This is insulting.

[sheshe2]

Link to tweet

"We get nothing"? She said we and it should have been you. She has plenty.

So that is what it is about, all or nothing. "Something" will just give you crumbs, her words.

So the choice she gives is All, because Something is just crumbs and she is not being honest and telling you that Nothing actually means the rest of us get nothing.

What would you vote for, the whole pie, just a few crumbs as she calls it which is far from the truth, or nothing at all.

Frankly it is a huge start and a far cry from where we are. We need this and need it now.

[JoeOtterbein]

1. She is doing her elected duty.

Representing us dems, many who are literally sick, from accepting crumbs for decades.

We want the whole loaf we have already paid for.

It is the morally correct, and politically smart, to follow a strong leader like President Biden.

Pass both bills or get used to accepting crumbs forever at the same time.

[sheshe2]

3. It is a huge step in the right direction for all Americans and it will be far more than crumbs.

If it is not passed, then we get nothing. Even 1.2T is not crumbs.

[JoeOtterbein]

6. I'm afraid to say it could be...

...the last crumbs we ever get, before climate change finishes us off for good.

[sheshe2]

7. Or our bridges fall, our roads melt in the heat.

High rise buildings sink then fall.

So nothing is far better something?

[Nixie]

15. +1, some bridge repairs are better than no bridge repairs.

Some infrastructure jobs are better than no infrastructure jobs.

But the brand building script must be adhered to. Now the hyped buzzword is “crumbs.”

[sheshe2]

31. Yes. Crumbs crumble.

Crumbs from a pie can be eaten,

Roads, bridges, infrastructure is not nothing. People have died and more will die. See Florida.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. What makes anyone think that any bridge, no matter how tiny, can be held up by just crumbs?

Or, am I missing your analogy in some way?

[LanternWaste]

100. Yes... you're stretching the analogy to the point it becomes meaningless.

And then changing the analogy to its literal components. In effect, moving the goalposts, and pretending the remained where they were originally.




(This post was proudly written by this poster.)

[wellst0nev0ter]

87. It takes $164bn to fix bridges

The crumbs bill only allocates $110bn for roads AND bridges

[FoxNewsSucks]

12. That's exactly right.

I'm so fucking sick of the LIBERALS being told to shut up and give in.

Let the CONSERVADEMS, the CORPORATE Dems, the wrongly-named "MODERATES" give in for once.

Fuck the billionaires, Fuck the corporations, Fuck the politicians they've bought.

I'm sick of the crumbs while they sit on trillions.

3.5 trillion ALREADY was a compromise from what was wanted. There was a deal, let the fucking conservadems honor it.

[JoeOtterbein]

29. Thank you!

For saving me time saying much the same!

[Scrivener7]

58. .

[betsuni]

65. Majorites. Democrats don't have supermajorities and a normal Republican Party like FDR had.

Nothing to do with billionaires and corporations and "bought." Why is that difficult to understand?

[iemanja]

22. Do you prefer the bill had not passed?

and the GOP won?

[JoeOtterbein]

30. Actually, I'm talking about not passing the bill repubs wanted before they decided they did not...

...want it?

Why would any of us accept those big tax breaks for big oil before we get what we need to save the planet?

Go Team Joe and Progressives!

[betsuni]

39. What big tax breaks for big oil?

Could you please tell us? Not all of us have have read the bills.

[iemanja]

49. crickets

[betsuni]

61. It's fantasy.

[iemanja]

40. Point to me the clause

of the bill that gives tax breaks for big oil. Evidence please.

[iemanja]

120. You have yet to point to a single provision in the bill

that gives tax breaks to big oil. You appear to be making things up, which is irresponsible.

That you expect every piece of legislation to solve climate change is bizarre.

[KPN]

42. Both bills will pass ... and BBB will be significantly

more than $1 to 1.5T or it will be over 3 or 4 years as opposed to 10.

Just stop with the sky is falling crap.

[iemanja]

47. Excuse me

I'm not the one yelling that the bill delivers the world to corporations.

[KPN]

88. That's a matter of perspective.

[ChubbyStar]

103. Bravo

I will be laughing all day.

[KPN]

37. I agree. The reality is the working and middle class have

gotten less over the past 4-plus decades. I’m tired of the settle for less mentality that has led to an diminished working class, a global climate that threatens sustainability of systems and species, and the rise of white male authoritarianism. Our world as a whole is far worse rather than better because of this mentality in my view. I’m tired of the villainize progressives schtick.

