Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "New Progressive Ad Slams 9 Conservative Democrats As They Begin Caving" video.

@Darke_Exelbirth Depends on what you mean by "complaining". Calling the most progressive members of congress "fakes", "frauds", "sellouts", "betrayers", etc., as some do, isn't "complaining", it's slander.
12
@loulfw2513 FTV was asking for a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote, hypocrite. AOC actively backed 20 other pro-M4A progressives with her platform and PAC, helped add a few more M4A yes votes to congress, and helped remove a few more corporate Dems. Adding enough yes votes is, literally, the only possible way to ever pass a bill in congress. She has been doing the exact thing that needs doing. On the M4A march day, AOC was campaigning for Nina, promoting M4A while doing so, and again actively trying to increase the number of M4A yes votes in congress. Dore abandoned Nina, he abandoned adding another M4A yes vote to congress, M4A marchers didn't go support her, he then turned around and slandered AOC, claiming she was the one who abandoned M4A. Bush has been focused on the immediate eviction problem, both in her district, and federally. Your heading is being filled by a lying grifter, who doesn't actually give two craps if anyone gets healthcare. He didn't care if 10m of the poorest Americans were thrown off Medicaid expansion, he didn't care to try and add 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion, he doesn't care that the most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence and that that route won't get anyone healthcare in the next century. He doesn't care.
5
@Jasondirt Show me one example of her campaigning on paralyzing, or threatening to paralyze, the house.
4
@Badatallthis Stuff Possibly paralyzing the house, during a pandemic ... delaying new covid relief, new unemployment extensions, new vaccine funding, etc. ... all for a piece of performance art, could have turned plenty of people off of progressives, and their ideas. It was actually a stupid time to suggest possibly doing that rather the best time. You lot have proven that ftv was sham. Progressives got the $15 to stay in for a round of voting, it actually passed the house and also got a round of senate voting. Suddenly, getting a vote on an important progressive policy is meaningless to Dore knobs. Suddenly, getting a list of no voters is meaningless to Dore knobs. The pathetic good for nothing, hypocrites, just carry on bitching about, and slandering, those who got it to stay in for a round of voting and who voted for it. Do you idiots even know that Pelosi introduced the M4A bill last session? It died in committees (that Dore doesn't think are important), where 90% of bills die. She has already reintroduced the bill this session. Why aren't you dolts pressuring and marching against committee members, to get them to take up the bill? Why are you wasting your time slandering and marching against progressives who have done more for M4A in a few years than Dore has in his entire lifetime?
3
@Badatallthis Stuff You're rewriting history. Most of the women's suffrage movement came in the decades preceding the first federal vote. They had already spent decades protesting, and numerous states had already adopted women's voting rights. They did not hold the first federal vote for purely performance. They weren't sure how everyone would vote, because the parties weren't as partisan back then. Even the first vote had majority support. The problem was that it was a constitutional amendment and needed supermajority support. They, literally, held off on reintroducing the bill the next session, because they saw absolutely no point in having a purely performance art vote. They thought they had the second vote, which did have supermajority in the house, but lost supermajority in the senate by only 2 votes. The third vote passed. That is not, at all, f*cking equivalent to being 100+ votes short in the house alone, having an even lower percentage of senate support, plus a president who said they'd veto it. You Dore knobs have no clue what you're talking about.
3
@Badatallthis Stuff I think you have severe reading comprehension problems. Okay, see you after 50 years of protests.
3
@Badatallthis Stuff And, if these M4A marches count as year 1 of 50 years of protests, can you also point out how the women's suffrage movement started out by slandering their most ardent congressional supporters, while never going against their biggest detractors. You know, because you're totally not making a false equivalence.
3
@Jasondirt The 30 year old broader progressive caucus is about 10 seats away from becoming the majority of house Dems. The 4 year old Justice Dems have replaced about a dozen corporate Dems. AOC has been at it 2 years and has helped replace a few more corporate Dems. Progressives are making steady progress and are close to being able to pick the party speaker candidate. If still the majority party, that also means picking which bills to introduce, picking committee members, etc. But, hey, sounds like a great time to start from scratch, with zero seats, zero bills introduced, zero amendments added, and zero votes on even a single bill, for the next 50 years.
3
@Jasondirt Sorry, but arguing progressives are totally samesies as conservative Dems, and conservative Dems are totally samesies as Republicans, would make you the nutter.
3
@Jasondirt It's called harm reduction. An excellent covid response, like S Korea's, would translate into under 12k total covid deaths in the US. A mediocre covid response, like Canada's, would translate into 400+k fewer covid deaths in the US. If there's zero chance in hell of getting the excellent response, do you vote for the mediocre response, or do you let the complete incompetence, that led to 600+ covid deaths, rule instead?
2
@morphor Some video obviously taken well before he and wife publicly stated they stopped donating to her, and promoted never again donating to any Democrat or Republican, progressive or not, is irrelevant. Also, what Nina said doesn't, at all, debunk that Dore abandoned her. You'd have to show something Dore said, showing that he was supporting her to the end, which can't be done, not her showing him some support. Not knowing exactly what the "some things" he says that she can't, that she likes, also makes what she said kind of meaningless. Rofl. Dore is "outraged" for a profit.
2
@Jasondirt It's reality. Unless you can spark some giant movement, like Ross Perot, a third party has no chance in hell of winning. Even he, at best, had a chance to win the presidency, but would have had zero supporting party seats in congress. There are basically two viable parties, or a few independents who caucus with those two parties. If you don't think one of the two is going to win, then you're not living in reality.
