• 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

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
I didn't ascribe any positions to you. I'm just saying you use the same arguments.
Here's the thing. When you do that you need to be aware of what you're saying and I don't think you are. There's a lot more in what you said than what you seem to think is there, and it's not for a lack of knowing what you said. I just think you haven't actually thought about the insinuations present when you do that sort of thing. It's much, much more insulting (and leading) than you think. It's also not conducive to discussion. It always comes across as you telling someone else what they think.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
I wouldn't be here arguing what I am if Bernie had not ran in 2016, if AOC had not ran in 2018. Icons have social value just for being icons. The more I look at history, the more this seems evident to me.

The stochastic effects of their socialist principles far, far outweighs any piddly legislation they can achieve in this form of Congress. We're still in shutdown because the system is just so unbelievable dysfunctional, and this isn't going to be a one time thing either. Trump and McConnell have opened the political Pandora's Box. We'll see another Trump in 6-10 years, if he doesn't get re-elected, and you best hope he'll be as dumb and incompetent as this one.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
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.
When all you have is bandages to work with, you make do. I'd like the system to allow for bigger changes but we don't have that. The "cure" to that cancer is not available at the moment, hasn't been a factor in the past and the elements of the revolution have shown more of an appear than the revolution itself. Antifa does not a revolution make, they're not solving the problem congress has.

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.
That's not on the Democrats, that's on the Justice Democrats.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,333
Here's the thing. When you do that you need to be aware of what you're saying and I don't think you are. There's a lot more in what you said than what you seem to think is there, and it's not for a lack of knowing what you said. I just think you haven't actually thought about the insinuations present when you do that sort of thing. It's much, much more insulting than you think.
Take it as you will.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
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.
Agreed! Which is why I'm trying to get you guys to be able to thrive in the system so we can get to the bigger things faster. Accomplishing this ironically means doing it incrementally as your movement is starting from scratch in congress. Outside the system socialists do have various organisations worthy of note, but they're not ready to stand up to the system as it is. Bernie failed to give you guys something to work with over the decades while in congress, as well. All this has to change to succeed in your goals to revolutionise. Which is why it's impotent for candidates like AOC be able to show you how within congress, not just be the equivalent of Mickey Mouse for socialists.
 
Oct 25, 2017
123
Something the "AOC needs to work incrementally within the current system" crowd seem to be ignoring is that we literally do not have time for that shit. Catastrophic irreversible Climate Change is right around the corner. Choosing to continue working within the system as it currently exist is choosing to sign our own death warrants. If revolutionary changes like the Green New Deal were to fail because AOC was mean to other Democrats on Twitter then quite frankly we kinda deserve to go extinct.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,536
Agreed! Which is why I'm trying to get you guys to be able to thrive in the system so we can get to the bigger things faster. Accomplishing this ironically means doing it incrementally as your movement is starting from scratch in congress. Outside the system socialists do have various organisations worthy of note, but they're not ready to stand up to the system as it is. Bernie failed to give you guys something to work with over the decades while in congress, as well. All this has to change to succeed in your goals to revolutionise. Which is why it's impotent for candidates like AOC be able to show you how within congress, not just be the equivalent of Mickey Mouse for socialists.
We don’t want to thrive in this system. To do so is to fundamentally change to something the system wants and uses which will not bring about the change we need.

Something the "AOC needs to work incrementally within the current system" crowd seem to be ignoring is that we literally do not have time for that shit. Catastrophic irreversible Climate Change is right around the corner. Choosing to continue working within the system as it currently exist is choosing to sign our own death warrants. If revolutionary changes like the Green New Deal were to fail because AOC was mean to other Democrats on Twitter then quite frankly we kinda deserve to go extinct.
This as well. We don’t have time for small steps.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
There's no "thriving in the system" without compromising your values. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The very fact that Bernie hasn't been able to do much despite being an active congressman for decades just shows what you're expecting from AOC is impossible. I really don't think I'm being the one being naive here.

