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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.