Citizen scientist; anthropologist; erstwhile "progressive" now operating as a non-identitarian leftist; farmer and cook; Columbia Univ. and The New School
@OrvilleLloyd@MeidasTouch Jeffries in early October: “I think the sky's the limit for her in terms of how she decides to move forward.” AOC is paying fealty to Jeffries as her perceived kingmaker.
So the democratic whip, whose job was to get members to vote, hosted an EDW/@AIPAC event that caused democrats to miss the vote? Israel wins again in the clutch.
BREAKING: The 11 House Democrats who missed the vote that killed Thomas Massie's Hegseth impeachment resolution have all received significant pro-Israel AIPAC money in Congress.
Just seven of them voting against the referral motion would have flipped the 211-204 result.
Haley Stevens (MI): $15.9M
Laura Gillen (NY): $551K
Marilyn Strickland (WA): $371K
Steven Horsford (NV): $214K
Nancy Pelosi (CA): $166K
Julia Brownley (CA): $134K
Brittany Pettersen (CO): $125K
Lou Correa (CA): $80K
Frederica Wilson (FL): $39K
Melanie Stansbury (NM): $28K
Jonathan Jackson (IL): $21K
Haley Stevens is the highest AIPAC recipient in Congress.
These are the 11 House Democrats who didn't show up to vote on impeaching Pete Hegseth: Julia Brownley, Lou Correa, Laura Gillen, Steven Horsford, Jonathan Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Brittany Pettersen, Melanie Stansbury, Haley Stevens, Marilyn Strickland and Frederica Wilson.
Jeffries is threatening to withhold committee assignments from anyone who does not pledge their support for him to become speaker. So a loyalty pledge — sound familiar? Haven’t we had enough of governing by threat?? Isn’t this exactly what we just voted against?
@NathanJRobinson Well, here's a clue regarding AOC: In early October Jeffries said “I think the sky's the limit for her in terms of how she decides to move forward.”
AOC is paying fealty to Jeffries as her perceived kingmaker.
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr I made my case against a "private option" in my preceding comments. And, I repeat, to date there has been no legislation proposal for one, only vague discourse that muddies all waters. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr Basically you're arguing that giving voters what they want is not a politically feasible proposition, and I'd have to admit that evidence supports it within our current anti-democratic system. Why should we support its initiatives, "feasible" or not, when they harm our interests?
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr M4All is absolutely feasible IF Congress pursues it. If you insist it isn't feasible, then you're admitting that Congress has no interest in doing so. You still haven't outlined what you consider a "feasible" and "incremental" step that Congress can take toward M4All.
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr As I've tried to outline, any single-payer system not subject to government oversight and regulation is not an "increment" that merely fails to go far enough, and there is no proposed program to compete with M4All.
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr Whether or not members of Congress will now actually respond to their mandate is at issue now, but post-midterms their words and actions are beyond disappointing.
@JDotx@JohnDol75897610@MsWinterrrr ...on the the very “progressive” issues that most concern them. Maybe it’s time we start thinking of these voters as “moderates” rather than cadres of fringe factions pushing unpopular agendas.