Our current system give us two choices: Don't compromise and don't achieve much (Bernie), compromise and perpetuate the problem rather than create the solution (everyone else aside from Bernie).

Historically, when a government reaches the point where it can no longer be reformed, but it must reform to survive, it's destroyed by revolution.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
Is this "she should learn the ropes and reform the inside" coming from the Justice Dems or you? Or do you represent the Justice Dems here?
It was simply a response to you saying

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.
Which is framing the Justice Dems as a hinderance to extending the revolution, whatever that this, since they are co-opted by the system. They can't not be.
 
Oct 28, 2017
271
It's so stupid because democratic voters already agree with AOC's views and she's going to after dems who DON'T believe in those views. And then they're like "don't listen to her! she's ridiculous!" even though they have NO plan aside from maintaining the status quo.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
You simply can't say "Our system is too slow" as anything other than stating the obvious if you literally can't do anything faster. If you follow someone with no proposals or plans you are already cosigning yourself to that slow system. Not even that, but if it's a politician, you're making it slower.

If your path had a guraranteed out, it would make sense. But it doesn't. It's wishful thinking. The world does not operate on wishful thinking. It's why I couldn't get behind Bernie, and it's why I can't get behind what people are arguing in this thread. I want to do all we can with what we have as opposed to a vague, ill-defined and possibly even not happening alternative. I don't have enough faith for that.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
Which is framing the Justice Dems as a hinderance to extending the revolution, whatever that this, since they are co-opted by the system. They can't not be.
Oh, then I agree. Yes. I was raised as a standard liberal so I'm still willing to give the system some leeway to perform its intended function. This is why I called myself pseudo-revolutionary rather than straight up revolutionary. I'm willing to vote and watch the political process play out for a bit, even if I have no hopes for it. What I'm not willing to do is see my political icons become a cog in the machine, that's where I personally draw the line.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
We don’t want to thrive in this system. To do so is to fundamentally change to something the system wants and uses which will not bring about the change we need.



This as well. We don’t have time for small steps.
If you don't want AOC or the Justice Dems to thrive in congress what are you supporting them for?

There's no "thriving in the system" without compromising your values. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The very fact that Bernie hasn't been able to do much despite being an active congressman for decades just shows what you're expecting from AOC is impossible. I really don't think I'm being the one being naive here.

Our current system give us two choices: Don't compromise and don't achieve much (Bernie), compromise and perpetuate the problem rather than the create solution (everyone else aside from Bernie).
Bernie hasn't been doing much for those very reasons. Had he been thriving you'd have gotten further in congress then we are at present. Can't do any work in the system without compromising, or adjusting your strategies for this environment. What works out on the streets does not work in congress. Unlike Bernie AOC isn't alone, and has many advantages he failed to accumulate. She's young, she's a Dem rather than an independent and wants to do more within the party and in groups than he ever did. You're right that the system has worked against him but it's not entirely their fault he hasn't accomplished much. He's more of a showboater than a revolutionary. AOC needs to lead!

Don't write off the system entirely. Things can be done there, but to do them requires working within the system. This is the sticking point progressives and socialists have failed to crack, crack that and things go smoother and things get to happen. It'll be watered down, and compromised, but we have to start somewhere. This is an option you guys need badly. Twist the system to your advantage, rather than the system twist you.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
You simply can't say "Our system is too slow" as anything other than stating the obvious if you literally can't do anything faster. If you follow someone with no proposals or plans you are already cosigning yourself to that slow system. Not even that, but if it's a politician, you're making it slower.

If your path had a guraranteed out, it would make sense. But it doesn't. It's wishful thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
Oh, then I agree. Yes. I was raised as a standard liberal so I'm still willing to give the system some leeway to perform its intended function. This is why I called myself pseudo-revolutionary rather than straight up revolutionary. I'm willing to vote and watch the political process play out for a bit, even if I have no hopes for it. What I'm not willing to do is see my political icons become a cog in the machine, that's where I personally draw the line.
Your best bet is that they'll be a cog working for you. Compromise is unavoidable in congress.

