Permanently Deleted
Unless Ben Shapiro posts here, who's idolizing AOC? Half this place doesn't like her, a minority will outright call her an imperialist or even a fascist, and the rest seem limited to critical support. I haven't seen anyone here saying "no no no she's awesome and everything she does is worthy of praise."
There's 10 lurkers who down voted this post, maybe it's some of them
Or maybe they don't think anyone here actually idolizes AOC
If that's true then they wouldn't care one way or the other about Dore
When I see an unhoused person on the street, I think to myself "AOC is to blame"
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/01/ocasio-cortez-data-suggests-that-gentrifying-neighborhoods-powered-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-victory-over-the-democratic-establishment/
If anyone thinks this is a counterpoint, they don't understand cause and effect.
AOC exists because white people may have voted for her.
Therefore, AOC is bad.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going back to my two story ranch house in the suburbs bordering Jim Clyburn's district to trade oil lease futures and bemoan the failure of the American left.
Jimmy just seems like a crock tbh, willing to work with Tucker Carlson or at least give him props, and support Tulsi over Bernie because one will go on his show.
Tulsi is a paleocon finally revealing to the five people she successfully grifted who she is. Her views are literally just Tucker Carlson minus the climate change denial.
Tulsi was the only one willing to call out the neoliberal ghouls (Kamala, Buttigieg) during the primary while Bernie did nothing to challenge them!
Other than, you know, running a campaign that vastly outperformed both of them. And running on policies they refuse to back is challenging them, even if it's not doing some WWE politics own on them at a debate.
Bernie’s campaign was so poorly run that even a mild scandal manufactured by the Warren team managed to have it shook.
Warren's snake moment happened a week or two before Iowa. It "shook" the Bernie campaign so hard it went out and won 3 or 4 states in a row.
The establishment was equally inept and only succeeded in coming together and push him out because of how poor his campaign was run.
Yeah, a popular two-term president working behind the scenes get every centrist candidate (but not Warren) to drop out and immediately endorse Biden screams "inept."
yeah Bernie wanted to run on his policies not on legendary dunks
the very minimum that Bernie needed to do to distinguish himself from the rest of the candidates
He very clearly distinguished himself from the rest of the candidates -- what are you even talking about here?
You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
Ironically the floor vote of M4A would only make that worse. All the fakers who cosponsored M4A can vote for M4A and avoid primary challenges , but when they run for higher office then they'll find the need to be "pragmatic" and not scare off the donors. But the votors can point to their vote, they voted for M4A
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate, every single House Democrat could vote for M4A and we still wouldn't get it.
Now if Democrats win the Senate, OK, then the House vote might make sense. You still would likely end up having 2-3 safe Democrats vote against it to tank the bill, but it could be spun as a strong showing of support at a high level. However, it could also be spun as a rejection of M4A, which might set the project back.
Exactly! Even if Democrats take the Senate but keep the filibuster, you would need 10 Republican votes for M4A.
And with the current House majority, you need only 5 Dems to tank it in the House.
Good point on the filibuster. Unless the Biden-led Democrats go nuclear (lol), we could easily see a result where every single congressional Democrat votes for M4A and we still don't get it. Now the Democratic ghouls can all run on voting for a popular policy, and (assuming the party loses more seats in 2022) the issue will be spiked until 2024 at the earliest. I'm not seeing this as a do-or-die issue.
You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
I bet those people would tell you Bernie was too far left for them. However you slice it, Bernie distinguished himself.
Plus, no one supported Harris in the primary (she dropped out in December 2019), so either the folks you heard that from are out of touch themselves, or they were giving you the Democratic Party line after she was picked as VP.
Who are these "Harris is a progressive who supports M4A" folks you're talking about, and when did you speak to them? Because she had near-zero support until she got the VP nod, which was long after Bernie dropped out.
until she was called out during the debate
So we're talking about sometime around November 2019. Nearly two months before the primary and almost a full year before the actual election. The only people paying attention at that point were the ones who obsessively follow politics. Of course "normal" people hadn't really looked into her.
None of this translates into "Bernie should have been more negative about Harris's record as a prosecutor." The proof is in the pudding -- her campaign collapsed before 2020 even started. She never had any real support, and there was no upside to punching at a paper target.
When it comes to playing the game (the primary) that the establishment sets, it crumbles pretty much straight away from mainstream media blackout and people buying into the narrative that the establishment fed them.
Not at all -- they tried this with Bernie and it wasn't enough. It took the type of backroom dealing that's not always possible to do him in.
If they were truly competent, someone like Bernie wouldn’t have stood a chance
Competency isn't binary. They weren't competent enough to strangle Bernie in his crib, but they were competent enough to circle the wagons at the last minute. They can't always do this -- see the 2016 Republican primary, where the party didn't get its shit together fast enough to stop an outsider who they all openly despised.
No one's saying you can't criticize Bernie's campaign. It's just that criticism has to be grounded in reality to be worth anything. For example, criticizing the campaign over the Warren attack is flat-out laughable because it so obviously had no effect (Bernie immediately proceeded to have one of the best starts in primary history).
Other than, you know, running a campaign that vastly outperformed both of them
Bernie stayed silent about Assange persecution and paid some lip service to Russiagate hysteria
Ralph Nader didn't have to and he's the most successful american politician in terms of policy he passed and the amount of people he help through lawmaking. EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, seatbelts. Believe in electoralism, get dunked. lenin.jpg
Nader's activism successes occurred before neoliberalism took root in both parties, he never held an elected office, and he ate shit in every presidential race he ran.
