Chuck Schumer indeed sucks, but it concerns me that nobody is asking why Peter Thiel's mouthpiece is the Dem leading calls for him to step down.
Ro Khanna Says Schumer Must Resign in Wake of Budget Deal
This is who Ro Kahnna really is, and always has been:
It's probably worth mentioning too that Ro Khanna is usually listed as the top stock trader in Congress:
https://www.fool.com/research/congressional-stock-trading-who-trades-and-makes-the-most/
https://www.capitoltrades.com/trades?politician=K000389
I generally like what Khanna has to say but I'm always skeptical about how sincere he is. He's struck me as a bit of a faux-populist.
He's not sincere, he's more like Vance. They had him on Some More News (you know, Cody's Showdy), and thankfully pushed back on some of his statements... Guess what, that episode has been made private 🧐 (still up on spotify though)
Yes! He is the worst kind of fraud.
He pushed for the U.S. to finally recognize Palestine as a state... while also holding stock in Palantir.
Like if I could draw that as a cartoon, it would be Ro Kahnna holding a gun to the head of Palestine with one hand, and a sack with a dollar sign in the other while giving a speech about the U.S. having ignored human rights abuses for far too long.
“Impressed by his founding of PayPal and early backing of Facebook” brother those aren’t qualities.
“Yes he spoke at the GOP convention but have yoh considered these other ways that he’s an asshole elite?”
Having listened to a podcast highlighting Thiel's life in great detail, anything he is involved with has to be taken with an oceans' worth of salt.
Fwiw...
If an oceans worth of salt, that means there's a lot of substance to be considered (seasoned).
It's "grain of salt" because there's not a lot to it (to be seasoned).
the more you know
Except that salt negates bitter flavors. So if you have a bitter pill to swallow, you take it with a grain of salt and it isn't as bad.
Thiel is involved in shit so bitter that it would take an ocean's worth of salt to swallow.
Man, to this day the phrase "take it with a grain of salt" makes no sense to me. For one, I see people use the phrase(as above) as adding a singular grain of salt... which wouldn't do anything. But if, as suggested here, it's more to point out that further seasoning and/or flavoring isn't required, then what... what? Are we eating information? What does that even mean? If it's seasoned, then why does that mean I should be skeptical? If someone makes something I would be skeptical of, why tf would I eat it?
I actually looked this up because it was(still is) driving me crazy. A possible origin of the phrase goes back to Pliny the Elder adding a grain of salt to a poisin antidote. Maybe it was to make the antidote easier to ingest(which, once again, a singular grain wouldn't make a difference, so it's possible that it's a pinch)? So we're skeptical of the antidote when we're calling the info given poisin??? But it could also be the case that a popular myth was that a pinch of salt neutralized poison, possibly referring to a misunderstanding of Pliny the Elder's recipe. But if something is poisoned, don't fucking eat/drink it? Like seriously, if someone you don't trust gives you food/drink that you think could be poisoned, and we even temporarily grant that a grain/pinch of salt neutralizes the pain, it STILL doesn't make sense, because why would you accept anything from that person at all if you think they're trying to kill you??? ALSO ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE EATING INFORMATION IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL??? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
And then I've seen the camp of using salt as a currency, leaning into the value aspect of it, suggesting adding a singular grain of salt finally gives it value(which, like... is that what you mean?). Since the phrase is supposed to invoke skepticism, I'd imagine the value measured is truth? So if the salt you take the information with is skepticism, then how does the skepticism alter the truth value? And, again, if the information is worthless don't buy it for any price, same as don't eat the fucking poisin. At least in this scenario we're not eating information.
In any case, and even aside from whether or not the idiom even makes sense, I don't understand why the phrase is even used at all to advise skepticism since any usage I've ever heard or read of it is clearly(to me) redundant and/or unwarranted. "This comment comes from [unreliable source], so take it with a grain of salt." Yeah? It's an unreliable source. If someone already knew, the added idiom is kinda insulting. If someone didn't know or disagreed(that it's unreliable), then the added idiom only serves to add confusion. "The numbers may look promising, but take it with a grain of salt." Okay? Yeah, obviously don't draw conclusions from just "the numbers" as there's always more to whatever form of statistical analysis this hypothetical is, but it's totally unclear what the idiom is even trying to say. The numbers lie? The numbers are an anomaly? The source is unreliable? It actually looks bad if you look closer? And if it's to point out that it could be any of those things and more, well no shit, bro. Once again, if someone already knows to be skeptical, it's insulting and unwarranted, if someone doesn't know to be skeptical, they need to be informed of the reason to be skeptical before "be skeptical" makes any sense. It's functionally useless.
