• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats pick Hakeem Jeffries to succeed Nancy Pelosi, the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in Congress

Another triggered liberal. I think about it and purposely call it the "democrat party".
Do you realize that using a grammatically incorrect term makes the person using it sound stupid, not the Democratic Party?

It's a self own.
 
This is what "saving Democracy" looks like???

:ROFLMAO:
 
Looks like the democrat party has made it official. Prominent election denier Jeffries is going to be the democrat party leader in Congress.

What in the world makes you think any Democrat would be an election denier? All of those people are Republicans who worship Trump the Terrorist.
 
Looks like the democrat party has made it official. Prominent election denier Jeffries is going to be the democrat party leader in congress.




By Daniella Diaz, CNN
Updated 11:34 AM EST, Wed November 30, 2022

"
CNN —

House Democrats chose caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York to succeed Nancy Pelosi as leader of the Democrats in the chamber next year, a historic move that will make him the first Black person to lead one of the two major parties in either chamber of Congress.


House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill to make their decision.


Jeffries ran unopposed as leader, with Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, current assistant speaker, running as whip and California Rep. Peter Aguilar, previously vice chair of the caucus, and was expected to win the spot to lead the House Democratic caucus."




Some of the myriad election denial from Jeffries


"
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will likely be the new Democratic leader in the House, as has been floated for a couple of years now. Jeffries fits all the requirements Democrats are looking for — he’s young, he’s not white, and he’s not from one of those icky flyover states. You could almost forget that he has repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election.



Jeffries said in September 2018 that Republicans had cheated in the 2016 presidential election and stole two Supreme Court seats. He tweeted in February 2018 that “the more we learn about 2016 election the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a FAKE President in the Oval Office.” And, of course, he peddles the lie that requiring voters to present identification is “voter suppression,” claiming that Republicans “worship at the altar of voter suppression” and that the GOP’s whole election strategy is to cheat and steal races.


If you were worried the next House Democratic leader wouldn’t spew enough racially divisive rhetoric, then you can breathe a sigh of relief. Jeffries joined the liberal dog pile on Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot three people in self-defense when he was attacked and in danger of being beaten to death during a Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Jeffries also declared that anyone that opposed President Joe Biden’s worst and most toxic nominees was (probably) racist.


Jeffries is noxiously partisan, the product of both the liberal New York City bubble and the liberal Twitter bubble. He is going to use his position as House minority leader (and, eventually, as speaker of the House) to make our politics more toxic by denying election results he doesn’t like and by trying to divide Americans along racial lines.


CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER


While Democrats demand Republicans soften their rhetoric after the attack on Pelosi’s husband, they intend to replace Pelosi with a far more inflammatory House leader. It’s all an act — and it is going to continue to make our politics even worse.
Herp derp "Democrat party" herp "Democrat party".

😂
 
Of course he was. Nothing was "swiped".

Just as if Trump had a democrat party controlled senate when the SCOTUS openings occurred. They would NEVER have voted for ANY of his candidates. They would have held out until 2021 if necessary.

That is pure partisan bovine scat. Something Jeffries seems to be adept at spewing. A prominent trait among ardent leftists.
Indefensible post

"..in 1988 a Democratic-led Senate had confirmed Republican Ronald Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy and in 1991, a Senate held 57–43 by Democrats nevertheless confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas.[7]: 75–83 
...The 11 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican majority refused to conduct the hearings necessary to advance the vote to the Senate at large, and Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.[10] This marked the first time since the Civil War that a nominee whose nomination had not been withdrawn had failed to receive consideration for an open seat on the Court.[11] ..."

Fact check: Is Amy Coney Barrett the first Supreme Court

nominee during a presidential election?​

https://www.usatoday.com › factcheck › 2020/10/12 › f...
Oct 12, 2020 — "Early voting. Now that we know the dates these Supreme Court justices were nominated, the question is whether voting happened during the time of their nominations or confirmations.

...This year, mail-in or absentee voting began in early September, and a number of states began both mail-in and in-person early voting Sept. 18 – the day Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, according to USA TODAY..
... None of the nominations in Karr's tweet was made while Americans were voting for president."
 
Last edited:
Nothing new here. The last Dem speaker also thought the 2016 election was "hijacked".

Both sides deny election results when they lose now. That's just where we are.
 
Republicans just do not know how to deal with people like them being put in power. It is a "both sides do it" but Democrats have no scruples situation.


It will be hard for them to try and bully a black man on live television. Old Italian ladies didn't take it, but this dude will make for some great television moments.


😆
 
And Pro-Reparations.
That’s a policy position — while your side is loaded with anti-Semites, members immune from solid reality and believe Jewish space lasers caused forest fires.

I‘ll put Hakeem up against the numbskulls in your party any day of the week.
 
Nothing new here. The last Dem speaker also thought the 2016 election was "hijacked".

Both sides deny election results when they lose now. That's just where we are.
only one side reliably demonstrates in practice bringing evidence consistently accepted and considered in courts in support of its contentions of "hijacked" elections.

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the State of Texas to ...​

https://www.justice.gov › opa › file › download


PDF

Nov 4, 2021 — In August 2021, Texas enacted Senate Bill 1 (“SB 1”), omnibus legislation that restricts eligible voters' ability to cast a ballot and have ..
 
Last edited:
Indefensible post

"..in 1988 a Democratic-led Senate had confirmed Republican Ronald Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy and in 1991, a Senate held 57–43 by Democrats nevertheless confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas.[7]: 75–83 
...The 11 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican majority refused to conduct the hearings necessary to advance the vote to the Senate at large, and Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.[10] This marked the first time since the Civil War that a nominee whose nomination had not been withdrawn had failed to receive consideration for an open seat on the Court.[11] ..."

