• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Democrats to AOC "You aren't supposed to go after other Democrats" as they hope to get her to fall into line

Oct 28, 2017
6,578
Which is good, being tenacious is something which can be necessary. What hurts her cause is when it's not in the right place or right time. She's got a job to do. Do you want her to do that job?
I'm not her constituent, but if I was, I would want her to do her job which is to not go meekly into that centrist night and call out the rot in the Democratic party.

If we are to move this party to the left, it's not going to be some falling in line bullshit. It's going to be a struggle and we're going to ruffle the feathers of the establishment. We can't just rely on us simply voting the right people into office and then sitting back in contentment. We must always agitate to the left. This is what AOC is doing. Despite her short time in office, she's already shifted the Overton window to the left simply by talking about a 70% marginal rate on high earners.

And to be honest, the fact that even Democrats are afraid of getting a mean tweet from her is refreshing.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
She's a congresswoman in her second week on the job. "AOC's leadership'" jesus. You'd think she was already in the Oval Office going by her critics here.
She's getting the scrutiny of a freshman in a high profile position, why would you assume nobody would be doing this? She's national figure and one of the most famous politicians in the country.

Do you want AOC in leadership? How she acts will impact how that goes. Don't simply think short term, think long term.

I don't really care about shit like "legacy" and PR wins or whatever the fuck. I only care about the human costs of this administration, now and in the future. Just because they're not doing as much damage as they could be doesn't negate the damage they are doing in the slightest, nor is it any comfort to me. The Trump Presidency being generally lame duck is not really a consolation prize worth speaking of. I'd give anything to have a lame duck Hillary presidency instead.
You should. That's how we combat the human costs of Trump's administration, with the Dems working together in congress.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
I'm not her constituent, but if I was, I would want her to do her job which is to not go meekly into that centrist night and call out the rot in the Democratic party.

If we are to move this party to the left, it's not going to be some falling in line bullshit. It's going to be a struggle and we're going to ruffle the feathers of the establishment. We can't just rely on us simply voting the right people into office and then sitting back in contentment. We must always agitate to the left. This is what AOC is doing. Despite her short time in office, she's already shifted the Overton window to the left simply by talking about a 70% marginal rate on high earners.

And to be honest, the fact that even Democrats are afraid of getting a mean tweet from her is refreshing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
I'm a pseudo-revolutionary socialist. I believe the American experiment has already failed and is on its way out. The only question pertinent to me is "where do we go next?"

Not only do I think restoring the norms of the Bush-Clinton years or the Kennedy-Nixon years is an impossible task, I don't even think it's desirable.
How is AOC alienating her own party going to save lives? It'd do the opposite. She can't help anybody by getting her bills being voted down, or not getting leadership positions.
If a Congressman is not going to vote in the interests of the people just because AOC tweeted nastily about them, they deserve to be primaried and dragged for it in public. This is how I want to see principles restored in Congress.
How's that Obama "legacy" working out for you?
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
If a Congressman is not going to vote in the interests of the people just because AOC tweeted nastily about them, they deserve to be primaried and dragged for it in public. This is how I want to see principles restored in Congress.
It's more than a few tweets. It's AOC job to get congress to help her achieve her objectives. Her not being able to get votes or being able to rise by alienating her own colleagues would be her own fault. Ultimately, it's about getting results. This won't restore anything in congress, AOC isn't calling the shots here.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
Don't simply think short term, think long term.
So, in the long term, AOC is a signal for a leftward movement in the Democratic party. The significance of that movement, in my opinion, will hinge on how well its leaders, currently AOC, Tlaib and Oman stay their course. If you want to talk long term, think about what you want the Democratic party to look like after everyone over 60 is retired or dead.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
When you're 40 pushing 50, who do you want in Congress, and what do you want them to stand for? Ocasio-Cortez, or someone else? A demsoc, a socdem, or maybe even a neoneoliberal?
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
So, in the long term, AOC is a signal for a leftward movement in the Democratic party. The significance of that movement, in my opinion, will hinge on how well its leaders, currently AOC, Tlaib and Oman stay their course. If you want to talk long term, think about what you want the Democratic party to look like after everyone over 60 is retired or dead.
This assumes they succeed in doing that. Alienating the majority of the party and leadership will condemn her to the sidelines, not ascend to Speaker. Staying this course will only result in disappointment and alienation, which I don't think needs to happen. I do think about what the party will look like, that's what I've been trying to tell why this route is a bad idea. She's not simply going assume the mantle of Speaker when the current crop retire or die, they'll have their own people waiting in the wings. They're very good at doing this, it's why Pelosi remains the leader in the House.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
I do think about what the party will look like, that's what I've been trying to tell why this route is a bad idea. She's not simply going assume the mantle of Speaker when the current crop retire or die, they'll have their own people waiting in the wings. They're very good at doing this, it's why Pelosi remains the leader in the House.
So rather than thinking AOC needs her "own people in the wings", you want her to become one of Pelosi's "people"?