Nader has undeniable policy achievements that helped you and me, our parents and our kids.
Bernie after 40 years in politics barely had any other than some inconsequential dissenting votes on the losing side (Iraq) and piling in on the wrong side of history (Kosovo war, Crime bill).
Maybe you should consider activism and direct action instead of electoralism
Activism has never achieved anything close to socialism in any context. It's good, it can do real things, but like any approach it has limits. We're not going to do impact litigation or awareness campaigns and get worker ownership of the means of production.
Bernie is largely the reason Medicare for All and socialism are mainstream political topics, which is a prerequisite to actually making them happen.
Sure Lenin was not an activist at all. He was just a lawmaker in the Russian Empire, got elected and passed a law to kindly ask the Russian royal family to step down. Sure, activism has never achieved anything close to socialism, yet every revolution in history ever started by activists.
Comparing Ralph Nader to Lenin? In my chapo dot chat?
Get the fuck out of town
Ralph Nader is not Lenin. Someone needs to log off for a while
Stop strawmanning. You said that activism has never achieved anything close to socialism. Lenin showed that activism can. Both Lenin and Nader use activism to be the change they wanted in the world. Bernie used electoralism, played politics and get btfo
the fact that this is downvoted when the "activism" in question is NADER, who is then immediately being compared to LENIN really goes to show that some chapos have reading comprehension skills on par with the average pre-k student.
learn to context you fucking noodles
None of that has anything to do with him wiping the floor with Rat Boy and Top Cop Kamala.
Jimmy just likes people who sound angry and are vaguely talking about the issues he cares about (and it doesn't hurt if they are willing to go on his show or give him a plug). That's why he can can sing the praises of Tucker Carlson even tho he is just being a fascist coopting populist grievances for fascists ends. Or why he supports Tulsi over Bernie.
This comment is a textbook example of using PoC's preferences (as you estimate them) as a stand- in for legitimacy in your reasoning.
And is the ultimate "white college educated middle class" thing to do.
A lot of Black women are inspired to be politically engaged by Neera Tanden. Does that mean Neera Tanden is good?
This line of rhetoric is very patronizing at best, objectifying at worse.
I actually know people who are most affected by neoliberal capitalism in real life - working class POCs
"Before I make my argument, let me just say, I have lots of Black friends..."
Your personal experience is that you think Jimmy Dore has some sort of positive impact on leftist discourse or exposure and shouldn't be disregarded out of hand.
That's fine, that's an opinion, and I'm sure people would be interested to hear you out on it.
The rest was your guess at other people's personal experiences and painting your opinion as the "Black-approved" one, which is then equated with the correct leftist view.
We see that tactic all the time when white liberals defend Bill Clinton.
Dore punches left to get views for his show. There are a million valid reasons to criticize AOC but calling her a Pelosi sellout for not performing your preferred brand of outrage is nonsense.
calling her a Pelosi sellout for not performing your preferred brand of outrage is nonsense.
AOC specifically said that progressives need to "continue to pressure the Democrats after the election." She has also said that progressives need to force a vote on M4A.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held. It is a prime opportunity to do follow through on those promises.
Progressives won't have leverage again for awhile. They might as well get every house member on the record for M4A. That would help a lot of progressive challenges in 2022.
From what I've seen from Dore, he's pissed and wants to hold AOC accountable over this. How is that "performative outrage?"
I feel like I'm watching Liberals process Obama's first term all over again in this thread.
Can you find a source on that quote? She went after Biden's transition team in August saying that adopting GOP talking points is wrong. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1296480664561291264?s=20
I misspoke there. It was that they need to "continue to push Democrats after the election." I did not mean to imply anything about the election cycle. I'll update my comment.
The progressives will likely have the votes to prevent Pelosi from getting the speakership. It is insane that they are not making a public show of that leverage. The centrist Democrats do it every cycle.
It is very concerning that they not making any use of that leverage. The progressive project would gain a lot of popularity by both undermining Pelosi - who is incredibly unpopular - and fighting for the most popular legislation in the country, which was also a campaign promise.
People have been doing political work on the ground for years. AOC et al are only in office because of mass organizing to support them. Now, they have an opportunity to express political power, and there is no will. It really does give me Obama vibes.
That's fair, but we should remember that the AOC wing of the party did get a pledge from Pelosi that she would step down in 2022. I get that it could be too little too late, but that's already more than the Obama wing of the party ever tried to do. And AOC's replies to Justin Jackson/Kyle Kulinski's twitter - that she's working on things such as getting a M4A opponent off the major committee or forcing votes on things the Democrats have promised or rolling back PAYGO. That doesn't give me an "Obama vibe" as much as a "it's the best we can do with only 5 or so comrades in Congress right now" vibe.
that she’s working on things such as getting a M4A opponent off the major committee or forcing votes on things the Democrats have promised or rolling back PAYGO
Promising that progress is being made behind closed doors is the biggest thing I remember from the Obama admin.
There is an obvious lever of political power that they are refusing to touch. Why would Pelosi concede anything?
Promising that progress is being made behind closed doors is the biggest thing I remember from the Obama admin.
A vote that has no chance of producing M4A isn't very different from a promise that progress is being made behind closed doors.
That’s fair, but we should remember that the AOC wing of the party did get a pledge from Pelosi that she would step down in 2022.
Nancy Pelosi is fucking 80. It's likely she'd be stepping down anyway.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held. It is a prime opportunity to do follow through on those promises.
Progressives won’t have leverage again for awhile.
Do they actually have leverage now? That is, can the AOC-wing of the party keep Pelosi from being elected speaker if they force the issue, or do they still have too few votes?
