this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025

240 points (97.2% liked)

News

37090 readers

624 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

240

AOC reacts to question if Chuck Schumer should remain leader (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 4 months ago by AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When asked by reporters if Schumer should remain the minority leader, Ocasio-Cortez responded: "I think what is so important for folks to understand is that this problem is bigger than one person. And it actually is bigger than the minority leader in the Senate. You had eight Senate Democrats who coordinated...their own votes on this as well as you have two retiring members, many of them who are also up in several cycles from now, with the hope that people are going to forget this moment

The New York lawmaker added, "A leader is a reflection of the party, and Senate Democrats have selected their leadership to represent them. And so, the question needs to be bigger than just one person. We have several Senate primaries this cycle—I know I'm being asked about New York, that is years from now—I have to remind my own constituents because they think that this election is this year. We actually do have Senate elections this year, and my hope is that people across this country actually participate in their primary elections and selecting their leadership."

Schumer’s leadership has come under fire following a pivotal Senate vote in which eight Democrats joined Republicans to end the government shutdown, defying his recommendations. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, was among those openly stating, “Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced.”

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 84 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, was among those openly stating, “Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced.”

To be clear, Peter Thiel's mouthpiece was demanding he "immediately resign" not that he be primaried.

Kahnna calling for Schumer to immediately resign in the middle of the Epstein investigation seems suspicious as fuck considering Peter Thiel is part of that investigation and that is one area where Schumer has actually been somewhat proactive.

Most Democrats are unhappy with the decision to cave, but AOC and Bernie have given almost the exact same answer to this question, and it hasn't been that Schumer must resign immediately. It's that this is a bigger problem than one person.

I hope to see her as president or vice president in 2028, but if not then she would make a kick ass Senate leader. I trust her and I hope people will remember to do the same when "progressive" imposters try manipulate the public using the label they've paid the media to give them.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 4 months ago

AOC will never be Senate Leader. That's not on offer whatever path she takes.

I don't think calling for resignation or not has anything to do with the Epstein files, but the same collective action problem that made few people publicly call for Biden to resign even though most Democratic voters wanted change. The people who decide these things aren't the voters and if you call for an establishment leadership figure to be purged and they aren't, you're in for a load of shit from them.

Like with Biden, Bernie and AOC also probably expect any replacement to be the same type of person playing the same sort of games. Schumer is particularly bad at politics, but his replacement won't be someone who might displease donors.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Khanna also wanted the party to kiss elon musk's nazi ass back when he had that falling out with trump back in early June.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As she often is, she is right.

schumer is very much not the root of the problem and anyone tho think it was just those eight who betrayed the American People... I got a bridge for sale, hit me up.

But this is now the second massive fuck up where a schumer led Democratic Senate worked for trump for no reason whatsoever.

schumer can stay in office, for now. But his ass needs to fall on his proverbial (or otherwise...) sword and give up speakership if only to acknowledge things. At best, he is horrifically incompetent and belongs in that cuck chair. More likely he was the evil bastard organizing the betrayal of every single Democrat.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

She's right, but also, cut the head off a snake and the rest will die. Schumer needs to be made an example of, by being removed from office, to incentivize the rest to fall in line behind progressives instead of corrupt corporate stooges.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Be that as it may, vis a vis Schumer, one of two things can explain his reaction to it:

he organized it behind the scenes, and his objections are just crocodile tears, and he’s a fucking traitor
he didn’t organize it, but could not credibly control members of his own party, and he’s not able or fit to lead the “opposition” party in the senate

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Ok, but why do you trust Peter Thiel and/or the establishment to oust him right now and install their own Senate leader.

While the few trustworthy Dems aren't jumping on the bandwagon to oust him now, it seems pretty odd that the name Thiel's mouthpiece Ro Kahnna is floating to replace Schumer (Chris Van Hollen) also happens to be one of the last road blocks potentially standing in the way of Thiel's new crypto bank that just got preliminary government approval.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Lmao what?

I don’t trust Thiel or the DNC establishment further than I can throw them, for very different reasons.

I’m saying the caucus could absolutely oust Schumer as minority leader if they wanted to.

