Home | About | Donate

AOC Is Right About Pelosi and Schumer

“Saying Pelosi needs to go isn’t the same as saying you won’t vote for pelosi unless she brings up an M4A vote.”

Yes, for those who missed it, Hill Rising clearly lays out of the Jimmy Dore v AOC argument, and presents additional argument for progressives voting for Pelosi only in exchange for an M4A vote:

h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64A7A8QWDNc

AOC is cute in the cutest sense of the word but Jimmy Dore is mmm obnoxious…

…so far i hinted that Jimmy Dore „journalism“ might be vastly over rated but where did that idea come from? Jimmy Dore once complained: america is becoming like brazil, as if that would be a bad thing!!! at AOC’s age Dilma Rousseff (from brazil) already had what my „friends“ [1] from the NYT would call a „terrorist group“… what are the critics expecting from AOC? that she should try to conquer Washington to proof her progressive credentials??? AOC isn’t Dilma Rousseff but more importantly she has college education which set her cultural standards which almost certainly voided her potential to make „terrorism“ in the sense of taking Washington by a coup… i hate bigotry and Jimmy Dore is a bigot with one alliance that matter to him namely the alliance with his penis… one of the many things that makes american „politics“ so disfunctional are assholes like Bill Mahr, Jimmy Dore or Steve Colbert, looking to them for opinion is therefore a rather stupid idea… AOC isn’t Dilma Rousseff but these are quibbles, AOC is cute in the cutest sense of the word.

progressives who are unhappy with AOC 'd better create a „terrorist“ group to size power in Washington, it really is that simple… a quick and higly insulting look at america follows… Tom Hartman’s incomprehensible cluelessness, Amy Goodman’s unbearable naivete, the Slashdotter who make fun of (female) sweatshop worker, Paul Krugman’s delerious opeds — this is the country AOC has to deal with.

however progressives who are unhappy with AOC and progressivism can aim higher, if they want to put there life on the line… from a technical perspective, all that’s needed to conquer Washington is the support of the military and its support can be gained with a few (in the sense of little pile, few) scientific papers and the papers would then be used to show the Pentagon’s top honcho strategist a viable „economic“ strategy to rebuilt america while doing good around the world, i think the CIA 'd love the idea because…

…the dudes (from the CIA) who invented a concept known as the resource shocks know as good as i do: corporate america is heading over the cliff, and the relevant CIA analyst will gladly rub the papers (who thought 'em how to fix america) into the face of every five star general [2] while saying: these papers are the shit, don’t think we do exactly what the science tells us to do, lets be smart, well yankee scientist often behave like that but i really wonder what Newton would 've been thinking about the attitude yankee scientists like to fly enough about my ideas.

so what’s the point? the papers from my story could 've been handed to Bernie or AOC when they needed 'em… politicans are only as strong as their friends but with „friends“ like Jimmy Dore nobody needs enemies.

1: the liberal elites from the NYT are my „friends“ in the sense of being my enemies but that’s TMI so i used quotation marks to denote my sarcasm.
2: nowadays the „top tier“ generals have a lot more stars than five.


Meet the new Don, same as the old Don…God help us.

Ice cream?

1 Like

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Does being a member of Congress equal being in a position to help us get where we want to go? I’ve seen very little evidence for this in the last 40 years, and a consolidation of opposition to progressive ideology in the last two presidential election cycles, this latest being the most blatant. So, to my mind, it’s the co-optation of our allies in Congress that is the problem. And AOC, as much as I admire her and support what seems to be a genuine and admirable ideology in her, is not immune to this. She is up against a powerful machine that is designed to - and is currently devastatingly effective at - crushing progressives and anyone who supports them.

I agree that we should not get tripped up by a mis-framing of the current debate as a Progressive Loyalty Test. And I have faith that this will not happen to the extent that it will divide us. Because we progressives (and workers of the world) clearly need to unite. I truly believe that truth will rise above all others, and soon. But there is real despair about the Democratic party, and for good reason. So, it is reasonable and sane to be looking for alternative methods of challenging power. Fighting from the inside track along hasn’t much to show for itself.


I don’t disagree with any of this. One of the problems that this debate illuminates is the complete lack of a means of accountability between movement politics and elected officials. Which of course is the way the system is supposed to work - elected reps in our system are always free to do exactly what they please regardless of their promises to voters, knowing that wealthy interests and party bureaucracy will back them come election time. Yes, there is enormous pressure on any one individual in a bourgeois democracy, which is why we should recognize that it is movements and not elected officials that are the engine of meaningful change.

Which, in turn, is why I admire the fact that AOC has engaged deeply in this debate; that she and a few of her colleagues are linked to and informed by movements in a way that few American electeds are (including most of the CPC - and their record of collective achievement shows it). I would have felt differently about this M4A House vote debate if the criticism of AOC’s view was coming not from online punditry but from the Nurses union, or PNHP or DSA or any of a number of groups that have been fighting tirelessly for universal health care for years, and who understand that to win anything from a losing House debate will take a massive coordinated grassroots effort.