 
Oct 25, 2017
1,186
The U.S itself didn't try to work "inside the system" to get away from Britain.
They tried to work inside the system to abolish slavery. Didn't work.
The Civil rights movement didn't try to work "inside the system". MLK Jr. was not busy holding speeches in congress and trying to schmooze politicians, he was talking directly to the people.
Almost every major struggle people have ever achieved against higher powers had to come from outside the system.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
The U.S itself didn't try to work "inside the system" to get away from Britain.
They tried to work inside the system to abolish slavery. Didn't work.
The Civil rights movement didn't try to work "inside the system". MLK Jr. was not busy holding speeches in congress and trying to schmooze politicians, he was talking directly to the people.
Almost every major struggle people have ever achieved against higher powers had to come from outside the system.
they also had actual clear-cut goals

I am. I'm also a sometimes-utilitarian. Sometimes we need death to prevent greater suffering. See: Civil War, World War II.
I think you need to re-examine how that would apply here
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,536
The U.S itself didn't try to work "inside the system" to get away from Britain.
They tried to work inside the system to abolish slavery. Didn't work.
The Civil rights movement didn't try to work "inside the system". MLK Jr. was not busy holding speeches in congress and trying to schmooze politicians, he was talking directly to the people.
Almost every major struggle people have ever achieved against higher powers had to come from outside the system.
Even the rights we enjoy as workers were fought in the streets and not in congress
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
They didn't always settle on goals, and then revolt. They often revolted first once life became untenable, then goals coalesce as the revolution proceeds. Revolutions aren't tidy things where people plan it all out first and weigh its pro-cons before deciding whether to pick up the pitchfork and torches tonight.

I do agree goals are important, however, which is why it's important that when the time comes, AOC and people like her can step up to direct it down the road to socialism instead of fascism (which is generally one of the other avenues of political revolution), and part of doing that is making sure there is a vision for the future (the Green New Deal for example). They can only do this if they show that they will not surrender to the powers-that-be, that they have principles which speak to the people. Thus, it's more important for me that they retain their revolutionary credibility rather than pass some shitty, limp-dick legislation that will be undone by the next Republican government.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
They didn't always settle on goals, and then revolt. They often revolted first once life became untenable, then goals coalesce as the revolution proceeds. Revolutions aren't tidy things where people plan it all out first and weigh its pro-cons before deciding whether to pick up the pitchfork and torches tonight.

I do agree goals are important, however, which is why it's important that when the time comes, AOC and people like her can step up to direct it down the road to socialism instead of fascism (which is generally one of the other avenues of political revolution), and part of doing that is making sure there is a vision for the future (the Green New Deal for example). They can only do this if they show that they will not surrender to the powers-that-be, that they have principles which speak to the people. Thus, it's more important for me that they retain their revolutionary credibility rather than pass some shitty, limp-dick legislation that will be undone by the next Republican government.
revolutiuons aren't tidy but I'd rather do all we can before I stop and argue that people should die fighting for me, it's our responsibility to fight until the last because life is precious and can't be thrown away just because you personally feel like we're there; your stance is inheretly selfish (and I don't mean that as a drag, I just think you haven't fully thought this all through)
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
because I like them

But I also don’t put all of my eggs into electoral politics.
That's fair.

Even the rights we enjoy as workers were fought in the streets and not in congress
Needed congress to make the bills for the rights.

The U.S itself didn't try to work "inside the system" to get away from Britain.
They tried to work inside the system to abolish slavery. Didn't work.
The Civil rights movement didn't try to work "inside the system". MLK Jr. was not busy holding speeches in congress and trying to schmooze politicians, he was talking directly to the people.
Almost every major struggle people have ever achieved against higher powers had to come from outside the system.
You're conflating actual revolutions and wars with the Justice Democrats social revolution from congress. Why?

