US Politics

Foxbatt said:
Now some Republican senators are saying that they will vote against the electoral votes in the senate.
Can what happened to brexit happen? Cameron though he was easily going to win the referendum so he got the referendum and then lost it.
Click to expand...
No, they’re just prostrating themselves before Donny to jerk off the Maga crowd. It’s all symbolic. We’d need a war to throw the transition into chaos.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
No, they’re just prostrating themselves before Donny to jerk off the Maga crowd. It’s all symbolic. We’d need a war to throw the transition into chaos.
Click to expand...
Civil (antifa)
Localised (iran)
Or global (china)

Take your pick i don't think trump cares which one

His best shot might actually be to blow up both houses before they confirm and blame it on antifa using Chinese / democrat funding to buy explosives from Iran...

Declare martial law/ war on all three and insist on new elections (to replace the house members he's just blow up) at a time when it is safe to do so *I.e never
 
Last edited:
idk why people are insisting on a M4a vote which is going to fail. m4a ended till at least 2024 when bernie lost, possible for decades.
 
i also think she's been the only person in either house or senate to actually criticise biden's cabinet appointments. bernie has barely said a word.

in the end, none of this matters. bernie was a shortcut that failed and the next opportunity will probably be decades later, if at all. if specific things need to be passed, there needs to be a genuine mass movement, not stunt votes with no plan or even impact outside twitter.
 
oh and one more thing that irritates me about this - the "squad" does have some leverage over pelosi right now. the original 3 plus two more (bowman and bush) are enough to create problems for her being elected speaker since the dem margin is so small.

why waste that on the opportunity to have a vote that will fail? if someone other than dore, a non-moron/grifter (strike as appropriate) was in charge of this """"movement"""" (hashtag), they might have come up with a meaningful demand.
 
berbatrick said:
i also think she's been the only person in either house or senate to actually criticise biden's cabinet appointments. bernie has barely said a word.

in the end, none of this matters. bernie was a shortcut that failed and the next opportunity will probably be decades later, if at all. if specific things need to be passed, there needs to be a genuine mass movement, not stunt votes with no plan or even impact outside twitter.
Click to expand...

How and when do you start a mass movement for universal health care if it isn't now during a pandemic when millions of Americans are losing their health benefits and becoming unemployed. Have a vote on it because that is all they are asking AOC for. I think Dore is right on this. The arguments against are weak or lies.

First you withhold your vote for speaker unless you get a vote. If Pelosi doesn't put the vote then I'm pretty sure that one of the other democrats will offer one to become speaker. If you lose Pelosi I don't see the down side as she is adamant she will not support MFA anyway.

Then you stand progressive candidates who do support MFA in seats where democrats didn't vote for it and of course Republicans too at their next election. This is what a mass movement does it puts the issue front and center. AOC stood for election on MFA and has called for a vote many times in the past. I don't know who bought her off or what if anything she is being paid but she has been found out to be an absolute fraud on MFA. The system corrupts and it seems to work faster than anyone imagined.

If you don't agree with this plan to get a mass movement going and actually get universal health care then fair enough you are entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend this isn't the time for it or that there is plan to get it some other better way because there isn't. I don't get the opposition to holding people to their word. This is the only leverage real progressives have and if they are not going to use it to even get a vote on the issue what is the point in calling yourself a progressive.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
How and when do you start a mass movement for universal health care if it isn't now during a pandemic when millions of Americans are losing their health benefits and becoming unemployed. Have a vote on it because that is all they are asking AOC for. I think Dore is right on this. The arguments against are weak or lies.

First you withhold your vote for speaker unless you get a vote. If Pelosi doesn't put the vote then I'm pretty sure that one of the other democrats will offer one to become speaker. If you lose Pelosi I don't see the down side as she is adamant she will not support MFA anyway.

Then you stand progressive candidates who do support MFA in seats where democrats didn't vote for it and of course Republicans too at their next election. This is what a mass movement does it puts the issue front and center. AOC stood for election on MFA and has called for a vote many times in the past. I don't know who bought her off or what if anything she is being paid but she has been found out to be an absolute fraud on MFA. The system corrupts and it seems to work faster than anyone imagined.

If you don't agree with this plan to get a mass movement going and actually get universal health care then fair enough you are entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend this isn't the time for it or that there is plan to get it some other better way because there isn't. I don't get the opposition to holding people to their word. This is the only leverage real progressives have and if they are not going to use it to even get a vote on the issue what is the point in calling yourself a progressive.
Click to expand...


