this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
310 points (99.1% liked)

politics

30930 readers
1946 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, met privately in recent weeks, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

Jeffries and Kushner discussed an array of topics, including possible areas of common ground, the sources said. Although Kushner does not have an official role in the current administration, he has remained deeply involved, especially on issues related to foreign policy, and continues to serve as an outside adviser to the president.

The timing of the talks is striking. The midterms are less than 75 days away and Republicans are facing headwinds in recent polls. Democrats feel cautiously optimistic about their chances of taking the House and Jeffries would be in line to be the next speaker.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is my take on it as well. Or to put it another way, Jeffries has become SO singularly focused on political strategy and optics manipulation that he has become oblivious not only to what it looks like from the outside, but that voters are actual people with needs who happen to be increasingly angry right now and he's dancing with the son-in-law of the guy personally responsible for this growing hell.

He doesn't even seem to have an inkling of the fact that by voluntarily involving himself with Kushner, in many eyes he has aligned himself directly with Trump. He certainly has in mine. I don't give a good goddamn what the letter after his name is: if he's voluntarily dealing with Kushner he is not averse to Trump, nor does he have a problem with anything Trump is doing. Period, end of.

This is what it looks like when a political actor gets so mentally sucked into playing the game of politics that they entirely lose sight of human voters and tangible outcomes for others in real life. Only someone so far up their own ass that they can scratch the inside of their right nostril with their left big toe can do what Jeffries is doing with Kushner and think it's going to fly.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hes in litithe safest district in America for Dems...

And his last primary was this season and the state party cancelled it when no one challenged him.

No one.

It was literally months ago, and no one ran against him. Granted a lot of it's very wealthy, but redistricting in 2023 means he's vulnerable to the left.

But he has no chance of losing the general, he's not doing any of this to win his election.

And this isn't "for the greater good" either it's to maintain neoliberalism even if it means helping trump

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're not wrong about any of that, but if the progressive wing wins a significant minority of a Dem majority, Jeffries' days as Speaker are numbered, IMO.