2
@Darke_Exelbirth The only possible way to ever pass M4A is to add enough yes votes to congress. So, someone like AOC, who is actively helping to add M4A yes votes to congress, is the one actually fighting for M4A. You Dore knobs have mistaken fighting for a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote for fighting for M4A. They aren't the same thing. AOC, and Bernie, were just actively trying to add another M4A yes vote to congress, in Nina Turner. Dore, on the other hand, abandoned Nina and abandoned trying to add another M4A yes vote to congress. Progressives got the $15 to stay in for a round of voting, it actually passed the house (M4A didn't have a chance in hell) and also go a senate vote. Suddenly, you moron Dore knobs think just getting a vote on important progressive policy is useless, and getting a list of no voters is useless. You're pathetic useless hypocrites, who benefit the far right most.
2
@Darke_Exelbirth People don't have to expose themselves as fake supporters, unless the bill has a chance of passing, dimwit. If it has absolutely zero chance of passing, the supposed faker could vote for it all day long. When you already need to convert or replace over 100 members of congress, trying to ferret out a few more isn't strategic, it's moronic.
2
@Darke_Exelbirth Rofl! You think the "M4A movement" is equivalent to the women's suffrage movement?! You're a complete and utter moron.
2
@Jasondirt Rofl. Dore has healthcare, dumb dumb. He's the one that didn't care if 10m of the poorest Americans were thrown off Medicaid expansion. He's the one that didn't care to try and add 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion. He's the one that backed Tulsi and her public option over Bernie and M4A. He's the one that doesn't care that the third party route hasn't won the most popular third party a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence. He's the one that didn't care to add another M4A yes vote to congress, in Nina Turner. He's at the top and has the luxury of holding out for all or nothing, and getting nothing. Take the opportunity to add more people to Medicaid and Medicare. Then f*cking do it again, and again, and again, until you have M4A. All or nothing is for spoiled babies.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff Can you make the connection between what your fantasy of Biden using 1881a has to do with ftv, or progressives in congress? Can you even make the connection between 1881a and M4A? 1881a wouldn't give you the M4A in the M4A bill. It would give you the current Medicare, with all the extra out of pocket costs. It would also only give you that coverage if you were diagnosed with the reason for the emergency. The ones benefiting from it most would be all the anti-mask, anti-vax, morons catching covid and landing themselves in the hospital. It still wouldn't cover someone else's cancer treatments. Forcing a 100% guaranteed to fail performance art vote isn't forcing them to give you M4A. Stop pretending like it is.
2
@Jasondirt You're arguing for performance art over actually adding yes votes to congress. And you're the one arguing to hand the party back to the "lesser evil" corporate Dems and let the "greater evil" Republicans rule for decades, by sidelining progressive voters with a third party that will never win a seat, leaving progressives with zero representation in congress. You have just about the worst plan to actually get M4A.
2
@Jasondirt Rofl. No, AOC is not a major reason Pelosi got to remain speaker of the house. The party speaker candidate is chosen by simple majority of the party caucus. Even the entire broader progressive caucus doesn't yet have the majority needed to pick a different speaker candidate. A failed house speaker vote doesn't require the party to pick someone new. The non progressive majority could keep picking Pelosi over and over and over. Or, they could pick someone worse. Then what? Keep paralyzing the house? Sure, AOC is one of 217 reasons why the house wasn't paralyzed. How long do you suggest paralyzing the house for, during a pandemic ... no new covid relief, no new unemployment extensions, no new vaccine funding, etc.? Look, I get it, Dore knobs would rather see Republicans in the majority and progressives in a minority party, or in a party with zero seats, at all.
2
@Jasondirt It's called harm avoidance, Dore knob, and it isn't bs reasoning. Many ethics questions and trolley experiments are based on it (Pssst, there's no such thing as actual "evil", dumb dumb, just better and worse outcomes). Either you have some delusional fantasy that a third party will win, or you outright know you're increasing the odds of a corporate Dem winning your primary (if you don't vote for a progressive Dem), and increasing the odds of a Republican winning your general (if you don't vote for whichever Dem wins). You're increasing the odds of the worst possible outcome, and you know it. Just admit you don't care already.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff Having independent Joe Lieberman, who endorsed McCain for president, doesn't exactly count as having a super majority.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff Rofl. You should take your own advice, and use the internet to learn what 1881a can actually do. It doesn't cover everyone for everything. It only covers those afflicted with the emergency disease, disaster, or whatnot. It would have been good, at the start of the pandemic, when everyone was more vulnerable to covid. Now, you'd mostly just be rewarding all the anti-mask and anti-vax morons, who catch covid, with Medicare coverage, while not getting it for cancer patients, or anyone with non covid illnesses or injuries.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff It's admitting Lieberman was an independent, who endorsed a Republican, which you can't seem to do. It's admitting that everyone within a party isn't exactly the same, which you can't seem to do. It's admitting that there's not really such a thing as a party without people. A peopleless "party" isn't against progressive policies. Certain people, that belong to parties, are against progressive policies. Replace the people that are obstacles. The party is what you make of it, with the people you elect. Stomping off if you don't get your way is childish. One of those Puritan People's Party leaders quickly left because even that party wasn't puritan enough for him. It's f*cking ridiculous. He's now in what, a party of one? Trying to have the support of as few puritans as possible is a terrible strategy.
2