Thank fucking god. Cannot afford to lose any more good progressives like her.
Yeah, losing Cori Bush sucked. She singlehandedly forced Biden to extend the eviction moratorium, just because of her own life experience.
Can't she run as an independent?
She should.
She really shouldn't, though. In our FPTP system without ranked-choice voting, that unfortunately means that instead of her or the candidate AIPAC corruptly funneled in millions to boot her out, a Republican could take the position instead, and we really can't afford that in the House this race.
In our FPTP system without ranked-choice voting, that unfortunately means that instead of her or the candidate AIPAC corruptly funneled in millions to boot her out, a Republican could take the position instead
That's how it works with presidential elections and others where the party nominees are the ones with the most support.
AIPAC buying the primary notwithstanding, she would be by far the best known and most popular candidate to run and being cheated by a genocide apologia factory and their handpicked empty shell candidate is an excellent additional narrative to run on in addition to her stellar work in Congress.
If she couldn't win the primary, how can she win the general? Not like AIPAC will just stop influencing the election.
People were caught off guard. It's extremely liked that most of the people swayed by the smears AIPAC paid for didn't know that the deceptively named United Democracy Project was actually hidden foreign election meddling.
It's much more likely that people know now and I don't know about you, but I'd be pissed off if I was them.
Fuck that. A Democrat that votes against democratic policies; another Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema is worth less than the dirt on my boots.
And if that means running as an independent to beat a democrat, so be it. I'm not here to support a team.
I think she should absolutely run as an independent. AIPAC candidates are basically fascists.
She could, don't know if she will or has a shot.
She'd probably be the favorite. A lot of people probably didn't know that they were being gaslighted or even that AIPAC was the source and are rightly pissed off about it.
Whether she will run, though, I have no idea.
I think you're really overestimating the Palestine issue on the general voting population. She made some other major mistakes that hurt her in the primary. Coming out so strongly against the infrastructure bill that has been such an immediate positive impact in so many people's lives for instance.
Coming out so strongly against the infrastructure bill that has been such an immediate positive impact in so many people's lives for instance.
She voted against it because the good parts didn't gi anywhere near far enough, the bad parts such as mass privatization of critical infrastructure went too far, and the DNC leadership split the best parts off into a separate bill that they then let die, in spite of explicitly promising not to.
It's nowhere near as good as it's made out to be by neoliberals, the billionaire-owned media, and other loyalists to the party leadership, and she was right to withdraw her support after they broke that promise and doomed the parts she was championing.
Yeah I've heard her arguments, it's just that voters don't appreciate those arguments clearly. They've made that loud and clear to her in particular. Most voters would prefer to take one step forward than standing still. They prefer a little good to a hypothetical perfect. They would rather politicians do things that help them and their community right now. So when you go out against a bill that people can see tangible effects from, people who are desperate for something anything to help them, you've kind of missed the point of Public Service. It's a lesson some progressives never seem to learn. Progressive change is made, just as the word implies, progressively. Step by step by step. You can't make things better if you never start making things better.
Most voters would prefer to take one step forward than standing still. They prefer a little good to a hypothetical perfect
If only! That bill was very much half a step forward, three steps back when it came to both infrastructure and climate change.
They would rather politicians do things that help them and their community right now
That's not the net effect though. The parts nobody talks about, such as the privatization of critical infrastructure and increasing fossil fuel leases many times over harm a lot more than the things constantly promoted help.
So when you go out against a bill that people can see tangible effects from,
Which included a lot more bad things that they weren't told about by the party and the billionaire-owned media. Even the far right echo chamber didn't talk about those things because they considers them good and didn't want to give the Dems any credit.
people who are desperate for something anything to help them
People who are being lied to by both omission and exaggeration
you've kind of missed the point of Public Service.
On the contrary. Cori Bush was honest about what was in the bill, what wasn't, and why she voted against it.
The DNC leadership and the media, on the other hand, gaslighted people into supporting something that wasn't what they told people. As is almost always the case, the bill has the net effect of helping people a little bit while harming them a lot to enrich the owner donors.
That's not public service. That's lies and corruption.
You can't make things better if you never start making things better.
