcasm too..

Mahalo, MineralMan

[dsp3000]

45. These 2 are not meeting the moment, end of story

[MineralMan]

47. I see. And I should be listening to you because...

Never mind...

[ColoringFool]

106. The Author Didn't Say You Should. It's A Declarative, Not An Imperative.

[Scrivener7]

135. You made a post. The poster replied. How is their action more deserving of a snide dismissal than yours is?

[hay rick]

48. Not even 95%!

They are career legislators. Like most people in our society, they specialize in one thing- in their case, the legislative process. Expecting them to also be the people leading a parade of torches and pitchforks in the street is unrealistic.

Calling to break things (in this case, Democratic leadership) without a clear plan to replace those things is very much like the MAGA temper tantrums that are decimating our society. Without a clear plan on offer we have endless debate which gives the media a chance to report on "Democrats divided" instead of Trump rehearsing ways to destroy American democracy.

[MineralMan]

49. Just so.

[betsuni]

67. Exactly.

Getting people worked up about revolutions seems to have made them imagine legislators' real day jobs are national celebrity-activists for particular issues.

Replacing leadership will make the take over of the Democratic Party happen, they think.

[Cirsium]

187. legislators

Legislators in a representative democracy respond to pressure from their constituency. No progress can ever be made if we give them nothing to respond to.

[hay rick]

192. Different constituents will have different messages.

I am in favor of contacting your representatives. A tidal wave of frustration is not the same as a clear directive on the best path forward. I expect our representatives to listen to the people but also to rely on their own experience and judgment. "Representatives" doing what they are told to do by people they fear is the MAGA playbook, not ours.

[Cirsium]

195. Maybe

Representatives doing what they are told to do by people they fear is how representative democracy works. Fear doesn’t have to mean threats or intimidation. In a democracy it usually means the fear of being replaced—which is supposed to be the whole point.

The debate here is between those who think it is our job to act as representatives of the politicians, to promote their careers, and those who think the politicians should represent us and promote our interests.

Those in the first camp think that when we get Democrats elected, our interests will be better served than if we had not gotten Democrats elected, and that is certainly true. Those on the second camp think that once Democrats are safely in office and so long as they know we are "in the bag" for them, they become complacent and risk averse.That is also certainly true.

[Renew Deal]

53. The only way to avoid disappointment is to lack principles.

[betsuni]

55. Politicians doing politics, governing. No! True saviors MAKE evil disappear with magic FIGHTING to MEET THE MOMENT.

Oh, the passion. It is easy. Schumer & Jeffries BEGONE to your softening cave!



This is making me nutty.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

175. Some of the posts on here are damn nasty.

Very ugly. But probably making lurking MAGAts giggle.

[BigDemVoter]

57. What I want to see. . . .

Whenever we do get a majority in Congress, I want to see Dems RAMMING through every and anything we want. I don't care what Repubs say; I don't care what they want; and I certainly don't care how they feel. They are irrelevant, and they have brought our country to the brink. It will take generations to recover from this if we ever do. The international damage they have done with our reputation may not ever, ever recover. I don't want to hear ANYTHING about "fair play" or "bipartisanship."

[MineralMan]

69. The Trick Is to Get That Majority in Congress.

That requires all of us to vote as one.

[Cirsium]

189. Vote as one, yes

Think and speak as one? No.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

58. THANK YOU!

I love you now.

[iemanja]

60. Most of us care about standing up to fascism

The execution of US citizens is not an issue to capitulate on. Our country is submitting to fascism. People who insist every capitulation is the right move contribute to the problem. Those men are paid to represent us. It is not our role to rubber stamp anything they do and don't do. Either one stands up to fascism or aligns themselves with it. There is no middle ground.

Your claim that Democrats have no power is mistaken. Some Republicans vote against Trump's legislation, and Trump depends on Democrats to fund his fascist regime. The House support for ICE only passed with seven Democratic votes. Jefferies refused to whip that vote because those seven Democrats didn't want to appear "soft on crime." The more accommodating Democrats are, the weaker their brand. Democrats need to earn votes by taking on Trump.

The additional funding for ICE will not go through without Democratic votes. Democrats can and must exercise the filibuster. They must choose to exercise it until they get meaningful concessions. To fail to do so is to turn their back on the will of the citizens who elected them.