Fact check: Is Amy Coney Barrett the first Supreme Court

nominee during a presidential election?​

https://www.usatoday.com › factcheck › 2020/10/12 › f...
Oct 12, 2020 — "Early voting. Now that we know the dates these Supreme Court justices were nominated, the question is whether voting happened during the time of their nominations or confirmations.

...This year, mail-in or absentee voting began in early September, and a number of states began both mail-in and in-person early voting Sept. 18 – the day Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, according to USA TODAY..
... None of the nominations in Karr's tweet was made while Americans were voting for president."
The term you used, "swiped", connotes that something non-legal happened. It most certainly did not.

We all know the democrat party would NEVER have approved a single Trump nominee to the SCOTUS had they been in control of the senate.

How many republicans voted for Obama's nominees versus democrats who voted for Trump nominees?

One has to win elections to affect these sorts of things. Get over it.
 
Looks like the democrat party has made it official. Prominent election denier Jeffries is going to be the democrat party leader in congress.




By Daniella Diaz, CNN
Updated 11:34 AM EST, Wed November 30, 2022

"
CNN —

House Democrats chose caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York to succeed Nancy Pelosi as leader of the Democrats in the chamber next year, a historic move that will make him the first Black person to lead one of the two major parties in either chamber of Congress.


House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill to make their decision.


Jeffries ran unopposed as leader, with Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, current assistant speaker, running as whip and California Rep. Peter Aguilar, previously vice chair of the caucus, and was expected to win the spot to lead the House Democratic caucus."




Some of the myriad election denial from Jeffries


"
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will likely be the new Democratic leader in the House, as has been floated for a couple of years now. Jeffries fits all the requirements Democrats are looking for — he’s young, he’s not white, and he’s not from one of those icky flyover states. You could almost forget that he has repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election.



Jeffries said in September 2018 that Republicans had cheated in the 2016 presidential election and stole two Supreme Court seats. He tweeted in February 2018 that “the more we learn about 2016 election the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a FAKE President in the Oval Office.” And, of course, he peddles the lie that requiring voters to present identification is “voter suppression,” claiming that Republicans “worship at the altar of voter suppression” and that the GOP’s whole election strategy is to cheat and steal races.


If you were worried the next House Democratic leader wouldn’t spew enough racially divisive rhetoric, then you can breathe a sigh of relief. Jeffries joined the liberal dog pile on Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot three people in self-defense when he was attacked and in danger of being beaten to death during a Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Jeffries also declared that anyone that opposed President Joe Biden’s worst and most toxic nominees was (probably) racist.


Jeffries is noxiously partisan, the product of both the liberal New York City bubble and the liberal Twitter bubble. He is going to use his position as House minority leader (and, eventually, as speaker of the House) to make our politics more toxic by denying election results he doesn’t like and by trying to divide Americans along racial lines.


CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER


While Democrats demand Republicans soften their rhetoric after the attack on Pelosi’s husband, they intend to replace Pelosi with a far more inflammatory House leader. It’s all an act — and it is going to continue to make our politics even worse.
Haha, what a desperate attempt at false equivalence. It won't work, sorry.
 
Nothing new here. The last Dem speaker also thought the 2016 election was "hijacked".

Both sides deny election results when they lose now. That's just where we are.
You have to admit tho. No one has made such a huge issue out of election denial as the left has. When we heard of Piglosi and other dims denying the 2016 results we laughed and perhaps, maybe posted a single thread about it. But the left just can’t let it go they post threads still to this day about 2022. we know Trump has infected what was left of the liberal brain, but the election deniers are dual infected. They jump down your throat if you mention anything about 2022, even now…two years later.
So for them to elect a denier is just so freaking hypocritical
 
The illegitimacy Jeffries was referring to was Trump welcoming the interference of a hostile foreign power.
Most sensible people know that, but the OP had nothing, and true to their style, they pull something out of their ass and see if it sticks. It only sticks with the usual trump sucking election liars who also want to say something negative, whether true or made up BS. Consider the source. 🤡
 
You have to admit tho. No one has made such a huge issue out of election denial as the left has. When we heard of Piglosi and other dims denying the 2016 results we laughed and perhaps, maybe posted a single thread about it. But the left just can’t let it go they post threads still to this day about 2022. we know Trump has infected what was left of the liberal brain, but the election deniers are dual infected. They jump down your throat if you mention anything about 2022, even now…two years later.
So for them to elect a denier is just so freaking hypocritical
There's a reason why 'gaslighting' is the word of the year.
 
You have to admit tho. No one has made such a huge issue out of election denial as the left has. When we heard of Piglosi and other dims denying the 2016 results we laughed and perhaps, maybe posted a single thread about it. But the left just can’t let it go they post threads still to this day about 2022. we know Trump has infected what was left of the liberal brain, but the election deniers are dual infected. They jump down your throat if you mention anything about 2022, even now…two years later.
So for them to elect a denier is just so freaking hypocritical

FBI offers $250K reward for Russian figure Kilimnik | The Hill

https://thehill.com › policy › national-security › 54062...
Feb 25, 2021 — The FBI is offering a $250000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Russian figure and Konstantin Kilimnik for interfering with ...

KONSTANTIN VIKTOROVICH KILIMNIK - FBI

https://www.fbi.gov › wanted › counterintelligence › k...
The FBI is offering a reward of up to $250,000 for information leading to the arrest of Konstantin Viktorovich Kilimnik. Remarks: Kilimnik speaks Russian

report_volume5.pdf - Senate Intelligence Committee

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov › documents › r...PDF
pdf
Aug 18, 2020 — Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of. Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, ...
966 pages

Senate report describes closer ties between 2016 Trump ...

https://thehill.com › policy › national-security › 51248...
Aug 18, 2020 — A Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday detailed significant ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ...

 
Back
Top Bottom