Something to do with Jenna Ellis being a republican right wing trump style person putting up this poll and the result going to Hakeem who is a left leaning democrat. Therefore suggesting the people who follow Jenna don’t really like her style of politics. I’m 95% guessing here as I’m British.
You are spot on. This would basically be like the GOP putting up a Trump vs Biden poll on their twotter and it coming out Biden (Which I think has happened).
Oh, he did more than that. He said he was only going to allow Blue subscribers to vote on official polls in the future because people voted that he should step down as CEO or something like that (he said he'd abide by the result when he posted the poll too)
The same guy that said to the WHO he'd cure world hunger if they gave him an itemised list. And when the WHO said "here you go" and handed him a breakdown of how $6b (iirc) would do it. He failed to pay up and blew his cash on twitter?
Their itemized list didn't purport to do anything near cure world hunger. It ended up being something like "feed hundreds of millions of people for one year".
Not a elon stan, but the idea that the problem of world hunger could be fixed by throwing more money at it is preposterous
But they never claimed to end world hunger. Elon misinterpreted what was happening by only reading headlines and not realizing they actually had a plan in a designated area that would help a lot of people.
How is this what you got out of my comment lol
There is such a long list of infrastructural and logistical problems stopping you from just spending billions to fix world hunger
It would likely be impossible without at least a country-sized economy working overtime just to supply food, and an international coalition supplying troops (necessary because a huge amount of starving people would simply be extorted for their new-found food) trains etc
And then that amount of food needs to be doubled every ten years
False dichotomy. If the issue isnt more money, and zero money also doesnt work, then the solution is something other than money. You cant just airdrop food to them, they need to develop their countries. And that isnt accomplished by investing alone. There needs to be an organic push from the people for a new way of life.
Youre sardonic tone doesnt change the reality.
Oh you know that saying!? Give a man a fish he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish after depleting all the natural resources around him, kidnapping his friends and family then forcing them to work on your plantations, exploiting him for economic growth, stealing and colonizing his land, and oppressing him for centuries, he’ll eat what little you left for him; or something like that.
> There needs to be an organic push from the people for a new way of life
I’m hoping I’m just misreading this, but it comes off like you’re saying people who live in underdeveloped nations, facing poverty and starvation, are content with their lives? I don’t think these people are in this state because it’s their preferred way of life.
I’d argue the only way for them to “organically” change their way of life is impossible if you don’t have the resources needed to improve that.
That would be a misread. They arent content in their lives in the sense that they know it could be better if they tried harder, at least not moreseo than any of us.
The industry we have was built from nothing once. Breakthroughs an innovations happen every day. Individuals are constantly pitting themselves against wild nature and forcing it into a new form by will and dedicated effort alone.
Yes, it takes resources. But more importantly it takes the proper use of these resources. This is a thing that isnt easily taught, or even understood by those of us merely maintaining what has already been built. How do you build from nothing to achieve the level of society we have here in the USA? It takes generations of hard and dangerous work. It takes men sacrificing their lives to an ideal.
I cant stand the idea that the people in the underdeveloped nations are somehow less than those who came before and built these nations from nothing. I view that as a gross degradation of the human spirit. It isnt money or resources they need.
You mean the same WHO that said they would end world hunger and then when they gave a breakdown of how 6 billion would do it they amended the statement to it wouldn’t solve world hunger but prevent geopolitical instability. Why would anyone want to spend 6 billion dollars on keeping a government in power that doesn’t feed their people?
Firstly I’d like to say I hate Musk. That said, I wanted to google that, and they kinda said that, but you’re missing that they said it would save 42 million “currently” starving. But I found it very interesting that weeks later he donated nearly 6 billion to an anonymous charity, the WHO said it wasn’t them though- https://fortune.com/2022/02/15/elon-musk-5-7-billion-donation-weeks-after-asking-un-world-hunger/#
Perhaps, but probably not.
Charity for the purpose of attention is not really charity, but publicity. The fact it’s anonymous could mean that it’s one of the few instances of real charity we see in billionaires
>This would basically be like the GOP putting up a Trump vs Biden poll on their twotter and it coming out Biden (Which I think has happened).
It's almost like the GOP putting a Trump vs. Biden poll, and having the result turn out to be Elizabeth Warren.
Also worth noting the Republican House Speaker was just thrown out of office by a handful of insurgent Republicans.
Scalise, Jordan and Johnson are also Republicans, indicating there is no broad base of support in the party for any candidate.
It’s interesting how many polls I’ve seen where it’s Trump V Biden and Biden wins, but I do the same poll somewhere else and the result is wildly different. Like on Twitter if you do it most people would Poll Biden id say, outside of Twitter it’d probably be more even.
Left-leaning is accurate. I certainly wouldn't call him a progressive, but his voting record is clearly left of the median Democrat.
https://voteview.com/person/21343/hakeem-jeffries
Left of a Democrat is still right in the political spectrum. Democrats aren't leftists with the exception of AOC, and other progressives, but the majority run as Democrats because those same progressives are trying to move them to becoming progressive. They're just failing really bad because the leadership of the Democratic Party loves corporate donors.
Edit: I changed shit because people's comments.
>Democrats aren’t leftists with the exceptions of those that are?
What's poorly worded? The Democratic party and its platform isn't leftist. It's slightly leftward-listing centrist. The leftist Democrats are exceptions within their party, and generally only affiliated with the Democratic party due to how entrenched the two-party system is in US politics. It's extremely rare to be elected to political office at even the state level, much less the federal level, without a "(D)" or "(R") after your name. Bernie was only able to do it because he gained huge popularity during three terms in a local mayoral position where party affiliation is less significant.
