Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Why The Squad Can’t Be The Left’s ‘Tea Party’" video.

The most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence. The most popular progressive third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its 20 year existence. There's nothing more incremental than going third party, other than sitting on your ass at home and not voting.
7
@MiguelCruz-oz7km Most of his Dore knob talking points were also bullshit, as is usually the case. There's a difference between voting for the budget and voting for the state department appropriation bill. AOC voted against the appropriation bill. A vote against the budget is also a vote against Medicaid, Medicare, education, affordable housing, etc., etc., etc. She also voted against the military appropriation bill. These departments have their own individual budget request bills, before the budget vote. Haven't run across a Dore knob, yet, that knows the Capitol Hill police bill was heavily amended in the senate, nor that she voted against it, on the final house vote. The guy didn't even seem to know that the $15 got a vote already. It passed the house (M4A didn't have a shot in hell), and also got a senate vote. Instead of doing something with the two precious lists of no voters, they just keep bitching about those who got it to stay in for a round of voting and who voted for it. While Dore was claiming AOC had abandoned M4A, she was literally on the ground campaigning for Nina Turner, promoting M4A, and fighting to add another M4A yes vote to congress. Adding yes votes to congress gets you closer to being able to pass the bill. Forcing a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote, doesn't. AOC used her platform and PAC to back 20 other pro-M4A progressives, in the last election. Some of those were in purple districts, and the progressive got absolutely creamed in the primaries, but the more conservative Dem managed to win the district. This midterm election is a whole other animal, and it's going to be a helluva fight to hang on to those purple district seats. Any leverage the guy thinks progressives have, rests entirely on Democrats being in the majority, and yet he sees no benefit in her helping to retain that majority. They'd prefer seeing Republicans become the majority. They just look for any little thing to attack progressives over, while not seeming to care if fascists, that tried to overthrow the democratic process to keep Dumpty on as an unelected dictator, regain power. They're the kind of "leftists" that wind up on the wrong side of a Night of the Long Knives, when their psycho extreme right allies no longer consider them useful.
5
@nevermorebouquet3681 So, the "liberal order" wanted AOC to back 20 other progressives, help add a few more to congress, and help remove a few more corporate Dems? They wanted her on the ground campaigning for Nina Turner, fighting to add another? They wanted her campaigning for Bernie instead of Biden? The argument that she doesn't oppose them, makes the "liberal order" sound not too bad, if that's what they support.
5
@nevermorebouquet3681 You're basically incoherent. You first said they wouldn't give a committee seat to someone who opposes their power. That would mesh with those who voted against AOC, for a committee seat, saying they voted against her because she backed primary challengers against them. But, then you say they haven't opposed those in power. It makes no sense.
5
@sergeikhripun There are already records of who won't cosign, and committee members who sat on the bill, during a pandemic. For both last session and this session. If Dore cared so much, he'd be "pressuring" committee members, rather than those who actually added M4A yes votes to congress, and have done more for M4A in a few years than he has in his entire lifetime. Seder promoted Nina Turner, promoted adding another M4A yes vote to congress. Dore publicly abandoned Nina Turner, abandoned adding another M4A yes vote to congress.
4
@nevermorebouquet3681 Doesn't removing them from power, even if it's one seat at a time, "oppose their power"?
4
This is a midterm fight, and Dems will have a problem trying to hang on in those purple districts. Any ounce of leverage Hinkle believes AOC to have, entirely rests on Dems maintaining a majority. Without that, Republicans will just do whatever they want, without needing any corporate Dem or progressive votes. She already tried backing progressives in some of those districts, and they got creamed, but the more conservative Dem, who beat them, managed to also beat the Republican in the general. For the midterm, she should be backing new progressives in blue districts, that have an incumbent corporate Dem, where there's no worry in the general, and doing whatever to help everyone else hang on to their seats. You may not like that she broke some supposed promise, but it's smart.
4
@unitedfools3493 The Tea Party was astroturffed by billionaire donors, who were pressuring Republican lawmakers. The donor pressure consistently increased their numbers. Republicans have a natural tendency to want to move right, anyway. And, the only reason they could block any votes was because the other Republicans were unwilling to simply make compromises with Dems and pass things without needing Tea Party votes. Are there large billionaire donors pressuring corporate Dems to join progressives? Do corporate Dems have a natural tendency to move left? Are corporate Dems unwilling to compromise and work with Republicans? The situations aren't samesies.
