- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Senator John Fetterman has signaled that he could reach a breaking point with the Democratic Party if Senator Chris Van Hollen is elected to Senate majority leader.
Fetterman, who has repeatedly clashed with members of his own party over Israel, suggested that Van Hollen’s potential leadership appointment would be troubling because of his criticism of the Israeli government.
Asked by Kayleigh McEnany during a Fox News interview on Saturday whether Van Hollen becoming majority leader would represent a red line that could prompt him to leave the Democratic Party, Fetterman responded: “Yeah, absolutely, it would be troubling if my caucus elects someone like Van Hollen, that has really made his name being very…hostile to Israel.”
You must log in or # to comment.
Fuck off Fetterman.
If you haven’t watched Jon Stewart’s interview with Fetterman you should.
The man is a husk with no thoughts piloted by an AIPAC representative.
Hey Fetterman get fucked you republican ass pollup. Get fucked as hard as you possibly can you stupid mother fucker.
As the saying goes “don’t let the door smack you in the ass on your way out”
To quote Jeremy Clarkson, “Anyways”
So his AIPAC handler is still around
The rules needs to change for these cloaked asswipes. If you consistently vote against your party and the people who voted for you, the person should lose their seat. If you switch parties in office, get fucked, that should be an immediate dismissal.
John Fetterman was once a betterman
can’t find a better…maaaaaaaaaaaaan
His vote doesn’t matter any more. The best part about this mid term election, John Fetterman is now completely insignificant and can go fuck off. No one cares about him.
Amazing, this brainbroke ogre still thinks people think he’s a democrat.
He and Haley Stevens are going to switch parties, which is fine. Let them join the losers, since they’ll both be voted out of office in 2028 anyway.
Stevens will be out of office in January I believe. Doubt she ever gets another.
I was unaware this mother fucker was elected in Israel
if you take AIPAC money, you represent Israel.
That’s because you’ve been munching on RFK Jr’s brain matter, you need a better brain to eat
that was un called for. one should attack the belief, not the person… and since there was no indication of support of his stance, it is doubly bad taste.
I’m relatively certain that it was a joke based on their username.
ok. so point in favor of hollen.
lol, yeah. that stroke did more than affect his motor skills.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
55-45 is still a good majority, and it’ll be way more productive than a 56-44 with Schumer as SML and Fetterman in the rank-and-file.
Fetterman is threatening us with a good time.
How does it work in the states? Are officials allowed to cross the floor and switch sides?
There are no political parties in the united states, on paper. Each representative is free to vote however they like, for whatever reason they like, once they are in office. Some states have a way to recall federal representatives, but not all do.
Unlike parliamentary systems you are not (on paper) voting for a party, who appoints a representative; you are voting specifically for a singular person, who may associate with a party.
Now because 250 years have happened between that idea and how congress actually works, the entirely made up and not constitutionally supported positions of ‘House majority leader’ and ‘Senate Majority leader,’ exist. These positions do not exist in the constitution, and did not exist for most of the country’s history. But these positions are now used to appoint committee assignments, and decide what legislation is voted on (primarily, there are ways to force votes, but that requires a supermajority of representatives agreeing to do that). Again these positions that effectively control how congress functions have no basis in the constitution, did not exist before 1925, and go directly against the purpose of congress and the concept of a political party-free government that the US was designed to be as to not descend into the corruption the founding fathers saw in the house of lords in the UK.
But they’re super important now, because the corruption is too entrenched to get rid of.
So what youre saying is we have the perfect Supreme court right now to have someone challenge the inability to table a vote because its not in the constitution and these faithful adherents to it will break the majority minority leader positions? 😂
No that would be in January. If a republican brought this up as a challenge and dems didn’t give the game away that this would be better than the status quo, then SCOTUS would see it as ‘kneecapping’ the incoming congress and would absolutely rule it unconstitutional.
Lol, ya. And then somehow reconsider the ruling 2 years later when the GOP somehow wins a majority again.
well said. the founders specifically wanted to not have political parties. the elected person is supposed to represent the collective will of his constituency, which requires flexibility and an ability to find compromises that on the whole benefit the people without regard to particular ideologies.
The founders understood human nature, which is why we have separation of powers, which has been deliberately subverted over decades.
Cool. He can only leave once, though.
