A petition calling on House Democrats not to support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the next Speaker has hit 500,000 signatures, according to its creator.
It follows the Democrats’ dramatic midterm election victory that saw the party flip both the Senate and the House of Representatives, which will lead to a new Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.
The petition, which labels Jeffries part of the “Democratic establishment,” suggests Democratic leaders are likely to remain under pressure from their party’s left-wing over both personal and policy choices. It was created by Nicole Whitted, an author and Democratic supporting social media creator with over 210,000 followers on TikTok.
For those who don’t want to give newsweek a click: https://www.change.org/p/house-democrats-choose-a-new-speaker
But he’s already a US Senator, repeatedly elected, and part of the most powerful chamber. The US Senate Majority Leader role is all about age and wisdom, frankly and little different than the duties he’s already fulfilling effectively.
I can see this concern for the President, but in this case if the worst happens, Dems can just appoint someone else. It’s Low Risk / High Reward.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
The second question: If not him, then who?
He’s 85 years old. It’s safe to assume cognitive decline. We let people retire at 67 without an exam, and we should be able to retire our legislators the same way.
Pretty much everything he’s ever said about the AI bubble. He’s either drunk the fearmonger Kool Aid or some awful staffers. Either way, he’s dropped the ball entirely, up to going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon to talk about a sci-fi concept that has nothing to do with LLM tech or the real stakes of the bubble. It’s been an awful show of face for him.
I take issue with the way one framed this. It feels disingenuous.
He did not go on stage “with” Steve Bannon; he had a speech on the same stage that Bannon gave a speech on at the same event, detailing mutual if not tangential concerns about AI and its effect son humanity. That seems completely different than seemingly trying to imply they’re buddies or something.
Seems that while Bernie may be overextending the capacity for AI to be fluidly intelligent, I actually think he and his advisors are threading the needle very effectively in saying that, “Hey look, we know AI in some shape or form is likely here to stay. If it is, then it should be regulated, perhaps nationalized, and in the hands of public interests to be used for good – like combating disinformation or pursing advancements in healthcare, etc.”
Overall, across all issues, I think he and his team are pretty much on-point, and splitting hairs on AI is maybe a rare exception, not the norm – and certainly not an indication of declining cognitive capacity or age. But again, since our options are limited to 100 US Senators and non-freshman generally, I’m very curious who one believes the better pick would be.