I don't see any socialists on the streets fighting these wars. AOC isn't a soldier or a general. Bernie isn't, either. Where are the socialists getting their revolution on? Antifa don't count, they're not engaged in a brutal war with the government and they're not rocking guns and body armour against congress or the White House with an insurgency.

MLK Jr. needed congress for the Civil Rights Act. He knew politics back then, he knew which buttons to push and which ones not to to get the right results from the government.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
Centrists always say you can't attack your own party, except for when they do it. Then it's okay.
Sure you can attack the party. This is about how you do it, not that you can't. You think we don't have problems with the party or candidates and don't call them out? lol
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,186
They didn't always settle on goals, and then revolt. They often revolted first once life became untenable, then goals coalesce as the revolution proceeds. Revolutions aren't tidy things where people plan it all out first and weigh its pro-cons before deciding whether to pick up the pitchfork and torches tonight.
Of course, "can't protest without clear goals" is the dumbest thing I've read today. I don't think people were planning on a war because they dumped tea into the ocean.
Mohamed Bouazizi did not intend to start a revolution, he was just tired of the injustices he was facing. Russian citizens were not protesting in favor of a communist regime, they were just fucking hungry.
MLK Jr. needed congress for the Civil Rights Act. He knew politics back then, he knew which buttons to push and which ones not to to get the right results from the government.
Absolutely. That's why he never gave a shit about trying to join any of the political parties and convincing them, he convinced people directly instead.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
Sure you can attack the party. This is about how you do it, not that you can't. You think we don't have problems with the party or candidates and don't call them out? lol
That unfortunately is always how our issues are read as, which makes it damn near impossible to say them on this forum.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,536
This is true. But they had people don't the hard work to make the big changes, they weren't letting congress do all the work. They pushed change from the outside, we haven't got that from the left on this to that degree.
The hard work was done with the people putting their lives on the line, not the ones sitting in congress
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,810
Sure you can attack the party. This is about how you do it, not that you can't. You think we don't have problems with the party or candidates and don't call them out? lol
I know Centrists attack their own party, that's why I said it.

What's the right way to disagree? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,033
I am. I'm also a sometimes-utilitarian. Sometimes we need death to prevent greater suffering. See: Civil War, World War II.
I don't know if I'd frame it in utilitarian terms. It's more resorting to self-defense. When the state is saturated with violence, sometimes it can only be overthrown by violence. This is the view the anarchist Malatesta took to justify violence against the state: "I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence". This applies more to your earlier examples; not so much the ones quoted here. Something like the raid on Harpers Ferry fits even better.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
The hard work was done with the people putting their lives on the line, not the ones sitting in congress
Indeed they were they still required people in congress to vote for their goals. They didn't personally write the bills and vote for it, congress did.

Socialists aren't doing that right now in enough numbers to compare it as being identical. There is no socialist MLK Jr. on the streets rallying that force to get congress to buckle through protest on that scale.

I know Centrists attack their own party, that's why I said it.

What's the right way to disagree? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.
I misread you, my bad.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,186
Dems should not slam other Dems.

Fall in line.

Republicans are the enemy
And people wonder why Republicans still stand by Trump.