Right on. We need a ‘yes, and’ approach to challenging power, I feel, where insiders willing to articulate and fight the good fight are supported by a united front of outside activists and agitators. I am truly hopeful that we will soon get to a place where these dynamics will be fully realized. We have being right on our side, especially about M4A.


I would have felt differently about this M4A House vote debate if the criticism of AOC’s view was coming not from online punditry but from the Nurses union, or PNHP or DSA or any of a number of groups that have been fighting tirelessly for universal health care for years, and who understand that to win anything from a losing House debate will take a massive coordinated grassroots effort.


But this is the problem, isn’t it. And I ask respectfully, what does it matter where proposed tactics for fighting power come from? What does it say that those fighting tirelessly for universal health care for years have made so little progress? Not to downplay their work, but we need both inside fighters and outside agitators to effect change. We must challenge the fraudulent notion that we can’t afford M4A or other progressive priorities. We already know this to be false. And I hope that we will soon find ourselves in the moment when we find the guts to challenge this false narrative.

AOC is and has long been engaging in this debate. I applaud her for it. It does take courage, and I want her on our side! She is going to do great things over time if she doesn’t get burned out by Washington. But I’d have felt better (initially) about her position in the debate happening right now if she’d said something along the lines of: ‘I welcome any suggestion or proposed tactic to challenge power, because we need all hands on deck to disrupt a system that exists to maintain a status quo that by and large seeks to oppress us. We must throw a wrench in this machine, however and wherever we can. Here on the inside, things move at a snail’s pace and it is becoming clear that the machine prefers to plod along and deliver the bare minimum, even at a time when we need healthcare more than ever. All advanced countries have some form of M4A and there is no good reason, with all of the studies done about the efficacy and efficiency of already-existing legislation, not to implement a similar system here. What are we waiting for?’

My two cents, and I appreciate the conversation.


These are groups that can translate an opinion or plan into a working strategy and carry it out. I don’t disagree that we need an inside/outside approach.

“We must challenge the fraudulent notion that we can’t afford M4A or other progressive priorities. We already know this to be false. And I hope that we will soon find ourselves in the moment when we find the guts to challenge this false narrative.”

Yes, we must challenge it. No, we don’t know this to be false. You and I do, and most people on this board, and the Left generally. But that isn’t enough. This isn’t a problem of guts, IMO - it’s a problem of collectively deciding on strategy and implementing the strategy.

A simple assessment of my opinion of where the universal health care movement is - one that I think you share: The idea is incredibly popular, even across the political spectrum. (This is the enormous progress has been made by these groups, working at the state and national level. Majority U.S. support for universal care hasn’t been a reality for more than about five years. Changing public opinion, building allies and coalitions - all of that takes organized work.) But people aren’t convinced it can be implemented. We saw that during the primary, right? Rank and file Democrats wanted universal care, considered it high on their list of priorities… but they voted for Biden, who openly opposes it. The Democratic Party leadership will always take the public position that universal care is wonderful, but it can’t be done. That is where we’re at now. Not convincing people that M4A is what we need. Convincing them that we can win it.

In that context, it matters where the idea comes from, because the same work is going to be necessary to win from where we’re at, and that is changing people’s minds on whether we can make universal care a reality in the U.S…

We had a public debate on M4A a year ago, in the Democratic Party primary. We know how a floor debate will be framed by the corporate press and by M4A detractors. They won’t contest the popularity of M4A. Reps who co-sponsored M4A but don’t genuinely support it could very well vote “yes” knowing that it won’t pass the House or the Senate or be veto-proof. So I’m not convinced that a floor debate will necessarily suss out the Democratic opposition. The opposing argument is all about supposed financial impossibilities and political impracticality. Last time around, that argument prevailed.

So if we’re going to go through this again, organized activists are going to need to be able to effectively counter that narrative and then actually follow-up with voters over the next two years in order to translate that narrative into electoral wins.

1 Like

She did say that there was no alternative to Pelosi, but it was meant int he context that the Blue Dog Democrats, the majority of the corporate sycophants that make up the Democratic Party, would never support anyone else.
I think once Americans actually have a truly Progressive Party running, AOC, Tlaib an other Progressives will jump ship. Our survival depends on it.

1 Like

I feel that because Biden won, the right is in firm control of D.C., even more so than under Trump.


I like Jimmy Dore, but he’s a little bit too hard on AOC forgetting that she is NOT free to do as she pleases because she is a member of the Democratic Party. Trust me, AOC would have loved to join a Progressive Party… if they existed. (And 'yes I know that there are Green and Socialist party’s out there, but how many debates have they been invited to? How many times have you seen them on the ballot? How often do we see media coverage about them?)
If Americans are serious about jettisoning the corporate sociopaths from government, it is going to require a new Party joining forces with existing non-corporate entities.


