House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Wednesday that he would reject a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year over concerns that it did not sufficiently curb Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
The announcement came in a closed-door meeting with Democratic caucus members, following continued ICE violence in Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge.
“We’ve heard our members speak loudly that ICE isn’t doing enough, these reforms aren’t doing enough. This lawlessness has to stop,” Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-CA) told reporters after the meeting on Wednesday. “They are only doing this because they can. They are only doing this because the president of the United States wants to use them to terrorize communities, to terrorize U.S. citizens.”
But, according to NBC News, Democratic leaders did not state they would whip a vote to push all members to follow their “no” vote. This leaves the door open for Democrats, many of whom are facing close elections this year, to vote in favor of the appropriation bill.
Most Democrats are conservatives. We only have like two progressives in Congress (Bernie, Warren).
Not Warren she is also a conservative and fucking snake.
don’t forget Jayapal, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley.
Yeah.
They’re great, but I think we could definitely add some names to that list if you include the House. Off the top of my head there’s also AOC, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, Mark Pocan, and Shri Thanedar.
Idk, I do give Nancy Pelosi some credit for reigning Trump in before he could do as much damage as he had planned during his first term (because a lot of the shit we’re seeing now was actually quietly set into place long before Project 2025). I genuinely wouldn’t define her as a conservative, but I guess it depends on how you define conservative.
There are a lot of shadowy industry people who dump money into both sides of politics to promote the policies that will make them more money, and hinder the policies that stand in their way, but they don’t really hold any sort of left/right political bias. It’s just about serving their immediate self interest. But the people I consider true conservatives aren’t just selfish. They truly see themselves as a dominant masterclass meant to keep their very strict heirarchies in place.
I definitely don’t think Pelosi is above helping a conservative policy advance if she’s instructed to do so by her wealthy donors, but this is because she has an incentive to gain from it in the short term. The willingness to always chase the short term incentive being dangled in front of them while ignoring the cliff they’re walking towards, is exactly what has allowed conservative policies to gain such a strong foothold in America. But, I don’t think Pelosi or (even most Republican voters) would really want to live in a conservative society where their position in that society has been predetermined in the conservative “natural” heirarchy.
Conservatives like to publicly focus on identity politics, but the truth behind their love of heirarchies is the fundamental conservative belief that some people (women, people of color, non-WASPs, and the entire working class) were born to be oppressed and exploited in a society dominated by elites. They use the state to enforce these rules, and protect themselves from competition, but they honestly believe they have been pre-ordained with a “natural” place at the top of the heirarchy.
Not to dismiss the long list of very atrocious things people like Pelosi, others in congress, and Republican voters have been willing to look the other way on, but I do honestly think many have been intentionally misled about identity politics, the “war on woke,” or police militarization and how it actually relates to their own self interest and place in that heirarchy. I also know there will always be a handful of people who are so stubbornly contrarian and narcissistic, they will literally cut off their nose to spite their face then offer it to the leopards to save them the trouble.
However, if you really forced the Edmund Burke and Heritage Foundation elite conservatives to candidly explain to America and the blue collar voters they pander to, how they view themselves and their role in society vs how they view those blue collar Republican voters, a much smaller percentage would be willingly supporting their own exploitation, or agreeing to help create an undemocratic society where any chance of social mobility for themselves or their children has been completely eliminated. Especially if you really got them to acknowledge what they hope to achieve by combining traditional anti-egalitarian conservative ideals about heirarchies with the dystopian Palantir tech fantasy.
Not only is your data your destiny, your destiny starts being collected and analyzed before you’re even born. Did your mom smoke when she was pregnant or work in a factory around dangerous chemicals? That’s probably why you did X instead of Y when you were 4, and now as an adult you’re ineligible for Z. You’re born poor because you’re meant to die poor. If that seems unfair it’s because that’s the fucking point. Anti-egalitarian societies are meant to be stacked against you unless you’re at the top.
If you could force these conservative “anti-elitists” to publicly acknowledge the kinds of things they discuss in their private clubs and annual conferences, I think more Americans would find it kind of suspicious that the same “anti-elitist” elites, with their ivy league degrees, so strongly discourage Americans from obtaining an education for themselves.
There’s a reason they don’t really expand on what they mean when they say “democracy” is incompatible with freedom, and a reason they code their attacks on equality with buzzwords like multiculturalism and DEI. It’s been same the race baiting argument for over 50 years. The Heritage Foundation went from attacking multiculturalism in the 70s and 80s to PC culture in the 90s to Wokeness and DEI in the last 10 years because they are relying on the people who put them in power, to embrace the “freedom” to participate in the heirarchy in exchange for their own exploitation. The “anti-elitist” elitists won’t just openly acknowledge that they are the untouchable overclass, because the quiet parts are always the things they don’t say out loud until they’re emboldened enough to do so. There’s also a reason Alex Karp recently referred to the “woke left and right,” when it comes to any critiques of Palantir. As long as you offer your blind loyalty, you can pretend to be part of the in-group who will be protected and rewarded when the overclass removes the last of your liberty.
Tldr: Whether the many realize it or not, traditional conservativism, anti-egalitarianism, and the heirarchies it depends on for exploitation and power, means only an elite few control the majority. They’re exclusionary by default regarding who actually gets to join the club, but they are very open minded when it comes to who can be exploited.
I do think Pelosi is willing to do the wrong thing for the right price, and has naively allowed her own exploitation by rationalizing many things that have ultimately enabled the current attack on democracy. I don’t think she is naive enough to believe she would ever be allowed a place at the top of a conservative heirarchy, but who knows, some people are legitimately that naive (i.e. “you may think I deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth, but at least we all agree on taxes.” … Good luck with that 🙃)
Mudsill theory and similar rhetoric has been dubbed “the Marxism of the Master-Class” which fought for the rights of the propertied elite against what were perceived as threats from the abolitionists, lower classes and non-whites to gain higher standards of living.