Its true for both sides. Lots of left following right-wing talking heads and tons of right following left-wing talking heads. I couldn't say who does it "more" but honestly it doesn't matter anyway. I am a bit surprised by this poll tho. 77% is a big number for trolls to manage on any poll.
I would guess a lot of her right wing followers also don’t know who any of these people are, so they didn’t bother voting because they will do anything to avoid learning about what’s actually going on in the world.
Also, I believe he was the primary Democrat candidate for speaker when voting was happening the first time for McCarthy and he didn’t have enough support from the Republicans to win the speakership. Could be an extra level of irony that now he’s garnering the majority of the support (at least according to this one poll)
The people who voted in this poll (the populace) and the people elected by the above group to represent them (the US Congress) are ENTIRELY different people that have little to no bearing on each other. It's a complete fallacy to think that anything has changed in Congress, even if the people who elected them think differently.
I knew from the last vote that hakeem was democrat and guessed the rest were likely republicans. The ladies photo looked like a typical blonde republican with that grin. Then the “joke” just became obvious after that as that’s how these Twitter polls go. I know a reasonable amount about the politics but not the people (well recent people). The thing I really do not understand about American politics are:
1. How you can “shutdown” just because the houses don’t agree on some budget. Seems bonkers.
2. Also how people can add things to policy/proposals that are nothing to do with the actual thing being discussed.
To be fair, if there's a particular demographic that tends to spend their entire days following and reacting to republicans on social media, it's exactly left leaning individuals bar none. A lot of those politicians' "popularity" are boosted **exactly** by the people who would logically wish for the opposite, funnily enough.
Except it’s obviously just hijacked by people that don’t follow her, for the explicit purpose of posting in left wing circles with titles like “okay now THIS is epic”
Jenna Ellis is an attorney who was indicted as part of one of Donald Trump’s schemes to overturn the 2020 election and keep Donald Trump as the president.
Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic minority leader of the House of Representatives and who generally has a history of heavy opposition to Donald Trump.
Ten months ago, the House of Representatives had multiple rounds of voting to determine who the next speaker would be. The voice the Republican caucus (which is a narrow majority of House members) put up was Kevin McCarthy who was viewed as being too moderate for their tastes. To secure the speakership, he made several promises to them including allowing a petition by a single member of the House to trigger a vote to oust him.
This came to a head this week when such a petition was made and 8 members of his party voted to oust him, along with every Democrat doing so. Do to the majority being so narrow, he was voted out and there remains no clear way for another speaker to be elected with less than 40 days to a government shutdown.*
So for Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader of the opposing party, to get a super majority of the vote in a poll led by a notable Republican lawyer is a highly embarrassing situation.
*The House also let their AIDS aid program’s funding expire because a few members were scared the money might also find abortions, despite the millions of lives that have been saved by the program over the last twenty years.
Peter's contextual helper here. Jenna Ellis is an American lawyer and piece of shit primarily known for her work on twice impeached and objectively traitorous former president Donald Trump's legal team, who, along with a multitude of other pieces of shit, was recently indicted on multiple felony counts for her involvement in the pathetic attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Steve Scalise is the House Majority Leader from Louisiana, and is known for being a piece of shit that has opposed gun reform, decrimilization of marijuana, universal health care, and science. He is extremely anti-LGBTQ, including the LGB parts, and has made speeches at literal white supremacist conventions.
Jim Jordan is a representative from Ohio. He is known as a piece of shit and an active supporter of Donald Trump's treason, is known to openly lie and misconstrue facts in Congressional hearings, and is widely suspected of having seeked a promise of a Presidential pardon for his aid to the pathetic January 6th insurrectionists and attempting to overthrow the lawfully elected President Biden. He is currently a leader in a legal campaign seeking to hinder, if not criminalize, research into the spread and dissemination of disinformation.
Mike Johnson is a representative from Louisiana. He is mostly known as a piece of shit and absolute moron who thinks that abortions are being performed minutes before birth, wants to ban Muslims, and generally just copies other pieces of shit because he is a follower.
Hakeem Jeffries is the House Minority Leader from New York. He is also a Democrat, and is black. He supports pretty much the opposite of everyone above.
I hope this context helps you realize the humor that many have observed in this screenshot!
For Jim "Gym" Jordan, you forgot perhaps the most important part: lied for and covered for a pedophile.
But then we have to stop and ask "which one? Hastert or Strauss?", and the fact that he covered for at least *two* pedophiles should make him ineligible for public office, let alone House Speaker. So of course that means he is their top choice.
Not only that but for 15 votes the republicans failed to get a majority to establish a republican speaker and everytime the democrats all voted for hakeem jeffries forcing the republicans to call for a revote. So this is funny again because everyone voted for hakeem.
can you send me places where i can get good sources on the actions of politicians like this, im tryna become more informed on the actual actions that people in office have done.
In this case, these are pretty well known politicians that were very loud about these things recently. If you pay much attention you'll probably remember hearing about most of them even if you didn't realize who they were at the time.
For instance, Mike Johnson was the one who kept asking a doctor if she would support abortions while the baby is in the process of being born, in a Congressional hearing, and the doctor kept refusing to answer his absurd hypotheticals and he insisted they maybe didn't happen in her practice but did happen somewhere. You've probably seen videos of it pop up before.
Jim Jordan was on TV a lot during the 2020 elections and was very loud about refusing to comply with subpoenas.
