Accept for the fact that she actually voted in favor of the things the article claims she voted in favor of. And then there's her reaction to #forcethevote which is in complete contradiction to her reasoning on impeachment her.
We have to come to terms with the fact that some politicians we really liked, campaigned for and donated to, aren't behaving anymore in the same way that they did in the past. If we don't recognize that, we'll end up like the people who're currently still supporting Jim Clyburn because of his role in the civil rights movement, ignore his terrible record since, and vote Biden over Bernie in a crucial moment because he asks us to.
Well, I certainly didn't campaign for or donate to AOC, so I don't really need to worry about that. Maybe others do.
FTV is much ado about very, very little. If you're getting upset about the prospect of holding a House vote on a bill that will not pass the Senate and which Biden has said he will veto, IMHO you're being played.
No, I disagree. The next decade, at least, there won't come another moment where it will be so incredibly obvious that we need medicare for all. A pandemic, when millions lost their employer based health insurance, is the perfect condition for forcing such a vote.
The fact that Pelosi needed their votes to become speaker was also one of the only moments where they had leverage to demand a concession. If the dems lose the house in two years, there won't come another moment where they can demand concessions. I would've been fine with more demands than just the floor vote on M4A, but they didn't do that (the *partial * paygo-exemption is pathethic).
But the broader question is about the type of representative that the left-wingers in congress want to be. I want them to be fighters, who're constantly showing the people that socialists are fighting on their behalve.
Imagine the following situation: they demanded a floor vote, and got one, and immediatly, AOC announces she'll endorse primary challengers against every dem who opposes M4A during a pandemic, and organises protests where people are invited to tell there horrible healthcare stories. It would force the national political debate to be around M4A, and it would create enormous pressure. It would create a political discussion between the left and the rest, instead of between the centre and the extreme right.
Socialist representatives should use their position to mobilise and organise people, not to play tit-for-that-politics with establishment dems. You can't win their game, and it doesn't advance class struggle.
OK, so in the ripest conditions imaginable, to paraphrase you, you force a vote and M4A fails to become law. You've just handed an incredible talking point to M4A opponents who are going to repeat ad nauseum for the next two decades how even in a pandemic, M4A couldn't pass, because even in a pandemic the voters sent to the capitol a bunch of M4A opponents and to the White House the one guy on the Democratic slate who didn't even pretend to favor M4A. That'll be what we'll have to argue against for the next twenty fucking years.
I want them to be fighters, who’re constantly showing the people that socialists are fighting on their behalve.
Re: primaries, the slimy bastards that you want to primary can do as others have already said and vote for M4A knowing that it won't actually become law. Then you actually lose that talking point against them in the primary, thus worsening conditions for leftists.
Considering the fact that the democrats now have all branches of governement, that means M4A would pass.
If, on the other hand, some do what you describe, there is a massive campaign against them and they lose their seats, the rest will then have to make the calculation that voting against it during a second vote would destroy their career with almost certainty.
Accept for the fact that she actually voted in favor of the things the article claims she voted in favor of.
Of course, what is actually voted on should be widely known. But it's weird to see that article criticize her for receiving donations from individuals working at certain companies.
Accept for the fact that she actually voted in favor of the things the article claims she voted in favor of. And then there's her reaction to #forcethevote which is in complete contradiction to her reasoning on impeachment her.
We have to come to terms with the fact that some politicians we really liked, campaigned for and donated to, aren't behaving anymore in the same way that they did in the past. If we don't recognize that, we'll end up like the people who're currently still supporting Jim Clyburn because of his role in the civil rights movement, ignore his terrible record since, and vote Biden over Bernie in a crucial moment because he asks us to.
Well, I certainly didn't campaign for or donate to AOC, so I don't really need to worry about that. Maybe others do.
FTV is much ado about very, very little. If you're getting upset about the prospect of holding a House vote on a bill that will not pass the Senate and which Biden has said he will veto, IMHO you're being played.
No, I disagree. The next decade, at least, there won't come another moment where it will be so incredibly obvious that we need medicare for all. A pandemic, when millions lost their employer based health insurance, is the perfect condition for forcing such a vote.
The fact that Pelosi needed their votes to become speaker was also one of the only moments where they had leverage to demand a concession. If the dems lose the house in two years, there won't come another moment where they can demand concessions. I would've been fine with more demands than just the floor vote on M4A, but they didn't do that (the *partial * paygo-exemption is pathethic).
But the broader question is about the type of representative that the left-wingers in congress want to be. I want them to be fighters, who're constantly showing the people that socialists are fighting on their behalve. Imagine the following situation: they demanded a floor vote, and got one, and immediatly, AOC announces she'll endorse primary challengers against every dem who opposes M4A during a pandemic, and organises protests where people are invited to tell there horrible healthcare stories. It would force the national political debate to be around M4A, and it would create enormous pressure. It would create a political discussion between the left and the rest, instead of between the centre and the extreme right. Socialist representatives should use their position to mobilise and organise people, not to play tit-for-that-politics with establishment dems. You can't win their game, and it doesn't advance class struggle.
OK, so in the ripest conditions imaginable, to paraphrase you, you force a vote and M4A fails to become law. You've just handed an incredible talking point to M4A opponents who are going to repeat ad nauseum for the next two decades how even in a pandemic, M4A couldn't pass, because even in a pandemic the voters sent to the capitol a bunch of M4A opponents and to the White House the one guy on the Democratic slate who didn't even pretend to favor M4A. That'll be what we'll have to argue against for the next twenty fucking years.
AOC isn't a socialist.
If that happens, you created amazing conditions to primary establishment democrats, which is exactly what you want.
Then why are you defending her?
Someone can reply to you because they disagree with your characterization, not just they have decided that AOC is worthy of defense
Re: primaries, the slimy bastards that you want to primary can do as others have already said and vote for M4A knowing that it won't actually become law. Then you actually lose that talking point against them in the primary, thus worsening conditions for leftists.
Considering the fact that the democrats now have all branches of governement, that means M4A would pass.
If, on the other hand, some do what you describe, there is a massive campaign against them and they lose their seats, the rest will then have to make the calculation that voting against it during a second vote would destroy their career with almost certainty.
Oh ok
Just want to say as a pessimist I'm betting there will plenty more moments where its incredibly obvious we need a healthcare system :(
Of course, what is actually voted on should be widely known. But it's weird to see that article criticize her for receiving donations from individuals working at certain companies.
That's a fair criticism. But you can't make that point about every issue it raises.
yeah I'm agreeing there are some valid points.