Edit: I gave wrong information about the House Jan. vote, so I have corrected it.

[Wiz Imp]

73. Um. If 24 Republicans voted against a bill that only 7 Democrats voted for, there is no way it passed.

[iemanja]

99. You're right

It turns out I was mistaken. Only 1 Republican voted against the bill, so it would have passed anyway. https://newrepublic.com/post/205604/seven-democrats-voted-keep-funding-ice

[CountMyVote4Reality]

61. Yeah. Don't vote. That'll show them.

That’s idiotic. That is how we got Trump 2.0.

[we can do it]

165. Who is saying don't vote?

[Cirsium]

190. No one

No one is saying that here.

[Clouds Passing]

62. Vote in the Democratic primaries and vote for Progressive Democratic candidates!

[aocommunalpunch]

65. Please point to ANYONE saying they won't vote

over this. Smells like hyperbolic shit stirring nonsense.

[MineralMan]

70. Anyone saying they won't vote is not here on DU.

So, nobody says such a thing here. However, I know people who have done exactly that, and for the same reasons I'm talking about. Those people have made an impact, and we have Donald Trump and MAGA as the reward.

So, I'm not asking who's voting for whom. Nope. I'm happy to say who I'm voting for, though. Every Freaking Democrat on my ballot, whether I like them or not. It is that simple.

[Cirsium]

197. Talk to them, then

You agree that nobody is saying they won’t vote here, yet your posts are clearly addressed to people in this discussion.

I also vote for every Democrat on my ballot, whether I like them or not—and I’ve done so for over 50 years. So this isn’t about loyalty or abstention.

The question I’m raising is whether voting is the end of our responsibility as citizens, or the beginning of it.

Voting for Democrats is the floor, not the ceiling. Where we seem to differ is whether accountability between elections weakens democracy or strengthens it.

I’m not arguing for abstention. I’m arguing against the idea that once elected, officials should be insulated from pressure because the alternative is worse.

[love_katz]

72. Insisting on political purity is what defeats Democratic candidates .

Remember? "Genocide Joe? Killer Kamala"?

Electing Republicans does Not move our causes forward, it does the opposite.
Unfortunately, we have a binary political system. Whichever party wins the most votes, wins the election. Ergo, voting for a Third Party candidate, or getting mad and choosing to not vote because your favorite candidate didn't win the Primary, allows the wrong-wing Repuke Party to win.
A further problem is that some parts of the country are more prone to conservative beliefs ( due to brainwashing from local churches and continuing bombardment of propaganda from Corporate owned McGreedia and hate radio).
We can't change the political agenda if we don't have the numbers needed to do that. This problem is what is blocking us now.
To be successful in making any headway in stopping Project 2025, let alone the Puke's totalitarian plans for the future, we need to focus on turning purple areas blue, and red areas purple. And, obviously, keep blue areas blue.
I would LOVE for us to vote every single Repuke out of office. Throw them ALL OUT! Do I think that will happen? No, tragically I don't think it will. The Repukes have a huge megaphone in the form of the lying McGreedia and the fundy fanatic churches. The so-called liberal media doesn't exist. All of the major media companies are owned by very wealthy people who love their tax cuts.
The one avenue we have to stopping the broligarch theocracy agenda is to take back Congress. Once we have enough Dems in office to actually be effective in passing legislation, then we can lean hard on them to get what we want.
Refusing to vote for Dems because you didn't get your perfect candidate is putting the cart in front of the horse. That doesn't work and gives us disasters like A$$ Crack Dingleberry and his very evil enablers.
In order for Dems to win nationwide, they may have to run candidates that are less than the optimal people that we would prefer. Mamdani did great in NYC, but would he have any chance in more conservative areas? Sadly, probably not.
We can vote with our hearts in the Primary, but we need to Vote Blue in the general. Kick the sycophant Pukes out of office and then lean hard on our reps for the needed changes. This is a cart with the horse in front.
For the record: I'm an old hippie liberal who grew up during the 1960's. I have wanted massive changes, throughout my entire life. Trust this: refusing to eat any pie because you didn't get the whole pie doesn't work. My generation did create significant social changes. The opposition has worked ever since those days to try and knock it all down. They played the long game, beginning with the Lewis Powell memo in 1968. Please don't let them win . VOTE BLUE!!