Point by point:

1. I agree that Pelosi is vulnerable. I agree they should demand something in exchange for their vote.
I disagree that another speaker willing to give in to their demands is waiting around the corner. The last person who challenged her was from the right. Literally everybody in the party leadership is like her or further to the right. They would sooner work a deal with Liz Cheney and other anti-Trump neocons, because that's been the instincts of the party, including the new president, for decades.

2. I agree they should primary. There are 100 Democrats who didn't even co-sponsor M4A (legislation which already exists). Nice long list to start with.

3. What I disagree with on all this is the importance of a M4A vote.
118 Dems, out of ~220, and 0 out of ~210 Republicans support M4A. Similar numbers in the senate. The incoming president openly opposed it and promised to veto it. The outgoing president ran against it. The insurance companies oppose it. The pharma companies oppose it. The hospitals oppose it. All these coompanies finance individual politicians and the party. There is no actual pressure on any politician to vote yes - 20 people showed up to a FTV rally in DC today. There is money, safety, continuity, and backing from party leadership on voting no. And there will be media cover if they do so (the very obvious headline will be about kween Pelosi losing speakership because of these brats, with little mention of the M4A vote). Now, all those obstacles are fine, if there is a concrete plan. But nobody has said anything about the ~100 extra votes - all outside the progressive caucus or "squad" that are needed for this to pass. Nobody has put forward an alternative name for speaker.

Humane healthcare (and less murderous foreign policy, and everything else) died with Bernie. While many of these obstacles would have existed with him as president, there would be differences. An electoral win for a M4A presidential candidate would switch a few Democrats looking out for re-election. It would prove that corporate opposition isn't enough to sink a candidate. A president can cut through media fog and connect with his base better than a presidential candidate or representative, as Trump has shown. He can hold up bills till he gets what he wants. Bernie promised to primary right-wing Dems if he won, and that threat from the president would also be a decent motivator.

But he lost -badly - and the senator from MBNA won. It's not a question of having enough will or having loyalty. It is a question of power and money. And all the power and money is on the other side.

I don't know - or particularly care - if the "system has corrupted" AOC or the others (I think her tweet quoted above is bad). Because her election wins are based on left-wing organising from within her district, not PAC money, so whether her heart is set on becoming Hillary or not, that's where the pressure will come from. Ideally, those groups are to her what DuPont and MBNA were to the Biden family.
 
berbatrick said:
Point by point:

1. I agree that Pelosi is vulnerable. I agree they should demand something in exchange for their vote.
I disagree that another speaker willing to give in to their demands is waiting around the corner. The last person who challenged her was from the right. Literally everybody in the party leadership is like her or further to the right. They would sooner work a deal with Liz Cheney and other anti-Trump neocons, because that's been the instincts of the party, including the new president, for decades.

2. I agree they should primary. There are 100 Democrats who didn't even co-sponsor M4A (legislation which already exists). Nice long list to start with.

3. What I disagree with on all this is the importance of a M4A vote.
118 Dems, out of ~220, and 0 out of ~210 Republicans support M4A. Similar numbers in the senate. The incoming president openly opposed it and promised to veto it. The outgoing president ran against it. The insurance companies oppose it. The pharma companies oppose it. The hospitals oppose it. All these coompanies finance individual politicians and the party. There is no actual pressure on any politician to vote yes - 20 people showed up to a FTV rally in DC today. There is money, safety, continuity, and backing from party leadership on voting no. And there will be media cover if they do so (the very obvious headline will be about kween Pelosi losing speakership because of these brats, with little mention of the M4A vote). Now, all those obstacles are fine, if there is a concrete plan. But nobody has said anything about the ~100 extra votes - all outside the progressive caucus or "squad" that are needed for this to pass. Nobody has put forward an alternative name for speaker.

Humane healthcare (and less murderous foreign policy, and everything else) died with Bernie. While many of these obstacles would have existed with him as president, there would be differences. An electoral win for a M4A presidential candidate would switch a few Democrats looking out for re-election. It would prove that corporate opposition isn't enough to sink a candidate. A president can cut through media fog and connect with his base better than a presidential candidate or representative, as Trump has shown. He can hold up bills till he gets what he wants. Bernie promised to primary right-wing Dems if he won, and that threat from the president would also be a decent motivator.

But he lost -badly - and the senator from MBNA won. It's not a question of having enough will or having loyalty. It is a question of power and money. And all the power and money is on the other side.

I don't know - or particularly care - if the "system has corrupted" AOC or the others (I think her tweet quoted above is bad). Because her election wins are based on left-wing organising from within her district, not PAC money, so whether her heart is set on becoming Hillary or not, that's where the pressure will come from. Ideally, those groups are to her what DuPont and MBNA were to the Biden family.
Click to expand...

