• iOS/Safari issues when launching the site from mobile home screens should now be fixed! A2HS button compatibility on Android Firefox has also been fixed! Add some purple to your home screen today.

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

Dec 26, 2018
912
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.
Wrong example, Rosa Parks was able to make herself politically significant. You need people to be more like her, which was what I was arguing. Or are you resigned to socialism being all it can be right here right now? I think it can accomplish so much more by working with the system. You do need to do that, and for that to work means learning from the past, not repeating mistakes and adding variety to your tools. Socialism has been neglected too long as a movement to thrive as it should be, it needs to grow and change to succeed.

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.
It's not being condescending, it's being realistic. Do you see any other new congress(wo)men getting this controversial reaction from congress itself over fitting in? I don't. This includes from other Justice Democrats, as well. Not a single bad word was said about them or their team during that 8 days.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
Wrong example, Rosa Parks was able to make herself politically significant. You need people to be more like her, which was what I was arguing. Or are you resigned to socialism being all it can be right here right now? I think it can accomplish so much more by working with the system. You do need to do that, and for that to work means learning from the past, not repeating mistakes and adding variety to your tools. Socialism has been neglected too long as a movement to thrive as it should be, it needs to grow and change to succeed.



It's not being condescending, it's being realistic. Do you see any other new congress(wo)men getting this controversial reaction from congress itself over fitting in? I don't. This includes from other Justice Democrats, as well. Not a single bad word was said about them or their team during that 8 days.
Your obsession with forcing AOC to kiss the ring is getting kind of weird.

If other Dems dislike AOC for refusing to play ball, good. Maybe they should support more progressive policies and then they won’t get criticized on Twitter.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
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.
I've heard that so many times it's a cliche. They read the room fine, that's why they're shifting to the left with progressive policies which is why they're going to be there longer. The funny thing with progressives is that their policies are popular but their politicians are not. We had a wave election, only 7 survived the general. AOC got there by a fluke.

They're upset because they don't want to feel attacked by AOC or her followers, not because they fear her bills passing. This is about the political process, not her belief system.

Bernie is the most influential at polling, he's hardly winning presidential nominations. He had his chance and blew it.
 
Aug 27, 2018
342
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.
I think the opposite is true. That the American experiment at its best has become a Gordian knot incapable of keeping up with the change people demand. Socialism is not giving up, it's playing Alexander.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,735



She was able to make herself politically significant no thanks to moderate Dems telling her to stay in her lane and work with the system that she has, that's what.
Big Media here in the US exists to further white supremacy at the end of the day because that's where they make their money. Tlaib was impolite as a PoC so that's a lot worse in their eyes. Shame, really. We should probably tear the whole system down and create something that serves the American people.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
I've heard that so many times it's a cliche. They read the room fine, that's why they're shifting to the left with progressive policies which is why they're going to be there longer. The funny thing with progressives is that their policies are popular but their politicians are not. We had a wave election, only 7 survived the general. AOC got there by a fluke.

They're upset because they don't want to feel attacked by AOC or her followers, not because they fear her bills passing. This is about the political process, not her belief system.

Bernie is the most influential at polling, he's hardly winning presidential nominations. He had his chance and blew it.
I’m actually pretty curious to see what evidence you have that AOC winning was a “fluke.” You certainly assert it a lot!
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
Big Media here in the US exists to further white supremacy at the end of the day because that's where they make their money. Tlaib was impolite as a PoC so that's a lot worse in their eyes. Shame, really. We should probably tear the whole system down and create something that serves the American people.
Mhm. Trump and his dumbfuck supporters don't know how right they are when they rail against the MSM. As usual they get the reasons wrong. It's not because of anti-conservative bias, but because of obstinate both-sideism and white supremacy. They pick the right targets despite being cultural idiots.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
Which is an exception, Tlaib isn't in AOC's league as being a fire starter in the party. Her comment got some heat from Dems, but that's been it. They're hardly writing articles about not being able to work with her.

