UPDATE: Devastating news. This dangerous bill passed 213-212, with @RepAOC @RashidaTlaib and @JamaalBowmanNY abandoning their positions and voting "present" instead of against it, thus supporting giving cops more money and weapons to use against the most vulnerable people.— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) May 20, 2021
There was already that pressure, because it wasn't clear it was going to pass, as it ultimately passed by 1 vote.
So yes, there was already as much pressure as there was going to be without a clear, very likely loss, where it would have been a lot less relevant anyway.
Democratic opposition came exclusively from liberal members of the party who have broken with its leaders in the past — and in recent months have advocated reducing funding for police operations nationwide, a campaign that began last year as part of the country’s reckoning over racial justice in law enforcement. Their opposition to Thursday’s bill highlights the challenges House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will face going forward as she tries to keep her razor-thin majority united, an undertaking that will only get more complicated as Congress draws closer to the 2022 midterm elections.
The 213-to-212 vote was a nail-biter as Democratic leaders, on the House floor, made emphatic last-minute appeals to the holdouts, pleading with them to back the measure. As Thursday’s vote closed, cries of, “One more!” could be heard from the GOP side of the chamber, prompting the Democratic leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), to declare that they had run out of time and demand the final count be called.
The three members who voted no — Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Cori Bush (Mo.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.) — released a joint statement Thursday saying that “a bill that pours $1.9 billion into increased police surveillance and force without addressing the underlying threats of organized and violent white supremacy, radicalization, and disinformation that led to this attack will not prevent it from happening again.”
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), all Democrats, voted “present” — officially taking no position, and allowing the bill to pass by one vote.
Edit: Cori Bush is still explicitly supporting her stance on No https://twitter.com/CoriBush/status/1395520445756157965 (and post got fucked up trying to edit)
I'm sorry that being able to talk in specifics and not repeating "electoralism!!!" and Lenin quotes is confusing for you. Feel free to criticise the 3 "presents", but Democrats are not master string pullers. Reality is not always as straightforward as everything being clearly planned theatre. The Socialist Campaign Group within Labour is similarly often split due to differences between its members, and is not a united front even as a minority group within Labour. The same is true here of "progressive" Democrats.
No, I've definitely read more Marx than you, which helps in not being a dumbass who can't engage with anything more complex than repeatedly posting "electoralism" and "vote".
if just one of the 3 (AOC, Tlaib, Bowman) had voted no instead of present, it would've failed. but i am sure they had it worked out who would vote no and who would vote present just so it would barely pass. or at the very least a failure of coordination to kill the bill. i can only assume because they wanted it to pass while still taking a posture of opposing it/not supporting it. basicall just theatre. the 3 no's could've also voted present to give more room for it to pass.
That's extra shitty, yeah.
it's all by design. if the republicans had one more no vote, then pressley or omar or bush would have voted yes too.
No they wouldn't have, don't resort to pulling shit out of your ass. Omar voted no.
deleted by creator
There was already pressure to do so. It passed by 1 vote.
deleted by creator
There was already that pressure, because it wasn't clear it was going to pass, as it ultimately passed by 1 vote.
So yes, there was already as much pressure as there was going to be without a clear, very likely loss, where it would have been a lot less relevant anyway.
if it came down to it she would have voted yes. it's not pulling shit out of my ass, it's recognizing the failures of electoralism. sorry :LIB:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-passes-2419-billion-bill-to-pay-for-capitol-security-upgrades-despite-democratic-defections/ar-AAKczwp
Edit: Cori Bush is still explicitly supporting her stance on No https://twitter.com/CoriBush/status/1395520445756157965 (and post got fucked up trying to edit)
yeah, you just need to re-read that last paragraph of your quote, and think critically
I don't think you can read. Illhan would not have voted yes. She didn't vote yes. It "came down to it", and she didn't do it.
it didn't come down to it, because it passed without her vote.
By 1 vote, when were still calls on the floor for votes, and they didn't know the count (hence calls on the floor for more votes).
you just don't understand how politics work, it's ok. :vote:
I'm sorry that being able to talk in specifics and not repeating "electoralism!!!" and Lenin quotes is confusing for you. Feel free to criticise the 3 "presents", but Democrats are not master string pullers. Reality is not always as straightforward as everything being clearly planned theatre. The Socialist Campaign Group within Labour is similarly often split due to differences between its members, and is not a united front even as a minority group within Labour. The same is true here of "progressive" Democrats.
:vote: :LIB: :vote:
I love usernames that also act as content warning for that persons posts.
yeah, you should add lib to yours.
No, I've definitely read more Marx than you, which helps in not being a dumbass who can't engage with anything more complex than repeatedly posting "electoralism" and "vote".
:yea:
if just one of the 3 (AOC, Tlaib, Bowman) had voted no instead of present, it would've failed. but i am sure they had it worked out who would vote no and who would vote present just so it would barely pass. or at the very least a failure of coordination to kill the bill. i can only assume because they wanted it to pass while still taking a posture of opposing it/not supporting it. basicall just theatre. the 3 no's could've also voted present to give more room for it to pass.