[H2O Man]

75. Recommended.

Conversations on this can be good. However, your post ignores the fact that a number of Democrats in the House -- I know it's not the Senate -- are expressing disappointment in Schumer and Jeffries. Thus, your post is weak, as you pretend the only ones expressing that are unrealistic and likely to not vote. I would expect better from you.

[cksmithy]

81. Agree completely.

Those voters who couldn't vote for a woman for president and voted 3rd party are the reason why we are here. I didn't vote for Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders because we have a two party system and they would never have won. We do not have a parliamentary government. Enough said, vote democratic or stfu. We need democrats in office who are not beholding to the repub party. It's the only way. It appears, some people don't understand just how important it is to get a Democratic majority, so our government can actually work properly.
I am in your age bracket, there were civil rights demonstrations, bombings, marches against war in the late 1960s. Maybe the people who don't understand your point are not actually doing anything about but are just complaining. I put out my NO KINGS sing in front t of my house, homemade, the last demonstration and will continue to do so until we no longer have to.

[love_katz]

82. Elections have consequences.

We got the Evil Regime instead of the wonderful and highly qualified Black Woman, and her equally wonderful VP candidate.
When faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils, Chose Less Evil! The consequences of not doing that in 2024 are painfully and tragically obvious. (Not that I think that Harris/Walz are evil, but some people thought that a protest vote would "really show the Dems"

[Zelda_Orchid]

83. .

[mdbl]

85. I don't berate some for being upset, especially the current situation with ICE.

The Democrats HAVE the advantage here. Some of us just want them NOT to FUCK IT UP!

[QueerDuck]

95. We're the minority party. Where's the advantage?

The only DIS-advantage would be if the general public started to BELIEVE THE LIES that the Democratic party can "magically" do something to CURE EVERYTHING with the wave of a wand... yet... (according to some) the Democrats are just "too old" and "too lazy" and "too scared" to do anything. Ridiculous!

When those LIES are repeated loudly enough and often enough... then those who say such things are doing the work of the GOP for the GOP.

[mdbl]

113. Did you miss the part where the Senate can't pass the ICE portion without Democrats?

[Nanjeanne]

86. Everyone has reasons for supporting or not supporting the politicians that are elected to represent them.

It’s wonderful that you feel as you do. Others have, like myself, some big and little issues we base our disappointments on - and some big and little things we go to battle for or not. Being condescending and dismissive of fellow Democrats who don’t accept things as you do is really sad. Personally, for me, Schumer and to a lesser extent Jeffries have been a disappointment on the big issues that I feel are important to me. And since our government is supposed to work for us, those who feel disappointed or those who would like a change in leadership, have every right to express those feelings. To want more from our elected officials is healthy. To want better from our government is very much the essence of democracy. Pushing for better ideas, better plans, better advocacy isn’t being disloyal. It’s being engaged. Discussing in a message board reasons for being disappointed is not disloyal. It’s not voting Republican. It’s discussion and it’s healthy.

I don’t care if you are happy with the choices they are making for you. You are happy. That’s all that matters. It’s your right to be content. I wouldn’t presume to make fun of you for feeling as you do. And — You really don’t need to express your unhappiness ess for those that feel a different way. Those that are pushing for better just might also make things good for you too.

[Scrivener7]

137. This is an awesome post.

[Nanjeanne]

159. Thanks. It's just how I feel.

[quakerboy]

87. here's my deal

Before the dems caved on the first government shutdown, I, as an American citizen, was vulnerable to being kidnapped off the streets by a taxpayer funded paramilitary force for no legal reason, with no real recourse.


After the dems caved on the first government shutdown, I, as an American citizen, was vulnerable to being kidnapped off the streets by a taxpayer funded paramilitary force for no legal reason, with no real recourse.

Now, after the current deal, I, as an American citizen, am vulnerable to being kidnapped off the streets by a taxpayer funded paramilitary force for no legal reason, with no real recourse.

This is a problem.

[Rob H.]

88. It's more about people being tired of those who think performative resistance

and sternly-worded letters will actually have real-world effects, but okay.

[NNadir]

89. I am reminded of a line in Amiri Baraka's poem...

..."As a possible lover."

In bashing the self declared purists allegedly on the left who vote for the likes of Jill Stein, the William Pitt types, Pitt being someone who once wrote here about not voting for "less pure" (than himself apparently) Democrats, we are engaging in what Baraka called...