Do you not see the contradiction here? By the nature of political gatekeeping mechanisms, those brought into the inner fold of the machine become part of the machine. As a general rule, machine politics do not permit revolutionary elements. Do you want her to be part of the machine or part of a revolution?

If you think she's going to be our socialist Manchurian Candidate you're even more deluded than other people accuse me of being.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
So rather than thinking AOC needs her "own people in the wings", you want her to become one of Pelosi's "people"?
She needs both, this isn't mutually exclusive. Her straightest line to the Speaker role is to be one of Pelosi's people.

Do you not see the contradiction here? By the nature of political gatekeeping mechanisms, those brought into the inner fold of the machine become part of the machine. As a general rule, machine politics do not permit revolutionary elements. Do you want her to be part of the machine or part of a revolution?
It's about the job she signed up for. By becoming a member of congress she chose to become a part of the machine. Her job is to reform from the inside, which has its challenges. If you want a radical revolution the Justice Democrats are the wrong horse to back.

If you think she's going to be our socialist Manchurian Candidate you're even more deluded than other people accuse me of being.
???
 
Last edited:

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
You signal for the House you want by sticking to your principles. No change has even been achieved by not loudly agitating for change.
you don't elect a person to shout about change you elect a person to enact change

Isn't he asking for what he wants?
you can ask santa for a pony all you want but in the end you're going to have to play the knockoff videogame that Marge got you

 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
You signal for the House you want by sticking to your principles. No change has even been achieved by not loudly agitating for change.
That's not how congress works. You could do that, of course, but you won't get many bills through and be a laughing stock. This is what Paul Ryan did as Speaker.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
That's not how congress works. You could do that, of course, but you won't get many bills through and be a laughing stock. This is what Paul Ryan did as Speaker.
Weren't you the one telling me to look long term? Long term I'm aiming for socio-cultural shifts in America. AOC's limelight is, currently, instrumental to the shift I desire. What this shift absolutely does not need is for her to fade into the crowd or to "fall in line". Cultural movements live and die by their public faces.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
Weren't you the one telling me to look long term? Long term I'm aiming for socio-cultural shifts in America. AOC's limelight is, currently, instrumental to the shift I desire. What this shift absolutely does not need is for her to fade into the crowd or to "fall in line".
Great! I agree. It absolutely does rely on her "falling in line." That's part of the journey, what you're asking for is something which requires decades of moving the overton window left, which AOC could be instrumental in doing. But she can only do that from the inside, and if she ignores how the inside works she'll be wasting everybody's time there. She needs to figure out how to thrive in the system, her career depends on it. I'm not suggesting she fade, I'm suggesting she find methods to use the system in her favour. That's why she's there. I don't know the answers to these questions but it's vital for her to find them.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
Great! I agree. It absolutely does rely on her "falling in line." That's part of the journey, what you're asking for is something which requires decades of moving the overton window left, which AOC could be instrumental in doing. But she can only do that from the inside, and if she ignores how the inside works she'll be wasting everybody's time there. She needs to figure out how to thrive in the system, her career depends on it.
No, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I can't think of any revolutionary statesmen who accomplished their revolution via the very system they sought to revolutionize, unless you're thinking of, I don't know, Reagan or Thatcher. Do you want her to be the left's Reagan? I've already assigned that job to Bernie in my head.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
No, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I can't think of any revolutionary statesmen who accomplished their revolution via the very system they sought to revolutionize, unless you're thinking of, I don't know, Reagan or Thatcher. Do you want her to be the left's Reagan? I've already assigned that job to Bernie in my head.
Here's the thing though. You're not putting AoC in the position of being an effective politician. What you want is for her to be a TV pundit, so you can sit in your popcorn gallery of disaffected youth. Meanwhile, everyone else has to live in the real world, where politicans using policies to get things done matters. She can either be a pundit or a politician. I would rather we have more good politicians.