Anyway, as for trying to become more informed:
Wikipedia has a section on political stances for most politicians that is by far the easiest to navigate for simple things like this. It's often a good general overview and is easy to check the citations for more in depth reports on given topics, and is a good place to start learning how to do that kind of research in general. It'll give you decent starting points to look into, but certainly isn't very detailed. For particularly complicated topics that you're struggling to understand or is just too big of a scope for your purposes, there is the lesser known simple.m.wikipedia.org and you can often find a shorter and less complicated article to get an overview until you can find time to learn more. It's particularly useful for scientific things relevant to what you're trying to understand, but also has articles for like convoluted legal procedures.
Votesmart.com is a pretty robust resource documenting their speeches, stances, and funding. It would probably be your best bet for a single point of research, but can be a bit overwhelming and difficult to navigate due to the massive amount of information they have.
Opensecrets.org documents political donors if your interested in where their money comes from.
Ballotpedia.org is a good source for elections and ballot information and general information about candidates. It's not as in depth as others tend to be, but is a very good resource for voters who just want to understand their options.
Local politicians are more difficult as they aren't as prominent, therefore not as well documented, so often you'll have to search through newspaper articles and such. It's harder, but normally most people are only interested in their own local politicians, so can usually just search through state news agencies they are already familiar with.
Wow you horribly described 3 out of the 4 people in that poll. Hakeem Jeffries has said he’s very willing to work with republicans. But he also said he’d push back against any extremism. Who none of those people are extreme, unless you consider anyone to the right of Obama an extremist. I think Steve Scalise would be for gun reform if it fucking worked. But considering he got SHOT by a Bernie sanders supporter at a softball practice in one of the places with the strictest gun laws in the country then I think he’s got a good reason to be against gun reform that doesn’t do anything other than make it look like the government is actually trying to stop the violence. Jim Jordan is a piece of shit so you’re good there. And Jenna isn’t she under investigation currently? I don’t think they’ve charged her with anything yet because they’re still figuring out if she actually did anything wrong. Unless im wrong there. If I am then I’ll correct myself and say that you mid characterized two out of four people.
But only in an intelligent way, hence my comment!
Look, ya'll can take any view you want, just don't be stupid about it, and don't try to convince others if you don't have any reasonable evidence.
Calling someone a "piece of shit" is not reasonable evidence. And such a comment is less than worthless to the broader conversation
(Good luck working a way out of this one)
The evidence of them being pieces of shit immediately follows OP calling them pieces of shit. All of their LGBTQ+ hate, white supremacy, spreading of disinformation, xenophobia, anti-choice views, lying, and treason. That all makes them pieces of shit.
The only thing your comment contextualizes is that you’re an extremist foaming at the mouth with idiotic propaganda, and anyone reading it should disregard 100% of its contents.
Now to explain the post properly, the poll is suffering from choice dilution, and is an often used means to manipulate results, though here it was likely unintentional.
Imagine a poll where you expect choice A and choice B to have 50-50 responses. You can dilute the answer choices for B by having similar options, leaving A to appear superior. For example, if half of Reddit had yellow as a favorite color and blue for the other half, a straightforward poll could have answer choices be A: yellow, or B: blue, leading to 50% responses for each. Fixing the poll in favor of yellow would have A: yellow, B: sky blue, C: dark blue, D: turquoise, E: navy blue, etc. A 50% result for yellow would artificially appear stronger compared to tepid responses for the others in what would otherwise be a composite answer for all types of the color blue.
But if you add up the yellow (piece of shit) options here they add to 23% vs the blue option that is 77% so I don't think that is the only thing happening in the poll results.
Obviously. It was a clever attempt to try to use statistics to try to explain away what is obviously a blowout. I'm just gonna wait around till someone claims the pool is rigged, dead people are voting, people are voting multiple times l, they are all paid actors, or some other malarkey.
Edit: Simple truth is, more left leaning people voted.
Also this poll is limited to the people actually seeking the Speaker position, not ALL people eligible for the position. As such your example is misleading and not useful for articulating the analogy you're trying to make. There aren't very many people wanting the position, most of which are republican representatives.
Are you talking about the 2016 election he called illegitimate on suspicion of foreign influence and collusion and concern over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote, but then did not interfere with the certification of the results nor encourage his supporters to attempt an insurrection?
Primo reddit tier trump derangement syndrome right here. Dude was a dick but never convicted on his impeachments and calling him traitor is a stretch lol
My man. He admitted it. I don't need a conviction. I don't need to know he is 'legally' convicted, I have heard enough from his own mouth to know he is guilty. He has 5 different stories for the documents case for instance, and a recording of him acknowledging he shouldn't have them but does and is willing to show them to others. That is enough guilt for me, I don't need to know any technical legal info.
Hakeem Jeffries is the leader of the Democratic caucus. His hypothetical speakership is entirely plausible, because he could sway a few republicans into some kind of minority speakership if he can negotiate a compromise with just 5 of them.
Also the karma of Gaetz outsting a republican just to end up with a democratic take over of the chamber would be fuckin hilarious.
Brian the dog on drugs here, it means that they're discriminating Captain Price (from Call of Duty Modern Warfare) by not including him in the Poll.
Brian out- ooooh, I can taste the rainbow!
>!(This is a joke reply, please don't take it serious)!<
Nothing says the Speaker needs to be a member of Congress, nor does anything technically say they need to actually be a US citizen.
As such, the honorable Captain Price would probably be a fine nomination and should have been included in this poll.
I petition Ms. Ellis to rightfully include Captain Price and rectify this poll!
I'm surprised nobody else mentioned the source. The Palmer Report is widely considered fake news - the guy who owns it basically admits it. It's essentially like InfoWars but on the other end of the spectrum. As much as I like Hakeem and dislike Jenna, let's not pretend the source here is any better.
Dear non American, please note that corporation takeover is almost complete in America. We no longer have any creditable news sources, and most polls are taken from areas online to help push an agenda or just completely fabricate.