OK but how do you know Pelosi wont back down under the threat? If not then she would be ousted another candidate will be put forward. Same demand.

If the democrats are prepared to vote for a republican speaker rather than support a democrat one who will put a vote then the democratic base needs to know this and who they are for the next election. I think this threat is an empty one and its being used for political cover for caving in to Pelosi but if it isn't all the better.

If it did happen it would trigger a backlash and support to oust them would be huge and isn't that what needs to happen to get MFA in the end? So that is a win either way as Democratic voters are overwhelmingly in favour of MFA and a majority of Republican voters too. This could be the trigger for the start of the movement you talk about. Its a big opportunity to force a seminal moment for progressives. How often do they hold the balance in their hands like they do at the moment or are they all talk? In the past they could vote against and it wouldn't matter as Pelosi would be speaker anyway. Now there is no excuse, make the DINO's vote Republican and face the consequences.


I might be wrong but the more I think about it the more sense it makes.
 
I fail to realize what does a M4A vote achieve when around half of Democrat congressmen and 80-90% of Democrat senators don’t support it, with both Trump and Biden opposing it. Why it is good to spend energy in a lost battle?

I don’t buy the you can primary those Democrats then. We already know who support and who oppose it, so you can primary them anyway (as it has been going on for a long time, with AOC being a product or that, or Engels - the third most powerful Democrat congressmen losing his seat during this election).

To have any chance of getting M4A, Dems who want it need to have at least a majority within their own party, and have enough force to push the others to vote for it. As a necessary condition, there should also be a Democrat president who supports it, not one who promised to veto it.
 
Last edited:





What a frigging moron. Attends an event at Mar a Lago on NYE during a deadly pandemic with absolutely nobody wearing masks, posts pictures to his (public) Instagram and Twitter accounts, and then when his pharmacist fiancé loses his job he blames the NYT rather than thinking maybe a pharmacist should know better than to attend an event like that, not to mention he posted the bloody pictures!!

Gotta love the GOP being all about personal responsibility.
 
Rado_N said:





What a frigging moron. Attends an event at Mar a Lago on NYE during a deadly pandemic with absolutely nobody wearing masks, posts pictures to his (public) Instagram and Twitter accounts, and then when his pharmacist fiancé loses his job he blames the NYT rather than thinking maybe a pharmacist should know better than to attend an event like that, not to mention he posted the bloody pictures!!

Gotta love the GOP being all about personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, no shame whatsoever. He's essentially blaming the New York Times for a retweet.

And there's obviously a few people with pictures of dogs in the replies asking for the location of the pharmacy to let the right people know etc.

EDIT: And as the shit hypocrisy cherry on top:

 
Last edited:
Revan said:
I fail to realize what does a M4A achieve when around half of Democrat congressmen and 80-90% of Democrat senators don’t support it, with both Trump and Biden opposing it. Why it is good to spend energy in a lost battle?

I don’t buy the you can primary those Democrats then. We already know who support and who oppose it, so you can primary them anyway (as it has been going on for a long time, with AOC being a product or that, or Engels - the third most powerful Democrat congressmen losing his seat during this election).

To have any chance of getting M4A, Dems who want it need to have at least a majority within their own party, and have enough force to push the others to vote for it. As a necessary condition, there should also be a Democrat president who supports it, not one who promised to veto it.
Click to expand...

80-90% of democratic voters do support it though. In a national pandemic killing god knows how many thousands of Americans every week make them them look out to their voting base and with no excuse vote it down. You are not burning energy you are building it, genuine anger, and then replay that endlessly come their next election. It won't happen because blah blah blah excuse but Dore is right to highlight it because this is where AOC for example betrays her voters and breaks her word.

I could find the videos of her lambasting Pelosi and demanding a vote while campaigning because they are out there.

I guess in the end it comes down to do you want MFA or do you want to support the status quo within the democratic party you can't do both and 45'000 people per year are dying in the US for lack of universal health care.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
80-90% of democratic voters do support it though. In a national pandemic killing god knows how many thousands of Americans every week make them them look out to their voting base and with no excuse vote it down. You are not burning energy you are building it, genuine anger, and then replay that endlessly come their next election. It won't happen because blah blah blah excuse but Dore is right to highlight it because this is where AOC for example betrays her voters and breaks her word.

I could find the videos of her lambasting Pelosi and demanding a vote while campaigning because they are out there.

I guess in the end it comes down to do you want MFA or do you want to support the status quo within the democratic party you can't do both and 45'000 people per year are dying in the US for lack of universal health care.
Click to expand...
Based on some poll. When it came to vote, the choice was between a candidate who was a synonym of M4A, and another who strongly opposed it. The one who opposed it won convincingly. So, while a majority (or even a supermajority) of Dem voters support it, for most of them it is not a big deal, as was shown by Bernie losing again.