She should model herself after my prime minister, Jacinda Ardern.
 
Last edited:
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
No, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I can't think of any revolutionary statesmen who accomplished their revolution via the very system they sought to revolutionize, unless you're thinking of, I don't know, Reagan or Thatcher. Do you want her to be the left's Reagan? I've already assigned that job to Bernie in my head.
The Justice Dems are attempting to do a social revolution, a real revolution is not getting elected to congress. Slowly change the system by reform inside. It has a better change at succeeding than what you're suggesting, IMO. Working outside the system has not accomplished much of note for the left. This is a good idea, but in order for it to work means the Justice Dems need to able to thrive in the system. Reagan and Thatcher are the goal metaphorically, I think. Forget Bernie, your future is in candidates more like AOC. For all her faults I think she's better for your goals long term than Bernie ever was.

It’s not AOC that needs to change. It’s the party. She is the future.
She's only the future when she can shape the party in her image. Which is never going to happen if she continues like this.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
She can't maintain her image if she doesn't broadcast it or has to cover it a mask. This:
Slowly change the system by reform inside.
Is not how revolutions happen. It's how stagnancy happens. Try to change the system slowly and the system changes you. This is the nature of systemic corruption. This is why reform is so difficult, so seemingly impossible. And by the time your slow reform makes it to the courts, its already been so watered down that it doesn't address fundamental issues, and you need to wait another 50 years to try again. Meanwhile, people are suffering and hurting all those 50 years and the system is strengthening itself the entire time. This is the story of the Civil Rights movement and why, 50 years later, we now need BLM to remind us of the old struggle.
Here's the thing though. You're not putting AoC in the position of being an effective politician. What you want is for her to be a TV pundit, so you can sit in your popcorn gallery of disaffected youth. Meanwhile, everyone else has to live in the real world, where politicans using policies to get things done matters. She can either be a pundit or a politician. I would rather we have more good politicians.
Her being an "effective politician" would be great, but it's not her pivotal role in my imagination. I want her to be a revolutionary icon yes, being a successful politician is only a step towards that goal. It allows her to get a lot of cred and if she can navigate the political labyrinth while keeping her principles intact, wonderful. She can skip the part where we revolutionize the government and just wave a magic wand that says "reform".

Again, how well have these "politicians using policies to get things done" been working out for us? The historical record is against you. Punditry is the current state of American politics, it's you who wishes it were otherwise. I've already made my peace with it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
take a step out of your imagination and look at the world you'll have to live in
Immigrant kids in cages. IDF sniping Palestinian kids in the back. Irreversible climate change. 5-4 or maybe even 6-3 Supreme Court for the next 40 years. The return of white nationalism across the world.

Yeah this is what your slow reform has gotten you. No thanks, let's try something else.

Bernie played a pivotal role in the process of revolution in making "socialism" a word you can say as a politician and not get shitcanned for it. I don't want to be one of those people who credits all of AOC's achievements to Bernie, but I do think AOC's ascendence is part of the same evolutionary line as Bernie's. He has already fulfilled his part of the revolutionary praxis. Maybe he could do more in 2020, we'll see.

Regardless, just as Bernie was not the answer, AOC may not be the answer either. Maybe the change I want comes after AOC. What's important for me is that she stays the course and doesn't water herself down any more, and she's already considered pretty milquetoast by leftist diehards.
 
Last edited:

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
Immigrant kids in cages. IDF sniping Palestinian kids in the back. Irreversible climate change. 5-4 or maybe even 6-3 Supreme Court for the next 40 years. The return of white nationalism across the world.