Some people need to reassess the wisdom of calling on electeds to leave the Party. AOC is an avowed socialist who regularly criticizes Party leadership and supports primary challenges against other Democrats - even powerful ones. Just how much more genuine and independent is she going to get if she isn’t a Democrat? What will happen the moment she leaves the Party? She will have a harder time getting re-elected and and a harder time building coalitions with like-minded Dems in Congress to push legislation.

Asking AOC to Demexit is asking her to take one for the team in exchange for a hope that that will make it easier for other candidates in a third party to win. The fact that Nina Turner gave the keynote speech for the People’s Party a few months ago but is now running as a Dem should give some clue as to the practical difficulty of running on the Left as something other than a Democrat.

Political parties are just representations of power that already exists within the society. The U.S. has two parties representing the rich because the wealthy are so incredibly strong as compared to everyone else. Unions are weak, the U.S. Left has nothing compared to the NRA or the networks of Christian fundamentalists, little in the way of ideologically supportive mass media (perhaps the internet is changing this). As a consequence, there is no significant third party on the national level and the Democratic Party generally treats us with contempt.

I don’t say this to suggest it is hopeless, or that power relationships can’t be changed, or that that change isn’t happening. My point is, that running candidates, organizing conventions and getting on ballot lines alone doesn’t actually make a party any more viable.

And I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, just venting. :slight_smile:


This is true for every topic of debate. When we decide! When?


Isn’t this debate part of the process of collective decision-making?

The point I was trying to make above, perhaps not very articulately, is that we’ll get a lot farther just having the debate than we will by calling into question other people’s (or our own) “guts” or commitment.

I don’t believe anyone in this conversation lacks commitment.

1 Like

I agree with you again.
America is not having the debate, or a vote.

I wish we would. AOC is letting us know whats up.

Mr. Dore says “hey! bring it to a vote”
She answers “they will not vote and if they do it will not be passed”
She explains that she is talking to these people chosen to make decisions and they will not vote. Most of congress will not discuss m4a or anything else for that matter. The powers that be don’t want it and most Americans don’t care.

40% 100 Million voters don’t vote (they aren’t harassing Reps or Senators)
10% (swing voters) (WTF is a swing voter, how can you not know…different topic.)
25% Democrat
25% Republican

What do you think? 1% of voters harass our reps? (HOA on up? ) ROFL!

Back to the point and why I highlighted your comment…
We need to collectively decide

Us wacky commie hippies are yelling in the mirror. I always feel better when I vent too.

Edit: I got all worked up for a minute there.
I mean half of the country just doesn’t care.
Most of the other half probably don’t care either.
That’s a bad place to start a conversation.


Well, let me try to make you feel a bit better. I don’t believe people don’t care.

I think there’s an ongoing, active effort to demoralize people. To teach them that they don’t matter and can’t change anything. The best way to describe the American electorate is beaten down and demoralized. In many ways, while the Republican party as an institution cultivates open contempt for government and collective action on behalf of private interests, Democratic leadership cultivates despair and a sense of helplessness, constantly disciplining their voters about what is “possible” and what isn’t. And so what you get is 40% (usually more, right?) not voting, and 1% harassing their reps.

But people care, when they believe caring can make a difference. That’s why majorities support government guaranteed health care. That’s why we got Occupy, and Standing Rock, and the teachers’ strikes in Red states and Bernie’s campaigns, even the Defund the Police/BLM uprising. In every one of those instances, for every person in the streets there were others who supported them or changed their minds about an issue because of them. Ordinary people who, when they believe they can change things, do extraordinary things and they will show that they care.

It’s our job to make them believe, not to make them care.


All AOC and the squad have to do is refuse to vote for speaker Pelosi until she agrees in writing to bring Medicare for all to the floor for a vote. No better time than during a pandemic.

1 Like

I like the way you look at it. I do feel better.
I like AOC because she is saying stuff the people need to hear.
Maybe they will start to care.


Then why TF is AOC and the Squad not challenging Pelosi by demanding a floor vote for M4A? If you are for M4A and think Pelosi needs to go then there is no better time to for it. If it doesn’t work then it’s time for a 3rd party. Plain and simple.


What is required is not just a change in leadership. What is required is a shift in consciousness, one that recognizes that we are tied to the earth, that we come from it, and that we are all related to each other by that fact. We were not somehow settled here after the fact as our dominant mythology states. AOC, the Squad and those like them are the leading edge of that coming shift. But huge shifts in consciousness take a long time, centuries if not millennia. Most of us will be long dead before that shift has progressed beyond these barely recognizable baby steps. Those with a vested interest are the most resistant to change, but they will be replaced, over time, by those who can see a new tomorrow, if we don’t destroy ourselves and the planet first.