[iemanja]

41. Progressives voted for the bill

In case you hadn't noticed.

[treestar]

97. We aren't entitled

just because. We have to defeat Republicans.

[PortTack]

2. She as yet does not get it. Of course we would like the whole thing! Getting absolutely nothing

Is damaging in many ways.

[sheshe2]

5. Thank you.

You are correct, PortTack.

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. And giving the billionaires & corporations what they want

AGAIN, is far more damaging.

[iemanja]

23. Why not vote GOP then?

It's the same fucking thing as working against Dem legislation.

The concept of representative democracy seems to elude some of you. All legislation is compromise. To insist on something different is to favor authoritarianism.

[JoeOtterbein]

32. Exactly!

Thanks again!

[iemanja]

38. That was directed at the crowd insisting the bill was worse than nothing

because it turned out they had to share.

[KPN]

44. The public strongly supports the $3.5 T. That's not representative Democracy?

[iemanja]

48. representative democracy is what legilsators

are able to work out in congress. We don't legislate by polls.
BTW, do you have a poll that shows the majority of the public supports the 3.5 T bill?

[Scrivener7]

68. Your mistake is thinking the public's support matters one whit to Manchin and Sinema.

Because of the way the math works, they have us hostage on the 3.5T, regardless of what the public wants. They will not support it, and without their support it will not pass. It sucks, but it is the situation we are in. They are not negotiating in good faith, and there is nothing you or I or AOC or Joe can do to make them do so.

So now we need to try something else. This is the something else.

I'd much prefer the 3.5, of course. But it just isn't going to happen. That is not a failure. That is the legislative process. It is very, very ugly, and very, very unfair. But it is the system we have. So we need to realistically decide what we CAN get within that system. Insisting we want what we know isn't going to happen doesn't get us anywhere.

[betsuni]

26. What do you mean?

[JoeOtterbein]

33. He means politicians should represent their voters.

Not their critics.

It's just a matter of the politics 101.

Thankfully President Biden is leading us all to win!

[betsuni]

51. I asked what "giving billionaires & corporations what they want" means.

What in the bills do that?

[Scrivener7]

106. Crickets again. Honest to God.

Last edited Sat Oct 2, 2021, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[PortTack]

55. Arm chair politics and trying to second guess our leaders is not helpful.

Madam speaker, President Biden and leader Schumer are not selling us out. They truly have our best interest at heart, and are up against a difficult situation

[betsuni]

57. +1

[KPN]

43. And getting nothing isn't going to happen.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. She needs a whole pie

I'll let you decide what kind of pie and where it goes.

[stopdiggin]

8. I find myself agreeing with her this time

I believe in negotiation and 'half a loaf' (and I think that is ultimately where we end up here) - but I also think that the progressives have been expected to 'cave' and fall into line time after time, while other elements have been able to employ strong arm tactics - and ultimately prevail in a great deal more of their own agenda. You're not going to get your 3.5T - but we NEED some kind of social package - and without holding certain people's feet to the fire, it looks like there's a real strong chance the Senate just takes infrastructure - and walks away. Let's see some progress on both packages.

(incidentally - the little song and dance video presented - is basically just blah, blah, blah - but the larger issue of whether of whether she and her cadre ought to fold and fall into line - that's the real issue here.)

[czarjak]

9. Two trillion in profits sitting offshore would be nice to apply to the cause?

Taking it with them is still the trend.

[brush]

10. Joe Biden has just advise coming down to 2T from 3.5T so...

we have to go with that and hope we get at least two more Dem senators in the mid-terms because Sinema and Manchin are influence by forces on the right.

[msongs]

11. she's not my favorite but I don't think she is insulting that much nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

13. She's right, and it IS insulting

to LIBERALS. To WORKING PEOPLE who pay taxes. Then see that tax money be showered on BILLIONAIRES and CORPORATIONS.

Why the FUCK would anyone want to give even more to the rich and the corporations while working Americans get JACK SHIT?????

Fuck the crumbs, and fuck ANYONE who says we should settle for a crumb while Bezos and his ilk skate tax free.

[sheshe2]

18. So your vote is all or nothing?

I don't get it.