"... the single specious need to keep what you have never really had."

The DU rules here preclude such petulant expressions now and may have always done so. (I know Pitt was once denied posting privaleges.)

Baraka was talking about longing for a lover who would never share in love for or with him, but it might just as well apply to longing for political allies who have never actually been allies. Michael Moore, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader may as well have been Republicans. They were never ours and never will be and thus one may as well be appealing to a wall to move.

Walls don't move.

We cannot keep what we have never really had.

[Cirsium]

194. They were never ours

That is a great insight. People who don't vote or don't vote Democratic are not Democrats. There is no other way to define Democratic. We can't know that Nader or Stein voters would have voted Democratic if those third party candidates had not been on the ballot. We do know that in the 2000 election and in the 2024 election many people who had previously voted Democratic voted Republican, far more people than voted third party.

We don't own anyone's vote. Those votes need to be won.

Ironically, there is probably no more loyal Democratic party constituency in the country than DU members, yet here we are being lectured about loyalty. I have voted for every Democrat in every election for over 50 years. I have never voted for any Republican. I have never voted for a Republican side of a referendum issue nor any Republican recommended judicial candidate. I am sure there are many others here for whom this is true.

[NNadir]

210. With respect to your last line, it's true for me.

Over the years, one sees posts featuring the objection to third party voters or voters who withhold their votes.

Like many other topics, it's preaching to the choir. I agree that we here do not need to be lectured on the topic but whether or not we need the lecture we will experience it.

[QueerDuck]

92. Yes! You speak for me! They should just IGNORE that we're the MINORITY party...

... and do whatever the hell I want them to do. They should PERFORM for me and have temper tantrums, fist pounding, finger wagging and stomping. Rather than compromising and making some small progress... they should STICK TO THEIR GUNS and demand ALL OR NOTHING (and in the end, we should ALL be delighted with NOTHING, because... reasons! And pride. And vanity. And anger. And virtue signaling!

I want what I want and I want it now. So just DO WHAT I WANT, DAMMIT! Or I'll have to submit a sternly written letter to the editor demanding that they resign and encouraging newcomers to primary them. That'll fix everything!!

( too.)

[Iggo]

96. I think that may be the biggest straw man I've seen all week.

And you knocked it right to the ground.

Congratulations!

Now do ponies!

[Scrivener7]

138. Well, ya know, shit's not going to stir itself. Someone's gotta do it.

[BannonsLiver]

102. I agree.

They should never be questioned or criticized.

[ColoringFool]

105. How Is Agreeing To Masks Making "No Masks" "Possible To....

Achieve" (caps mine)?

Sometimes heroism and patriotism require uncompromising stands. [See: Zelenskyy]

[Emile]

108. Bruce Springsteen - STREETS OF MINNEAPOLIS

?si=i0vCY80lX-_otLCV

[Progressive dog]

109. Reality is sometimes hard to accept

but blaming Schumer and Jefferies for it, is a step too far, IMO.
Thank you

[ColoringFool]

110. I Would Like A Positive Example Of When Compromise With Republicans Has Helped Achieve...

Democratic goals.

As opposed to achieving Republican-lite goals.

[themaguffin]

114. A straw man. Nice.

[Celerity]

116. As others have correctly pointed out, this is a straw man fallacy. De-rec. nt

[QueerDuck]

121. How so? It seems we'll reasoned and right on target.

But, I can see how the discomfort and embarrassment it causes would be dismissed as being a straw man as a last resort defense. 🙄

[Celerity]

156. this part:

I'm So Disappointed with Schumer and Jeffries. They Don't Agree with Me 100%.

That is a straw man, as 100 per cent agreement with any politician on all issues and stances all the time (ie 100%) is very unlikely, and certainly is not a valid standard to expect and/or base 'disappointment' off of.


https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas.

[QueerDuck]

158. It's a truthful parody of the ridiculous complains and...

...smears of our party's leaders. It illiterates the absurdity of the irrational and emotional unproductive departure from reality that one reads online or hears on from YouTube pundits, influencers and whiners. No exaggerating... just honesty. But I can see how characterizing it as an exaggeration would indicate a position of weakness or denial. Cherry picking and hair splitting the "setup" of the OP does not change the reality of the humorous sarcasm that follows. It appears that the OP has struck a nerve, eh? I do believe so!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

176. But is it a strawman?

Or is it gaslighting?

