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
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.
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.