She was able to make herself politically significant no thanks to moderate Dems telling her to stay in her lane and work with the system that she has, that's what.
AOC isn't Rosa Parks, Parks wasn't a politician. Parks knew how to get those moderates on her side, so did MLK Jr. AOC is a question mark.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
AOC isn't Rosa Parks, Parks wasn't a politician. Parks knew how to get those moderates on her side, so did MLK Jr. AOC is a question mark.
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
I’m actually pretty curious to see what evidence you have that AOC winning was a “fluke.” You certainly assert it a lot!
AOC went against Joseph Crowley, the dude who couldn't be bothered to campaign and who sends surrogates to debates because he can't be bothered.


She wasn't fighting the Democratic All-Stars.

I'm not saying she didn't impressively as a campaigner. She put in the work on the ground, and did all the right things to win. But this does not mean she didn't have any easier fight than a lot of Dems in the mid-terms.
 
Oct 25, 2017
706
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 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.
I'm not really a fan of attempting to do moral calculus. I didn't really have Locke in mind either, though of course his argument for revolution fits into a conception of self-defense, and you could see the anarchist justification as an extension of the Lockean justification, applied with a view of liberty as freedom from domination, and where any state by definition is domination.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
AOC went against Joseph Crowley, the dude who couldn't be bothered to campaign and who sends surrogates to debates because he can't be bothered.


She wasn't fighting the Democratic All-Stars.

I'm not saying she didn't impressively as a campaigner. She put in the work on the ground, and did all the right things to win. But this does not mean she didn't have any easier fight than a lot of Dems in the mid-terms.
Joseph Crowley was literally in line to be Speaker of the House. Soon.

If your argument is that the Democratic leadership is full of morons who don’t know when they need to campaign it’s not really clear that they have any justification for telling AOC what to do. She knew!

And, of course, Crowley being incompetent doesn’t prove that AOC isn’t capable. Just because she beat a mook doesn’t mean she can’t take on tougher fights. She just hasn’t had to yet.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
I'm not really a fan of attempting to do moral calculus. I didn't really have Locke in mind either, though of course his argument for revolution fits into a conception of self-defense, and you could see the anarchist justification as an extension of the Lockean justification, applied with a view of liberty as freedom from domination, and where any state by definition is domination.
Yeah I'm a neophyte with anarchism proper, I'm much more comfortable around enlightenment thought (and I'm not exactly well versed there).

I do agree with your general point that climate change can be seen as a form of systemic violence that demands retribution in kind. I try not to be too militaristic in my rhetoric though, because it tends to warp discussion on a board like this.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.
Which doesn't make it any less true. I never said I knew definitely what AOC's future is, just that if she continues this path isn't a winner strategically in her line of work. I am going by how congress and the Democrats works, which it's a top down organisation/s that get by on compromise not intimidation on twitter. She's not the type of revolutionary you're thinking of, that's why she's in congress.

She's already falling in line with one group already: the Justice Democrats. Who all get along when they're on the same page. This is how they won their elections, they took stock in what resources they had and adjusted their bearings against their opponents. They learnt from mistakes and increased their strengths, the same tactics apply to congress.

Revolutionaries work in groups and organisation, the better ones work together in teams they're not loners who constantly fight each other. The ones who do that get nowhere.

Not falling in line is why the socialists are shattered, rather than united, as a single group. That's a death knell for an ideology.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
Joseph Crowley was literally in line to be Speaker of the House. Soon.

If your argument is that the Democratic leadership is full of morons who don’t know when they need to campaign it’s not really clear that they have any justification for telling AOC what to do. She knew!
This was his failing. He spent too much effort in Washington to get that position that made him vulnerable back home.

My argument is that a big factor in why she won was running against a moron in leadership, and not all leaders are that stupid.

AOC wasn't working alone on the campaign trail, either. She had wisely teamed up with various groups like Brand New Congress, Justice Dems etc and she did have experience with campaigns. These are her strengths, but she would have had a tougher campaign had Crowley not being fucking around.