Yeah this is what your slow reform has gotten you. No thanks, let's try something else.
Don't make this personal.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
Don't make this personal.
The world is shit. It's shit because our institutions permit it. They profit off of it. They stay in office and collect donor/lobbyist money because they allow the shit to continue. Every once in a while they throw the voters some scraps to keep them placated while still accelerating the death of human civilization with their irresponsible greed.

I wouldn't feel the need to go to bat for AOC if I had any faith in our institutions. And I don't. I don't know where you get your faith from but I can't tap into that source.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
The world is shit. It's shit because our institutions permit it. They profit off of it. They stay in office and collect donor/lobbyist money because they allow the shit to continue. Every once in a while they throw the voters some scraps to keep them placated while still accelerating the death of human civilization with their irresponsible greed.

I wouldn't feel the need to go to bat for AOC if I had any faith in our institutions. And I don't. I don't know where you get your faith from but I can't tap into that source.
You went out of your way to insert the words "Slow reform" into my arguments and then proceeded to lay all of the world's evils at my feet. This is not a way to have a healthy discussion. I want to make that clear. If you want to continue you have to achnowledge what you did, because I see enough of this shit going on and it's important to establish that it's not okay.

I understand that it's an emotional argument and shit happens. But if you genuinely don't see how that's a conversation stopper unless addressed, I don't know what to say.
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,725
Don't give in AOC. Keep doing what you're doing!
I agree, she is doing great and is making an impact.
There has to be some compromise. I agree with avoiding watering down certain things, but it really depends on specific details. An important factor is where the majority of the party stands on certain issues.
There does not have to be any compromise. We were way past that point even during the civil rights movement.

Fuck trying to wait for shit to happen incrementally by appeasing those who are comfortable with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
1,336
Here's the thing though. You're not putting AoC in the position of being an effective politician. What you want is for her to be a TV pundit, so you can sit in your popcorn gallery of disaffected youth. Meanwhile, everyone else has to live in the real world, where politicans using policies to get things done matters. She can either be a pundit or a politician. I would rather we have more good politicians.

She should model herself after my prime minister, Jacinda Ardern.
Don't make this personal.
Maybe take your own advice. You're very condescending.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
Immigrant kids in cages. IDF sniping Palestinian kids in the back. Irreversible climate change. 5-4 or maybe even 6-3 Supreme Court for the next 40 years. The return of white nationalism across the world.

Yeah this is what your slow reform has gotten you. No thanks, let's try something else.
Your "something else" isn't coming. We're stuck with what we have. The only method to stopping that is with the Democrats, which means working in the system.

She can't maintain her image if she doesn't broadcast it or has to cover it a mask. This:
She has find out how do this right, or she won't have a career.

Is not how revolutions happen. It's how stagnancy happens. Try to change the system slowly and the system changes you. This is the nature of systemic corruption. This is why reform is so difficult, so seemingly impossible. And by the time your slow reform makes it to the courts, its already been so watered down that it doesn't address fundamental issues, and you need to wait another 50 years to try again.
Reagan and Thatcher changed their countries significantly from their positions in government. It's a powerful influence, one progressives and socialists haven't mastered. Corruption can be an issue, I agree. The problem here is, this is all we have at the moment. You're not going to get a better chance at reforming the system then now with the Justice Democrats. This is winning idea, however, you only win by learning how to turn the system to your ends. Slow reform is slow, arduous, frustrating work, and it's better than nothing at all.

Meanwhile, people are suffering and hurting all those 50 years and the system is strengthening itself the entire time. This is the story of the Civil Rights movement and why, 50 years later, we now need BLM to remind us of the old struggle.
I didn't say I liked it, I'm informing you of how politics goes in the US and other countries. The system won't disappear by ignoring it, it does need to be fought and reformed but doing it poorly helps nobody. Socialists have tried working outside the system and failed miserably, now they have a chance at affecting the government from the inside where it matters.

