Hakeem Jeffries Betrays Democrats to Collaborate with Fascists ONCE AGAIN

Well, once again, Hakee Jeff has proven that he should not be the leader of the Democratic party, seeing as how he has zero interest in actually representing Democratic voters. He might do a fine job at representing donors, as evidenced by the fact that he met with Silicon Valley oligarchs to men fences with them before any other constituency following the disastrous 2024 election. But he couldn't care less about the actual base of the party that he wants to lead. Because for all intents and purposes, he's a conservative who would rather collaborate with fascists than the left. For example, here he is pledging to a foreign country committing a genocide while holding hands with Christian nationalists. >> We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. >> That's who wants to be the leader of the anti-fascist resistance. Someone who stands in solidarity with modern-day Nazis in support of an apartheid ethnostate. What are we doing here? Now, take a guess who he held a private meeting with recently. The corrupt son-in-law of the most corrupt president in American history, Jared Kushner. And the New York Times reports that the private meeting was actually a catchup since the two of them have stayed in touch since Trump's first term. And they apparently discussed housing, immigration, and the cost of living as potential areas of common ground. And Kushner even suggested that Jeffree should meet with Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wilds. Now, despite how this private meeting was framed by the New York Times as anonymous sources, I can assure you the goal wasn't to find common ground on affordability or housing. One, because Hakee Jeff doesn't actually have a policy agenda. He has a list of platitudes that he's memorized, but no policies. And two, because there's nothing to be discussed. Trump is an authoritarian fascist, and your one goal as speaker would be to obstruct any and everything that he wants to do. Full stop. As Tim Miller put it, the only good reason I can imagine for a Jeffre meeting with Kushner is to personally deliver a subpoena for his testimony. And Tim Miller is no socialist. He's a former Republican. But we all know that Jeff doesn't have a spine to hold any of these cretins accountable, especially Jared Kushner, who Jeff seems to have a working relationship with, even though Kushner has no official role in Trump's administration. As this Atlantic article alludes to, there's a question as to whether or not Kushner is representing the country's interests or his own private interests as an unofficial representative of the Trump regime. But spoiler alert, I think that the answer is obvious. As Forbes reports, Jared Kushner has become a literal billionaire due to his dealings in the Middle East, which is the exact region that he's overseeing currently. Hm. Quite the coincidence. But if there were any common ground to be found between the two of them, I think we all know where they'd find some overlap in their ideologies. It'd be over Israel because they both mutually support the extermination of the Palestinian people and the ethnic cleansing of people in southern Lebanon because they are terrorist supporters. They support the terrorist state of Israel unconditionally and that's like one of the few things that they actually agree on besides capitalism good. And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Jeffre intends to collaborate with fascists at least when it comes to foreign policy because it really makes no strategic sense for him to hold this meeting now when it comes to domestic issues if he actually wanted to get anything from the Trump regime. As Martin Burns explains in an oped for Common Dreams, Kushner's incentive to meet with Jeff is self-evident. The consensus among most pollsters and political commentators is that the Democrats will capture a majority in the House of Representatives. Historical trends, the fact that the president's party almost always loses seats in the midterms, and Trump's abysmal public opinion numbers almost guarantee a Democratic majority. So, from Kushner's perspective, it makes a lot of sense for him to start negotiating the best deal that he can get from the man he assumes will be the new Democratic speaker. What is the rationale for Jeffre to negotiate with Kushner? It is truly hard to fathom the logic on his part. Certainly, there is a time for talks with the Trump administration. The time is clearly after the Democrats have won a majority in the House. You always want to be negotiating from a position of strength, not when you are trying to win an election. Given President Trump's record on negotiating to reach a compromise, which is poor to non-existent, what faith does Jeff have in any promises that Kushner might make? And that's the question that we all should be asking ourselves. Hakeim Jeff might be corrupt and immoral, but he's not naive or stupid. But let's just assume for a moment that he actually did hold this meeting at our behest and he intended to extract some concessions from Kushner. What exactly would those concessions be? Anything that he wants to pass would have to go through the Senate. And Hakee Jeff opposes most of the things that Democratic voters want anyway. So, I mean, I simply don't trust that he's representing our party in good faith because he's made it clear multiple times that he couldn't care less about what the [ __ ] we want. We want Trump impeached, but he previously said that Democrats aren't focused on impeachment. So, he's unilaterally deciding to not hold the fascist authoritarian in the White House accountable, even though he's committed multiple impeachable offenses. We want to cut off aid to Israel. He opposes that, too, because he's a morally bankrupt sellout who's taken a metric [ __ ] ton of money from the Israel lobby. We want to abolish ICE. But guess what? He doesn't want to do that either. >> Would you bring a vote to abolish ICE to the House floor? >> Well, here's what I believe unites Democrats in terms of dealing with uh the situation that we confront in this country. First, we need a safe, secure, and strong border. >> Just to be very clear, would you bring a vote to actually abolish ICE to the House floor? Do you think that goes too far? Uh what I've said is that we're committed to dramatically reforming ICE. So when you finally stop him from weasling out of answering the question, he says that he wants to reform the ICE Gustapo, which is almost laughable because to put things into perspective, at a time when US senators are sounding the alarm about ICE potentially being infiltrated by white supremacist extremists, violent white supremacist extremists, mind you, the next speaker of the house thinks that you can reform that agency because I guess it would be too extreme to abolish a 23-year-old agency that was given explicit permission. by the Supreme Court to racially profile makes perfect sense. Maybe I don't know, we can give the eyes Gustapo implicit bias training. That should help. Is that the kind of reforms that he's expecting us to pay for? It just it's it's laughable. But that's not all because the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters also support Medicare for all. We're talking 90% according to a recent poll conducted by Yuggov. But guess what? He doesn't support Medicare for all either because of course >> you co-sponsored Medicare for all legislation from 2013 to 