If they don't have the votes to boot Pelosi, we're just talking about something performative.
Depending on the results in the last two seats, they would need 5-7 votes.
I really genuinely would not give a shit about this if it was just performative. But they have a real opportunity to express political power here, and there is no will.
I'm assuming Democrats lost 11 net seats, which would bring them down to a 224-211 majority. It looks like all Representatives vote between the nominees each party puts forth.
So I think they would need 7 (to make the vote 218-217 in favor of Republicans), and we'd have a Republican speaker. It looks possible, but I don't think it's a clear-cut decision. They don't really have anything to win (Medicare for All isn't passing the Senate, especially if the Georgia races go red) and Biden said he'd veto it if it gets to him -- that's all assuming it passes the House, which it still probably wouldn't. As for what there is to lose, it's a pretty bad look (to put it mildly) to vote with Republicans, I don't know what damage a Republican speaker could do, and if they successfully force the vote but it doesn't even pass the House that would be used as "too radical for America" bait for years.
The progressives have a clear opportunity to express political power. There are people demanding they use that to follow through on a campaign promise (get a floor vote on M4A). The response from the progressives to that demand is "No."
Every single swing state Democrat who opposed M4A lost. Opposing health care during a pandemic is incredibly unpopular. Every Democratic M4A "no" vote is an open progressive seat in 2022.
There is no reason to make excuses for them. Leftists turning into pundits is exactly how you create the Obama phenomenon.
They should absolutely not vote for Pelosi unless they get something significant in return. A floor vote isn't that
That's fair. I wish there was a more public forum to discuss what the demands should be.
I really wish they had their own political party. Discussing demands would be a big topic right now.
Yeah I'm assuming that discussions are ongoing now because Pelosi would probably want to avoid public challenges atthe start of the term. That's not a bad thing, provided they either get what they want now or mount a public challenger next month
The progressives have a clear opportunity to express political power.
To do what? What is there to gain, and what is the risk?
They definitely don't have the power to actually pass any policy, that's for sure.
There are people demanding
Who? A talking head, or is there real support from a bunch of actual people?
They definitely don’t have the power to actually pass any policy, that’s for sure.
Of course they are not going to pass any policy. Anyone who thinks they are is delusional. So, they need to find other ways to score political wins.
As I said before:
Every single swing state Democrat who opposed M4A lost. Opposing health care during a pandemic is incredibly unpopular. Every Democratic M4A “no” vote is an open progressive seat in 2022.
The Democratic base is extremely pro-M4A. Exposing all the Democrats who oppose it is good. Many conservative Democrats get by just saying "I support affordable health care for all" when their constituents want M4A.
Who? A talking head
All of the social democratic media is supporting it, and it is receiving a positive response.
is there real support from a bunch of actual people?
90% of the Democratic Party (70% of the country) support M4A. It is not that surprising they would support a vote on it. Most people do not have pundit-brain.
Of course they are not going to pass any policy.
The default assumption should be that this is performative, then.
Exposing all the Democrats who oppose it is good.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, it doesn't take much to arrange the votes so that it just fails in the House, and then you have all but a handful of Democrats on record supporting M4A. Now it's easier for the ghouls of the party to run on their "support" of it. And it would take even less to have every single House Democrat vote to pass it and then watch it die in the Senate.
There's some value to this idea, but how much is an open question. A comparable vote would be the recent one on decriminalizing marijuana -- the House passed it, but it's going nowhere. That moves the needle a bit, sure, but ultimately it's not much.
All of the social democratic media is supporting it
Who? I've heard Jimmy Dore supporting it, who isn't exactly a household name, but that's it. And M4A being popular among the Democratic base =/= the Democratic base demanding a vote that will not produce M4A.
So all we can do is just talk idly about policies that we may or may not support in our own respective camps, but when it comes to actually voting them into law... it's just performative to even attempt to sway party leadership into doing so?
sounds like hypocrisy or nefarious hand-waving either way
They claim they can never do anything because it's all performative, but then say shit like "we can't 100 years for M4A, we need it now." Their current tactics are no different than any other Democratic Progressive Caucus.
I haven't paid attention to the Democratic Party in awhile, this shit is insane lol
it's self-deluded & schizophrenic to both desire revolution & reform at the same time lol
but when it comes to actually voting them into law
That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about a vote (the House speaker election) to force a vote (the House vote on M4A) that is still unlikely -- at best -- to pass anything into law.
If you force a vote you know will fail, yes, odds are that's performative. It might have some value, but that's debatable.
so you're saying participation in liberal democratic electoral politics amounts to performative & dilatory complacency?
hey, that's what I've been trying to tell you!
Voting something into law isn't performative. A vote that will fail but has some real consequences -- e.g., the people who vote "no" are likely to get bounced -- probably isn't performative either.
But if you know a vote will fail, and you know there will likely be no consequences for its opponents? Yeah, probably performative.
the vote is going to fail... either way it's going to fail like it always does
your job as a voter is to tout the party line & regurgitate MSNBC or Fox News talking points, not to influence policy in any real way
the vote in Congress is going to fail, therefore in effect, so have the votes on the precinct level
I agree, voting & hoping is nonsense & has never helped anyone achieve anything other than the right to vote & hope
maybe the vote tally will tell us how to act & which way to go
Now it’s easier for the ghouls of the party to run on their “support” of it.
They do that now with the "co-sponsors" list.
Who?
So far, I've seen TYT, The Hill, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski - the entire Justice Democrat world seems to be pushing it. That seems like the largest networks supporting progressives, which means the largest viewership supporting progressives.
