Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Dissecting Jimmy Dore's Reactionary Politics" video.
-
39
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@belakthrillby That was as a negotiation to try to get a final package. And your idea is that the MSM will cover it and give it more publicity. The most overarching bill the House passed in the 116th Congress was HR 1, but did it get any press? I heard TMR talk about it far more than TRMS.
The difference of wasting whatever leverage that you have on a bill that you know will fail instead of, as the OP derisively mentioned, pushing for changes to committee assignments and chairs is that with the former, all you have created is bad will, and with the latter you actually gain power.
No, you don't delay it indefinitely. You do actual organizing, and you get more and more sponsors until it develops a critical mass. Then, if the Speaker does not want to put it up for a vote, you push a discharge petition, and once 218 members sign it, it has to come up for a vote. That is how Shays-Meehan (McCain-Feingold in the Senate) came up for a vote when Hastert didn't want it. They had the cards, and they played them. We don't. So, what have you yourself actually done to try to build actual support for the bill. In Philadelphia alone, my way got two more sponsors onto the bill.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@TheBushdoctor68 A vote that will go absolutely nowhere is the textbook definition of a symbolic vote. The bill has 118 sponsors, so it does not have nearly the votes to get passed.
So, let's say that they demand Pelsoi has a vote, and then it fails, then what happens? Then, it is dead on the table, and it will be dead for another decade to come, and Pelosi will say that she gave us what we wanted, but it is an unpopular bill that can't pass, so that is yet another excuse to ignore us. If we are going to demand leverage, it is much better to demand it for something that actually has a chance. Great plan!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cmack17 1) My apologies. It was HR 1829 in a previous Congress. It's HR 1976 now.
2) But they weren't in Congress before, were they? You need to get to 218 & 50, and getting them in Congress gets you closer.
3) And what will your vote accomplish?
4) You contacted your member of Congress. I guess that's better than the absolute nothing I usually get when I ask that question of FTV people. Did you follow up in any way? Did you try to organize anyone else to do the same, or did you just think, "My job here is done"?
5) Just saying it's a bad analogy doesn't make it so. Why do you think that it's a bad analogy?
6) First of all, you've accomplished nothing. Second of all, Catch and Release is a legislative strategy first used by Tom DeLay. It was originally done to allow supposed moderates to keep their veneer while voting for a right wing agenda. It is a way of allowing people to cast votes that ensures the desired result. This is why Force the Vote is useless.
7-8) "We will get the society we want when we are willing to plant trees whose shade we'll never be able to sit under."
There is no timeline. It's done when we do the actual work, get 218 & 50 Yeses, and then we apply the pressure to make them Hard Yeses. Riddle me this, Batman, how is a vote that is guaranteed to fail going to move the ball down the field at all?
1
-
@cmack17 1) Oh, okay. So, you're a jerk who wants to nitpick and then get mad when someone acknowledges making an error. Got it.
2) Once again, none of those people were in office. She helped them get into office. If you can't understand this basic concept, no wonder why you think Force the Vote will get results.
3) Then, why did you ask basically the inverse of it to me?
4) If your representative "claims to support M4A," what about your Senators? What about friends or family who live in states/districts of those who don't support the bill? Re: "no need to 'follow up,'" I'd hate to see you if you were in a movement that literally took years or decades to come to fruition.
5) So, it's terrible because you say it's terrible? Got it.
6) What a shock. You don't understand the basic reason why your proposed strategy won't work. I can give an example of someone your boy Jimmy Dore saw as a hero to the point that she won his endorsement in 2020. Tulsi Gabbard claimed to support Medicare for All and supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. Both conveniently cut off the oxygen from primary challenges to her left. However, once she started running for President and had to answer questions about specifics, not only did she not support it, but she called one of its key provisions "un-American" in an interview with Anderson Cooper. Twice. Jimmy Dore saw this as "a smart strategy" at the time.
7-8) When all you've done to try to move the needle for Medicare for All is make one phone call to your representatives, you have no room to talk about inaction.
The abolition of slavery in the UK took over 50 years. So did women's suffrage, and one of its most important supporters, Susan B. Anthony, died 14 years before it was won. Would you have said these people were wasting their time?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1