Anyway, I support some form of M4A *, and I think that it is a disgrace that the US is the only developed country that does not have some version of it. But I think it is a lost battle, when half of Dem congressmen, 80% or so of Dem senators, and the Dem president (who promised to veto it, and won the election based on Obamacare++, against M4A) oppose it. What is this vote supposed to achieve in the first place?

* There are many versions of M4A, each with its pros and cons. The dogmatic belief that it is Bernie's plan or bust is stupid. Switzerland has a totally private health sector and it seems to work well. Germany has many public insurance companies and many private ones at the same time and it works well. Italy has state-owned health sector and it is a disaster, while people seem to be happy with a similar one in the UK. The important part is that every person in the US should have affordable health-care, not the religious ideology of totally state-owned healthcare.
 
Rado_N said:





What a frigging moron. Attends an event at Mar a Lago on NYE during a deadly pandemic with absolutely nobody wearing masks, posts pictures to his (public) Instagram and Twitter accounts, and then when his pharmacist fiancé loses his job he blames the NYT rather than thinking maybe a pharmacist should know better than to attend an event like that, not to mention he posted the bloody pictures!!

Gotta love the GOP being all about personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Womp, womp.

Who is this cnut anyway?
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
Based on some poll. When it came to vote, the choice was between a candidate who was a synonym of M4A, and another who strongly opposed it. The one who opposed it won convincingly. So, while a majority (or even a supermajority) of Dem voters support it, for most of them it is not a big deal, as was shown by Bernie losing again.

Anyway, I support some form of M4A *, and I think that it is a disgrace that the US is the only developed country that does not have some version of it. But I think it is a lost battle, when half of Dem congressmen, 80% or so of Dem senators, and the Dem president (who promised to veto it, and won the election based on Obamacare++, against M4A) oppose it. What is this vote supposed to achieve in the first place?

* There are many versions of M4A, each with its pros and cons. The dogmatic belief that it is Bernie's plan or bust is stupid. Switzerland has a totally private health sector and it seems to work well. Germany has many public insurance companies and many private ones at the same time and it works well. Italy has state-owned health sector and it is a disaster, while people seem to be happy with a similar one in the UK. The important part is that every person in the US should have affordable health-care, not the religious ideology of totally state-owned healthcare.
Click to expand...
Who is proposing government takeover of the entire healthcare sector?
 
Blodssvik said:
Who is proposing government takeover of the entire healthcare sector?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Bernie’s plan is a single payer government-ruled healthcare (similar to NHS in the UK). Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the only game in town and other options can be as good if not better.

I have seen a lot of the debate from him supporters becoming single-payer or bust, instead of affordable Medicare for all.
 


Put this cnut out to pasture for feck sake.
 
Maagge said:
Yeah feck her off, but who will replace her? And will that be better?
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't be better? Never know until someone is given that role. There are definitely many capable of doing it as well.
And anything unique she brings, if she truly cares about values or even her party rather than personal power, she could perform those functions (fundraising, rallying the troops, etc) behind the scenes.
 
Maagge said:
Yeah feck her off, but who will replace her? And will that be better?
Click to expand...

This line of thinking is why shit governments constantly get endless years in power in the UK. "Well the opposition are no better, they're all the same, bla bla bla". In the end the purpose of an election is to hold politicians accountable. If they do a shit job, unless the alternative is demonstrably appalling, you should vote them out on principle and let the other side show whether they really are as shit as you believe. One has already proven themselves shit, the other has not yet.
 
Revan said:
As far as I know, Bernie’s plan is a single payer government-ruled healthcare (similar to NHS in the UK). Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the only game in town and other options can be as good if not better.

I have seen a lot of the debate from him supporters becoming single-payer or bust, instead of affordable Medicare for all.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, Bernie talked a lot about the Canadian single payer healthcare system. Which is government-ruled (obviously, as you know what happens when you leave the private sector to regulate themselves) but the services are provided by privates, just like in the Netherlands.
 
George Owen said:
From what I've seen, Bernie talked a lot about the Canadian single payer healthcare system. Which is government-ruled (obviously, as you know what happens when you leave the private sector to regulate themselves) but the services are provided by privates, just like in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...
Yep, my point is that there are many possible M4A possibilities. Government-ruled single-payer (UK, Italy), government-ruled with serviced provided by many companies or even private companies (Germany), government regulated with services provided by private companies (Switzerland) and probably other hybrid alternatives.