Socialists aren't doing that right now in enough numbers to compare it as being identical. There is no socialist MLK Jr. on the streets rallying that force to get congress to buckle through protest on that scale.
Absolutely, and hopefully we will some day have someone like that. But untill then I don't see how it would help that the only people we do currently have should dampen their agitation.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
revolutiuons aren't tidy but I'd rather do all we can
Okay, here's probably where we'll never agree. I think we've already done all we can. It didn't work out. You think there's more to do.
I don't know if I'd frame it in utilitarian terms. It's more resorting to self-defense. When the state is saturated with violence, sometimes it can only be overthrown by violence. This is the view the anarchist Malatesta took to justify violence against the state: "I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence". This applies more to your earlier examples; not so much the ones quoted here. Something like the raid on Harpers Ferry fits even better.
I cited utilitarianism because it's the philosophy I'm mos comfortable with. I think the Lockean justification, which I'm not all that familiar with, would go over too many heads here.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
Okay, here's probably where we'll never agree. I think we've already done all we can. It didn't work out. You think there's more to do.
If you've already given up of course you think there's nothing to do. What's happened here is Trump's defeated you. He's made you think his stuff is normal, eroded your faith in the system, and convinced you that the democrats are worthless with his obstructionism. I'm not there yet.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,142
I don't see any socialists on the streets fighting these wars. AOC isn't a soldier or a general. Bernie isn't, either. Where are the socialists getting their revolution on? Antifa don't count, they're not engaged in a brutal war with the government and they're not rocking guns and body armour against congress or the White House with an insurgency.
Revolutions happen in accordance with material conditions that give rise to them. If the country starts disintegrating like in the 1960s and 1970s, I would expect this to happen again. I mean, it literally was happening in those decades - there were constant bombings, armed leftist groups like the Panthers, etc.

But trying to kickstart a revolution through adventurism is tactically and strategically stupid.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
Absolutely, and hopefully we will some day have someone like that. But untill then I don't see how it would help that the only people we do currently have should dampen their agitation.
When you do have someone like that it will be a boon to have someone like AOC in congress convincing others to vote for bills that support their causes. Cant do this without congress.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,576
Somewhere
FUCK UNWRITTEN LEGACY "RULES"

THESE THINGS ARE WHY WE"RE FIGHTING TO RESTART THE CONGRESS AND ITS PROCESSES

AOC SHUNNING THESE IS A BADGE TO WEAR, A TROPHY TO DISPLAY

EVERYONE SCARED OF THE FUTURE POST-LEGACIES NEEDS TO GET IN THE BACK OF THE LINE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
Socialists aren't doing that right now in enough numbers to compare it as being identical. There is no socialist MLK Jr. on the streets rallying that force to get congress to buckle through protest on that scale.
This is why I value AOC more as a symbol than as a politician. The rise of a socialist MLK Jr. from the Millennial generation or Generation Z will only come if socialism becomes an idea that can be talked about and studied again.

And MLK was probably a socialist as well, I'm sure he picked that up from his activist compatriots in his youth.
Consider King’s words in a letter to Coretta Scott in 1952: “I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic,” he wrote, adding that capitalism had “out-lived its usefulness” because it had “brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes.”

King was 23 years old when he wrote that.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/persp...er-king-a-socialist-new-book-may-surprise-you

I am morally obligated by my ideology to sow the seeds of revolutionary socialism among the youth today.
 
Oct 31, 2017
547
How do you expect progressive policies to get through when you demand progressive members to tow the line with neoliberal corporate Democrats who just want 'The status quo'? for the sake of unity?

If it wasn't for Bernie pushing for free/reduced college tuition and education reform during his campaign we would of never had any significant amount of Democrats saying anything about the issue outside of vague lip service. Now it's starting to become a platform staple.
Likewise once AOC started being serious about the New Green Deal- suddenly it's major talk.

Fuck outta here do-nothing Centrist apologists. I'm tired of the hang wringing and limp wristed action. Let her shake shit up. It's time more people like her start running and winning.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
This is why I value AOC more as a symbol than as a politician. The rise of a socialist MLK Jr. from the Millennial generation or Generation Z will only come if socialism becomes an idea that can be talked about and studied again.

And MLK was socialist as well, I'm sure he picked that up from his activist compatriots in his youth.


https://www.ineteconomics.org/persp...er-king-a-socialist-new-book-may-surprise-you

I am morally obligated by my ideology to sow the seeds of revolutionary socialism among the youth today.
She can be a symbol and fight for your causes as a politician. Socialists need to do more than talk, they need to act - that's why AOC's candidacy is so important for the movement. Activism is an excellent social good, it's not all that socialists can do to pursue their dreams. They need to learn how to properly organise, become inclusive, expand thoroughly and stop looking inward for eternity.