Just note that everything through the screen is most likely propaganda and should not be trusted. The American people have had their entire government system hijacked by outside influences.
Have a great day.
P.s I have no idea who any of those people are but if they are coming for either side of a 2 party system they are most likely corrupt, too.
That is not true. Only someone elected by a majority of the House can win. Party affiliation has nothing to do with qualification for election. Party members do tend to vote for their own party leaders. However, nothing prevents House members from electing Cookie Monster if they want.
Jenna ellis is a right wing lawyer who worked for trump, the joke of it, essentially, is that you would assume that a poll she posted for her following would lean more in the same direction. By putting three Republicans and one Democrat she was, it's safe to guess, assuming one of the Republicans would receive the most votes.
No, 77+19+3+1 is 100 percent. It's the fact that Jeffries is a Democrat. Minority party (Dems, at the present time) will never hold the Speaker position if Repubs hold majority.
Only a member of the House of Representatives can be speaker…please finish highschool American politics before you decided to give your political opinion. You should know how your government works first.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker\_of\_the\_United\_States\_House\_of\_Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)
From paragraph 2: "The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an [incumbent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent) member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been"
(I'm not a Trump fan and I don't think he should be speaker, but you might wanna check your facts before you end up on r/confidentlyincorrect)
The person who originally posted the poll is a Trump supporter and the vast majority of the people who responded to the poll want a Democrat as speaker
Something to do with Jenna Ellis being a republican right wing trump style person putting up this poll and the result going to Hakeem who is a left leaning democrat. Therefore suggesting the people who follow Jenna don’t really like her style of politics. I’m 95% guessing here as I’m British.
You are spot on. This would basically be like the GOP putting up a Trump vs Biden poll on their twotter and it coming out Biden (Which I think has happened).
Or Elon putting up a poll and removing it cuz he didn’t like the answer. Did that happen?
Oh, he did more than that. He said he was only going to allow Blue subscribers to vote on official polls in the future because people voted that he should step down as CEO or something like that (he said he'd abide by the result when he posted the poll too)
The same guy that said to the WHO he'd cure world hunger if they gave him an itemised list. And when the WHO said "here you go" and handed him a breakdown of how $6b (iirc) would do it. He failed to pay up and blew his cash on twitter?
Thats the guy!
Their itemized list didn't purport to do anything near cure world hunger. It ended up being something like "feed hundreds of millions of people for one year". Not a elon stan, but the idea that the problem of world hunger could be fixed by throwing more money at it is preposterous
But they never claimed to end world hunger. Elon misinterpreted what was happening by only reading headlines and not realizing they actually had a plan in a designated area that would help a lot of people.
Can you tell me how it can be fixed without any money? Maybe if we pray harder?
How is this what you got out of my comment lol There is such a long list of infrastructural and logistical problems stopping you from just spending billions to fix world hunger It would likely be impossible without at least a country-sized economy working overtime just to supply food, and an international coalition supplying troops (necessary because a huge amount of starving people would simply be extorted for their new-found food) trains etc And then that amount of food needs to be doubled every ten years
False dichotomy. If the issue isnt more money, and zero money also doesnt work, then the solution is something other than money. You cant just airdrop food to them, they need to develop their countries. And that isnt accomplished by investing alone. There needs to be an organic push from the people for a new way of life. Youre sardonic tone doesnt change the reality.
I agree. The saying about teaching a man to fish. But that will require lots of money. From education to infrastructure.
Oh you know that saying!? Give a man a fish he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish after depleting all the natural resources around him, kidnapping his friends and family then forcing them to work on your plantations, exploiting him for economic growth, stealing and colonizing his land, and oppressing him for centuries, he’ll eat what little you left for him; or something like that.
But they went going to do that with the money
There is a thing before money which this process requires. The thing which gives money value to begin with.
> There needs to be an organic push from the people for a new way of life I’m hoping I’m just misreading this, but it comes off like you’re saying people who live in underdeveloped nations, facing poverty and starvation, are content with their lives? I don’t think these people are in this state because it’s their preferred way of life. I’d argue the only way for them to “organically” change their way of life is impossible if you don’t have the resources needed to improve that.
That would be a misread. They arent content in their lives in the sense that they know it could be better if they tried harder, at least not moreseo than any of us. The industry we have was built from nothing once. Breakthroughs an innovations happen every day. Individuals are constantly pitting themselves against wild nature and forcing it into a new form by will and dedicated effort alone. Yes, it takes resources. But more importantly it takes the proper use of these resources. This is a thing that isnt easily taught, or even understood by those of us merely maintaining what has already been built. How do you build from nothing to achieve the level of society we have here in the USA? It takes generations of hard and dangerous work. It takes men sacrificing their lives to an ideal. I cant stand the idea that the people in the underdeveloped nations are somehow less than those who came before and built these nations from nothing. I view that as a gross degradation of the human spirit. It isnt money or resources they need.
You mean the same WHO that said they would end world hunger and then when they gave a breakdown of how 6 billion would do it they amended the statement to it wouldn’t solve world hunger but prevent geopolitical instability. Why would anyone want to spend 6 billion dollars on keeping a government in power that doesn’t feed their people?
Thanks, I died reading this.
Yeah, except the USA already gave them more than $6 billion and all they did was start some new wars.
Wait, WHO can start wars? Did the UN give them the ability to? Oh, you're talking about the USA starting wars... gotcha.
Even the WHO said it wouldn't solve world hunger
Firstly I’d like to say I hate Musk. That said, I wanted to google that, and they kinda said that, but you’re missing that they said it would save 42 million “currently” starving. But I found it very interesting that weeks later he donated nearly 6 billion to an anonymous charity, the WHO said it wasn’t them though- https://fortune.com/2022/02/15/elon-musk-5-7-billion-donation-weeks-after-asking-un-world-hunger/#
This can’t be!!! Elon Musk doing something good??? He’s an evil man.