Tough call.

[QueerDuck]

181. It's neither. Only those who felt insecure or threatened when forced to look in the mirror...

... in this parody would need to be dismissive in their "analysis" or in their desire to mislabel it as "strawman" or "gaslighting" when it's clearly a parody and .

As a courtesy for individuals who are unable to see the obvious sarcasm, the OP went to the additional step of clearly labeling it (lest there be any doubts) right at the end of the OP.

But despite those thoughtful efforts and dedication to clarity, there will always be some who see it as a "tough call". Hmmm. I think you've nailed it!

[MineralMan]

211. Parody is always risky in a public discussion.

Having used parody often in such places, I'm more than aware of the risks. And yet I persevere.

Interestingly enough, though, threads like this often generate a great deal of discussion. So, in that sense, they are useful.

I did stop writing satirical posts, though. Things are just weird enough out there that it's almost impossible to be successful with a satire.

[Cirsium]

120. Waiting for permission from the future

This is the same debate that went on on the 1850s within the Whig party. "Once we have the votes, then we can afford to take a stand" versus "we only ever get the votes by taking the stand first."

The Whig party didn’t fail due to insufficient procedural savvy. It failed because it tried to manage an existential moral crisis as if it were a negotiable policy dispute. By insisting on moderation, coalition maintenance, and “what’s achievable right now,” it lost coherence, credibility, and ultimately relevance. The votes didn’t materialize later — they migrated to a party that was willing to name the conflict clearly.

Waiting for permission from the future never produces the future you’re waiting for.

The disagreement here isn’t about sequencing details — it’s about causality. History suggests that movements don’t gain power and then discover their principles; they articulate principles that clarify stakes, attract allegiance, and reorganize power. The Whig collapse wasn’t caused by moral clarity arriving too soon, but by its indefinite postponement.

[mcar]

122. Why aren't they impeaching Trump RIGHT NOW!!11

[QueerDuck]

143. Apparently they are lazy and too old...

... And scared, and incompetent, and can only resort to sternly written letters. 🤡

[mcar]

146. Spineless, Turd Wayers

[QueerDuck]

182. OMG! 🤣😂🤣😂😜

and

[SocialDemocrat61]

125. I don't agree with Schumer and Jeffries 100% of the time

I have many issues with Schumer and he is my Senator. I’m not in Jeffries district so am less concerned with him. But too many seem dedicated to demonizing them no matter what they do. Most of the complaints show a total ignorance for how the legislative process works, the limits on the minority party in congress as well as what the actual roles and responsibilities of minority leaders.

[bdamomma]

127. RESCIND

the big, beautiful bill!!!!!!! That will make their heads explode!!!!!!!

[QueerDuck]

147. 🪄🧙‍♂️🔮🧚‍♀️ It's so easy. Just do it.

[markodochartaigh]

150. I understand that the Democratic leadership

has very little real power now. I understand that a big reason that they have so little power is because of the reich-wing narrative that "both sides are the same". I understand that it is difficult to be the adults in the room when the other side cheats and lies like psychopathic six year olds. I understand that Democratic politicians have their own donors that they have to please if they want money for their future campaigns. I understand that many of these donors have very little commitment to the planks of the Democratic platform, but simply donate to both sides to maintain their own control.
I get all that. But what I'm so disappointed with Leader Schumer for is that he refused to support the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor. In the primary support who you want. But in the general election if the leader of the party refuses to vote for, or even votes against, the Democratic nominee, that is strong cause for me to be disappointed.

[MontanaMama]

155. I am regularly disappointed in both of those guys.

Not because they don’t agree with me 100%. Last time I checked, that was allowed. They had a good day and for that, I’m pleased.

[Ilikepurple]

169. I'm still at a loss who this is directed at as obviously almost all of us vote Democrat

I understand the frustration that those on the left who chose not to vote may have cost us the election, but those in the middle also did. The derision here sounds more like a warning that if you are critical of Party leadership you are just ill informed as those in the satire. I’ve noticed that the members this subject satire appeals to most do not equally deride those in the middle who voted for Obama but withheld their votes from Hilary. It’s almost like it’s being used as a rhetorical device to push the party to court the MAGA complicit and shun those to the left. Or worse, those DU members to the left of our leadership should fall in line or else we are no less misguided than those third party voters. It seems the idea is that we failed the voters to the right of us whereas the voters to the left of us failed us. If so, this position is either just a disguised presentation of one’s center right political views or a pragmatic position presented without argument.