Nothing is better than something 1.2 of 2.1 Trillion dollars. That is far more than crumbs.

[FoxNewsSucks]

19. Nothing is not "better",

I don't think anyone is saying that.

But why AGAIN do we have to give up what we need and take crumbs while the billionaires feast? It's always that way. Why can't the billionaires and corporations pay their share to fund the reconciliation bill instead of expecting us to get fucked over AGAIN. I'd like to hear an explanation of that.

Biden's "Build Back Better" bill is fully funded, and adds nothing to the national debt. The so-called "bipartisan" bill is funded by borrowing which will increase the debt. It also gives corporations exactly what they want. Why is this acceptable?

[sheshe2]

21. What did I miss?

Where is this stated? Please link to it.

The so-called "bipartisan" bill is funded by borrowing which will increase the debt. It also gives corporations exactly what they want.

[FoxNewsSucks]

102. I'm sorry that you missed

all the mentions of it on the news, as well as on here concerning Manchin's hypocrisy about blocking the BBB which is paid-for, yet supporting his bipartisan bill which will increase the debt.

Corporations don't want to pay taxes, lose their welfare payments, or have their polluting restricted. The BBB, which they've donated heavily to Manchin & Sinema who are opposing it, would result in those things.

[mcar]

82. No it's not

[Autumn]

127. AOC didn't say it either. Watch the video linked in the OP, it's nothing like the OP portrays it.

Link to tweet

Word for word. What she told the legislatures in caucus when they were debating it.

Better than nothing? Isn't something better than nothing? And you know what we have to say? I stood up in front of the Caucus and I said You know, that might be an easy thing for some of you all to say.. Because when a bill passes that is underfunded that only gives a crumb .. You get that crumb, because when you only give some, and not all, then some people get nothing. Some people get nothing. Who gets nothing? We get nothing. So.. you know standing up there, in that capital.. And I was like I don't know if you all know yet by now but I'm from the Bronx. When you tell me, isn't something better than nothing? What I hear, what you are actually telling me isn't something for you better? Isn't something for you better? And why don't you accept nothing, so that I can get something. That's what is actually being said.

[lapucelle]

142. That's an interesting sign behind the sophomore representative: "Invest in the planet, not war".

We can do both if we cut funding for the F-35 fighter jet. This pet political project is a massive giveaway to the money grubbing defense industry, diverts federal funds from programs that could support working families, and is blight on the environment.

Maybe the passionate firebrand from the Bronx should aim her umbrage at career politicians who have been fighting so hard and so tirelessly, time after time for the last 7 years to secure the $1,500,000,000,000 necessary to pay for this pork.

[betsuni]

144. Yes, money out of politics! No beholden!

[betsuni]

14. Could someone explain what she means? I don't get it.

Now the bills only help rich people? I just heard a discussion where that was the talking point, and that nobody knows what's in the bills. What?

[Nixie]

17. +1, exactly. Now they are hyping a new buzzword: "crumbs"

with the brand building script being about some phantom people and crumbs.

[betsuni]

27. All of a sudden, a new script. "Nobody knows what's in the bills" and it only

helps the rich and corporations. There is no final version, is there? But the rule is always ascribe evil intentions to anything Democrats do and keep chanting both-sides-both-sides-both-sides.

Reminds me of the TPP. "It's secret, nobody knows what's in it" but they knew it only helped corporations and screws workers. Okay then.

[sheshe2]

20. Apparently some people don't.

The bill is clear as Biden stated it, yet they have no clue? It has nothing to do with the rich it is a bill for us, our future.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Support for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework

Today, President Biden and Vice President Harris announced their support for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, the largest long-term investment in our infrastructure and competitiveness in nearly a century – an investment that will make our economy more sustainable, resilient, and just.Hm. Reminds me of another bill the other day that was very confusing and rushed so the some where unable to read or understand a one page bill. A 10 minute at best.

snip

The $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework is a critical step in implementing President Biden’s Build Back Better vision. The Plan makes transformational and historic investments in clean transportation infrastructure, clean water infrastructure, universal broadband infrastructure, clean power infrastructure, remediation of legacy pollution, and resilience to the changing climate. Cumulatively across these areas, the Framework invests two-thirds of the resources that the President proposed in his American Jobs Plan.

President Biden believes that we must invest in our country and in our people, creating good-paying union jobs, tackling the climate crisis, and growing the economy sustainably, and equitably for decades to come. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework is a critical step in accomplishing these objectives.