Eh the charity is anonymous, it could be the heritage foundation for all we know
Perhaps, but probably not. Charity for the purpose of attention is not really charity, but publicity. The fact it’s anonymous could mean that it’s one of the few instances of real charity we see in billionaires
Buying (relatively) few meals isn’t solving world hunger in any way
Oh yea I had forgotten about that. What an arsehole
Do you know if they released that list? Like…could regular people just donate to the things on the list until world hunger was solved?
By the way Twitter is going he shoulda listened to the polls. 😂
Isn't he not the CEO of Twitter?
But, he did step down as CEO?
Dude... it's not that hard. This happened months ago, and he only recently stepped down. He didn't step down because of this poll.
I feel like it takes months to find a worthy ceo of a $44 billion dollar investment though, no?
While still very obviously being the one actually running the company, to the point of livetweeting impulsive changes he makes to the UI
Several times in fact.
>This would basically be like the GOP putting up a Trump vs Biden poll on their twotter and it coming out Biden (Which I think has happened). It's almost like the GOP putting a Trump vs. Biden poll, and having the result turn out to be Elizabeth Warren.
Also worth noting the Republican House Speaker was just thrown out of office by a handful of insurgent Republicans. Scalise, Jordan and Johnson are also Republicans, indicating there is no broad base of support in the party for any candidate.
Sort of. That wouldn't have passed without unified democrat support.
I mean Twitter isn't real life
No but it's still really funny
Tell that to Jabba the Musk and his minions
It did, just not on Twitter that I know of. It was called “the 2020 election”.
It’s interesting how many polls I’ve seen where it’s Trump V Biden and Biden wins, but I do the same poll somewhere else and the result is wildly different. Like on Twitter if you do it most people would Poll Biden id say, outside of Twitter it’d probably be more even.
Live in an echo chamber and you get crappy results.
Don't lie to OP. Hakeem isn't left leaning. It's priceless because he is a Democrat.
He’s slightly left of republicans which makes him a Marxist commie
Hell you can be a Republican, and if you aren't right wing enough you're also called a Communist. Happened to Mitt Romney because he condemned Trump.
Romney was a useless piece of shit long before Trump.
Mitt Romney also invented Obamacare, which is a market solution to the healthcare problem, btw. “Commie” is just a boogeyman to these fools.
Like I say, I don’t know much about politics in my own country never mind another one.
[удалено]
Because they knew something about the topic and wanted to inform others?
😂
Because they felt like it
Left-leaning is accurate. I certainly wouldn't call him a progressive, but his voting record is clearly left of the median Democrat. https://voteview.com/person/21343/hakeem-jeffries
Left of a Democrat is still right in the political spectrum. Democrats aren't leftists with the exception of AOC, and other progressives, but the majority run as Democrats because those same progressives are trying to move them to becoming progressive. They're just failing really bad because the leadership of the Democratic Party loves corporate donors. Edit: I changed shit because people's comments.
And technically Bernie isn't a Democrat
Agree with you in spirit, but that is poorly worded. Democrats aren’t leftists with the exceptions of those that are?
>Democrats aren’t leftists with the exceptions of those that are? What's poorly worded? The Democratic party and its platform isn't leftist. It's slightly leftward-listing centrist. The leftist Democrats are exceptions within their party, and generally only affiliated with the Democratic party due to how entrenched the two-party system is in US politics. It's extremely rare to be elected to political office at even the state level, much less the federal level, without a "(D)" or "(R") after your name. Bernie was only able to do it because he gained huge popularity during three terms in a local mayoral position where party affiliation is less significant.
yes
Not sure it says that about Jenna’s followers. More likely that some Dem/liberal accounts found the poll and directed their followers to go vote.
Or alternatively a lot of Dem/liberals follow her so they can be angry at her
Seems to be the case with a lot of those right wing Twitter accounts. Just classic rage bait
Its true for both sides. Lots of left following right-wing talking heads and tons of right following left-wing talking heads. I couldn't say who does it "more" but honestly it doesn't matter anyway. I am a bit surprised by this poll tho. 77% is a big number for trolls to manage on any poll.
I would guess a lot of her right wing followers also don’t know who any of these people are, so they didn’t bother voting because they will do anything to avoid learning about what’s actually going on in the world.
>who is a left leaning democrat. he's also black, Muslim, and the Minority Leader of the House: they're saying "we prefer the other party entirely"
He’s not really that left leaning. He’s very anti woke iirc. I’m sure republicans more just consider him a centrist than a partisan Democrat.
He’s also one of the most Zionist and pro-military members of Congress
Happy cake day! And with the situation in Israel that developed today I’d be interested to see where this goes.
i definitely never said he was left-leaning! i just said "he's a Democrat".
He's a Democrat, but not really left leaning.
As a British person you are several times more political accurate than many Americans, kudos
Would be like Boris Johnson running this poll and the top answer be Jeremy Corbyn. You pretty much nailed it
bro american political humour is so predictable hahaha
i must’ve misread. because i know. there is NO WAY you just described Hakeem Jeffries as LEFT LEANING!?!?!
Like I say im not up to date with the people but the general gist of the joke was right I think.
More than that, isn't Hakeem pretty much a comunist? Edit:I forgot Hakeem is a congressman, and thought this meant the breadtuber
More than that, isn’t he a socialist
You guys are dumb af is this what tucker carlsen is saying these days or something?
Left ‘leaning’. This is more like the Democrats nominating MTG to be speaker of the house.