[PufPuf23]

179. Why post a divisive and insulting OP?

Your brain is more than capable of posts that inform and bring people together.

[Orrex]

183. Yes, you're right. They should keep doing exactly what they're doing.

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2026, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure it'll work this time.

What are Schumer/Jeffries doing to prevent Trump from disrupting the upcoming midterms?

What are they doing to rein in ICE?

What are they doing to stop Trump from looting the Treasury?

What are they doing to hold Trump accountable for his Epstein involvement?

What are they doing to stop funding the Palestinian genocide?


The cheerleaders love to mock fellow DUers who fail to praise Schumer for his weak leadership, but the cheerleaders use the same fallacious tactics every time:

1. "Why aren't you working to accomplish the goals you set for Schumer?"
Because I don't have the money, the resources, or the position to do so. Tell you what: put me in Schumer's position, with his bankroll and connections, and I'll get it done.

2. "Exactly what would you do/how would you do it?"
That's a gaslighting question, demanding that a person in a position of no power do the job for their elected leaders. They are put in their position to lead, not to dissemble while jockeying to protect their own standing.

3. "Elected Democrats still support Schumer."
That objection is so naive as to be comical. If Dems openly criticized Schumer, the media would attack it as a fatal fracturing of the party and would credit that fracturing with all sorts of Republican successes. Nothing would be gained, Schumer wouldn't step aside, and the media would use the infighting as a further excuse not to report on Trump's rapidly accelerating dementia and his daily impeachable offenses.

4. "Who do you think should replace him?"
Criticizing the current leader doesn't require us to name his replacement.

5. "This (your lack of support) is why we lose."
Nonsense, obviously. If the party is so weak that anonymous online postings will cause it to lose, then the party is lost already.

6. "You wouldn't criticize him if you were a real Democrat."
Also obvious nonsense. That's a demand for lockstep obedience more characteristic of the MAGA cult than of progressive thinking.

7. "You can't expect them to agree with you 100% or to do everything you want."
Literally no one expects either of these, but it would be nice if Schumer were quicker and more forceful in resisting Trump and advancing Progressive ideals. Strongly-worded letters and patronizing press conferences while wearily peering over his glasses are not the way to stop Trump.

I've seen all of these (and others) on display at DU, from the same people over and over again. Those people are more focused on mocking and deriding fellow DUers than on demanding definitive action from our leadership.


I already know who's likely to respond to this and how they'll respond. So have at it.

[hamsterjill]

184. Thank you, Orrex.

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2026, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

EDITED TO ADD: Orrex, I think you should make this into an OP.


You articulated this so well. Thread winner!!! I agree completely.

Democrats need to do more and we will not be shamed into expecting less. The midterms are in jeopardy and anyone who can’t see that has their head in the sand to the point that they probably still expect Merrick Garland to miraculously do something about Trump.

Nothing is going to change until Democrats demand change.

[Scrivener7]

185. Oh, my God. I love this.

[hamsterjill]

193. I edited my reply to Orrex

I think he should make this into an OP.

We see SO much of what he's talking about on DU. His post is awesome!!!

[Emile]

188. Great post! Deserves a valentine heart 💝

[Emile]

196. K & R

[leftstreet]

206. +1

[Greybnk48]

203. The piling on by some is embarrassing. I'm hoping it's mostly trolls or bots

and not average Democratic voters.

[Cirsium]

218. No trolls or bots

I am certain there are no trolls or bots on this thread. There is some disagreement. That is healthy. I don't see any "piling on" either. Robust discussion such as this is the work, the good, important and essential political work.

[Greybnk48]

219. My hope is that you are right (about this sort of bashing and disagreement being healthy discourse

and not negative "campaigning.&quot

But I've followed politics for decades and have seen voters shoot themselves and their party in the foot for some really stupid or manipulated reasons many times.

[Cirsium]

220. I hear you

[Kid Berwyn]

209. I don't like it when they support Trump n GOP NAZIs

Not too happy with their support of the Corporate Wing of my Party, either.