Her being an "effective politician" would be great, but it's not her pivotal role in my imagination. I want her to be a revolutionary icon yes, being a successful politician is only a step towards that goal. It allows her to get a lot of cred and if she can navigate the political labyrinth while keeping her principles intact, wonderful.
It should be, as that is what her job is. You want to make change? This is the only method how to with her position. Had she wanted to be a symbol she could have become a high profile activist, revolutionary or media personality, but it'd never get the same opportunities she has to where she is in congress. That credibility isn't potent in congress where the real things happen, she's highly outnumbered there.

She can skip the part where we revolutionize the government and just wave a magic wand that says "reform".
That's not an option.

Again, how well have these "politicians using policies to get things done" been working out for us? The historical record is against you. Punditry is the current state of American politics, it's you who wishes it were otherwise. I've already made my peace with it.
History tells me there have been more reforms from my side than yours. The system has been awful, and there are numerous drawbacks. I'm not doing this because I want to, I'm doing this because your side hasn't given me any worthwhile options to pursue. So I'm stuck with Democrats fixing climate change, gun rights etc they're the only party close to getting anything done realistically.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,578
Kids are in cages! White fascists are gaining in power! The only way to stop this is by INCREMENTALISM. In the face of danger and horrendous events, you must take small steps. When the world is crashing down around you, walk slowly.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
Kids are in cages! White fascists are gaining in power! The only way to stop this is by INCREMENTALISM. In the face of danger and horrendous events, you must take small steps. When the world is crashing down around you, walk slowly.
Compared to big changes which never come, yeah, I'll take it. Doing something is better than nothing. Telling us our problems we already know is fine, what we need are actual solutions which will succeed that help all the causes you listed and I'm not seeing the socialists doing a damn thing about it except for people like AOC who need to work with congress to do it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
You went out of your way to insert the words "Slow reform" into my arguments and then proceeded to lay all of the world's evils at my feet. This is not a way to have a healthy discussion. I want to make that clear. If you want to continue you have to achnowledge what you did, because I see enough of this shit going on and it's important to establish that it's not okay.

I understand that it's an emotional argument and shit happens. But if you genuinely don't see how that's a conversation stopper unless addressed, I don't know what to say.
Yes it was intentional. No, there's nothing healthy about this discussion. I don't really feel like I'm getting anything out of this conversation and I doubt you are any more sympathetic to my point. I promise not to do it again.

However, regardless of what you say, your position is not at all different from Ichthyosaurus'. You both believe in "working in the system". Working in the system is by nature slow. It being slow is why we have "all the world's evils". I was wrong to use "you", it was meant to be a general "you" as in "your side which believes in incremental policymaking" but I see how it feels like a personal attack. For that I apologize.

Here's my thesis: things are getting worse much faster than incrementalism can fix them. At best, it puts bandages on gushing wounds. At worst, it makes those wounds bleed even harder. There is no salvation here which is why I'm betting on revolution instead. Everything AOC does in Congress will only be part of that revolution, rather than a salvation-through-policy that will never come in time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,336
It's almost like there's a line and while I was admittedly walking it, he crossed it.
No you're just getting called out for spouting lame center-left rhetoric. The same rhetoric that has enabled the American right as it swung towards fascism.

Since you referred to the NZ PM I'm assuming you're not used to the frustration that we feel with that segment of the Democratic party.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
No you're just getting called out for spouting lame center-left rhetoric. The same rhetoric that has enabled the American right as it swung towards fascism.

Since you referred to the NZ PM I'm assuming you're not used to the frustration that we feel with that segment of the Democratic party.
Believe me, i'm used to it, and you trying to ascribe my political positions because you disagree with me on something that doesn't establish those at all is something i'm also very used to in these conversations and it NEVER looks good for those who do it

There's nothing healthy about this discussion. Yes it was intentional. No I don't really feel like I'm getting anything out of this conversation and I doubt you are any more sympathetic to my point. I promise not to do it again.

However, regardless of what you say, your position is not at all different from Ichthyosaurus'. You both believe in "working in the system". Working in the system is by nature slow. It being slow is why we have "all the world's evils". I was wrong to use "you", it was meant to be a general "you" as in "your side which believes in incremental policymaking" but I see how it feels like a personal attack. For that I apologize.