[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm saying this as somebody who loves technology and progress, but I strongly believe humans are supposed to control tech not be controlled by it:

Fuck the oligarchy

The U.S. sold China their mass surveillance tech, and basically let them test it out for them and work out all the kinks.

During Trump's first term, Peter Thiel selected a CTO for Trump's admin, (now his current science advisor) who laid the ground work for this AI race with China bullshit. He argued that China's mass surveillance (that silicon valley created) is what enables China to gather so much data and gain the edge in AI. To "compete" with China, he argued the U.S. would have to accept something similar, and that any attempt to regulate that technology would only result in us losing the AI race.

Now here we are in 2025, and the psychotic "liberal" CEO of Palantir has just come out and said an authoritarian surveillance state is just the cost we will need to accept to win the AI race.

It's almost as if both countries colluded to create the illusion of a NeoCold War for their own profit, that they're now allegedly locked in a race to "win." In order to "win" this made up war, citizens of each country will just have to accept that a sacrifice of their human rights and privacy, is simply their patriotic duty, so that the handful of wealthy men controlling their government can maximize their profits and continue colluding with each other.

Again, fuck the Oligarchs globally and at home.

Trump CTO Addresses AI, Facial Recognition, Immigration, Tech Infrastructure, and More

Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show

Palantir CEO Says a Surveillance State Is Preferable to China Winning the AI Race

The government is supposed to exist to protect the people from exploitation, not protect the exploiters from the people. Somewhere along the way we got that all kinds of fucked up.

The "freedom" to fall in line and be controlled by a bunch of billionaires who have never actually created anything of their own, who purchased all the tech they are associated with from somebody else, and then have the fucking gall to whine to no end about "meritocracy" and "free markets" while trading government contracts between their small circle of friends to help protect each other's state run monopolies and destroy any competition that threatens their grip on power, is not freedom and it's not progress.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Chuck should go back to his crypt

[+] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Chuck should help his daughter continue the family business.

She's be hilarious as a senator.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Oh God I didn't even know about Pelosi's daughter until just a minute ago. Apparently she's running for state senate not Pelosi's seat, so not quite as bad as I thought.

Christine Pelosi passes on bid for retiring mother’s House seat

Also, didn't know Schumer's daughter is a lobbyist for Amazon! Jfc. Regardless, I'm still not buying that it's a good idea to oust him right now.

I think he should be primaried and replaced, but given how hard the media is lobbying against him, it seems he has clearly pissed somebody powerful off more than he has really pissed off any of the Senate or House Democrats that I actually trust.

Either he was in on it the whole time, and let it happen, or maybe he legitimately opposed it this time, but didn't believe he could stop the others from voting the way they did.

If he was really "in on it the whole time" though, he definitely doesn't seem to be getting any kind of reward or protection. While I can see the argument that he possibly didn't push back hard enough, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he fully went along with what the establishment wanted, and is now also being punished by the establishment.

Like it can't really be both. Why would they want somebody who has been so loyal out of the way?

I don't buy that Ro Kahnna (who has been in Thiel's pocket his entire career) is going on every news outlet that will have him and allegedly speaking on behalf of all "progressive" Democrats, but AOC and Sanders have both declined to put the blame fully on Schumer when asked directly.

[+] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Thats a lot of words to not say yes . . .

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Read like a “yes, and…” reply to me…

[+] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

If a politician doesn't explicitly say yes in response to a direct question I wouldn't interpret that as a yes, nor would I expect anyone to interpret that as such. Thats how they operate.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Her answer was insightful enough to know that Schumer leaving could mean you just get Schumer 2.0. The problem is bigger than one person. Schumer should go, yeah, but more importantly—the problem (of which Schumer is a manifestation) should go. Fight for change, not a facade thereof.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What if the response in stead of saying “Yes” to “should Chuck Schumer be removed?” actually tells people how to accomplish it? Still doesn’t count as a “Yes”?

[+] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Shes one of the people who has the power to do it, and yet she refuses to say she'd do it.

If im a fireman and you ask me if im gonna put out a fire in your house and instead of saying yes I tell you how a fire extinguisher works, you gonna assume that means I'm gonna help you put it out?