President Biden believes that we are at inflection point between democracy and autocracy. At this moment in our history, President Biden believes we must demonstrate to the world that American democracy can deliver for the American people. Today, the President is showing that democracy can deliver results. The Framework will position American workers, farmers, and businesses – small and large alike – to compete and win in the 21st century.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/24/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-support-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-framework/

Guess they didn't have time to read the bill or understand what is is about.

Reminds me of another bill the other day. It was one page and some had no clue what it was about. Voted present and no. Our representives from both houses owe us more than grandstanding.

[betsuni]

60. "Guess they didn't have time to read the bill or understand what it is about."

Yes.

[iemanja]

24. I'm amazed

How many people in this thread are upset the Republicans didn't succeed in blocking the bill.

[JoeOtterbein]

34. L...

...Out Loud!

Thanks for posting again!

[BradAllison]

35. It's like their ignoring that much of this Joe Biden's work

Certain people in our own party are basically calling Joe Biden radical.

It's weird how these people can pull the knives on AOC and act like carving up these bills isn't an attack on him.

[KPN]

45. Exactly.

[PortTack]

50. Ouch..the truth hurts

[BlueLucy]

36. I'm afraid we are all arguing with one another for no reason.

I'm starting to believe Sinema will not vote on any of our bills. I think Manchin will. In my opinion Sinema has likely already made promises to the donors that held a fundraiser for her last week. She left D.C early this morning without trying to negotiate anything.

[Celerity]

46. AOC rocks.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I totally agree. She's got honesty and integrity...

And she sends RWers into spasms of hate and nitpickery. What's there not to like about her?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. She also sends Republicans into spasms of hate a nitpickery!

[KPN]

90. Some Dems too apparently ...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. That was covered by the post I responded to...

[KPN]

96. Lol ... what happens when you scroll through posts and interject

randomly.

[Nixie]

115. Actually, Republicans and RWers are always promoting her...

Just like they favored Bernie.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. Always? What alternate reality universe does that happen in?

They hate her. They froth at the mouth about her. MTG followed her around verbally abusing her. How is that promoting her?

[Nixie]

141. Oh please. They are always trying to make the socialist

stigma stick to every Democrat. And that’s been happening since 2015 with those that call themselves Democratic Socialists. They go out of their way to make every Democrat a socialist now. They love it. And she joins in the inane Twitter wars, which they also love.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. Republicans are trying to promote her by calling her a socialist?

And socialist is a stigma and they call her that anyway coz they're trying to promote her? Uh huh. Can't say I'm following yr thought process here...

I'm a socialist and I live in a country where socialism is ingrained into both conservative and left-wing political parties. What's wrong with being a socialist? Assuming 'they' is Republicans. Who gives a flying fuck what 'they' think, given that they're anti-democracy fascists?

[Nixie]

145. You don't need to worry about American elections, then, but

I’ve seen it close up and have to live with it. It’s okay that you don’t understand what I’ve seen especially since 2015 with how Republicans want to promote AOC’s association with socialism as a way to stigmatize Democrats with the socialism label. The obvious implication is that they are trying to marginalize all Democrats as extreme and they promote her to do so.

You don’t need to be hung up on “promote.” They are not trying to promote her to an esteemed position. It’s an in-your-face “promotion.”

And how naive to say who gives a fvck about what Republicans think. They are the opposition party and you have to watch your back. That’s basic politics, anyway. Very basic.

[betsuni]

146. +1

[KPN]

89. Yup ... and I find this OP insulting.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. No, it's not. This, on the other hand, is totally insulting...

https://democraticunderground.com/10142807029

Manchin wants the US to control the reproductive rights of women around the world. As a woman there's nothing else more insulting.

[iemanja]

54. Unfortunately the Hyde Amendment is already law

It prohibits federal funding for abortions. It would not alter abortion law in other countries, which are of course sovereign. It does mean that the US cannot provide abortions oversees since that would be with federal funds.

Politicians posture with it to appease their RW, anti-woman voters. And Manchin is both.

[Scrivener7]

59. I put this into the same column as the voters who say they didn't vote for Hillary because she

didn't excite them.

Politics is not about tingles, and a Democratic political system is NEVER about getting it all. I agree to the extent that republiQans have rigged the system so the minority has too much sway.