2021. You've not co-sponsored it since you became Democratic leader. Will you put Medicare for all up for a vote if you become speaker? >> Well, listen, these are all conversations that the House Democratic Caucus is going to have to have. Right now, we're focused on November 3rd, not January 3rd. What we are promising the American people is that we're going to fight to make health care affordable for every single American. And we know there's a lot of damage that Republicans have done that we've got to restore and repair. For instance, Republicans have enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. More than a trillion dollars or so has been cut from Medicaid. And what you're going to have is about 14 million Americans lose access to healthare. >> Do you personally support Medicare for all? Do you personally support Medicare for all? >> No, I as you indicated, I haven't co-sponsored the Medicare for all legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket in some cases by up to $1,000 a month, that's not sustainable. And that's something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people. >> Just to be very clear though, as a Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for all? I think as you've uh indicated in your question to me, it's not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. Okay. >> But we do support the notion that we've got to find a path forward to fix our broken health care system and make health care affordable for every single American. >> You know, it kind of sounds like he's saying that he has concepts of a plan, which is really interesting because I feel like I've heard that before. I've heard this level of bullshitting before, but you know, it's just hard to place who said something similar to what he just said. But if you'll notice, he won't just come out and say, "No, I don't support Medicare for all." He'll say, "Nope, real quick." And then move on, or he'll talk around it. But he actually believes that the peasants are stupid and small-minded enough to be satisfied with more subsidies. What a spectacular, exciting promise. I mean, I can hardly wait. I get excited just thinking about subsidies because more subsidies is going to be the thing that definitely fixes our broken healthare system once and for all. Why don't you just [ __ ] say it, man? Just say you don't have a plan for healthcare because your health insurance donors paid you to pad their pockets with more subsidies. Just say that's the only thing that you're willing to support. You don't want to fix the system because you are paid to not fix the system. Listen, a new Yale study found that Medicare for all would save a trillion dollars a year. And more importantly, 114,000 lives every single year. But yet, this morally bankrupt [ __ ] is more than willing to sacrifice poor Americans to the gods of capitalism, all to appease his health industry overlords. That is disgusting. Think about how gross that is. He is taking what is effectively a pro-death position for money. He supports genocide because Apac pays him to support genocide. He supports the social murder of 114,000 Americans every single year because the health industry pays him to support that. And he'd support more bad things if the relevant industry paid him to support the bad things because he doesn't give a [ __ ] about us. We could literally die and he's unmoved. He's unwilling to support the policy that would stop us from dying. Okay. Now, to his credit, he did at least take an ostensibly anti-data center position in April while conspicuously not saying the word moratorium. But how long until he buckles under the pressure of the big tech industry? All it'll take is the Silicon Valley oligarchs that he's friendly with to start getting their lobbyists to buy his complacency, and they've got him like that. He just cannot be trusted. At best, he'll offer the peasants crumbs in the form of some feckless [ __ ] incrementalism before caving to Republicans ultimately. But at worst, he'll take positions that result in mass death or human suffering if he's paid to because he's an empty vessel for corporations and foreign governments. And since regular people don't have enough money to compete with the special interests that fund him, he's always going to choose donors over voters. That's the way it's always going to be. And think about how bad of a leader he is at a time when you have an insurgent socialist movement in the party that he wants to lead, which is in part a response to growing fascism. He meets with the fascists presumably to collaborate with them instead of reaching out to the DSA or prominent DSA electeds to collaborate with them. But you know what? I think it's a misnomer to even characterize him as a bad leader because that would imply that he's not doing the job he was chosen to do when in actuality he's doing exactly what Democratic politicians voted for him to do. [ __ ] himself out to corporations and foreign governments to keep the gravy train rolling. Back in 2018 when House Democrats were actually given the choice between Hakee Jeff and Barbara Lee, a longtime progressive to determine who would be Pelosy's successor. Ultimately, guess who Democratic politicians chose? They chose Jeffre over Lee even though she was next in line, which is significant for a party that often values seniority above all else. But they bucked their own trend because they knew that he was someone that would perpetuate the status quo, not break it up, as Barbara Lee would have tried to do. So, we need to get out of this habit of referring to Jeff and Schumer as bad leaders because it gives people the false impression that they're at least nominally on our side when that couldn't be further from the truth. Hakee Jeff isn't just a bad leader. He's the [ __ ] enemy. He stands in opposition to the things that we care about the most because he is a moderate Republican for all intents and purposes. And for everyone wondering what happened to all of the moderate Republicans, well, they're Democrats now. They fled the GOP and they infiltrated the Democratic Party. It's now home to conservatives because of Bill Clinton's neoliberalism. And that's how the Republican party got increasingly faright. Democrats started acting like Republicans. And then Republicans felt free to act like Nazis. And here we are today. And listen, if Hakee Jeff isn't literally controlled opposition, he might as well be because almost everything that he does is in service to Republican fascists, either wittingly or unwittingly. Fascists could not have asked for a better opposition party leader. So other elected Democrats, they better pull their heads out of their asses and actually start looking for a new House Speaker right now because his speakerhip doesn't have to be a foregone conclusion. If someone this corrupt and evil is the face of your party, that'll reflect poorly on you, too, including progressives. And I don't know if the newly elected socialist and socialist adjacent members of Congress are a large enough block yet to sink his bid to be speaker, but they need to team up right now and start talking about whether or not they're going to have the numbers to do that because this man is an obstacle to progress. And he opposes everything that they stand for. And if we're actually going to survive fascism, then we need a leader who's actually going to oppose the fascists, not collaborate with them. And that is obviously not Hakee Jeff. Alpha male, not a beta male.