We're sure as shit not getting anything done without some type of organization, and any functioning organization is going to have some rules. Siding with a ranting media personality over people at least attempting to gain political power is a laughable take.
Put a vote to it, primary people who vote against it. Pretty simple. If thats not even possible what is the purpose of AOC and why is she functionally different from Nancy Pelosi?
Don't you think normal people, who're not in to poltics as much as you and I might be, might be outraged if they saw congres vote against medicare for all during a deadly pandemic which made millions of people lose their employer-based healthcare?
And wouldn't you agfree that such acts are important in building the left?
Doesn't the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus... plus the fact that everyone's going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
And if people aren't paying attention to the thing which is literally - "here's some money," what makes you think they'll pay attention to the comparitively less-easy-to-understand (but still pretty simple) universal healthcare stuff?
Doesn’t the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus… plus the fact that everyone’s going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
Sort of, but not to the same extent, primarily because the left doesn't "own" the $2000 checks: people think it's Trump and some ad hoc coalition.
That being said, even if the left would "own" the issue of the $2000 checks, it still would be worthwile to do #forcethevote, because the fight never stops. We can't show ourselves to be the better side on one issue, and leave it at that. The left needs to fight for the interests of the working class on all the fronts it can, and only in that way will it be able to organise broader sections of the population.
Normal people just elected Joe Biden, who said during the campaign that he'd veto M4A if it came to his desk.
It's a winning issue for the left, but a lot of people who like it in a vacuum aren't single-issue M4A voters. And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it's lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn't going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
Because their most important concern was getting rid of the "orange mussolini" in the white house. We weren't able to let the election centre around issues, which is what objective should be when engaging in electoralism.
And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it’s lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn’t going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
There will always be reasons like this. We'll never have perfect circumstances, but millions of people losing healthcare during a pandemic is very close to what I'd describe as being ideal for a vote on medicare for all.
That being said, Chris Hedges has this quote he uses all the time which I think is correct: "I don't fight fascism because I know I'll win, I fight fascism because it's fascism". Such an attitude should be how we approach things. Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just. But it's beside the point I'm making, that this is not just good policy, it's good politics. People want fighters. They hate Congress and Pelosi, they'd love someone who's sticking it to them for whatever reason. Blocking Pelosi from becoming speaker for an issue they like is just extra bonus.
Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just.
This is similar to Mao's "call out liberalism whenever you see it, especially among your friends" line. It's a good principle, but if you take it 100% literally you end up spending a ton of time and energy on losing fights and people stop wanting to work with you. Everyone has met that One True Leftist who starts ideological fights at the drop of a hat, and the electoral equivalent of that is small leftist parties who are ideologically pretty good but who never engage with existing political structures enough to even consistently win seats (much less influence any actual policy).
You have to pick you battles -- fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there's a decent chance of accomplishing something.
We're sure as shit not getting anything done without some type of organization, and any functioning organization is going to have some rules. Siding with a ranting media personality over people at least attempting to gain political power is a laughable take.
Ranting by demanding a vote on a popular policy lol
Pathetic bar for the socialist caucus. Can't even demand votes on shit from politicians who agree with them
Whether they do this or not, we're not getting M4A for years. It's immaterial. Berating anyone over this is ridiculous.
Put a vote to it, primary people who vote against it. Pretty simple. If thats not even possible what is the purpose of AOC and why is she functionally different from Nancy Pelosi?
there is none
she's not, aside from being mildly more likeable.
deleted by creator
We already know who's against it. We just had an election season where it was an issue in the primaries.
Don't you think normal people, who're not in to poltics as much as you and I might be, might be outraged if they saw congres vote against medicare for all during a deadly pandemic which made millions of people lose their employer-based healthcare?
And wouldn't you agfree that such acts are important in building the left?
Doesn't the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus... plus the fact that everyone's going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
And if people aren't paying attention to the thing which is literally - "here's some money," what makes you think they'll pay attention to the comparitively less-easy-to-understand (but still pretty simple) universal healthcare stuff?
Sort of, but not to the same extent, primarily because the left doesn't "own" the $2000 checks: people think it's Trump and some ad hoc coalition.
That being said, even if the left would "own" the issue of the $2000 checks, it still would be worthwile to do #forcethevote, because the fight never stops. We can't show ourselves to be the better side on one issue, and leave it at that. The left needs to fight for the interests of the working class on all the fronts it can, and only in that way will it be able to organise broader sections of the population.
Normal people just elected Joe Biden, who said during the campaign that he'd veto M4A if it came to his desk.
It's a winning issue for the left, but a lot of people who like it in a vacuum aren't single-issue M4A voters. And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it's lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn't going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
Because their most important concern was getting rid of the "orange mussolini" in the white house. We weren't able to let the election centre around issues, which is what objective should be when engaging in electoralism.
There will always be reasons like this. We'll never have perfect circumstances, but millions of people losing healthcare during a pandemic is very close to what I'd describe as being ideal for a vote on medicare for all.
That being said, Chris Hedges has this quote he uses all the time which I think is correct: "I don't fight fascism because I know I'll win, I fight fascism because it's fascism". Such an attitude should be how we approach things. Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just. But it's beside the point I'm making, that this is not just good policy, it's good politics. People want fighters. They hate Congress and Pelosi, they'd love someone who's sticking it to them for whatever reason. Blocking Pelosi from becoming speaker for an issue they like is just extra bonus.
This is similar to Mao's "call out liberalism whenever you see it, especially among your friends" line. It's a good principle, but if you take it 100% literally you end up spending a ton of time and energy on losing fights and people stop wanting to work with you. Everyone has met that One True Leftist who starts ideological fights at the drop of a hat, and the electoral equivalent of that is small leftist parties who are ideologically pretty good but who never engage with existing political structures enough to even consistently win seats (much less influence any actual policy).
You have to pick you battles -- fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there's a decent chance of accomplishing something.
Whose we and how are you sure we knows shit period???
How does anyone know anything????
There's a M4A bill in the House with 118 cosponsors. There's your list of who's for and against it.
Except it hasn't BEEN UP FOR A VOTE. Fucking Kamala Harris co-sponsored the bill and doesn't support it
Oh so you mean you can figure out who supports M4A without needing a vote?