Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "House Democrats Introduce Medicare-For-All Act" video.

@jeffgojail Voting on important bills CREATES orientation for politicians, their potential challengers AND voters and the votes on a bill - no matter the outcome - move the agenda FORWARD, even if they do not (YET) succeed. - You want to check out the history of ANY important legislation (that was a result of popular demands and bottom up pressure). Lynching laws. The right to vote for women. Many votes that failed, but paved the way - until a bill passed. The REPEATED failed votes (but narrowing the gap) were STEPS on the way and put pressure on politicians. The votes kept the subject alive. Demanding a vote on issues that are important for the voters (even knowing that it would most likely fail) so that the politicians had to show their colors) were part of the ongoing fight. Talk is cheap, a vote on a specific bill creates FACTS, they go on RECORD and they may have to justify their vote later (or it could cost them the reelection. The U.S has very short cycles. 2 years for all of the house and one third of Senate). Allegdly Wilson urged Senate in 1918 to pass the right to vote for women - because they were worried about the midterms. It failed (narrowly) and they did lose the midterms. So in the short term a defeat - but it got the politicians that wanted to win elections thinking. New representatives were elected and they had the RECORD of their fellow representatives (and how they fared in the reelection)as orientation. Not what politicians had said but how they went on record with their vote on a bill. You can bet that Wilson was not all that much for the suffrage of women - but they saw the writings on the wall. I think it was only 2 or 3 times that a president addressed the Senators in a speech. His speech and the vote on the bill a few days later was not a waste of time (we still read about it !) and it made an impact - and helped to get the desired outcome 2 years later. Majorities can change, new politicians are elected, some die or retire or lose elections - or other politicians have second thoughts about keeping up their resistance. They did not have to speculate IF the vote on a bill (like the right to vote for women) could cost them, the vote created also an experience. And voters that could not get the politicians to do what they wanted had a record to act upon within 2 years. Candidates that were more favorable could campaign on the refusal to vote for or against a certain bill.
1
@jeffgojail Pelosi is a productive speaker ? in what alternative universe ?? - I know she his presented at that on MSNBC and the other neoliberal networks. - She is productive in her service for the big donors. She dismisses action on climate change (the big donors do not like it). Let that snink in !! She managed to get rich during her career.
1
@jeffgojail Is that you "Record the Record" - You seem to be gloating at the fact that your fellow citizens are exploited and even die from lack of coverage. Does it pay well to shill for the establishment ? I assume you are not one of the beltway insiders that is at the troughs - you would not spend time in the youtube comment section. But if you are young and / or need the money - I will cut you some slack, although it is not a reputable way to earn money.
1
+ ninja Knitter better start a GoFundMe or try alternative medicine (or try to migrate to one of the affluent European countries or Canada, not easy of course to get a visa, it depends on your work skills). - Sorry to hear about your health troubles. But M4A will not pass. The ruling class can screw the population, the sheeple take it, 30 % of the population are still doing fine and the rest is brainwashed and no challenge for the ruling class. Politicians are rewarded for being sellouts, they get reelected - and they double down. The problem: WHEN the populaton will come under increased economic stress, and troubles from climate disruption, when they finally lash out - chances are they will fall for a far right nationalist. One that is not as dumb as Trump and that will utilize economic populism. In times of such stress it was always either the (democratic) left or the penduulums swung to the far right. The American fascists could only look with envy towards Wurope, FDR occupied the territory of economic populism well enough that they could not make political hay of the crisis. But FDR was an aberation of history. The rightwingers always utilize nationalism and have reactionyry views on society (genderr, family abortions, revisionist history), they always court organized religion and use them and they always do favors for big biz as soon as they come into power and screw the unions. (they adore hierarchies and the upper class and of course workers organizing themselves to make demands is not allowed. They workers might be given ! a little bit, like low income and long hours but at least job security (Hitler went that route, outlawed the unions, but he boosted the economy with deficit spending and direct money creation - schemes comparable to QE that allowed for mass public investments and ended the terrible depression). The smarter ones run also on economic populism and even deliver a little bit. The masses are so deprived that they will be even happy it they throw them a few bones. If Trump had been smart HE would have dragged his own party in 2017 to get the public option, it would be interesting to see the Dems advocating against the campaign promose of Obama of 2008, while Sanders would push from the left). That and a mildly competent (not good but not terribly bad) pandemic handling - and Trump would have won the reelection in a landslide. Sooner or later there will be a power hungry smart rightwing demagogue / wannabe fascist, that can build on the mounting resentment / anger (but anger that does not lead to appropriate action and VOTING in the Democratic primaries, when that would be easy and within the range of democracy).