M4A being popular among the Democratic base =/= Democratic base demanding a vote that will not produce M4A
The Democratic base wants M4A. Why would putting it for a vote be so controversial? I don't understand that
Showing people which Democratic members do not support M4A is useful for the Democratic base.
They do that now with the “co-sponsors” list.
So... this would be no different? I'm not seeing a whole lot of benefit here, certainly not if the Senate stays Republican. I don't know when the speaker will be elected; maybe they're waiting to get the Senate results in.
The Democratic base wants M4A. Why would putting it for a vote be so controversial?
Well, look at the discussion in this thread. It's not simply "do you want M4A, yes or no?" M4A likely isn't even on the table, so we're talking about secondary, non-material, tactical benefits, the value of which is debatable. It's reasonable to think a list of who voted for the bill would be more valuable than the co-sponsors list, but it's also reasonable to think that's not gaining much at all. It's reasonable to think the risk of centrist Democrats calling the bluff and forcing a choice between Pelosi/no M4A vote or a Republican speaker is worth it, but it's reasonable to think that could blow up in our faces, too.
about secondary, non-material, tactical benefits, the value of which is debatable
No we are not. We are talking about demonstrating to people that progressives will fight for health care. Right now, they are all talk on the issue on everyone's mind right now.
this would be no different?
No it is not.
If progressive were to run with the attack line: "[dipshit politician] voted against health care in a pandemic." right now, they would be lying. That line of attack would be important for insurgents, since 90% of Democrats support M4A.
It’s reasonable to think the risk of centrist Democrats calling the bluff and forcing a choice between Pelosi/no M4A vote or a Republican speaker is worth it
You need to play politics in the Democratic Party. Blue Dogs drag the House right every election by threatening to withhold their vote.
If you are going to play liberal democracy, at least put some thought into it. I feel like Democrat Entryists never do that.
Right now, they are all talk on the issue on everyone’s mind right now.
But this is all talk, too -- it's not going to produce M4A. At most it will produce a few targets for primary campaigns, and it's not even guaranteed to do that.
“[dipshit politician] voted against health care in a pandemic.”
Right now they can just say "[dipshit politician] is on record against M4A." I don't see the difference. And every single congressional Democrat could vote in favor of M4A and it is still virtually guaranteed to fail, so it might even put us in a worse spot than where we are now.
Blue Dogs drag the House right every election by threatening to withhold their vote
Pelosi is much closer to Blue Dog Democrats than she is to the AOC/Bernie wing of the party. And threatening to withhold your vote is a good strategy only if you get something valuable from it. I don't see the value here.
Taking extremely unpopular votes is a quick way to lose political support. You understand that, right? Democrats got railed in 2010 for their recession response.
Public opinion shows health care to be the pressing issue, especially given the pandemic. Progressives would have a lot to win by being the only faction in the House which supports it.
There is a big benefit politically, and no cost. But there is no will to power.
You're not reading what I'm writing. Every single congressional Democrat could vote for M4A and it still wouldn't pass. Forcing a vote would not force the ones who oppose M4A to go on record as such. They could just vote tactically (which is common) and then hold their votes for it up against progressive primary challengers. There's a very realistic way this could do less than nothing. There's no guarantee whatsoever that it would do anything positive.
Every single congressional Democrat could vote for M4A and it still wouldn’t pass.
The medical industry will not allow their politicians to vote unanimously for M4A. The Democrats do not want M4A to be their wedge issue with Republicans.
They could just vote tactically (which is common) and then hold their votes for it up against progressive primary challengers.
They can do that already by promising to vote for M4A when it comes up for a vote. The vote actually has to happen for a line to be drawn.
There’s no guarantee whatsoever that it would do anything positive.
If an easy political lay-up is not possible, the Democratic entryists need to admit this is a dead end.
The medical industry will not allow their politicians to vote unanimously for M4A. The Democrats do not want M4A to be their wedge issue with Republicans.
Why not, if it won't pass? Why wouldn't the medical industry (insurance companies, primarily) be OK with their pet politicians voting in a way that will (a) keep them in power, and (b) not cost the industry a dime? Why wouldn't Democrats be OK with taking up a popular policy, especially if they won't have to take a serious vote on it for years, and if when they do they can drag their feet on it for years longer, and then pass a half-baked version that's still a handout to insurance companies?
They know how the game is played. They know how to grandstand without accomplishing anything.
They can do that already by promising to vote for M4A when it comes up for a vote.
Again -- if they can already do something, there's nothing to be gained here.
an easy political lay-up
A layup gets you points on the board. There are no points to put on the board here, because nothing will get passed.
Why not, if it won’t pass?
The same reason many Democrats refuse to run on M4A. They don't want that to be the national conversation.
Again – if they can already do something, there’s nothing to be gained here.
Again, voting "no" on extremely popular legislation is disastrous for politicians.
If you're promising M4A, why would the M4A voter oppose you? If you vote against M4A, the reason is obvious.
A layup gets you points on the board. There are no points to put on the board here, because nothing will get passed.
If that's the metric, this project to do entryism in the Democratic Party is a more resounding failure. I was under the impression the entryists were working to build their numbers in the House.
The same reason many Democrats refuse to run on M4A.