And, of course, Crowley being incompetent doesn’t prove that AOC isn’t capable. Just because she beat a mook doesn’t mean she can’t take on tougher fights. She just hasn’t had to yet.
Agreed.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
Our government is in shambles and you want her to play by the old rules. I don't get this. Trump exposed our government guardrails for the illusion they are. The realistic path is playing the game of politics that's post-Trump, which involves Twitter flame wars, not burying your head in the sand of pre-Trump norms and unspoken rules.

You argue two contradictory stances at once. You say she's not a known quantity but you ascribe all these achievements to her, you know more about her than I do. You say she shouldn't be the socialist revolutionary of my dreams but you argue that she already compromises with the Justice Dems so she's not actually that revolutionary at all. You say revolutionaries are not loners but you continually praise her shrewd coalition building in her own wing.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you like AOC, but you'd like AOC even more if she was working for your side instead of resisting your attempts to assimilate her and your only objective here is trying to convince me that your side should have her instead of my side.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
This was his failing. He spent too much effort in Washington to get that position that made him vulnerable back home.

My argument is that a big factor in why she won was running against a moron in leadership, and not all leaders are that stupid.
This fails to answer a key question — if Joseph Crowley was a moron, why was he able to achieve a plum position in the Democratic leadership?
 
Nov 7, 2017
2,057
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.
Ya know, that reminds me of what Martin Luther King said about the white moderates who desire order above all things and how he felt they were a bigger threat to civil rights than member of the KKK.
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
This fails to answer a key question — if Joseph Crowley was a moron, why was he able to achieve a plum position in the Democratic leadership?
People can be good at some things and bad at others. Ben Carson being example A. Talented surgeon, thinks pyramids are grain silos.

Our government is in shambles and you want her to play by the old rules. I don't get this. Trump exposed our government guardrails for the illusion they are. The realistic path is playing the game of politics that's post-Trump, which involves Twitter flame wars, not burying your head in the sand of pre-Trump norms and unspoken rules.
Our government is shambles because Republicans have ignored the rules.

Trump may be breaking norms, but not all the norms have shattered. Congress and the parties themselves within remain held by their own rules and customs. Trump hasn't destroyed the Dems rules and customs within congress, it remains there to this day. That's why she's getting pushback, it exists and it is powerful. AOC alone isn't going to break those norms, to break the norms require everyone else to go along with it.

You're not going to stop Trump on twitter, people have tried. What do you expect the Democrats to do by breaking norms?

You argue two contradictory stances at once. You say she's not a known quantity but you ascribe all these achievements to her, you know more about her than I do. You say she shouldn't be the socialist revolutionary of my dreams but you argue that she already compromises with the Justice Dems so she's not actually that revolutionary at all. You say revolutionaries are not loners but you continually praise her shrewd coalition building in her own wing.
I'm simply trying to predict based on the facts I know with what we know of her behaviour. I never said I knew everything, but there is enough to make some sort of prediction. AOC's career could go in numerous directions and not all those directions are good. How you've framed revolutionary upthread does not match the Justice Dems, you've described someone completely outside the system when the Justice Dems specials being within the system. That's why they're elected politicians in congress. They're part of the system now. AOC can coalition build, her weakness is that it's too tied to her own wing. The Justice Dems on their own can't influence congress, they're 7 members total. They've had limited success convincing others, with the New Green Bill, which is great. They don't have the numbers to pass it. They need to do more of this, on a larger scale to succeed here. The problem is they're having difficulties appealing to people, which is why her behaviour has been bought up as not always being a good thing as it obstructs people who might have been allies into backing off. That is a fatal flaw unless she's able to lose that long term. She can't go anywhere, whether it getting bills passed or elected into leadership positions or being allowed on committees unless she's able to play nice with with her colleagues. Is it unfair? Sure. It's something she has find a workable solution for, regardless.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you like AOC, but you'd like AOC even more if she was working for your side instead of resisting your attempts to assimilate her and your only objective here is trying to convince me that your side should have her instead of my side.
You're overthinking my stances, and this isn't about "sides." To do her best to accomplish her goals as a congresswoman requires she be able to assimilate into the working conditions, doing the opposite leaves her wasted on the sidelines regarding the big causes where she can do a lot more than focusing solely on her district.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
People can be good at some things and bad at others. Ben Carson being example A. Talented surgeon, thinks pyramids are grain silos.
This is just a handwave. Crowley wasn’t a brain surgeon. He was a politician. Either he was a good politician who lost to a good primary challenger, or he was an incompetent politician who managed to elevate himself among a bunch of other professional politicians, ones you and I trust to be competent. The fact that you don’t want to think about the implications of this doesn’t mean they magically go away!

