I don't know what she did or did not negotiate for.

We're like 4 days into the new term, 1 of which featured hundreds of fascists invading the premises.

She absolutely should be held to a higher standard, but blaming her for so much is pretty absurd.

Alright I finished that read. It was decent in some spots, jumping from Burke to Reagan and claiming a connection was bizarre.

I think there will probably always be something to be reactionary towards, what it actually IS is somewhat irrelevant. I'm a bit less certain there will be something progressive to be progressive towards, those need to be tangible things. Oddly in this phrasing one could view progressivism as something like consumerism, always needing to expand (in theory, perhaps).

There is some chance in Birdmans worldwide communist thought experiment neither exist.

You seem to be moving goalposts and creating a false dichotomy.

I criticized AOC for claiming that now was not a good strategic time to push for m4a (during the middle of a global pandemic) and suggesting that it is a pipe dream compare to more "incremental" wins. And for CONTINUING to support Pelosi after Pelosi has mocked AOC, the progressive movement, and the proposal.

Neither of those two things are necessary steps to accomplishing anything laid out in the article you posted. It is not "either/or". We don't have to choose between "performative and actual" or whatever as you suggest (I don't even agree with your characterization of the courses of action or whatever).

You are arguing like a centrist politician who uses weasel words in a debate to avoid outright saying they are again m4a.

In some sense he has to be, but I don't know if it had to go this way. Maybe if some other republican had won the general election right now conservatism would have picked up other policies. Or maybe in 4 years Romney will win and push for Romney care or whatever nonsense.

Or maybe if 9/11 doesn't happen some other policy besides war on terror would have been adopted. Or anything else.

I mean at some point in American history Republicans and democrats basically flipped, right?

not if you take the view that they both always represented the rich in exploiting the poor

Of course in some regards criticizing an expert in a field is dubious, but then again I'd lol at the world greatest expert in alchemy or astrology.

There is no "good" time to push for m4a because that would suggest there is a bad time. We should be pushing for it 24/7 365. The idea that the rich in this country are going to suddenly create an opportunity for the non-rich to get m4a is naive and a joke. And carrying water for that kind of propaganda is just service to the status quo.

nobody acknowledged my gay marriage gavin newsome example. he forced the issue when politicians were saying "now is not the time" and it got done.

for a while newsome was getting tons of heat for his move. dems were blaming him for losing all kinds of elections all over the country

same with civil rights im sure. politicians were saying "now is not the time" and mlk and freedom riders said "**** that"

probably was the same for most/all legislation that helps people. politicians are against it, and people force the issue

Wasn't gay marriage voted down in California and a ton of states before being overturned by scotus?

Based on recent junk it seems like trump was hardly in power. Didn't some general lie about the number of troops in syria and withdrawal? That was really weird.

gay marriage was voted down in tons of places yes. that is kind of my point. there was massive propaganda against gay marriage, just like against m4a and gnd and all progressive ideas.

newsome forced the issue despite the powers that be telling him not to. now gay marriage is mainstream. all dem politicians have to say they are for it, and i believe it's a pretty small minority of the general population that are opposed to it

there has to be more passionate and wide spread support for m4a than there was for gay marriage

Newsom allowed gay marriages in SF in 2004 despite it being "illegal"

The CA supreme court found the law unconstitutional in 2008

The state then passed Prop 8 outlawing same sex marriage by state amendment so gay marriage was again illegal in CA until the SCOTUS ruling

But the point is Newsom fought the good fight against criticism within his own party and it clearly did not hurt the issue, the party or his own career.

I was more saying people here being like "pass stuff that people support" (or sometimes even if they don't).

This is what AOC is doing.

Newsom was the mayor (i.e. the chief executive of the city). AOC is a 1.002-term congresswoman. The respective power in their domains is not equal.

is she though? i say only somewhat. she's sided with the the party more often than against it, right?

she bent the knee to pelosi and feinstein. she went along with the absolute sham of a nomination process for biden.

aoc is one of the most powerful politicians in the country in terms of her voice, which she rarely uses to take meaningful stands against the dem party. she could take a stand like newsom did, but she hasn't yet.

this is nonsense

AOC is one of the most publicized politicians in the country. You are being willfully ignorant here. Why are you arguing something you know not to be true?

i never got the impression that eyebooger is a willfully ignorant kind of guy.

but eb being more wrong than filthy is pretty embarrassing

I mean someone pretending that AOC's power amounts specifically and only to the number of terms she has had in Congress is absolutely disingenuous

lol no way is eb disingenuous. he's wrong though

neoliberal free-market economists are basically astrologers

Not what I said, but whatever.

In other news:

Civil rights act.