They don't refuse to run on it. They run on it, nearly all of them, but they water it down in the form of "Medicare for all who want it" (Rat Boy) or proposing some multi-year rollout that of course will never happen (Warren). I even had some Biden jackass on r*ddit tell me about how Medicare for All isn't the only way to do universal healthcare. It's all politician dodging the issue bullshit, but they aren't sticking to a flat "no."
voting “no” on extremely popular legislation is disastrous
Every single congressional Democrat could vote for it and it still wouldn't pass. What is so difficult about this concept? Exactly zero Democrats would be forced to vote no, and we still wouldn't get M4A.
I was under the impression the entryists were working to build their numbers in the House.
Yes, because with 8 progressives in the House you can't do anything meaningful -- all you can do is performative stuff like this.
And calling entryism a failure at this point is like dieting for a day and asking why you haven't lost weight. The strategy isn't wrong, it just isn't a magical fix that instantly works.
You can use the leverage on something that gives you some permanent form of leverage. An M4A vote is not that since we all know what the results of that vote would be. Voting for Pelosi in exchange for this vote would be letting her off easy, it is letting her appease the left without anything at all changing
I don't disagree. My biggest issue is that no conversation about leveraging their votes is happening in the progressive caucus.
They can express political power for the first time, and there is no will.
My biggest issue is that no conversation about leveraging their votes is happening in the progressive caucus.
That's because it's all taking place next month. The Dems have only a 4 person majority so I'm sure various groups within the Dems are thinking about how to make the most of this situation. It's Pelosi's last term as Speaker and she probably would want to avoid conflict at the beginning of Biden's term
I really doubt they plan on leveraging their votes publicly given the response so far.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held.
Shot at the Queen, you best not miss.
If AOC's caucus can't rally the votes, they've got a Speaker who will have traded away their committee assignments and legislative favors to someone else - almost guaranteed to be hostile to their left-wing interests.
This is only a good idea if AOC had a superior pick to Pelosi with a plurality of support in the party. And - win or lose - this coalition could leverage the median House Dem to compel better policy out of the House. I don't think they have that. I think folks like James Clyburn and Richard Neal and Adam Schiff have the lion's share of leverage.
From what I’ve seen from Dore, he’s pissed and wants to hold AOC accountable over this.
Just like every other media circus freak, he wants to attach his name to AOC's because she's high profile and he's not. Dan fucking Crenshaw does this all the time. Fling shit at AOC and see what sticks.
I feel like I’m watching Liberals process Obama’s first term all over again in this thread.
Always fighting the last war. AOC isn't Obama. I know this because I don't see her heels propped up on the Resolute Desk.
This is only a good idea if AOC had a superior pick to Pelosi with a plurality of support in the party
Why? How does a plurality in the Party help anything? Pelosi needs their votes to be Speaker. They can require that Pelosi make a public concession to their wing of the party. After this moment passes, Pelosi has no reason to listen to them again until 2022.
Just like every other media circus freak, he wants to attach his name to AOC’s because she’s high profile and he’s not. Dan fucking Crenshaw does this all the time. Fling shit at AOC and see what sticks.
The fact that Democratic Entryists see "following up on campaign promises" as "flinging shit" is why nothing will ever happen from this strategy.
Always fighting the last war. AOC isn’t Obama. I know this because I don’t see her heels propped up on the Resolute Desk.
I do not care about signaling. This sounds like Libs defending Obama because he does not golf every weekend.
Here is the similarity between AOC and Obama: they both refuse to use their leverage - mass public support and opportunities of political power - to demand concessions in the public square. They are only interested in what's "achievable" in back-door deals.
This moment is the best leverage they will have in a very long time. It is incredibly lucky that the small progressive wing can swing the Speaker vote. At their current trajectory, progressives are decades away from controlling the House. We do not have that kind of time. They need to use this opportunity to its fullest.
Instead, they want us to believe they are working really really hard in back-door deals. Democratic careerists would much rather just say they are fighting for you behind closed doors.
It is such a fall from grace to see AOC go from occupying Pelosi's office with climate protestors in 2018. If there was ever a time to bring out your supporters for leverage, it is now. But back in 2018, they were harmless. It made for a good photo-op.
I imagine you supported that move by AOC. To go from that, to "shoot at the Queen, you best not miss" is embarrassing. She missed in 2018, and lost nothing.
Absolute Obama lib shit.
Why?
Because Pelosi isn't the final boss in a video game and beating her doesn't mean you win.
I do not care about signaling.
Going to do a Communism, but without communicating intent or efficacy to the proletariat. This vanguard can't fail.
Here is the similarity between AOC and Obama: they both refuse to use their leverage
Obama routinely used his leverage... to benefit institutions of capital and the police state. Let me know when AOC is campaigning for Joe Lieberman, re-upping Robert Gates to the Pentagon, and nixing a basketball walkout in protest of police brutality.
It is such a fall from grace to see AOC go from occupying Pelosi’s office with climate protestors in 2018.
Cortez is currently backing a Ro Khanna's state-based M4A legislation, a law that has a much better chance of passing than blanket national M4A. Picking a fight with Pelosi right now would undermine that effort, given that both she and incoming HHS secretary Xavier Becerra support it.
Cortez is currently backing a Ro Khanna’s state-based M4A legislation, a law that has a much better chance of passing than blanket national M4A
M4A is not passing any time soon. Most of the Democratic Party is owned by Big Pharma and Biden has said he will veto. Anyone talking about "the chances of M4A passing" is lying to your face. That is what AOC and Ro Khanna are doing.
The goal right now is to expose the Democratic establishment. They are not interested in that.
to benefit institutions of capital and the police state. Let me know when AOC is campaigning for Joe Lieberman, re-upping Robert Gates to the Pentagon, and nixing a basketball walkout in protest of police brutality.
