Yeah but what points did Sam land? He argued for giving money to corporate dems who have been ruthless with progressives you aren’t gonna grease any wheels , I think also you can sell out to be a careerist aoc for sure has that energy the tax the rich dress comes to mind. He argued mcarthy would be speaker he would not , he’s basically arguing never to use leverage like I said he he never would’ve ran aoc by the way he dismiss the Arizona progressive not saying she’d have won but that isn’t the point even the point about woman’s suffrage he acts like at the time it was a forgone conclusion woman would get the vote no it wasn’t , he argues to do nothing that’s not a point
Hinkle’s basic premise was that the squad are sellouts and Harris defends these sellouts, and that we could somehow get better progressive policy outcomes if they weren’t sellouts and he came with all his arguments prepared.
He didn’t make a strong case though.
Like the part about the 12% increase in State department funding. I certainly don’t think 3 or 4 House members have the power to get major foreign policy concessions by blocking the vote. Do you really think the military-industrial complex will say “Hey since you stalled our 12% funding increase we’ll go ahead and end the Cuban embargo or stop drone strikes in Yemen”? I think the corporate Dems would find some way to fukk them out of some other policy matter that may be unrelated as getback.
Hinkle kept saying the squad got no concessions. That isn’t true. Most of the concessions came in BBB. Hinkle points out that obviously BBB didn’t get passed but that’s because it failed in the Senate. It was assumed to be passed into law and it wasn’t. All 6 squad members voted no on BIF like they were supposed to.