But part of that is because Democrats often do this. They don't take what they can get and move the ball forward a few yards. Because they want to kick it through the goal posts. It almost never happens.

Incrementalism is a dirty word for some here. But the rejection to incrementalism among our own has often kept us from moving at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. AOC is advocating for the bills that President Biden wants - that a majority of the country wants

and what they expected when they voted for Democrats. The problem is a small number of Democratic representatives who insist their position must prevail since they are adjacent to the Republicans (and we should be clear that is the reason they are doing it - they want to give the Republicans something - they are putting the Republican party above the wishes of the country).

So, no, nothing like "the voters who say they didn't vote for Hillary because she didn't excite them" at all. That could be one of the worst analogies I've seen on DU.

[Scrivener7]

63. I understand. But if we get the same things funded for 5 years instead of 10,

we get 5 years. And after 5 years, no one is going to want to stop funding them.

Saying we must get it all will simply not get it all. It may get us nothing. Manchin and Sinema DO have us by the balls. There is little will to twist their arms (which would be my preferred method of dealing with this), so now what are we going to do about it?

[sheshe2]

137. Thank you for your post.

And this, so true.

Incrementalism is a dirty word for some here. But the rejection to incrementalism among our own has often kept us from moving at all.

[Scrivener7]

138. Hey, sheshe! And thank you for ALL of yours!

[sheshe2]

140. It all boggles my mind sometimes.

[Efilroft Sul]

64. AOC calls out those who don't negotiate in good faith, and some here find her insulting.

Interesting.

[Scrivener7]

66. But the fact is that they are not negotiating in good faith, and they will not.

You can't change that and I can't change that. The way the math works, Manchin And Sinema have us by the balls. It is not a nice situation, but it is a fact.

So now, we can either move around them or stand in front of them and yell powerful words. That move us nowhere.

Joe has expressed support for this bipartisan bill to move around them.

[Efilroft Sul]

67. Totally get your point. But to see people here attack AOC and not the bad-faith negotiators...

…is not a good look. It's like lecturing a victim who fought back against a bully instead of acknowledging who is really at fault.

[Scrivener7]

69. But I have to say that this is a hard sell by Joe and the people who want to pass the bill.

Those of us who are not Manchin and Sinema should be showing a united front. I know it is not entirely honest. I know we all think the compromise sucks, but the press always makes hay about our willingness to express that emotion.

For once, I would like to see us all saying, "OK. Here is the thing we are going to do. We are all behind it, there is no soft underbelly to be picked at, we are solid."

I appreciate AOC. Unlike Manchin and Sinema, she is a person who is working in good faith in her efforts to move the ball left. Manchin and Sinema are not working in good faith.

But at this point, we really have to change our tune. We have to assess the landscape, see what we can do to move these really essential things forward in the time we have, and present a "Don't even think about trying to oppose us" kind of united front.

We need to do this both for the public perception, which right now sees us as squishy and ineffectual and I fear that will affect us in 2022, and we need to do it just to get the shit done we need to get done.

ETA: Also, I think her characterization of "crumbs" is a big mistake and one she is too smart to have made. We want to get Democrats elected. When Democrats pass something, we need to sell it. Again, I understand that it's not optimal, but we have to present it to the average uninformed voter as a great achievement that shows Democrats as strong and effective. We need to win in 2022.

[Efilroft Sul]

79. Nice response. Truly.

I'm with you on perceptions for 2022. I'd also add 2022 and 2024 GOTV won't mean a hill of beans if the Democrats don't strengthen voter protections and free and fair elections. The Democrats need to pass significant legislation that thwarts all the devil's work the Republicans are doing at the state level.

This is where your "Don't even think of trying to oppose us" really needs to be laid down to the bad-faith negotiators. Budget fights and reconciliation are one thing, but not protecting the franchise is an existential threat to democracy. When the history books are written on this era, I don't want them to say it was a handful of Democrats who enabled the Republicans to bring down the curtain on representative government.

[Scrivener7]

80. Yes. The election protection is the most important thing, and I will be very nervous till we get it

done.

[mcar]

86. +1000!

[Hotler]

92. Some here find any views left of center insulting. nt

[Autumn]

70. What is insulting is what they have given to the wealthy, corporations, the military budget

and what they have spent on their endless wars for their profit and then turn around and cut down what the people need and what we need to save the only fucking planet we have. There's your fucking insult right there. It's not a huge start, it's bullshit.