Sowing seeds is fine, but you're going to need to do more than that to achieve anything of note. MLK Jr. didn't sow seeds, he was a political heavy weight in his own time.
 
Nov 14, 2017
1,386
There's no "thriving in the system" without compromising your values. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The very fact that Bernie hasn't been able to do much despite being an active congressman for decades just shows what you're expecting from AOC is impossible. I really don't think I'm being the one being naive here.

Our current system give us two choices: Don't compromise and don't achieve much (Bernie), compromise and perpetuate the problem rather than create the solution (everyone else aside from Bernie).

Historically, when a government reaches the point where it can no longer be reformed, but it must reform to survive, it's destroyed by revolution.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

What's not acheiving much? He've met expectation and if you want to talk something recent, he basically got Amazon to increase pay for $15 and got the conversation to move left.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
Sowing seeds is fine, but you're going to need to do more than that to achieve anything of note. MLK Jr. didn't sow seeds, he was a political heavy weight in his own time.
Imagine if you went up to Rosa Parks in her bus seat and said "not sitting in the back of the bus is fine but you need to do more than that to achieve anything of note". We don't know which seed is the one that will sprout, so we need to scatter them everywhere and give them time to grow. 8 days into her tenure as congresswoman of the House and already "she has a lot to learn, she needs to fall in line, she needs to be a cog that works for socialists" is not the nurturing advice you think it is. It's baseless condescension.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

What's not acheiving much? He've met expectation and if you want to talk something recent, he basically got Amazon to increase pay for $15 and got the conversation to move left.
Sorry for bringing that up. I'm not an expert on his history so I didn't want to argue a point I wasn't prepared to defend. I did sell the Bern a little short there, I appreciate what he did with Amazon.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,465
How do you expect progressive policies to get through when you demand progressive members to tow the line with neoliberal corporate Democrats who just want 'The status quo'? for the sake of unity?
How do you expect progressives policies to become law by alienating your party? It's not simply about "wanting" the status quo, it's acknowledging the status quo is going have a bigger impact on her career than her on it. Which is true. She's not going to come into congress then reshape it to her will, she's a congresswoman not Mr. Mxyzptlk. She could Speaker tomorrow and she'd still have to deal with this shit. Why is unity a bad thing in your eyes? Do you want to see the Dems at each others throats rather than working together to fix the country and the world? It's not our fault centrists and liberals have excelled at making congress their own place, that does from the progressives ceding that ground for decades because they were determined to stay on the outside. Now the progressives are in they need to find methods to make it work for them, like everybody else.

Do you know why unity is prized so much by Democrats? Without it i congress we have nothing. We fall in disarray, our leaders would be unable to discipline their colleagues into voting for the best bills and the GOP take advantage of our weaknesses. AOC is one vote, she neds a lot more than that to pass things and it is within her power to do this.

If it wasn't for Bernie pushing for free/reduced college tuition and education reform during his campaign we would of never had any significant amount of Democrats saying anything about the issue outside of vague lip service. Now it's starting to become a platform staple.
Likewise once AOC started being serious about the New Green Deal- suddenly it's major talk.
Bernie was a significant person getting all that in the open and altering the course of politics to the left, I agree. That is where he stops being useful. Progressives need more than idea people, they need to be able to implement them in congress. He was sprouting silly shit in the primaries that never had a shot at happening, like free college and tearing down the prison system, which gets people excited but are DOA in congress, which helps nobody.

Major talk is all it's been. Congress is for passing bills, not talking.

Fuck outta here do-nothing Centrist apologists. I'm tired of the hang wringing and limp wristed action. Let her shake shit up. It's time more people like her start running and winning.
She's not shaking shit up lol

The point of this discussion is that without properly participating she's not winning anything.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,756
Looks like there's too many posters that got fat while everybody starved. Your favorite politicians will be out of work in 4 years if they don't read the room now. Bernie is the most influential politician in our generation, as far as getting lay folks to go run for office themselves. That's why every corporate hack is trembling, AOC is rolling 500 deep and they know it.