We are about to see AOC vote for every single ghoul in Biden's administration. We can dig through her voting record and see countless evil bills she's voted on. She is not as powerful as Obama. She does not have the political clout to kill a basketball strike.
M4A is not passing any time soon.
Then why push for a vote?
The goal right now is to expose the Democratic establishment.
Joe Biden is already President. He'll be walking around with his pants at his knees for the next four years. They're exposed. Nobody is going to remember a quixotic M4A vote inside a month of it being cast.
We are about to see AOC vote for every single ghoul in Biden’s administration.
The House doesn't vote on Presidential appointments, dummy.
Then why push for a vote?
To get opponents on record? You know, normal political tactics?
Why spend your time working on a bill that will not pass? All the efforts in the progressive bloc should be about delegitimizing the Democratic establishment. That is, if they were at all serious.
Nobody is going to remember a quixotic M4A vote inside a month of it being cast
That all depends on how willing the progressive wing is willing to rail on Dems who voted against health care in a pandemic. There is no will to power in the progressive bloc, so we know that won't happen. They just want to be including in Democratic back-door dealings.
The House doesn’t vote on Presidential appointments
Her progressive friends in the Senate will. She will play her role in the House.
Again, you are caught up in the same political game that Obama fans were in 2009.
To get opponents on record?
Plenty of House Reps are already on record.
Why spend your time working on a bill that will not pass?
That's what I'm asking you. You're ready to fight Pelosi for her speakership on this issue.
All the efforts in the progressive bloc should be about delegitimizing the Democratic establishment.
That's some naval gazing inside baseball shit. Nobody on the ground gives a shit. Congress already has a sub-10% approval rating. All you're doing is playing into the pissing contest.
That all depends on how willing the progressive wing is willing to rail on Dems who voted against health care in a pandemic.
Where is the political economy in this? Who cares? You're not doing a thing about material condition.
Plenty of House Reps are already on record.
No they are not. No one is on record voting for M4A. Stop lying.
That’s what I’m asking you. You’re ready to fight Pelosi for her speakership on this issue.
I want progressives to fight for a vote on M4A. No M4A bill is getting passed until, at least, 2024. The only way it will pass is if progressives win the presidency and can browbeat Congress to pass it.
The only way this will happen if the progressive make a clear distinction between themselves and the rest of the Democratic Party on popular issues - such as M4A. There is no difference between AOC and, say, Kamala Harris on this issue. They are both co-sponsors of the bill.
Right now, the only people who believe AOC is different than the Democratic machine are the people who want to believe her signaling is genuine. It is the same way Trump and Obama maintain their support despite doing nothing.
That’s some naval gazing inside baseball shit. Nobody on the ground gives a shit.
Bernie's entire political power came from pushing Congress on issues that would never pass.
He would not have been successful in 2016 if not for the fact that he voted against the war in Iraq and the bank bailouts. The entire propaganda effort for his campaign centered on these votes as proof of his legitimacy.
If you disagree with this tactic of building power, you should not be supporting any Democratic Party entryist.
Where is the political economy in this? Who cares?
Where is the political economy in withholding health care during a pandemic? How dense can you be?
Have you been paying attention to the outrage over withholding stimulus? Every person in my life who is not tuned into politics is pissed about the stimulus negotiations right now. People see M4A as pandemic relief.
No one is on record voting for M4A.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/cosponsors?q={%22search%22:[%22medicare+for+all%22]}&r=1&s=1&searchResultViewType=expanded
The current proposed legislation has 118 co-sponsors. That's your list. If they're not on the list, you can pretty much guarantee they don't support this bill.
The only way this will happen if the progressive make a clear distinction between themselves and the rest of the Democratic Party
I haven't seen any indication that this is "the only way" M4A advances. Just to the contrary, I see a host of amendments that could advance M4A by other means. The Ro Khanna amendment is a big one.
Right now, the only people who believe AOC is different than the Democratic machine are the people who want to believe her signaling is genuine.
Who the fuck are you to make such a declaration? You're talking out your ass.
Bernie’s entire political power came from pushing Congress on issues that would never pass.
Bernie was The Rollcall Amendment King. He passed oodles of lines of legislation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in policy. Far from being ineffectual, he was hugely influential in shaping American policy.
Where is the political economy in withholding health care during a pandemic?
The capitalist system benefits from selectively administering health care as a means of compelling labor. There is a great deal of political economy in the status quo and quite a few Congressmen on both sides of the aisle defend it. This isn't some kind of secret that only a floor vote on M4A will expose. It's nakedly apparent.
The current proposed legislation has 118 co-sponsors. That’s your list. If they’re not on the list, you can pretty much guarantee they don’t support this bill.
The Senate equivalent had Warren and Kamala as co-sponsors. Co-sponsoring and not co-sponsoring are not the same as a "yes" or "no" vote, especially in the eyes of voters.
Who the fuck are you to make such a declaration? You’re talking out your ass.
The fact that her approval rating is comparable to Nancy Pelosi's. She supposedly supports the most popular legislation in the country, but no one has a reason to believe her. She looks like a normal Democrat.
Bernie was The Rollcall Amendment King. He passed oodles of lines of legislation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in policy. Far from being ineffectual, he was hugely influential in shaping American policy
Bernie did not run on "I passed roll-call amendments." He ran on "I opposed the Iraq War and the bank bailout. You can trust that I will vote in your interests on M4A, GND, etc." I worked on both campaigns extensively. No one would ever bring up roll-call votes when spreading propaganda.