[betsuni]

71. Who is "they"?

Republicans, of course!

[Autumn]

72. Think about it for a minute betsuni. It will come to you. Maybe.

[betsuni]

73. What, Autumn? Republicans?

[Autumn]

74. Who betsuni. Not what.

[betsuni]

75. You said "think about it for a minute" and I said "What?"

"It" isn't "who."

[Autumn]

76. Think about your question for a minute betsuni. You can figure it out.

[betsuni]

77. Here we go.

[Autumn]

78. Yeah here we go. If you slept through the last 8 years that you have to ask who it's not my place

to clue you in.

[betsuni]

81. "It will come to you" and I've "slept though the last 8 years."

Personal insults.

[Autumn]

84. Sometimes when you ask a question the answer might just make you mad. Oh well.

[betsuni]

85. I'm supposed to get mad? At what?

[ChubbyStar]

104. Hello Autumn

I have really enjoyed this exchange, you make me so happy. Thank you.

[Autumn]

105. I'm so happy seeing you! I've missed you.

[iemanja]

98. What in this bill is given to the wealthy?

No one will answer that question. If you could point to specific passages, that would be very helpful.
Thank you.

[Autumn]

99. Massive fail there. What they have spent on their endless wars and the military budget is a

couple of big fucking clues that I'm not talking about this bill. I'm talking about politicians and what IS insulting. You're welcome

[Scrivener7]

107. So you are just ranting about republiQans in general and not talking about this

bill?

[Autumn]

109. No I'm not talking about the bill. Neither is the OP so my post is right on fucking target. If your

offended that I'm ranting about Republicans instead of AOC that's not my problem, it's yours

[Scrivener7]

110. You seem upset.

[Autumn]

111. You seems bothered that I'm ranting about republicans instead of ranting about a Progressive.

[Scrivener7]

112. You have a nice night, now.

[Nixie]

114. But the questions were about this bill.

Is the bill about a war??

[Autumn]

118. My original post was a response to the OP. There is not one question in the OP. The OP was not about

a bill. It was about what the OP found to be insulting that was said by a Democrat.

This was my post to the OP

Autumn (40,749 posts)

70. What is insulting is what they have given to the wealthy, corporations, the military budget

and what they have spent on their endless wars for their profit and then turn around and cut down what the people need and what we need to save the only fucking planet we have. There's your fucking insult right there. It's not a huge start, it's bullshit.

Notice the word wealthy?

iemanja (47,099 posts)

98. What in this bill is given to the wealthy?

No one will answer that question. If you could point to specific passages, that would be very helpful.
Thank you.

Remember the word wealthy in my post? And I certainly didn't say that the bill gave any funding to their wars or tax breaks to the wealthy or added to the military budget. If that poster, and you didn't read my post just jumped in expecting me to explain something I never said... I don't owe them, or you an answer to that question. I said nothing about what was in Biden's bill.

Just explained what I find insulting. Which is the actions by Republicans, not a young Democrat who supports Biden's agenda. YMOV

[iemanja]

119. In the video linked in the OP, AOC says the 1T bill is worse than passing nothing

which is what her defenders are echoing, yet not a one can point to a single provision that does what they claim.

But thanks for your off-topic free association. No one disagrees that an obscene level of expenses is spent on war, but then you knew that.

[Autumn]

125. Might want to watch that video again. Because she did not say the bill is worse than passing nothing

You fell for someone putting words in AOC's mouth that she didn't say Something's off topic but it's not me. You bet I'll defend her from anyone who want to lie about what she said. Especially when her words are in the video that is linked that anyone can watch.

AOC did NOT say the bill is worse than passing nothing. That's a bald face lie.

This is what she said in that video. Word for word.

Better than nothing? Isn't something better than nothing? And you know what we have to say? I stood up in front of the Caucus and I said You know, that might be an easy thing for some of you all to say.. Because when a bill passes that is underfunded that only gives a crumb .. You get that crumb, because when you only give some, and not all, then some people get nothing. Some people get nothing. Who gets nothing? We get nothing. So.. you know standing up there, in that capital.. And I was like I don't know if you all know yet by now but I'm from the Bronx. When you tell me, isn't something better than nothing? What I hear, what you are actually telling me isn't something for you better? Isn't something for you better? And why don't you accept nothing, so that I can get something. That's what is actually being said.