I don't get it. I don't get the appeal, I don't understand how's it's supposed to mean what it's supposed to mean, even granting that language and phrases evolve in strange ways. I don't understand how and why people use it. I don't understand how people see logic in it. I dunno, maybe I'm the idiot here.
TL;DR: Please stop eating information, thank you. I don't understand the phrase, so take it with a grain of salt(?).
Wow, Ro. Just wow. That's an absofuckinglute masterclass you put on, licking the Antichrist's boots. Cloves? Talons? Whatever
That's cool but like Mike Honda is 84 years old so why is he part of this conversation
Lmao this is the dumbest fucking take I've ever read
Btw here is "crotchety old" Mike Honda back in 2016 explaining who has always controlled "progressive" Ro Kahnna
Why is Mike Honda relevant to this conversation? Bc while Ro Kahnna was praising Thiel for doing what we all just saw reluctant "liberal" Bari Weiss repeat in 2025, Mike Honda was trying to warn us that Peter Thiel is ghost writing "progressive" policy and manipulating the press to ensure the window drifts even further to the right and locks us all into inescapable authoritarianism.
Conservatives so drunk on power they're literally just saying the quiet part out loud now without fear of consequence: Palantir CEO Says a Surveillance State Is Preferable to China Winning the AI Race. Oh and by the way, we're pretty clearly staging a coup to install our own Senate leader within the Democratic party.
You: Pssh, Mike Honda? He old.
Peter Thiel is what I call a "Roman Gay." He isn't gay because he likes men. He is gay because he hates women.
Hey, now that's not fair!
He probably hates everybody 😉
But yes he almost certainly is a misogynist on top of everything else. It's like when people claim to be an equal opportunity hater. You can be a miserable asshole and also be a racist/sexist/classist piece of shit. In fact there's a good chance Thiel is all of the above. Life is a rich tapestry that way, and people are complicated.
Ro Khanna commands respect from no one
Two people can both be pieces of shit. And it's actually pretty common for disingenuous trolls to get behind obviously popular causes, it helps build their brand. And additionally, it's certainly possible that Peter Thiel wants to destroy the Democrats and thinks that removing Chuck Schumer will disrupt some watered-down anti-fascism that the Democrats are doing in congress any time they get their heads out of their asses, and also that removing Chuck Schumer is an absolutely vital step to reduce the horror in our governance and the ceaseless losing of elections by Democrats.
The problems in Washington are a lot deeper than any given individual and are mostly bipartisan. There is a reason why these absolute corrupt spineless buffoons keep getting elevated to these vaunted positions, and removing one buffoon is not going to right the ship. That's one thing that makes zero sense to me about "Democrats are part of a corrupt system, so therefore stop voting for Democrats and presto the corrupt system will be fixed!" But, also, a change of leadership away from the absolute worst that the Democrats have to offer can absolutely be a good thing even if it disrupts in the short run.
You either missed the part where I said this or you're ignoring it:
I'm all for replacing Schumer the right way. I’m not ok with Peter Thiel using the media to manipulate the public, and make us cheer while he installs his own Senate leader.
Sept 10: Dem Orders Congressional Probe Into Epstein and Peter Thiel’s Relationship
Sept 10: Schumer moves to force Senate vote on Epstein files
Sept 10: US Senate Republicans narrowly reject Schumer bid to force vote on Epstein files
Given this information, why do you think Peter Thiel could benefit from showing that he could successfully manipulate the press and the public to have Schumer suddenly removed right now, and install his own candidate to oversee the Senate? What's changed since now and September when Schumer tried to get those files released by the Senate, the same day news about Thiel, J.P. Morgan broke?
The investigation is being led by Democrats in the Senate, but Senate Republicans refused to vote to release them after House Republicans had already blocked the release for a second time earlier that same day.
Grijalva will be sworn in as the House’s newest member, paving the way for an Epstein files vote
It would be very unwise to let Thiel use his shadowy CIA strong arm bullshit, to successfully manipulate the public and intimidate the members of the House and Senate by removing Schumer just in time for those files to finally be released.
Chuck’s defense team out in full force today huh? Pathetic, just like him.