You're overthinking my stances, and this isn't about "sides." To do her best to accomplish her goals as a congresswoman requires she be able to assimilate into the working conditions, doing the opposite leaves her wasted on the sidelines regarding the big causes where she can do a lot more than focusing solely on her district.
You have spilled a lot more ink than any other poster on this board arguing that you know better than AOC how to do her job. And believe me, when it comes to talking about AOC, that’s a comically high bar.

Maybe you should consider that you don’t know more than she does about being in Congress?
 
Dec 26, 2018
912
This is just a handwave. Crowley wasn’t a brain surgeon. He was a politician. Either he was a good politician who lost to a good primary challenger, or he was an incompetent politician who managed to elevate himself among a bunch of other professional politicians, ones you and I trust to be competent. The fact that you don’t want to think about the implications of this doesn’t mean they magically go away!
It's an analogy. It's possible your scenarios are possible. Being good at politics does not necessarily mean he's good at all of them. It's not out of the question he could have been a competent politician who was too busy focusing on the bigger picture at Washington he lost track of back home which cost him. It's not like his seat was one that was constantly in danger, that district is a very safe blue district. None of this takes away the impressive work AOC did during that election.

You have spilled a lot more ink than any other poster on this board arguing that you know better than AOC how to do her job. And believe me, when it comes to talking about AOC, that’s a comically high bar.

Maybe you should consider that you don’t know more than she does about being in Congress?
Perhaps you're right, we'll find out in 2 years.

edit: I'm certainly not alone in thinking I know better than politicians in this thread, either.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,900
I am morally obligated by my ideology to sow the seeds of revolutionary socialism among the youth today.
No, this is actually just moral self-indulgence on your part. Democratic socialism has a much higher success rate than vanguard socialism (like, literally infinitely better) with significantly less utilitarian cost. I don’t really think a clear-thinking person could come to the moral conclusion you come to here, so you’re either just pretty ignorant or redefining your moral position to provide an indulgence for your existing anger. Neither is a good excuse here. Do better!
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,162
It is interesting that people tried doing the "well if band-aids is all you have, you make do" as a serious proposal. Hey, do you want to know what you call a patient who is dying of cancer and all the doctors have available is band-aids? A dead patient. Doing "incremental" proposals means that humanity will be on the brink of extinction before steps we needed 10 years ago might be even considered, let alone the drastic changes that would be needed then.
 
Oct 28, 2017
5,597
It is interesting that people tried doing the "well if band-aids is all you have, you make do" as a serious proposal. Hey, do you want to know what you call a patient who is dying of cancer and all the doctors have available is band-aids? A dead patient. Doing "incremental" proposals means that humanity will be on the brink of extinction before steps we needed 10 years ago might be even considered, let alone the drastic changes that would be needed then.
Incrementalism is just conservatism masquerading as pragmatism
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,882
Canada
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.
Isn't that what Rosa Parks' actions said to Claudette Colvin though?
 
Oct 25, 2017
146
Ya know, that reminds me of what Martin Luther King said about the white moderates who desire order above all things and how he felt they were a bigger threat to civil rights than member of the KKK.
This thread is a crash course in how that quote hasn't aged a day. Things are the worst they've been in years and they still advocate for doing essentially nothing while everything burns down. As if there's even going to be a Democrats to "incrementally improve" within the next few years if things continue as they are.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,146
What legislative victories has this strategy bought us since ACA in 2010?