The capitalist system benefits from selectively administering health care as a means of compelling labor. There is a great deal of political economy in the status quo and quite a few Congressmen on both sides of the aisle defend it. This isn’t some kind of secret that only a floor vote on M4A will expose. It’s nakedly apparent.
The political economy of the imperialism was obvious to anyone paying attention in 2003. And yet, the vote for the Iraq War has become the most important issue in elections since. What's "nakedly apparent" to you is not to everyone else.
Co-sponsoring and not co-sponsoring are not the same as a “yes” or “no” vote
Bring the bill to the floor of the McConnell Senate and they can vote for it, the bill can still fail, and you can still insist they weren't really seriously in favor of the legislation.
If there was the will to pass it in the House, Pelosi would have brought it up by now. She did the Marijuana decriminalization, even though it will fail in the Senate.
There is no reason to play cover for the Democrats holding up M4A.
Progressives are clearly in the wrong for failing to leverage the Speakership vote publicly. There is no reason to defend them over it, even if you generally like them.
Thank you. I feel like I'm going mad watching people draw the red line at "symbolic vote". I want people fighting for M4A, not fighting for posturing on M4A.
Exactly. Remember the GOP under Obama? They "symbolically voted" to repeal Obamacare 43 times. When they actually had the power to do it they shriveled up and caved. Remember when the Senate had a "symbolic vote" on the Green New Deal just last year? I bet half the folks in this thread don't because literally who cares about it.
Probably one of the highlights of the post-AOC world was watching Mitch McConnell put the words "Green New Deal" on a piece of paper and demand the Senate vote on it.
A freshman House Rep basically setting the discourse in the Senate. What an amazing media coup for the Left. AOC's a lightning rod for wingers and it backfires on them every fucking time.
we can debate whether forcing a vote on M4A would be a meaningful accomplishment or not but from what i've seen jimmy dore doesn't really seem like the place to turn for thoughtful political strategy
The mother fucker damn near cums his pants every time he talked about Tulsi, like she was really gonna fight for M4A. Dore is an opportunistic "comedian" and legit doesn't matter if he says something right every now and then, he is really a shit person to listen to. I also find it very funny how many chuds like him.
Ever since she endorsed Biden he basically threw her into the dumpster.
Even still, anyone with half a brain knew she wasn't going to fight for the working class and marginalized. Look what she just did that TERF bill she put forward. Idk how someone like Jimmy could think that Tulsi is at all a so called "progressive." She is the opposite in fact, she has tons of incredibly regressive stances and is incredibly apologetic to US imperialism
I'm not going to defend Tulsi since she sucks but I kinda get why he supported her. It was easy to cast her as anti war even if yes if you actually looked at her history she really wasnt. Then again her foreign policy was basically the same as Bernie's so eh. But it's in the past and her political career is over so I can't say I really care at all about her at all at this point.
Yeah she played her cards right with the nationalism in us imperialism
I can't help but be suspicious that she's Obama 2.0. As in, posing as someone who will shake up the status quo, while cynically planning to do nothing. And there's also that circumstantial stuff about her getting a job with Ted Kennedy's foreign affairs office at age 18, and working in Niger on a Gates Foundation grant right before the coup.
Maybe I've been paying too much attention to the excerpts from Obama's book. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if she helps bring about the revolution.
(edit: Niger, not Nigeria, sorry. And see the links the replies)
She's a SocDem. This is what they do.
Obama was always very pro-establishment. They just ran the perfect campaign for him in 2008 cause he was an outsider and they pushed things with progressive grass roots organizations. As soon as he won, they dismantled all of that. He even said so on his campaign that he wasn't really focused on ending the war in Afghanistan. There was just little focus on that and after 8 years of Bush, people wanted something different.
Is she a radical Marxist who is going to push a revolution? Of course not. SocDems aren't that. She is to the left of the establishment Democrats who are pushed so far to the right that they would be conservatives in any other country.
So many people on the left really want a savior. That's how Bernie was treated and it's how AOC is treated. Fact remains, we still got a lot of work to do.
being critical of AOC is good but like i honestly dont think she wouldve endorsed bernie if she was obama 2.0.
She endorsed someone who the Democratic Party was never going to win. That means nothing. Fucking Bill DeBlasio endorsed Bernie...
If she wasn't Obama 2.0, she would have mentioned the DNC conspiracy against Bernie.
AOC's policy positions are much, much more concrete than anything Obama ever proposed. Obama was all about nice sounding pabulum, not firm policy. AOC is at the very least an honestly SocDem SocDem, which would still be a huge improvement. No, she's not going to bring about the revolution, that's silly, she's not even a Marxist. But she isn't Obama either.
Just to add on to that, the day she beat Crowley she wiped all of her progressive foreign policy positions from her website.
I get the suspicion because the left needs to be wary of everyone but like...her background and actions so far are absolutely nothing like Obama.
AOC is a politician born and bred from the working class who openly identifies as a socialist. Whether you think she's a socialist or a socdem is up to you, but the fact that she's outwardly IDing as a socialist in a party that despises socialists is already more courageous than anything Obama did. AOC was a bartender, Obama was a Harvard-educated lawyer. Obama dissolved his organizing apparatus the minute he touched political power. AOC does boots-on-the-ground mutual aid work in her district. Obama never made any major moves against the establishment in his career. AOC endorsed Bernie Sanders at the lowest point in his campaign, right after he had the heart attack. If she wanted to sell the left out, she would have backed Warren who was angling hard for her vote. Despite what some of the terminally online say, she doesn't punch left and it's not like she's a careerist profiting off her office. She literally called him and gave the endorsement when we weren't even sure if Bernie was going to be healthy enough to campaign. AOC openly supports defunding the police and uses that slogan. Obama tone polices people who say it. I can guarantee you she has absolutely no future in the Democratic establishment and she knows it.