Here's my thesis: things are getting worse much faster than incrementalism can fix them. At best, it puts bandages on gushing wounds. At worst, it makes those wounds bleed even harder. There is no salvation here which is why I'm betting on revolution instead. Everything AOC does in Congress will only be part of that revolution, rather than a salvation that will never come in time.
I believe having a system is inheretly better than having no system. Which is why I care about pathways forward so much. You seem to present that as if I don't care at all. It's a mistake on your part. The turth is we both care. Deeply. Or we wouldn't be here. And I would appreciate it if you approached the discussion from that direction instead of the one you currently are.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,578
Compared to big changes which never come, yeah, I'll take it. Doing something is better than nothing. Telling us our problems we already know is fine, what we need are actual solutions which will succeed that help all the causes you listed and I'm not seeing the socialists doing a damn thing about it except for people like AOC who need to work with congress to do it.
Socialists are putting their lives t risk protesting and agitating for better things. The reason why M4A is so popular isn’t solely because of AOC and Bernie, many, many progressives are out there canvassing for it.

Believe me, i'm used to it, and you trying to ascribe my political positions because you disagree with me on something that doesn't establish those at all is something i'm also very used to in these conversations



I believe having a system is inheretly better than having no system. Which is why I care about pathways forward so much. You seem to present that as if I don't care at all. It's a mistake on your part. The turth is we both care. Deeply. Or we wouldn't be here. And I would appreciate it if you approached the discussion from that direction instead of the one you currently are.
I don’t think he is saying that there shouldn’t be a system. There just needs to be a better one because the current one is shit
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
No you're just getting called out for spouting lame center-left rhetoric. The same rhetoric that has enabled the American right as it swung towards fascism.

Since you referred to the NZ PM I'm assuming you're not used to the frustration that we feel with that segment of the Democratic party.
Gonna disagree with you there, this isn't the 90's.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,838
The long term solution is revolution of existing systems. Incrementalism is just bandages. Bandages are important for first aid, but you cannot cure a terminal cancer patient with first aid. Any attempt to co-op elements of that revolution for the sake of incrementalism pushes back revolution that much further, costing more lives in the process.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,312
I don’t think he is saying that there shouldn’t be a system. There just needs to be a better one because the current one is shit
I never said he said that there shouldn't be a system. What I mean by that is I don't see a system in what he's arguing. That doesn't mean he believes there isn't one, or that I think he believes there isn't one.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,260
But it worked in The West Wing tv show.
Another unfounded West Wing groupthink retort.

What about the whole “Let Bartlet be Bartlet” arc?

What about Josh Lyman telling senior Republican senators to shove their legislative agenda up their ass?

What about Bartlet shutting the government down?

What about “just in case you were wondering ‘crime, boy I don’t know” was when I decided to kick your ass”?
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,513
Socialists are putting their lives t risk protesting and agitating for better things. The reason why M4A is so popular isn’t solely because of AOC and Bernie, many, many progressives are out there canvassing for it.
Which is great, but it's not solving the problems upthread, is it? You need the Dems to do the big stuff. They're the only ones who can. This is true, progressives policies have been gaining steam lately, thanks to socialist pushed bills like M4A. Which requires the Dems to vote for it and pass congress. Socialists aren't doing all that by themselves, only a small portion are elected to vote for it in congress.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,336
Believe me, i'm used to it, and you trying to ascribe my political positions because you disagree with me on something that doesn't establish those at all is something i'm also very used to in these conversations.
I didn't ascribe any positions to you. I'm just saying you use the same arguments.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,578
Which is great, but it's not solving the problems upthread, is it? You need the Dems to do the big stuff. They're the only ones who can. This is true, progressives policies have been gaining steam lately, thanks to socialist pushed bills like M4A. Which still requires the Dems to vote for it and pass congress. Socialist aren't doing all that by themselves, only a small portion are elected to vote for it in congress.
Yeah, we need Dems to do the big things, but they aren’t trying to do the big things. They’re doing the small things that aren’t enough, like using a super soaker on a house fire.