"She's naive"
"She's inexperienced"
"She needs to stay in her lane"
"She needs to stay unified"
"She needs to stay focused"

What has being realistic, experienced, unified and focused given us so far? Fuck all.
It moves the party right which has been the goal since Bill Clinton took over.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,152
“She’s new here, feeling her way around,” added Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). “She doesn’t understand how the place works yet.”

Isn't that why she's popular and got elected? Because we, the American people, don't like how the place works and we want change? They just don't get it.
 
Oct 29, 2017
780
“She’s new here, feeling her way around,” added Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). “She doesn’t understand how the place works yet.”

Isn't that why she's popular and got elected? Because we, the American people, don't like how the place works and we want change? They just don't get it.
Democrats really don't have any business whining about how someone is genuinely trying to shake things up right now.

For nearly 20 years now, they have only been able to make big gains in Congress or win the White House after calamitous fuckups by Republicans, don't have any real consensus in policy beyond "Republicans are bad", and have been hilariously incompetent in terms of campaign strategy in most election cycles. Despite the fact that so many of their ostensible policy goals are supported by a majority of Americans, people don't give a fuck about the Democrats as a party because they don't trust them to follow through.

I'd much rather AOC and the other freshmen risk making people angry by holding firm than simply go along to get along. Democrats are at their most disappointing and useless when they feel safe and comfortable.
 
Oct 28, 2017
5,597
Democrats really don't have any business whining about how someone is genuinely trying to shake things up right now.

For nearly 20 years now, they have only been able to make big gains in Congress or win the White House after calamitous fuckups by Republicans, don't have any real consensus in policy beyond "Republicans are bad", and have been hilariously incompetent in terms of campaign strategy in most election cycles. Despite the fact that so many of their ostensible policy goals are supported by a majority of Americans, people don't give a fuck about the Democrats as a party because they don't trust them to follow through.

I'd much rather AOC and the other freshmen risk making people angry by holding firm than simply go along to get along. Democrats are at their most disappointing and useless when they feel safe and comfortable.
And when they do get power, it’s incrementalism. Yay!
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
No, this is actually just moral self-indulgence on your part. Democratic socialism has a much higher success rate than vanguard socialism (like, literally infinitely better) with significantly less utilitarian cost. I don’t really think a clear-thinking person could come to the moral conclusion you come to here, so you’re either just pretty ignorant or redefining your moral position to provide an indulgence for your existing anger. Neither is a good excuse here. Do better!
Gotta shift that Overton window though. People who aren't down with vanguard socialism can settle for Democratic socialism, as long as they feel the urgency or desire for change I feel I come out ahead in the end. It is pretty self-indulgent I won't deny that.
 
Nov 10, 2017
428
Ocasio-Cortez is a rare talent, and she's a welcome addition to the political scene. But she is politically isolated in congress and her accountability to any independent organization is pretty much nil. Whether she is able to maintain a socialist ideology and a hostile orientation to the political establishment is completely on her own shoulders. That's too much pressure for anyone to keep up forever.

If we actually want to see policy wins for working class people, we need politicians who are developed through independent movements/organizations and who depend on those organizations for their continued electoral success.

On the question of "democratic socialism" vs "vanguard socialism" (not a huge fan of that framing), check out this piece by Arun Gupta. He compared the statements released by Ocasio-Cortez and Kshama Sawant after the death of John McCain. Cortez's called McCain "an unparalleled example of human decency", while Sawant said McCain "shares responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths". It's not a huge issue in itself, but Gupta does a good job showing how differences in the *political movements* behind a politician determine their political potential. It's a really important point for our moment.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/0...e-and-peril-of-electing-socialists-to-office/
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,831
I remember that piece yes. From a strictly socialist perspective I'm aware of the criticisms around AOC towards her left, and agree with a lot of them, which is why I find it silly when moderates tell her she needs to moderate because she's already doing this really. Any more moderation and she'll lose even more semblance of being a DemSoc, although it won't stop her critics from judging her as an outsider to be destroyed/assimilated.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,169
How is this different to Trump and Republicans. Both approaches are terrible for politics and society
They are afraid of her because they don’t understand her. There’s nothing to fear from her
Progress is progress, even if it’s at a snails pace and even if it gets crushed on the street by a car because the snail was going too slow.
Life is certainly unfair, don’t you think?
 