Yet, I see from a lot of people that it either needs to be single payer or bust. Knowing the weirdness of the US, I think the best option could be a heavy-regulated market with services provided by private companies, with every person being insured one way or another. Something similar to Switzerland. I think such a system would get more support from Dems, and would diminish the communism-pathetic fear-mongering screams from the Republicans.

In any case, the insurance being not-mandatory is wrong, as it is the insurance to be based from the company you work on.
 
calodo2003 said:
Can’t think like that. There’s no one that would scream out to be Speaker, but some positives will come from a change.
Click to expand...
oneniltothearsenal said:
Who wouldn't be better? Never know until someone is given that role. There are definitely many capable of doing it as well.
And anything unique she brings, if she truly cares about values or even her party rather than personal power, she could perform those functions (fundraising, rallying the troops, etc) behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
TwoSheds said:
This line of thinking is why shit governments constantly get endless years in power in the UK. "Well the opposition are no better, they're all the same, bla bla bla". In the end the purpose of an election is to hold politicians accountable. If they do a shit job, unless the alternative is demonstrably appalling, you should vote them out on principle and let the other side show whether they really are as shit as you believe. One has already proven themselves shit, the other has not yet.
Click to expand...
My point isn't that you can't find anyone better, my point is whether it's realistic that that person will be picked. It looks a lot like the democrats are happy with the status quo. It seems like Pelosi should have been binned ages ago but she's still there, so I'm guessing establishment democrats or whoever aren't actually that interested in finding someone who's that different from her. But I'm not that clued up on her position so I'm happy to get schooled on how it works.
 
Maagge said:
My point isn't that you can't find anyone better, my point is whether it's realistic that that person will be picked. It looks a lot like the democrats are happy with the status quo. It seems like Pelosi should have been binned ages ago but she's still there, so I'm guessing establishment democrats or whoever aren't actually that interested in finding someone who's that different from her. But I'm not that clued up on her position so I'm happy to get schooled on how it works.
Click to expand...
More youth alone in the speakership would be beneficial.
 
Maagge said:
My point isn't that you can't find anyone better, my point is whether it's realistic that that person will be picked. It looks a lot like the democrats are happy with the status quo. It seems like Pelosi should have been binned ages ago but she's still there, so I'm guessing establishment democrats or whoever aren't actually that interested in finding someone who's that different from her. But I'm not that clued up on her position so I'm happy to get schooled on how it works.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to apply pressure on someone who isn't adequately representing who and what she's supposed to. Not that I have any particularly strong views on Pelosi, she seems a bit old and out of touch but what do I know.

I just think there comes a time when someone like that wants challenging rather than just getting shooed in every time and feeling nice and comfortable.

You see it in the UK all the time with local council elections. Any council that's always dominated by one party with no real threat of being unseated is always corrupt and shit - red, blue or yellow. I would always vote against the incumbent in councils like that on principle even if I broadly liked the party itself. Change in politics is both good and necessary, you just have to hope you get more good changes than bad ones.
 
TwoSheds said:
I'm sure you're right but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to apply pressure on someone who isn't adequately representing who and what she's supposed to. Not that I have any particularly strong views on Pelosi, she seems a bit old and out of touch but what do I know.

I just think there comes a time when someone like that wants challenging rather than just getting shooed in every time and feeling nice and comfortable.

You see it in the UK all the time with local council elections. Any council that's always dominated by one party with no real threat of being unseated is always corrupt and shit - red, blue or yellow. I would always vote against the incumbent in councils like that on principle even if I broadly liked the party itself. Change in politics is both good and necessary, you just have to hope you get more good changes than bad ones.
Click to expand...
That kinda touches on the issue with US politics though. You can vote for just two parties if you want to have a chance of representation. All other votes can at most be used as a way to gauge how unpopular the two parties are. That's it.
So when you're tired of the democrats you can only vote republican if you want your vote to have a chance of counting for something. But what if you've spend all your time with the democrats being told the republicans are the devil, then you don't want to vote for them either leaving you essentially without a hope of representation. You can have someone getting a 50.1 % majority in a state and thus 49.9 % of voters aren't represented. It's so undemocratic it's ridiculous.
Third parties will never get in under the current system which I think basically leaves the two big ones to play politics to stay in power indefinitely.

I don't know if it really matters who the speaker is if they're not trying to dismantle that system. And would a speaker ever be allowed to do that?
 


This is a Jimmy Dore video so you know what you are getting but go through to 5:57 and watch AOC and then tell me she isn't A, making herself look like a massive hypocrite by voting for Pelosi and B Condemning Dore for putting pressure on the progressive democrats just like she called for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.