Senator John Fetterman has signaled that he could reach a breaking point with the Democratic Party if Senator Chris Van Hollen is elected to Senate majority leader.

Fetterman, who has repeatedly clashed with members of his own party over Israel, suggested that Van Hollen’s potential leadership appointment would be troubling because of his criticism of the Israeli government.

Asked by Kayleigh McEnany during a Fox News interview on Saturday whether Van Hollen becoming majority leader would represent a red line that could prompt him to leave the Democratic Party, Fetterman responded: “Yeah, absolutely, it would be troubling if my caucus elects someone like Van Hollen, that has really made his name being very…hostile to Israel.”

  • sportsjorts@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 minutes ago

    Hey Fetterman get fucked you republican ass pollup. Get fucked as hard as you possibly can you stupid mother fucker.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    The rules needs to change for these cloaked asswipes. If you consistently vote against your party and the people who voted for you, the person should lose their seat. If you switch parties in office, get fucked, that should be an immediate dismissal.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s just the nature of a republic.

      He could be removed from the party at any time.

      It’s up to the voters to boot him from his seat though. If they do, sweet. If not, their choice.

      Parties are a layer on a representative democracy, not democracy itself. I’m against anything that enshrines party power any more than it already implicitly has.

  • Bwaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    As the saying goes “don’t let the door smack you in the ass on your way out”

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    He and Haley Stevens are going to switch parties, which is fine. Let them join the losers, since they’ll both be voted out of office in 2028 anyway.

  • kurmudgeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 hours ago

    His vote doesn’t matter any more. The best part about this mid term election, John Fetterman is now completely insignificant and can go fuck off. No one cares about him.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        But Republicans don’t vote for Democrats, even if they’re just Republicans wearing a blue tie. This strategy has never worked for Democrsts, but they love it.

  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

    55-45 is still a good majority, and it’ll be way more productive than a 56-44 with Schumer as SML and Fetterman in the rank-and-file.

    Fetterman is threatening us with a good time.

      • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        6 hours ago

        There are no political parties in the united states, on paper. Each representative is free to vote however they like, for whatever reason they like, once they are in office. Some states have a way to recall federal representatives, but not all do.

        Unlike parliamentary systems you are not (on paper) voting for a party, who appoints a representative; you are voting specifically for a singular person, who may associate with a party.

        Now because 250 years have happened between that idea and how congress actually works, the entirely made up and not constitutionally supported positions of ‘House majority leader’ and ‘Senate Majority leader,’ exist. These positions do not exist in the constitution, and did not exist for most of the country’s history. But these positions are now used to appoint committee assignments, and decide what legislation is voted on (primarily, there are ways to force votes, but that requires a supermajority of representatives agreeing to do that). Again these positions that effectively control how congress functions have no basis in the constitution, did not exist before 1925, and go directly against the purpose of congress and the concept of a political party-free government that the US was designed to be as to not descend into the corruption the founding fathers saw in the house of lords in the UK.

        But they’re super important now, because the corruption is too entrenched to get rid of.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          So what youre saying is we have the perfect Supreme court right now to have someone challenge the inability to table a vote because its not in the constitution and these faithful adherents to it will break the majority minority leader positions? 😂

          • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            No that would be in January. If a republican brought this up as a challenge and dems didn’t give the game away that this would be better than the status quo, then SCOTUS would see it as ‘kneecapping’ the incoming congress and would absolutely rule it unconstitutional.

        • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          well said. the founders specifically wanted to not have political parties. the elected person is supposed to represent the collective will of his constituency, which requires flexibility and an ability to find compromises that on the whole benefit the people without regard to particular ideologies.

          The founders understood human nature, which is why we have separation of powers, which has been deliberately subverted over decades.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The only meaningful adjustment that will result from him officially switching parties is that the party affiliation note in news articles and interviews will change from (D) to (R)