3
@smokedbeefandcheese4144 Try replacing 15 more corporate Dems, first. That's about how many more seats the progressive caucus needs to become the majority of house Dems, and then have enough to pick the party speaker candidate. If Dems are also the majority in the house, that speaker can then pick committee members, introduce whatever bills they want, sideline whatever bills they want, etc.
3
@sullen2420 It's not smart to have progressives in a majority party? It's smart to let Republicans win the majority? Why do Dore knobs always seem to think the smartest route is to let Republicans rule? Weird, and totally contradictory to wanting them to use whatever leverage they have, because they wouldn't have any in that case.
3
@sullen2420 You have reading comprehension problems.
3
@sullen2420 Why don't you learn to read, and answer my questions, first.
3
@sullen2420 Do you still have reading comprehension problems? Learn to read, and go back and answer my questions, first.
3
@sullen2420 I understood, just fine, and replied that they'd lose whatever leverage they have, being in a minority. YOU, keep dodging my questions. I don't give a crap, if you think it is, or isn't, their job. The entire argument that they have some little amount of leverage, entirely rests on them being in the majority party. So, is it smart for them to try and retain a majority, and retain any leverage they have? Or, is it smart to let Republicans win the majority, and lose any leverage they have?
3
@jaccl4539 There you go again, not grasping math.
2
@sergeikhripun If she told them to campaign for Nina Turner, to try and add another M4A yes vote to congress, then you're arguing Pelosi isn't that bad, dimwit.
2
@sergeikhripun How many times have you spammed that other bullshit comment?
2
@brentnoury7626 But, that wasn't the annual military aid to Israel. That was to rearm what is purely a defensive system. The Iron Dome doesn't kill Palestinians. The annual military aid to Israel is in the State department appropriation bill. Unlike Hinkle dishonestly made out, AOC actually voted against the State Department appropriation bill. What she voted for was the entire annual budget, which includes things like healthcare, education, housing, veteran's benefits, SNAP, SSI, etc. He wasn't really asking her to vote solely against the state department, which she had already done. He was asking her to vote against everything. She also voted against the defense appropriation bill. She also voted against the final version of the Capitol Hill police bill (it was amended in the senate and came back). She has actually voted against most of the things he wanted her to vote against. Dore knobs are dishonest.
2
@jaccl4539 You keep spouting the garbage in multiple threads. Name a single thing Manchin has done, that the squad hasn't done. Be specific, not your falling on a sword abstract gibberish.
2
@sergeikhripun There's already a record of who won't cosign, and a record of committee members sitting on the bill, dimwit. Do something with it, or shut up. Why don't you Dore knobs do something with the record of those who voted against a $15 minimum wage, while you're at it, instead of whining about those who voted for it.
2
@nathandwyer7273 No. The NDP would be about as effective if they were in an outright coalition with the Liberal party, and it would lower the risk of Conservatives winning. Outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Conservatives can't win a majority anywhere. They only win pluralities, and it's totally because votes are split between Liberals and NDP (and BQ). Canada is an example of why a third party kind of sucks, as long as the right is united. The US has an even worse problem, since Republicans are about 15 points more popular, in the US, than Conservatives are in Canada. Splitting votes in any significant way would lead to Republicans dominating for decades.
2
@nathandwyer7273 You're lying to these people. Jack Layton's popularity is part of why Canada got asshole Stephen Harper for so many years. The votes were too split, between Liberals and the NDP. They'd be much more effective as a coalition party. You need a bunch of parties, with the right divided up, as well. Only 3 main parties leads to conservatives winning much much more than they should. Conservatives would win nowhere but Alberta and Saskatchewan, if the Liberals and NDP were a coalition.