Khanna is the leader of the dem progressive caucus. It’s his job to publicly, forcefully call for Schumer to resign after such an incredible betrayal of the American people in favor of corporate interests. And Chucklefuck needs to get out of the way, because there is a massive sea change in politics now in favor of populist policies and he is in the way. We should stick Schumer in one of Cuomo’s covid infested retirement homes if you ask me.
Digging up tweets from 2016 to pretend he’s some modern day ball licker of Thiel’s? Ok, sure, very relevant. I suppose you also think Graham Platner is a Nazi b/c he got a tattoo 20 years ago as a young dumbass?
Ro invested 10k in Palantir, who gives a shit he’s a millionaire like all of Congress and is invested in all kinds of shit, especially stuff he knows will be getting massive gov’t contracts. Don’t like it? Ask Pelosi to pass the STOCK act before she leaves. Ro has, consistently. He’s also the first Justice Dem, and has never taken corporate pac money. He’s not corrupted by the likes of Thiel, while Schumer very much is.
Ro invested 10k in Palantir, who gives a shit
🥾👅😋 Yummy
Btw, maybe you wipe your ass with $10k, but that's a lot of blood money to some people
Well reasoned counter argument, as expected.
Anyway, regarding your edit - I never said $10k was chump change for regular people, but for those in Congress, it is. Sorry if you’re mad over it, but that’s a fact. For almost everyone there, the whole point is to get rich off insider trading and bribe money.
Ro doesn’t take those bribes, and I don’t fault him for making a few relatively small trades for stuff he knows will be mooning. If you don’t like it, pressure your reps to ban congressional trading, like I do mine.
Look at the membership of the "progressive caucus", it's not like they have to actually support progressive policies to use the label when they feel it'll help themselves.
I didn’t see Chuck Schumer on the list of 8 democrats that voted against party lines for the government shutdown. But he seems to be getting blamed for it here on lemmy.
Because there's basically two possibilities here, both bad:
Of course, he reportedly was actually involved behind the scenes.
I lean towards the third possibility that matches the timeline: Schumer is responsible because he voted to stay open this past spring and was also the one who initiated capitulating to the Republicans on Friday after the Dems steamrolled the elections which undermined party unity for healthcare demands.
Since Schumer is the top Dem in the Senate he shares blame for these 8 just following through on what he started.
Right, because there are only a few options here, and none of them are good for Schumer: He was aware of the plan to vote for the bill, and couldn't do anything to stop it. He is an incompetent and ineffective leader of the party in the Senate.
He was aware of the plan, and agreed with it or spearheaded it: He, as leader of the Democrats in the Senate, wanted this and cosigned it, leaving him to blame (spoilers, but this is actually what happened)
He was unaware of 8 separate Democrats colluding behind his back to vote for a Republican bill to end a MASSIVELY politically advantageous situation for the Democrats. Again, he is incompetent and should be fired.
Of course, it's pretty plain to see that their agreement was spearheaded by lobbied interests threatening to pull money out if they didn't cave, given the massive advantage the shutdown have the Dems. No reasonable Dem would have voted to end it otherwise. And obviously, the Minority Leader would be involved heavily in those discussions.
It just so happens that no one who voted is up for reflection next year and will likely not face any consequences. Very convenient.
Probably because we were already saying it before Ro Khanna so it just seems like he is agreeing with us.
Right, so why did nobody pay attention when you said it before?
Do you think Peter Thiel is trying to remove the guy who is leading the Senate Dems, while Dems are currently holding ongoing investigations of Thiel, JP Morgan, and crypto, because he cares about progressive values?
Sept 10: Dem Orders Congressional Probe Into Epstein and Peter Thiel’s Relationship
Sept 10: Schumer moves to force Senate vote on Epstein files
Sept 10: US Senate Republicans narrowly reject Schumer bid to force vote on Epstein files
I'm all for replacing Schumer the right way. I'm not ok with Peter Thiel using the media to manipulate the public, and make us cheer while he installs his own Senate leader.
There were calls for him to step down this past spring that got news articles: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/23/chuck-schumer-rejects-calls-to-step-down-as-senate-democratic-leader.html
Has Schumer stepped down? Is anyone listening to Ro Khanna any more than they listed to everyone else?
I'm sure Thiel has terrible reasons for the removal that are different than everyone else's reasons. It isn't like he is tricking people into wanting the thing they already wanted.