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

She's in the House, Schumer is in the Senate. It'd be like asking a fireman to put out a fire while he and his truck are two counties over, and complaining when they tell you to get help from your local fire station instead.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Or like asking an EMT to help you put out a fire, and when they point out they're an EMT, indignantly scoffing and calling them a "spineless establishment first responder."

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Shes one of the people who has the power to do it.

The key here is she can’t do it by herself. She doesn’t have the votes.

If im a fireman and you ask me if im gonna put out a fire in your house and instead of saying yes I tell you how a fire extinguisher works, you gonna assume that means I'm gonna help you put it out?

The better analogy would be if you were the fireman organizing the bucket brigade.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

Shes one of the people who has the power to do it

I don't see how she has that power.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Only for people who can fit their whole brains into 140 characters

[–] TomMasz@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

She has to tread lightly. The Dems may be spineless when dealing with the GOP, but they're ruthless with their own.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Has treding lightly made the establishmemt dems give her better positions, or are they still stuffing cancerous old white men in slots she should have had?

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago

She's not gathering more enemies, at least. I imagine she'll have to deal with the cancerous reps in some shape or form.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's the same issue in both cases. A dem that fights like a Republican would take over the party.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And it's pretty clear that whoever is giving the media its narrative spinning instructions, (which again, the original narrative was a call for Schumer to immediately resign) has somebody in mind already to replace him, and it's definitely not going to be anyone better like Sanders, Warren, or Wyden.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Schumer resigning as minority leader wouldnt change one damn thing.

The only resignation that would matter would be from his Senate seat, and while Hochul has some progressive bonna fides from her endorsement of Mamdani I dont think there's a good choice for an appointed senator who could make much of a difference.

Maybe someone like Zephyr Teachout, but I'm not sure she'd want the job or that Hochul would pick her.

(And if AOC herself wants the job, I'd want her to get the benefit of winning a statewide dem primary first.)

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Schumer resigning as minority leader wouldnt change one damn thing.

I read on another site that Schumer didn't whip the vote on that surrender, but instead told people to vote their conscience, and that this is unusual. So that sounds like something to be pissed at Schumer about. At best, he diffused responsibility for the collapse.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Given that Kahnna has been the face of all of this, I still believe there's no way that Thiel wasn't heavily involved, but if that's true it actually makes me think that the establishment forces who control the dem party were also probably pressuring Dems to vote to end the shutdown (and let's be clear here, as hard as it was on the American people it was even harder on the economy /s)

Regardless, if it's just Thiel or Thiel and others including the Dem establishment, the narrative seems pretty clear. They want Schumer gone for a reason. Even if he didn't "push back enough" to keep the party united, he definitely doesn't seem to be getting rewarded for whatever he did or didn't do.

I have been assuming it was mainly Thiel retaliating for Schumer forcing a Senate vote to release the Epstein files (the same day Wyden called for an investigation of JP Morgan's records of transactions between Thiel and Epstein) after House republicans blocked it for a second time, but Thiel definitely isn't the only big politically adjacent name being investigated with Epstein, and there are some very big names who aren't conservatives.

Thinking about who among powerful Democrats would want to retaliate because of the Epstein investigation, there are a few possibilities. It might not be a coincidence that Tim Kaine was one of the democrats to turn, given who he presumably remained somewhat close with after returning to the Senate in 2016. Presumably, since all the other Democrats who voted that way are also older/about to retire, they may all have been fairly close with the same person or her husband.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't remember anything about Khanna in the saga but I haven't followed super closely. Anyway, Khanna is not in the Senate so maybe there is something I'm missing altogether. But I thought this was about the Senate vote.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Kahnna was the first to immediately begin calling for Schumer to step down Sunday night, and he has been in the news non stop since then repeating the same thing over and over.

The media has been helping him push the narrative that Democrats are furious with Schumer. Yet when two of the most trustworthy Dems (AOC and Sanders) were asked directly, neither called for him to step down and both warned that this was a much bigger issue than just Schumer.

It's very odd to me that Kahnna is the one Democrat receiving all this press as he lobbies this message. My assumption has been that since Kahnna has been backed by Peter Thiel for most of his career, it would benefit Thiel for Schumer to be gone.

