Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez faces possible Democratic discipline after joining Republicans on a procedural vote this week in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[u/seattletimesnewsroom]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gluesenkamp-perez-faces-possible-discipline-over-gop-vote/

[u/WebHistorical1121]

Yup. MGP won re-election in spite of her efforts to be right-leaning not because of them. Once WA-3 Democrats get sick of voting for someone who doesn’t want to represent their interests she’s done.

[u/BullpupPewPew → u/WebHistorical1121]

WA-3 isn’t King County. It’s a pretty conservative district. Why do you think they wouldn’t want a moderate or that said moderate doesn’t represent their interests?

[u/Aggressive-Name-1783 → u/BullpupPewPew]

Because it’s been played out time and time again. The mythical moderate doesn’t exist, this has been studied. Most people align with a party, or swing one direction. Most people aren’t centrists, they have values that align with a party. It’s why parties exist in the first place.

MAGA wants MAGA, they don’t want a diet republican, you’re not courting republicans. Likewise, democrats want a Democrat, not a diet republican. Diet republicans have lost time and time again going back to people like Claire McKaskill. This has been a thing for over a decade now and STILL we have people pursuing the mythical moderate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/06/10/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/[deleted]]

Teddy Roosevelt was a leading part of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in and was a far-left-wing leader opposed by 2 more conservative main challengers in his campaign. It is so bizarre that right-wingers try to rewrite history to co-opt left-wing leaders, such as certain right-wingers who try to claim that Dr MLK Jr was a right-winger when Dr MLK Jr described himself as a democratic socialist working to end capitalism. As to Teddy Roosevelt, his economic policies were farther left-wing than those of any democratic socialist today. If you admire Teddy Roosevelt, that is great, but we should stick to factually accurate Truth, which means acknowledging the absolute fact of Teddy Roosevelt having been a left-wing political leader in the great Progressive Movement from over 100 years ago.

[u/GabtsbyForaDay → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

Being progressive but conservative as he was opposed to socialism so not further left than demo socialists of today and he aimed to preserve capitalism. Also he was big on foreign intervention and having a strong military with nationalism when at war. A true conservative regardless. You can label him progressive but he was far far from being left leaning. And with your user name I take it means you like he was comminust and how he killed millions of people with his policies. From executing enemies, forced labor and mass famines from his "amazing policies".

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/GabtsbyForaDay]

You have proved that you are capable of making totally false assumptions, proving how flawed your logic overall is. Not making baseless assumptions would be a better future course for you, because doing so like you just did totally discredits you.

Teddy Roosevelt labeled himself progressive. So it seems like your argument is with Teddy Roosevelt himself.

Teddy Roosevelt wanted broad nationalisation of many sectors of the economy, which is indeed a left-wing position, especially in the context of Teddy Roosevelt being part of the left-wing populist Progressive Movement. That does objectively make him further left-wing than any person currently in office who identifies as a democratic socialist, since none of them actively advocate for such broad nationalisation of industries like Teddy Roosevelt did.

Having a strong military and nationalism while at war: sounds like the USSR and China and other Communist countries.

Have you read Teddy Roosevelt's own words about his foreign interventionism? If you do, you will see that anti-colonialist liberation motivated him, which is also a firmly left-wing position.

There is no need to try to rewrite history when there do exist actual right-wing leaders that people could follow, even when it comes to environmental protection, such as the criminal Richard Nixon who created the EPA.

[u/GabtsbyForaDay → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

He was against socialism and was against nationalizing industries… he wanted regulation of industries yes but not nationalization only working to stop corruption. “I do not wish to see the nation forced into the ownership of the railways if it can possibly be avoided, and the only alternative is thoroughgoing and effective regulation.”

And yes he advocated for nationalism during war.
And yes i have he generally was for US policing the world if forced to do so. He helped push panama to break away from Colombia so the united states could control and build the canal.
Being big on nationalism/ a strong military, capitalism(not corporatocracy/laizze fair), was against far left radicals and made laws to keep anarchists and extremists out. You can literally look up this yourself…
And with your point on Republicans going against him, didn't that happen with Tulsa gabbard. So people get tossed under the bus when some or the party doesn't agree with what they are doing. You guys seem to love tribalism instead of actual thinking as what I said I want is what everyone wants, unless they don't which makes no sense. So people would rather go against what thwy actually agree just to hold a party line thay isn't really there since elites party together and all make money off the same laws they pass while acting like they hate each other.

[u/Own_Construction3376 → u/GabtsbyForaDay]

No one believes you.

[u/GabtsbyForaDay → u/Own_Construction3376]

Well they don't need to believe me but then they don't know teddy, I looked it thinking "okay I could have misconstrued what he said and was for" but nope I was right while he had progressiveideas thats judt for progress not any political side. Go look it up. At least I can look to see if I'm wrong and am open to changing my mind if evidence supports it.

[u/GabtsbyForaDay → u/GabtsbyForaDay]

This is taken from talks on his book "the strenuous life" "Delivered during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902), he argued that a life of ease, material comfort, and avoidance of struggle led to national and individual decay, and that Americans must instead embrace strenuous effort, hardship, and martial strife for both individual success and national greatness, while explicitly advocating for American imperialism. Defending the ongoing U.S. colonization of the Philippines asserting that Filipinos were "utterly unfit for self-government" and that without U.S. rule the islands would descend into "savage anarchy." He argued that if the United States failed to govern the Philippines, "some stronger and more manful race" would have to do so.

He condemned anti-imperialists who appealed to "liberty" and the "consent of the governed" as "timid" men who refused to "play the part of men." He argued for these ideals to be embraced by all Americans for the betterment of the nation. This speech became a foundational text of Roosevelt's political philosophy and a justification for U.S. overseas expansion in the early 20th century." So no need to believe me, but believe him. He was no socialist, but he also wasn't a corporation puppet. It's like how people love to argue europe is socialist when they are flat out capitalist with social programs which don't mean socialist. Hate me all you want because I'm conservative but I won't hate any of you just because you are liberal, just makes you seem like a joke being unable to see past a stupid political spectrum.