1
+ ninja Big donor servant Biden in the meantime abolished the Public option (it was part of his campaign promise - and that of Obama in 2008 - well that is not unexpected. I would be shocked (positively suprised) IF he would push it. Of course the P.O. was only campaign talk. Sure, it is a weak second best to single payer but in the transition phase the difference would not be so big and there is a good chance it would be a bridge to single payer. - The big donors and their servants know what they are doing. "Progressives" made sure not to Force A Vote when they had leverage - and then it would not have passed. the vote would have put the establishment Dems in a VERY uncomfortable position for the future ! and BOLD progressives could have run against their record in 2022 and try to unseat the shills. (Neither AOC nor Sanders support candidates now that try to primary D shills, AOC would not endorse a challenge like her first run in 2018 against Joe Crowley. It did not take long to wear her down and to make her fall in line. Sure she does not take big donor money and can bark against certain issue. But she self restricts to not bite when it would matter. - And she has such a platform and can raise money that it would be really hard for the establishment to unseat her. Even if they "redistrict". She lost her committee assignments anyway and her initiatives are not supported. She could as well rattle the cage and serve as activist, because the establishment makes sure she cannot legislate. To be fair they might be discouraged by the lack of support of the voters in general. one could assume that things go swimmingly for regular folks if you look at how the primaries went in spring 2020). And if the sellouts would vote for M4A now (it is safe, it will fail, at least in Senate, so the big donors need not fear) - they might have to reapeat that vote a few years in the future when it could pass. In the age of social media, they cnanot do a 180 on it. They would of course when they have to chose between service for big donors (when Pelosi neede their votes to become speaker, and it is not like Sanders would organize the resistance, not even AFTER his failed 2nd bid for the presidency. Which means he does not have to play nice with the powers that be, nothing left to lose. Sanders could have encouraged voters t think about a general strike the minute Joe Biden was inaugurated. Trump was out of office, mission accomplished back to kicking the D party. U.S. voters were too dumb / apathetic / brainwashed in the 2020 Democratic primaries(the most important political events in the U.S. - it is a selection processes. legally they are not even elections ). Sanders and the Squad caved (the most beneolent assumption is that they are disheartened by lack of wide scale backup by voters - see spring 2020. And Sanders seems to be terrified to the the Ralph Nader treatment). The U.S. population is too brainwahwhed, apathetic, the progressives are nice, have good intentions - and are feckless, spineless cowards. and the establishment politicians will gladly see people die for lack of healthcare because otherwise their big donors would lose a lot of profits. - Let that sink in: the likes of Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi are all rich (except Biden, but he is at least financially very comfortable) use their last years on earth to make sure to screw their fellow citizens. Pelosi is RICH she (her husband) have made good money of her political career (lots of real estate development going on in CA while she rose, so lots of possibilities to make money at the side, just sain') Realistically she may have 2 - 6 more years - (or good years) and she uses that to still screw her fellow citizens (although she has all the money she could ever need and plenty to pass on to her heirs). I do not really understand that level of greed / cravenness. The SYSTEM seems to encourage psychopathic behavior (with a good dose of double think so they can feel good about themselves) - I do not think they are all psychopaths (Pelosi might be nice within her TRIBE) but they act like that. Towards all that are not part of the club. (George Carlin).
1