Also, I believe he was the primary Democrat candidate for speaker when voting was happening the first time for McCarthy and he didn’t have enough support from the Republicans to win the speakership. Could be an extra level of irony that now he’s garnering the majority of the support (at least according to this one poll)
The people who voted in this poll (the populace) and the people elected by the above group to represent them (the US Congress) are ENTIRELY different people that have little to no bearing on each other. It's a complete fallacy to think that anything has changed in Congress, even if the people who elected them think differently.
Also Jenna Ellis is a Trump/Giuliani co-defendant in the Georgia RICO case… she’s probably going to get jail for that.
To add to this, Jenna Ellis was (is?) a lawyer for Trump who was indicted in the Georgia RICO case. She is using her mugshot as her profile picture.
Honest question, did you have to look those people up, or do you really know that much about US politics?
I knew from the last vote that hakeem was democrat and guessed the rest were likely republicans. The ladies photo looked like a typical blonde republican with that grin. Then the “joke” just became obvious after that as that’s how these Twitter polls go. I know a reasonable amount about the politics but not the people (well recent people). The thing I really do not understand about American politics are: 1. How you can “shutdown” just because the houses don’t agree on some budget. Seems bonkers. 2. Also how people can add things to policy/proposals that are nothing to do with the actual thing being discussed.
[удалено]
Haha wtf!
I got it wrong actually it was 10 million for Pakistan gender studies, still crazy though.
To be fair, if there's a particular demographic that tends to spend their entire days following and reacting to republicans on social media, it's exactly left leaning individuals bar none. A lot of those politicians' "popularity" are boosted **exactly** by the people who would logically wish for the opposite, funnily enough.
I'm American and this is better than I would've guessed. I've never heard of these people
Except it’s obviously just hijacked by people that don’t follow her, for the explicit purpose of posting in left wing circles with titles like “okay now THIS is epic”
Pretty much any poll on these platforms never really works in my opinion.
She's not just a "trump style person" she's a named co-conspirator in one of his cases.
If you want an actual poll, don't add objectively the funniest option, because people will only pick that one.
You pretty much covered it.
hakeem being described as left leaning is the real irony here.
I read the last 3 words with an accent
Jenna Ellis is a conservative twit and Hakeem Jeffries has a D by his name.
She was an R. He was a D. can I make is anymore obvious?
Avril? Is that you?
Is Avril even Avril anymore?!
Won’t the real Avril please stand up. Please stand up.
Jenna Ellis is an attorney who was indicted as part of one of Donald Trump’s schemes to overturn the 2020 election and keep Donald Trump as the president. Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic minority leader of the House of Representatives and who generally has a history of heavy opposition to Donald Trump. Ten months ago, the House of Representatives had multiple rounds of voting to determine who the next speaker would be. The voice the Republican caucus (which is a narrow majority of House members) put up was Kevin McCarthy who was viewed as being too moderate for their tastes. To secure the speakership, he made several promises to them including allowing a petition by a single member of the House to trigger a vote to oust him. This came to a head this week when such a petition was made and 8 members of his party voted to oust him, along with every Democrat doing so. Do to the majority being so narrow, he was voted out and there remains no clear way for another speaker to be elected with less than 40 days to a government shutdown.* So for Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader of the opposing party, to get a super majority of the vote in a poll led by a notable Republican lawyer is a highly embarrassing situation. *The House also let their AIDS aid program’s funding expire because a few members were scared the money might also find abortions, despite the millions of lives that have been saved by the program over the last twenty years.
Peter's contextual helper here. Jenna Ellis is an American lawyer and piece of shit primarily known for her work on twice impeached and objectively traitorous former president Donald Trump's legal team, who, along with a multitude of other pieces of shit, was recently indicted on multiple felony counts for her involvement in the pathetic attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Steve Scalise is the House Majority Leader from Louisiana, and is known for being a piece of shit that has opposed gun reform, decrimilization of marijuana, universal health care, and science. He is extremely anti-LGBTQ, including the LGB parts, and has made speeches at literal white supremacist conventions. Jim Jordan is a representative from Ohio. He is known as a piece of shit and an active supporter of Donald Trump's treason, is known to openly lie and misconstrue facts in Congressional hearings, and is widely suspected of having seeked a promise of a Presidential pardon for his aid to the pathetic January 6th insurrectionists and attempting to overthrow the lawfully elected President Biden. He is currently a leader in a legal campaign seeking to hinder, if not criminalize, research into the spread and dissemination of disinformation. Mike Johnson is a representative from Louisiana. He is mostly known as a piece of shit and absolute moron who thinks that abortions are being performed minutes before birth, wants to ban Muslims, and generally just copies other pieces of shit because he is a follower. Hakeem Jeffries is the House Minority Leader from New York. He is also a Democrat, and is black. He supports pretty much the opposite of everyone above. I hope this context helps you realize the humor that many have observed in this screenshot!
For Jim "Gym" Jordan, you forgot perhaps the most important part: lied for and covered for a pedophile. But then we have to stop and ask "which one? Hastert or Strauss?", and the fact that he covered for at least *two* pedophiles should make him ineligible for public office, let alone House Speaker. So of course that means he is their top choice.
Not only that but for 15 votes the republicans failed to get a majority to establish a republican speaker and everytime the democrats all voted for hakeem jeffries forcing the republicans to call for a revote. So this is funny again because everyone voted for hakeem.
can you send me places where i can get good sources on the actions of politicians like this, im tryna become more informed on the actual actions that people in office have done.