[iemanja]

128. The quote contradicts your claim

If all you have to say is that you Stan AOC, that's not a real discussion. It's boring. I don't have patience for cults of personality. They are the lowest common denominator in politics. I was actually interested in the issue, in the responses that people made upthread insisting the bill was a give away to the rich, something you appeared to echo, before I realized you were just being a fan girl. Have at it.

[Autumn]

129. No it does not. She did not say that the bill is worse than passing nothing.

From the video.

Better than nothing? Isn't something better than nothing? And you know what we have to say? I stood up in front of the Caucus and I said You know, that might be an easy thing for some of you all to say.. Because when a bill passes that is underfunded that only gives a crumb .. You get that crumb, because when you only give some, and not all, then some people get nothing. Some people get nothing. Who gets nothing? We get nothing. So.. you know standing up there, in that capital.. And I was like I don't know if you all know yet by now but I'm from the Bronx. When you tell me, isn't something better than nothing? What I hear, what you are actually telling me isn't something for you better? Isn't something for you better? And why don't you accept nothing, so that I can get something. That's what is actually being said

.

[iemanja]

130. She asked the question multiple times

and her clear point is that it is not better than nothing. She is arguing against that contention. She refers to the 1T infrastructure bill as "crumbs."

[mcar]

83. It is insulting, she

Some elected officials are actively trying to get something done; others are muddying the waters.

[gulliver]

91. We should not be playing the blame game among Dems for any reason ever.

We're in a burning house. Job one is unity, and that means compromise and cooperation.

[iemanja]

121. compromise

is exactly what AOC and her acolytes oppose.

[Autumn]

93. What is insulting is Manchin and Sinema attempting to kill Biden's agenda and people giving them

cover for it. Not AOC who supports Biden's agenda and Americans.

But that's just me.

[Scrivener7]

94. Biden endorsed this bill.

[iemanja]

122. Because this site is full of Manchin and Sinema supporters

[questionseverything]

101. I feel like I fell down a rabbit hole

Aoc is supporting what Biden and pelosi want which is both bills passed together

How can anyone on du be against Biden, pelosi and most of our caucus to support manchin and senima?

[Sympthsical]

108. It's the weekend

Kind of absently started taking a mental note of it over the summer, because it kept happening.

Every Friday-ish, there's an anti-progressive thing put up. Usually AOC gets worked in somehow. Sometimes not.

By the end of the weekend, it's pretty built up. Not really a discussion. Just sniping.

Usually peters out by Monday.

Look for it next Friday. It'll be there.

Things is, despite the size, a cumulative frequency narrows it down to literally, like, six responsible up to the 90th percentile.

It's kind of really funny. I've been so busy all week. Two major papers, a whole work thing, had contractors coming to the house, etc. I literally had no idea what day it was any more. When I saw the thread, I said, "Wait, is it the weekend already?" Checked. Saw it was Friday.

I was amused with myself.

[Nixie]

113. That's why you should read for content instead of your

fervent focus on DUers. You would see there’s a video of AOC speaking, which is what this thread is about. In between the pages of threads about Manchin and Sinema, there’s an occasional thread about AOC, and this thread is about her speaking in the video posted.

[Sympthsical]

116. Nah, I'm good

Food for thought:

Mind the camera.

[Nixie]

117. Well, at least you admit that you didn't read this

thread for content. That definitely explains your response that has nothing to do with the thread but is focused on DUers.

[Sympthsical]

123. It wasn't an admission

It was honestly closer to bragging.

[Nixie]

132. Cool. I impress myself all the time, too.

[sheshe2]

124. ...

[Nixie]

133. ....

Hi she!

👍

[sheshe2]

134. Hey Nixie.

Always good to see you.

[Nixie]

135. Always good to see you, too, she.

[nini]

126. I'm so sick of her

As some one was without anything a time or two, something would have helped immensely.

The argument should be to get what we can now with the current situation and build on it. All or nothing gets us NO WHERE.

[sheshe2]

131. Incremental steps.

Yes.

[Doremus]

136. Let them do what they have to do.

For the first time in many years they're proving they have balls.

Manchin said $1.5 and we won. Whatever number they land on from here it's a huge win in many more ways than one.