2
@sergeikhripun Yeah, and Tucker had pro Assange videos going back a year before Dore was even on. Right wingers love WikiLeaks. Assange isn't some left wing issue. Did Tucker convince Dumpty to pardon Assange? No. So, Jimmy goes on the show, and immediately agrees with Tucker's right wing framing of Trump being kicked off social media because of left wing cancel culture, and blathers about the first amendment, which doesn't even apply, and only feeds right wing morons' victim complex, and feeling their rights are being violated. Utter bullshit. Jimmy should have pointed out that there's no such thing as free speech rights on someone else's private property. He should have pointed out that right wingers are the ones siding with private property, and that, if you do want free speech rights, then you should back public ownership. He should have pointed out that giant corporations, owned by centibillionaires, aren't "leftist", in the least. He should have pointed out that right wingers are the ones who handed corporations so much power, argued they're people with their own rights, including the right to their own beliefs and right to act on those beliefs. They created the monster they're crying about. Plus, he should have pointed out that inciting insurrections and defamation aren't protected speech, even if you made social media an actual public square, through public ownership. He should have pointed out that conservative religious types have been cancelling things and people for millennia. He should have pointed out that Republicans are fine when the government outright violates free speech, like the head of government firing or threatening to fire anyone who contradicts him, like anti-BDS laws, like LGBT books, like making it harder and more dangerous to protest, like an FCC still protecting delicate conservative sensibilities from naughty words and nipples, etc. He should have pointed out all the times Republicans have promoted cancelling a business or a person ... for kneeling, for being gay, for being trans, etc. He should have pointed out that "cancel culture" is nothing new, and not something just the left does. In fact, the left hardly uses government, in comparison, and instead uses social pressure, which is basically like the libertarian solution, to use Yelp, or something, to push a business to behave the way you want. Yeah, and this was right before the well deserved second impeachment, Jimmy then threw in the off topic bone, to Tucker and his audience, that he too considered the first impeachment to be a sham, feeding their doubts about the second one. Nothing in the Mueller report has been refuted. Intelligence agencies didn't rely on the stupid Steele dossier, and are even the ones who decided it wasn't reliable. No clue what you think "Russiagate" is. It's just a fact that Russia interfered in the election. Trump's own FBI concluded the same thing, in 2020. Without relying on the Steele dossier, the Mueller report laid out some 200 pages of information sharing (collusion) that didn't amount to criminal conspiracy, stated Jr and Kushner weren't charged with criminal conspiracy because it would be too hard to prove they willfully broke the law not because they didn't break the law, and laid out evidence of obstruction. The only people I see blathering about "Russiagate", is you Dore knobs. Then, like I said, he finally talked about Assange, which was already something Tucker had no problem with. Nothing Jimmy said on that segment challenged any of Tucker's far right views, or his audience's. A total love fest.
2
@SMP1993 There's math involved. There are zero extra votes to try and draw from to the left of progressives. It is absolutely impossible to pass a bill without Manchin. On the other end, there is the entire Republican party to try and draw votes from. It is entirely possible to pass a bill without Bernie, by picking up a single Republican vote. In a stand off, between both ends of the party, a bill would more likely be amended to the right, than the left. The bill would have to be "must pass" to Manchin, to have any leverage. If he doesn't give a crap if it dies, then you've got zero leverage, as we've seen. And, if he can get enough Republicans on board, by making concessions to them, then he doesn't need your votes, as we've seen. What's a bill that Manchin considered "must pass", that required squad votes to pass?
2
@jaccl4539 Risk, by doing what? You clearly used Manchin as a comparison. He threatens not to vote for things, a threat that requires leverage. Unlike how dishonest Hinkle made things out, AOC actually voted against the state department appropriation bill. And ... it passed without her. The Capitol Hill police bill was heavily amended in the senate, and came back for a second house vote. Unlike how dishonest Hinkle made things out, AOC voted against it, in the end. And ... it passed without her. Unlike how dishonest Hinkle made things out, AOC voted against the defense appropriation bill. And ... it passed without her. She votes against things all the time. They aren't samesies, because they don't have the same mathematical leverage.
2
@sullen2420 That they have some kind of leverage is the entire basis for FTV, that Dore knobs are still blathering about a year later. It's the entire basis of Hinkle's argument, that they should be killing bills, and behaving like the Tea Party. If there's an agreement that they have no leverage, then Dore and Hinkle have been blathering utter nonsense. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, has been used for gaining power throughout history. Going all out war against on two fronts has almost always been a bad idea. If you think corporate Dems and Republicans are totally samesies, then you're a complete and utter moron.