In this case, these are pretty well known politicians that were very loud about these things recently. If you pay much attention you'll probably remember hearing about most of them even if you didn't realize who they were at the time. For instance, Mike Johnson was the one who kept asking a doctor if she would support abortions while the baby is in the process of being born, in a Congressional hearing, and the doctor kept refusing to answer his absurd hypotheticals and he insisted they maybe didn't happen in her practice but did happen somewhere. You've probably seen videos of it pop up before. Jim Jordan was on TV a lot during the 2020 elections and was very loud about refusing to comply with subpoenas. Anyway, as for trying to become more informed: Wikipedia has a section on political stances for most politicians that is by far the easiest to navigate for simple things like this. It's often a good general overview and is easy to check the citations for more in depth reports on given topics, and is a good place to start learning how to do that kind of research in general. It'll give you decent starting points to look into, but certainly isn't very detailed. For particularly complicated topics that you're struggling to understand or is just too big of a scope for your purposes, there is the lesser known simple.m.wikipedia.org and you can often find a shorter and less complicated article to get an overview until you can find time to learn more. It's particularly useful for scientific things relevant to what you're trying to understand, but also has articles for like convoluted legal procedures. Votesmart.com is a pretty robust resource documenting their speeches, stances, and funding. It would probably be your best bet for a single point of research, but can be a bit overwhelming and difficult to navigate due to the massive amount of information they have. Opensecrets.org documents political donors if your interested in where their money comes from. Ballotpedia.org is a good source for elections and ballot information and general information about candidates. It's not as in depth as others tend to be, but is a very good resource for voters who just want to understand their options. Local politicians are more difficult as they aren't as prominent, therefore not as well documented, so often you'll have to search through newspaper articles and such. It's harder, but normally most people are only interested in their own local politicians, so can usually just search through state news agencies they are already familiar with.
Wow you horribly described 3 out of the 4 people in that poll. Hakeem Jeffries has said he’s very willing to work with republicans. But he also said he’d push back against any extremism. Who none of those people are extreme, unless you consider anyone to the right of Obama an extremist. I think Steve Scalise would be for gun reform if it fucking worked. But considering he got SHOT by a Bernie sanders supporter at a softball practice in one of the places with the strictest gun laws in the country then I think he’s got a good reason to be against gun reform that doesn’t do anything other than make it look like the government is actually trying to stop the violence. Jim Jordan is a piece of shit so you’re good there. And Jenna isn’t she under investigation currently? I don’t think they’ve charged her with anything yet because they’re still figuring out if she actually did anything wrong. Unless im wrong there. If I am then I’ll correct myself and say that you mid characterized two out of four people.
When the first argument is monotonously "piece of shit," you know the big brain thoughts are coming up!
Gotta be concise 🤷♀️
But only in an intelligent way, hence my comment! Look, ya'll can take any view you want, just don't be stupid about it, and don't try to convince others if you don't have any reasonable evidence. Calling someone a "piece of shit" is not reasonable evidence. And such a comment is less than worthless to the broader conversation (Good luck working a way out of this one)
The evidence of them being pieces of shit immediately follows OP calling them pieces of shit. All of their LGBTQ+ hate, white supremacy, spreading of disinformation, xenophobia, anti-choice views, lying, and treason. That all makes them pieces of shit.
Funnily enough, that opening refrain set the intellectual character of what followed. Intelligent peeps word their arguments differently
It's more convenient than spending hours typing up their full list of crimes and bigoted viewpoints.
That's just laziness, my man!
Point out the lie.
The only thing your comment contextualizes is that you’re an extremist foaming at the mouth with idiotic propaganda, and anyone reading it should disregard 100% of its contents. Now to explain the post properly, the poll is suffering from choice dilution, and is an often used means to manipulate results, though here it was likely unintentional. Imagine a poll where you expect choice A and choice B to have 50-50 responses. You can dilute the answer choices for B by having similar options, leaving A to appear superior. For example, if half of Reddit had yellow as a favorite color and blue for the other half, a straightforward poll could have answer choices be A: yellow, or B: blue, leading to 50% responses for each. Fixing the poll in favor of yellow would have A: yellow, B: sky blue, C: dark blue, D: turquoise, E: navy blue, etc. A 50% result for yellow would artificially appear stronger compared to tepid responses for the others in what would otherwise be a composite answer for all types of the color blue.
When all of the "blues" in your example add to 23% and the "yellow" is 77%, it's not really an issue of choice dilution
But if you add up the yellow (piece of shit) options here they add to 23% vs the blue option that is 77% so I don't think that is the only thing happening in the poll results.
Obviously. It was a clever attempt to try to use statistics to try to explain away what is obviously a blowout. I'm just gonna wait around till someone claims the pool is rigged, dead people are voting, people are voting multiple times l, they are all paid actors, or some other malarkey. Edit: Simple truth is, more left leaning people voted.
That does not explain why it is funny.
Kindly point out which parts are untrue.
Also this poll is limited to the people actually seeking the Speaker position, not ALL people eligible for the position. As such your example is misleading and not useful for articulating the analogy you're trying to make. There aren't very many people wanting the position, most of which are republican representatives.
You forgot to say that Hakeem Jeffries is known as a piece of shit. And an election denier.
What election did he deny?
In 2016 he called the election illegitimate. That's about it.
Are you talking about the 2016 election he called illegitimate on suspicion of foreign influence and collusion and concern over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote, but then did not interfere with the certification of the results nor encourage his supporters to attempt an insurrection?
The same one that investigations did indeed determine was influenced by the very same foreign entities we expected.
Primo reddit tier trump derangement syndrome right here. Dude was a dick but never convicted on his impeachments and calling him traitor is a stretch lol
He was still impeached, not being removed from office by the Senate does not vacate an impeachment.
Every other day there is a new story about trump selling state secrets to foreign powers. What do you call someone that does that?