You also can't make things better by making things worse and then lying about it.
The bill gives crumbs to regular people and climate change mitigation in exchange for entire loaves for exploitative private industry including the fossil fuel industries.
same here; hearing about all of the people who have been displaced by aipac was starting to make me thing that money was the end all and be all of our world.
Thank fucking god. Cannot afford to lose any more good progressives like her.
Yeah, losing Cori Bush sucked. She singlehandedly forced Biden to extend the eviction moratorium, just because of her own life experience.
Can't she run as an independent?
She should.
She really shouldn't, though. In our FPTP system without ranked-choice voting, that unfortunately means that instead of her or the candidate AIPAC corruptly funneled in millions to boot her out, a Republican could take the position instead, and we really can't afford that in the House this race.
That's how it works with presidential elections and others where the party nominees are the ones with the most support.
AIPAC buying the primary notwithstanding, she would be by far the best known and most popular candidate to run and being cheated by a genocide apologia factory and their handpicked empty shell candidate is an excellent additional narrative to run on in addition to her stellar work in Congress.
If she couldn't win the primary, how can she win the general? Not like AIPAC will just stop influencing the election.
People were caught off guard. It's extremely liked that most of the people swayed by the smears AIPAC paid for didn't know that the deceptively named United Democracy Project was actually hidden foreign election meddling.
It's much more likely that people know now and I don't know about you, but I'd be pissed off if I was them.
Fuck that. A Democrat that votes against democratic policies; another Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema is worth less than the dirt on my boots.
And if that means running as an independent to beat a democrat, so be it. I'm not here to support a team.
I think she should absolutely run as an independent. AIPAC candidates are basically fascists.
She could, don't know if she will or has a shot.
She'd probably be the favorite. A lot of people probably didn't know that they were being gaslighted or even that AIPAC was the source and are rightly pissed off about it.
Whether she will run, though, I have no idea.
I think you're really overestimating the Palestine issue on the general voting population. She made some other major mistakes that hurt her in the primary. Coming out so strongly against the infrastructure bill that has been such an immediate positive impact in so many people's lives for instance.
She voted against it because the good parts didn't gi anywhere near far enough, the bad parts such as mass privatization of critical infrastructure went too far, and the DNC leadership split the best parts off into a separate bill that they then let die, in spite of explicitly promising not to.
It's nowhere near as good as it's made out to be by neoliberals, the billionaire-owned media, and other loyalists to the party leadership, and she was right to withdraw her support after they broke that promise and doomed the parts she was championing.
Yeah I've heard her arguments, it's just that voters don't appreciate those arguments clearly. They've made that loud and clear to her in particular. Most voters would prefer to take one step forward than standing still. They prefer a little good to a hypothetical perfect. They would rather politicians do things that help them and their community right now. So when you go out against a bill that people can see tangible effects from, people who are desperate for something anything to help them, you've kind of missed the point of Public Service. It's a lesson some progressives never seem to learn. Progressive change is made, just as the word implies, progressively. Step by step by step. You can't make things better if you never start making things better.
If only! That bill was very much half a step forward, three steps back when it came to both infrastructure and climate change.
That's not the net effect though. The parts nobody talks about, such as the privatization of critical infrastructure and increasing fossil fuel leases many times over harm a lot more than the things constantly promoted help.
Which included a lot more bad things that they weren't told about by the party and the billionaire-owned media. Even the far right echo chamber didn't talk about those things because they considers them good and didn't want to give the Dems any credit.
People who are being lied to by both omission and exaggeration
On the contrary. Cori Bush was honest about what was in the bill, what wasn't, and why she voted against it.
The DNC leadership and the media, on the other hand, gaslighted people into supporting something that wasn't what they told people. As is almost always the case, the bill has the net effect of helping people a little bit while harming them a lot to enrich the owner donors.
That's not public service. That's lies and corruption.
You also can't make things better by making things worse and then lying about it.
The bill gives crumbs to regular people and climate change mitigation in exchange for entire loaves for exploitative private industry including the fossil fuel industries.
same here; hearing about all of the people who have been displaced by aipac was starting to make me thing that money was the end all and be all of our world.