2
@sullen2420 Rofl. Those people's views are the topic of the video, ffs, and you mention him in your op. You said he's right, but he thinks they have leverage, which makes his argument moronic. She just got done backing progressives in some of those same conservative districts and they got creamed, but the more conservative Dem beat the Republican. Making out like fascists, who just tried to overthrow the democratic process to keep Dumpty on as an unelected dictator, are samesies as corporate Dems, is beyond moronic. Making out like people who all voted against another round of covid stimulus and against the $15 are samesies as those who voted for those, is beyond moronic. Making out like those who have tried to toss 10+m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, dozens of times, are samesies as those who aren't doing that, is beyond moronic. Being in neutral might suck, but going in reverse is worse. Progressives have better odds in more solidly blue districts, taking out corporate Dems there. Meanwhile, Republicans not having the majority is better all around. Whatever, don't give a shit if Republicans rule, then. That's the same Dore knob mentality that didn't care if Trump beat Clinton.
2
@jaccl4539 By doing what, dimwit? What has he done, that supposedly risked more? One single example.
1
@sergeikhripun Rofl! The bill needs numbers to actually pass, you dimwitted Dore knob. Forcing a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote gets you nothing. Even if you got that, what you'd then still have to do, is the work to get enough numbers in congress to be able to pass it. It's the only possible way to pass bills. Magic doesn't work. If you dimwits don't care about adding numbers, then you don't care about M4A, at all.
1
@sergeikhripun No it doesn't. The Iron Dome is defensive, and Israel reacts disproportionately. If Palestinian rockets killed dozens of Israelis, instead of just a few, how much worse do you think Israel woukd react? She only has domestic issues, on her website. What do you claim she used to have on her website, about Palestine? Hard to believe you Dore knobs. Dore knobs have claimed she erased M4A from her website, when it's actually at the top of her issues list. Does not having something on her website change the fact that she has called out Israel multiple time, called it an apartheid state, co-signed a bill to put conditions on military aid to Israel, voted against the state department appropriation bill which gives military aid to Israel, co-signed a bill to get rid of anti-BDS laws, etc.?
1
@brentnoury7626 Why? The numbers of deaths was regularly higher in the early 2000s, before the Dome. If Israelis get hurt, or die, they respond terribly and disproportionately.
1
@brentnoury7626 Which is why the progressive bill to put conditions on the annual offensive military aid, and the progressive bill to strike down anti-BDS laws, so constant conditions and pressure can be placed on Israel. An irregular rearmament of the Iron Dome wouldn't affect a whole lot. It's still not a yes vote, which would have made it 421-9, and a no vote would have made it 420-10. It's not one of those bills where the progressive votes even mattered much. The entire progressive caucus could have voted no, and it still would have passed.
1
@brentnoury7626 I hear what you're saying, but, if they're workers voting Republican, truth isn't the "strength" they're looking for, and, if they're right wing Christians, they're probably on the side of Israel. Not sure progressives can vote on an Israel bill in a way that'll woo any right wingers over, without outright voting for it. This wouldn't even have been a seperate bill, where you could see how everyone voted on this specific issue, if progressives hadn't pressured Pelosi to remove it from the government spending bill and vote on it separately. The bigger news should actually be just how overwhelming the yes vote was, and that none of the actual yes voters seem to have to answer for their votes. There's zero questioning, by supposed "leftists", like Dore, zero calling out, zero attacking, of all those who outright supported Israel, but they'll mention every chance they get how AOC didn't vote for it.
1
@jaccl4539 See my comment, above yours. Math is involved in the amount of leverage Manchin has vs what progressives have. Plus, his not caring if bills completely tank. You need him to think a bill is "must pass", to have leverage over him.
1
@jaccl4539 The math, tells you the amount of people you need for a war, ffs. Manchin doesn't need anyone else, in a 50/50 senate. If Dems had 51 seats, he'd have no power. 52 seats, and he and Sinema would have no power. They could be completely ignored. You'd never hear about them, because they couldn't then be a cog in anyone's wheel. They'd have no power to wage war. Sure, the entire progressive caucus could have held up infrastructure, but just AOC, and just the squad, couldn't. 13 Republicans voted for it. That takes away the ability to wage war, unless you have 17 people on board to wage war. Numbers are everything.