Sept 10: Dem Orders Congressional Probe Into Epstein and Peter Thiel’s Relationship](https://www.thedailybeast.com/ron-wyden-orders-probe-into-epstein-and-peter-thiels-relationship/)

Sept 10: Schumer moves to force Senate vote on Epstein files

Sept 10: US Senate Republicans narrowly reject Schumer bid to force vote on Epstein files

Since the House should finally have enough votes to get the Epstein files released, Thiel could potentially hope to install a Democrat that he trusts, or he could just be trying to signal to other Democrats that he has the power to end anyone's career if they try to investigate him, even someone like Schumer.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Meh, people were dragging Schumer as soon as the cave was announced. I don't think anyone needed Khanna for that. Also the Khanna-Thiel thing is new to me. I had thought Thiel was MAGA but I don't keep a scorecard.

AOC and Sanders have to be more careful about what they say, because of their larger and relatively focused audiences, and because they have to play nice with the leadership.

[+] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -20 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Weird how the comments are defending AOC here. We can agree that she maybe should tread lightly so as not to fall out of favour with the party, but that doesn't take from the fact that she gave a spineless response here and should be gunning to primary Schumer

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Idk, while it's not explicit as I'd hoped she did just imply that a good chunk of Democratic senators are rotten sellouts.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's all about framing. She could've and should've been more assertive about it. While it's okay to point out the problem is bigger than the senate minority leader, she nevertheless should be about the matter. Millions of Americans will not be able to afford health insurance anymore. This isn't the time for pragmatism; everyone is angry, and her words should echo that anger. People want action and assertive language is as close to action other than action itself.

It's not even like it's scapegoating, Schumer has been incompetent for a while now, and this should be the final straw that breaks the camel's back.

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

She basically said "schumer is a symptom, the real problem is the party itself, we need to primary people and get them out." Not sure how that's spineless.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

She should say yes Shumer should live then talk about how the problem is deeper

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

VOTERS ARE ALREADY AWARE THE PARTY IS PROBLEMATIC.

They don't need it repeated for the umpteenth time. She needs to start making more cutthroat statements and quit tap dancing around the conversation.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If she's going to run for his position, she's not gonna tip her hand.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 4 months ago

VOTERS ARE ALREADY AWARE THE PARTY IS PROBLEMATIC.

NO THEY ARE NOT!

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/11/25/95-of-incumbents-won-re-election/

Get out of your bubble. Vast majority of people keeps voting for incumbents. They still see Democrats as opposition to Republicans, not as a different wing of the same party it is. Voter are still light years away from understanding what's going on and voting accordingly.

AOC is 100% right here. This is not about Schumer or the 8 "traitors". Dems were going to approve this budget from the beginning. They did a little bit of theater and sacrificed 8 of them. Now people want to stone 8 of them instead of being mad at the whole party. Next elections they will vote for incumbents anyway because "my senator didn't vote with Republicans". Yeah, he didn't have to. They only needed 8 votes but would get 30 if they needed.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What's weird to me is the sudden uptick in narratives by real "leftists" trying to paint Sanders and AOC as "moderates at best" as people like Stephen Miller continue to claim AOC and Sanders are essentially radical jihadists, and the media claims the Democratic party is completely divided and turning on Schumer. Yet when you actually read what Sanders and AOC have to say, they've both given level headed responses that this is a much bigger problem than just Schumer.

Meanwhile, it's implied by the media that everyone in the democratic party is on board with Ro Kahnna's calls for Schumer to immediately resign (although it's not clear why Democrats would be demanding this sudden resignation without some one in mind to take his place. Obviously it can't be AOC since she's not even in the Senate as of now).

The media and even some of the "real leftists" who argue incessantly that AOC and Sanders are now moderates, will also often praise Kahnna as a "progressive" who has the balls to finally stand up for Americans.

Yet nobody (the "real lefties"®️ or the media) ever wants to mention that Ro Kahnna is funded by Peter Thiel and David Sacks, or that as of October, he still held stock in Palantir (just like Stephen Miller, MTG, and several other Republicans). What an odd coincidence.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

If Jefferies gave that same response everyone would assume he wasn't going to do anything. People aren't listening to what she's saying, they're just looking at who its coming from and forming their opinions from there.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

She has to choose between primarying Schumer or running for president in 2028. The former may be more realistic but it's certainly not an easy decision.