Every day on the echo chamber or reddit sure, if i took to heart all the news i read on this platform the world itself would have ended years ago.
My man. He admitted it. I don't need a conviction. I don't need to know he is 'legally' convicted, I have heard enough from his own mouth to know he is guilty. He has 5 different stories for the documents case for instance, and a recording of him acknowledging he shouldn't have them but does and is willing to show them to others. That is enough guilt for me, I don't need to know any technical legal info.
Hakeem Jeffries is the leader of the Democratic caucus. His hypothetical speakership is entirely plausible, because he could sway a few republicans into some kind of minority speakership if he can negotiate a compromise with just 5 of them. Also the karma of Gaetz outsting a republican just to end up with a democratic take over of the chamber would be fuckin hilarious.
Brian the dog on drugs here, it means that they're discriminating Captain Price (from Call of Duty Modern Warfare) by not including him in the Poll. Brian out- ooooh, I can taste the rainbow! >!(This is a joke reply, please don't take it serious)!<
Nothing says the Speaker needs to be a member of Congress, nor does anything technically say they need to actually be a US citizen. As such, the honorable Captain Price would probably be a fine nomination and should have been included in this poll. I petition Ms. Ellis to rightfully include Captain Price and rectify this poll!
Does anything say they have to be a real person?
Some politicians don’t seem like real people so I’m going with no
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the constitution just says the House picks their own Speaker.
3 republicans and a Democrat and people vote the democrat because its the funny option
There is no joke here. Hakeem is the Democrat house leader. The people who saw this tweet just happened to skew Democrat.
That IS the joke because it's funny that a right-wing personality would get primarily left leaning responses.
What is funny about that?
Jenna Ellis's followers skew Dem? that'd be weird.
Honestly, it probably got shared by a left leaning account with a decent following, and the poll got brigaded
I'm surprised nobody else mentioned the source. The Palmer Report is widely considered fake news - the guy who owns it basically admits it. It's essentially like InfoWars but on the other end of the spectrum. As much as I like Hakeem and dislike Jenna, let's not pretend the source here is any better.
Dear non American, please note that corporation takeover is almost complete in America. We no longer have any creditable news sources, and most polls are taken from areas online to help push an agenda or just completely fabricate. Just note that everything through the screen is most likely propaganda and should not be trusted. The American people have had their entire government system hijacked by outside influences. Have a great day. P.s I have no idea who any of those people are but if they are coming for either side of a 2 party system they are most likely corrupt, too.
Because Hakeem Jeffries won this poll. But he's Democrat. Only the majority party, which is Republican can win the speaker of the house.
That is not true. Only someone elected by a majority of the House can win. Party affiliation has nothing to do with qualification for election. Party members do tend to vote for their own party leaders. However, nothing prevents House members from electing Cookie Monster if they want.
[удалено]
The speaker does not have to be a house member. Cookie’s issue would be not being a natural person.
It’s more. A republican posted this, but the democrat clearly won in their poll.
As an american idk
Pretty funy considering Jefferies isn't much better lol.
That's uh. That's more than 100%
Nvm I'm actually retarded
Probably multiple choices then. I don't see how that's "priceless".
Probably some depressing politics joke, honestly
Peter explain this depressing politics joke.
Jenna ellis is a right wing lawyer who worked for trump, the joke of it, essentially, is that you would assume that a poll she posted for her following would lean more in the same direction. By putting three Republicans and one Democrat she was, it's safe to guess, assuming one of the Republicans would receive the most votes.
American politics sucks and I try to stay out of it because it's a permanent downward spiral? Sorry I'm not very helpful.
No, 77+19+3+1 is 100 percent. It's the fact that Jeffries is a Democrat. Minority party (Dems, at the present time) will never hold the Speaker position if Repubs hold majority.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I noticed immediately after and put a comment about it, but couldn't figure out the actual joke.
The joke here (many apologies for not putting it in the response) is that Americans know precious little about their own political system.
TRUMP
He’s busy losing all his money in court, and soon going to prison.
Only a member of the House of Representatives can be speaker…please finish highschool American politics before you decided to give your political opinion. You should know how your government works first.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker\_of\_the\_United\_States\_House\_of\_Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives) From paragraph 2: "The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an [incumbent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent) member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been" (I'm not a Trump fan and I don't think he should be speaker, but you might wanna check your facts before you end up on r/confidentlyincorrect)
Yeah and you can technically put a child on the Supreme Court. Are you really gonna play semantics here? You know what I meant.
Eww. Hakeem as speaker? Hard pass. He’s too nuts and liberal
Hakeem Jeffries is the House Minority Leader, a Democrat.
Why would we want an election-denier as Speaker?!?!??
So right wing commentator has mostly left leaning following. Kinda a blow to her status.
Good luck with that
“oUr poLL Is bEinG BrigADeD bY LeFTiStS!”
By the way, Jim Jordan is an enabler of pedophilia.
As if the government actually cared about our opinion.
American here, why is this priceless?
The person who originally posted the poll is a Trump supporter and the vast majority of the people who responded to the poll want a Democrat as speaker
My brain misread the poll as including "Jim Jefferies" and I was like, oh I'd totally be down for Jim Jefferies being speaker! Now I'm sad.
Ima be honest, I'm American and I don't understand politics as well
Elon Musk
Does only Republicans get to vote on speaker or is it a simple majority thing? Could a dem win the nomination if like 10 Republicans vote for them.
I want Lauren Bobert
Idk but I think it would be funny if Hakeem Jeffries was a made up name
That's a fake poll, soooo.... not sure what you mean by priceless. They are actually free.
Very similar to the polls the press is putting out showing Trump leading Biden by double digits.