Nov 10, 2017
428
I remember that piece yes. From a strictly socialist perspective I'm aware of the criticisms around AOC towards her left, and agree with a lot of them, which is why I find it silly when moderates tell her she needs to moderate because she's already doing this really.
lol, yep questions of "moderation" or "purity" are ideological black holes. We're supposed to start from the premise that the center-right and the radical left share the same "Core Values", and that everyone left of Joe Arpaio are essentially on the same team. It's unthinkable that supporting Sanders might be a compromise position for someone on the left.
 
Nov 10, 2017
428
if she ends up highlighting how bad the establishment dems are then so be it
I'd argue this is the main thing she actually can do from her position. She's not going to be able to single-handedly shepard through medicare for all or something. And I don't mean that as a criticism at all. Practically the entire "progressive caucus" voted for Nancy Pelosi's wretched PAYGO rules package.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,308
Canada
When both left and right accuse Politico of running biased hit pieces, you know they're doing something right.
There's not enough eye rolls in the world for the overt simplicity in this belief. Whether or not Politico is a trustable news source, THIS is not the metric you can use to determine that when one of the people saying you are running "hit pieces" does that for every article that doesn't shower them with praise and considers the press to be the enemy of the people. It's just such an intensely naive statement, equating criticism from a tyrant wannabe who would destroy them at their first legitimate opportunity with criticism from literally anyone else.

It seems to me that AOC has not asked for a correction or a retraction of the story in question, only that she put Politico on blast on Twitter. Meanwhile, Politico has stood by the story.

Since when do we automatically side with politicians when they complain about journalists? How does AOC saying 'nuh uh' automatically discredit Politico, a site with a longstanding reputation for quality political news? That's absurd.
So first off, it doesn't "automatically" discredit Politico. From what I've seen in this thread, it is not a singular story that people have taken issue with them about. I don't read Politico so I can't speak to the reasons people are discrediting them, but there's a bunch of logic leaps here.

Besides, the person who responded to you was taking issue with the equally-absurd notion that we should somehow think Politico is somehow in the right just because they get detractors from both sides of the political spectrum, without consideration of the differences in where that criticism comes from or is motivated by.

seeing people who are normally vitriolically against any sort of criticism of Democrats from the left defend AOC has been one of the more peculiar patterns in the discourse of late. I predict it won’t last.
The content of the criticism makes a difference, as does who it's coming from and which people are defending it, as... y'know, "people" don't behave as a hive-mind.

What I want is to run strong candidates for their districts. I want to win seats, and then we will test the waters to see what will have enough support to pass. I want a constituency that understands how basic government functions work so they can become more involved, and have realistic expectations.

I'm not even against most of her ideas, honestly, but it's going to be a hard sell for the middle of America. Throw me in the 'incremental progress is better than potentially no progress' camp. If that makes me a moderate, then so be it.

In today's politic, you need the POTUS, the House, and a 60-40 majority of *reliable* votes to get a single fucking thing of merit accomplished. How do we get there? Until we do, these conversations are largely moot.
I can't help but laugh when people such as yourself think we still have the luxury of being able to wait for incremental progress to add up to something meaningful. Being happier that you made a few chips with your chisel against the 1000lb. stone that's about to crush you to death than you would be by making sure it doesn't fall on you isn't being "moderate", it's being oblivious.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,296
I can't help but laugh when people such as yourself think we still have the luxury of being able to wait for incremental progress to add up to something meaningful. Being happier that you made a few chips with your chisel against the 1000lb. stone that's about to crush you to death instead of doing more to make sure it doesn't fall on you isn't being "moderate", it's being oblivious.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.

It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.