1
@jaccl4539 No. You're the one apparently looking for success, because they vote against crap all the f*cking time, and you're not counting it. You have things completely backwards. You bring up Manchin, but the only reason anyone is talking about him, is because he can block votes. Like I said if it was a 51/49 senate, nobody would be talking about him. He could have all the red lines he wanted, and nobody would give a f*ck, because his vote wouldn't be needed.
1
@jaccl4539 Wtf? How do you go around Manchin, by going further right, dimwit? That's the other side of Manchin, and the side he wants to work with. You're making absolutely no sense. You go right to not need votes from progressives. You can't go left to not need Manchin's vote. There are no extra votes to the left of progressives. Progressives draw lines and don't vote for crap all the f*cking time. You're not counting those, because they weren't successful. Squad members just drew a line and didn't vote for the infrastructure bill. They called out Dems who did vote for it. What are you expecting, exactly? You're blathering nonsense. What "risk" is Manchin taking, aside from simply saying he won't vote for stuff he doesn't like? He's not doing anything squad members haven't done. He simply has more power, due to math.
1
@SMP1993 So you're expanding the issue from not just one person, and not even the original 4 person squad, or the new 7 person squad, but beyond the squad to some 14 persons. That the progressive caucus could have done something, or 14 of them could do something, is a different argument than the squad, or AOC, being able to do much of anything. The progressive caucus definitely screwed up, and the squad called out those who voted for the bill. Just so we're clear ... some Dems actually do want to pass some things, including Biden? It's not like they don't care if nothing passes? Because, calling bills "must pass" entirely rests on the premise they actually want to accomplish something, unlike the majority of Republicans who just want to tank everything. Dore knobs often then turn around and make out like corporate Dems and Republicans are samesies, which makes the "must pass" argument incoherent. So, you think that if there was a 14 person squad, and they could threaten to block the bill, then Biden would get involved and pressure Manchin? So, does Manchin care if the bill tanks, or no? If not, why would he care what Biden says? If yes, what makes you think he'd move left, instead of simply making some other concessions to Republicans, to get a few more of them on board, for "bipartisanship"? His entire argument was that he didn't want a bill that had only Democrat support. Why would he suddenly move in a direction that would lose him his Republican friends' votes? Then you'd have to increase your squad numbers even more, and I still don't understand why you think Manchin wouldn't just amend the bill even further right. If Pelosi, or the DNC, are getting AOC to campaign for Nina, and getting her to help get Cori, Bowman, and Mondaire, get elected, then maybe they aren't so bad. Or, maybe, just maybe, she isn't doing their bidding, and they are pretty bad.
1
@SMP1993 I stopped reading, after your first few sentences. The stripped down, and pushed right, infrastructure bill was just passed, with Republicans on board, ffs. Not sure what reality you're living in, but it's not this one.
1
@jaccl4539 There you go again, not grasping math.
1
Alabama Man Special Edition Rofl. Millions of people die of hunger, yearly, and most are in capitalist countries. WWI was all a bunch of capitalist countries killing each other. The Holocaust was actually about 15m people. Japan also killed 3-14 million civilians and POWs. Millions died due to famine, in British India, as they exported food. Japan, Italy, Germany, were all right wing, and started another world war, that killed tens of millions. Millions were killed in the Congo, the most deadly conflict since WWII. You're in denial.
1
@sergeikhripun There's already a record of who won't cosign the bill, during a pandemic. There's already a record of committee members who sat on the bill, after Pelosi introduced it last session, during a pandemic. There's new lists of both those things, this session. Why aren't you morons pressuring all the committee members, to take up the bill, instead of blathering about a year old missed opportunity for performance art?
1
@jaccl4539 It is math, dimwit. We've been over this. They draw lines, and don't vote for crap all the time. They talk to the press. There is absolutely nothing Manchin does, that they haven't done. The only reason anyone is talking about Manchin is because he actually has the ability to kill a bill on his own. Nobody would give a crap about him, nobody would be talking about him, if the senate was 51 Dems. You blather about sword nonsense. Name a single apecific thing that you think Manchin has done, that they haven't.
1