There are plenty of places to criticize AOC for. Taking photo ops with the NYPD? Wrong. Joining the Tara Reade coverup crew? Wrong. Voting for a military budget? Wrong. And if you want to withhold your support of her because of any of those things, that's fine. But the idea that she's a careerist like Obama or a sellout like Elizabeth Warren has very little evidence behind it. She is pretty clearly an enemy of the Dem establishment. If I'm wrong and she turns out to be a grifter, then fine, I fell for it. But she's clearly in the same vein as Bernie - she isn't controlled opposition, she's insufficient opposition. If you believe in electoral politics at all, you want more of her in Congress.
working in Nigeria on a Gates Foundation grant right before the coup.
wait, what?
Yeah, stuff like this really shouldn't be thrown out there unless it's backed up.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200512160002if_/https://twitter.com/allegedlyzo/status/1258468130046820357
edit: yeah, I fucked up and said Nigeria instead of Niger, sorry
I find it....peculiar, that she was a pre-med student thru sophomore year & still graduated in 4 yrs w a completely different degree
This isn't even remotely suspicious. Probably half of my friends from undergrad switched degrees at some point and graduated in four years, and tons of them switched from pre-med (a notoriously difficult program).
and even more peculiar that she worked in Ted Kennedy's (spook family) foreign affairs office (in Massachusetts) at just 18 years old w no college
My sister in law worked in a congressperson's office at 18 and she's far from a CIA agent. If you're interested in politics and do well in school, there's a decent chance you can land a summer internship like this. That thread seems like a stretch.
This isn’t even remotely suspicious. Probably half of my friends from undergrad switched degrees at some point and graduated in four years, and tons of them switched from pre-med (a notoriously difficult program).
Also, pre-med isn't a major in and of itself.
Yeah, it's not my post. I agree that stuff isn't a big deal, but it's counter to the public image she's been trying to cultivate, too.
It seems pretty far from anything worth even mentioning.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200512160002if_/https://twitter.com/allegedlyzo/status/1258468130046820357
edit: yeah, I fucked up and said Nigeria instead of Niger, sorry
I really don’t give a fuck what Jimmy Dore has to say but Justin Jackson is good and worth addressing.
I think he was being interviewed on Dore’s show when they both called her out.
That makes it worse. Guess we aren’t all perfect. And there’s not a lot of leftist shows to go on.
I think everyone involved is being annoying and what they should say is Pelosi has a record of failure, don’t vote for her.
Literally everyone involved in this online kerfuffle - from AOC to Jimmy Dore to Matt fucking Stroller - is politically incoherent because theyre all libs who lack a firm understanding of political economy and history. I watched this clip where stoller kept droning on about how the left never accomplishes anything because they don't go to business school yet he is firmly anti-marxist.
All of these people suck lol
stroller went on a rant in the end saying since nobody but some parts of the right listened to his criticisms of the cares act he might have to find a new faction.
https://youtu.be/uBbJnpNtlw4?t=2236
somehow I doubt it'll be a marxist organization...
stoller kept droning on about how the left never accomplishes anything because they don’t go to business school yet he is firmly anti-marxist.
Dengism intensifies
Of course the funny thing is he fucking hates China. This guy is a joke. I don't know why anyone talks to him. Anti-monopolism is not left politics. Just shows how much of the "left" media class are in fact a bunch of liberals.
That’s how it should be with all the members of government. Get mad goddamn it.
Getting mad does nothing by itself, and unfocused rage is often counterproductive. You have to turn that anger into some sort of plan for change and then go out and make it happen.
The people have a lot to be mad about, and it’s all justified. It’s dangerous because anything can be enticing for an answer tho, but to pretend like there’s nothing to be angry over seems like it’s to their benefit over yours.
to pretend like there’s nothing to be angry over
I'm not saying that, I'm saying "get mad goddamnit" is the wrong message. "Oh you're mad? Here's what to do about it" is the message. "Get mad" is useless on its own, and is worse than useless if it's aimed at people who are at least trying to go out and do something about it.
On it’s own, maybe, but I still wont discount it’s completely useless, because you still have that opportunity to tell them “and here’s what to do about it”.
But anger us justified.
He did that and they got more mad at Dore than the politicians denying healthcare to the people
I'm sure people are still plenty mad at Biden. He can expand Medicare through Executive Order
I didn't vote for biden for him to fix my problems, i voted for him because he could UNDERSTAND my problems. young people these days only want a handout, they need to work to support the geriatric class and make sure only the douchbaggiest of their children receive all the inheritance, like god intended.
The party line on Dore remains in contention.
I fully anticipate a Trotskyist split on the issue by the end of the month.
Really? Seems about at least 80% anti Dore here. Which I think is a shame but what can ya do.
Dore is a racist turd who doesn't know what he is talking about and terrible with questions of strategy. You know, a Democrat.
If Dore is half as obnoxious and brainless as his fans, I think I’m gonna continue to not watch his garbage.
I think a M4A is a pretty weak concession. It's a free opportunity for Pelosi to appease the left without changing literally anything about how things are operating. It's not going to give you a true list of who supports M4A, Dems regularly vote for things when they absolutely won't pass and will vote against it when it might pass
Well that's the issue, they can still flip on it later if there is a Senate and President willing to pass it later on. There's like 100 Dems who are only against it so it might just end up looking like the cosponsor list
