• 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

Oct 29, 2017
960
She's actually a pragmatist on that. She's far, far better about strategy that front than the JDs.
Which is why I don't understand the concern trolls coming in here in droves saying "she better learn or else!!!!!!!". AOC is absolutely tame, particularly when it comes to challenging moderate Dems.
If she's got them all in a tizzy already, then they better buckle in over the next decade because there's going to be even tougher ones than her coming up the pipeline.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,110
The politics-for-fun folks are going to go nuts when she inevitably endorses Bernie for president.
oh god, I'm not ready for that shit storm lol

I think someone on here mentioned it was only a matter of time before party loyalists started going after AOC once she rocked the boat and they were spot on. strap in!
 
Obvious but appropriate regardless:

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin
 
Nov 14, 2017
1,150
Sanders has been made a pure political foil by his enemies as his own personal character, to deter people from the progressive message he has been championing for many years.

That's why its so amusing to see AOC, to be able to come in and actually be a full throated progressive in the same vein with the exact same policy views without the strawmen being able to be hurled at her and being effectively neutralized when tried by either establishment dems or the GOP. That just proves how fake they were from the start.

That is what Justice Dems was attempting from the start, so they should not stop here when it comes to getting people set up running for office, AOC and the other newcomers are just the start
Yep. Let's face it, era cares more about personalities than policies. Thankfully, I like AOC for both.
 
Dec 7, 2018
91
i don't want to "make" the rich and powerful my enemy, i want my representatives to acknowledge the fact that they already are my enemy. they work against my best interests and do not share common goals with me, and as long as they have influence in the democratic party they will use it to dilute and destroy necessary progress.

the ACA is an object lesson here. including the health insurance industry in the building of policy was a huge mistake because their interests are completely at odds with the general public, and the results speak for themselves. the next time democrats are able to craft healthcare legislation they need to treat the insurance companies as malicious actors because that's what they are.
This is exactly why Medicare for all will fail. I don't even disagree with everything you're saying either. The moment you run around calling everyone an enemy, especially those with large sums of money and influence like insurance companies have, they're going to work against you. Democrats sacrificed political capital when they pushed the ACA through. The only way Medicare for all will ever get through is with their help unfortunately. It's an incredibly easy sell to baby boomers that Medicare for all is bad when opponents call it "socialism". These reliably voting old people will be scared.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,957
Politico is full of shit and has been posting anonymously sourced hit pieces against Dems for months now. They literally posted one about AOC back in November saying that she got into a heated argument with a senior Dem and she went on Twitter to say that it was all lies.

This thread is useless.
At this point after reading enough of their pieces I have told my Google feed to stop showing me stories from Politico.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,070
This is exactly why Medicare for all will fail. I don't even disagree with everything you're saying either. The moment you run around calling everyone an enemy, especially those with large sums of money and influence like insurance companies have, they're going to work against you. Democrats sacrificed political capital when they pushed the ACA through. The only way Medicare for all will ever get through is with their help unfortunately. It's an incredibly easy sell to baby boomers that Medicare for all is bad when opponents call it "socialism". These reliably voting old people will be scared.
well the thing is the rich and powerful are already working against us. we gain nothing by trying to work with them and lose any opportunity to make a real difference.

literally anything the left tries to do in healthcare will be labeled socialism and the insurance lobby will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to take it down. they would do that to obamacare+ and they would do it to medicare for all, so why not actually try to do something great that gets real people excited?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,473
Yup. I've never seen it work as an actual definition outside of, "Someone who does not hold the exact same political position that I do and is therefore invalid"
Nah, plenty of people, even on this site, have been perfectly fine using it to describe people who have some left leaning tendencies but otherwise hold themselves to more moderate positions.

Certain people getting their feathers ruffled by it says a lot more about them than it does about ERA misusing the term.
 
This is exactly why Medicare for all will fail. I don't even disagree with everything you're saying either. The moment you run around calling everyone an enemy, especially those with large sums of money and influence like insurance companies have, they're going to work against you. Democrats sacrificed political capital when they pushed the ACA through. The only way Medicare for all will ever get through is with their help unfortunately. It's an incredibly easy sell to baby boomers that Medicare for all is bad when opponents call it "socialism". These reliably voting old people will be scared.
It doesn’t matter what you call them, they are going to oppose you because their only motivating focus is the continued acquisition of wealth regardless of who is harmed, marginalized or even outright killed by their disgusting, demonstrably corrupt for-profit healthcare system.

Private healthcare is so inherently antithetical to true healthcare and its stated aims that in reality, privatized healthcare will have to be scaled back if not outright eradicated entirely to implement socialized healthcare in a manner that doesn’t inflate costs and sap resources needlessly. (six bucks for an aspirin, fifty bucks for an ace bandage, etc.)

Private healthcare is a dinosaur that I surmise knows full well the meteor is coming, regardless of how hard they push back with lobbying money. Their extinction might take another decade or two depending on how various things play out but I doubt their alliance is going to be necessary or even feasible.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,005
Nah, plenty of people, even on this site, have been perfectly fine using it to describe people who have some left leaning tendencies but otherwise hold themselves to more moderate positions.

Certain people getting their feathers ruffled by it says a lot more about them than it does about ERA misusing the term.
Those "moderate positions" also falling under "things I personally disagree with and therefore will call moderate" and therefore falling in line with my point

It's a buzzword. It's an empty phrase, an easy shortcut lacking substance. It's pretty meaningless at this point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,691
Wow. ERA's definition of a centrist is very different from most people's
Obviously, I think it's an exaggeration to say Centrist Democrats are as bad as Republicans, but there are a few places where there is no difference between the parties. For instance, both are very pro-war, pro-corporation, and pro-banks. Those are all very bad things in my eyes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,110
hilarious that someone would suggest AOC aligning herself with Bernie on the issues would be her biggest mistake. she's already doing that! she's already done that! and people love her for it. that's what this is all about, pushing progressive politics. anyone who thinks AOC continuing to push progressive politics would be a mistake is deluding themselves and in this specific instance probably just doesn't like Bernie because :reasons:

she literally said he inspired her to enter politics in the first place!
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,167
Yup. I've never seen it work as an actual definition outside of, "Someone who does not hold the exact same political position that I do and is therefore invalid"
Generally "moderate" was a polite way of saying "populist", "centrist" was a polite way of say "libertarian" (going back to the 2-axis political compass) but aren't actually that many actual libertarians.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,005
Generally "moderate" was a polite way of saying "populist", "centrist" was a polite way of say "libertarian" (going back to the 2-axis political compass but aren't actually that many actual libertarians.
Yeah. But I think post-2016 people have turned it into a really easy shortcut so they can avoid saying what they mean. (I guess that's why you're using past tense though, ha.)
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,473
Like, to me, an easy definition of a centrist would be somebody who is only in favor of some leftist things and then otherwise spouts of
Those "moderate positions" also falling under "things I personally disagree with and therefore will call moderate" and therefore falling in line with my point
This is a really silly handwave that is almost as empty as the dreaded buzzword you are attacking. It's not hard to separate out "leftist" ideas and more "moderate" ideas from each other without it just being another way of saying "I disagree"
 
Nov 14, 2017
4,761
Bernie isn't going to win the 2020 primary - he has too much of a blind spot for racial and women's issues. AOC will support him anyway, because she supports his policies, if not the man himself. It's a voice that needs to exist in the modern Democratic party, and should always have a seat at the table. We aren't fighting just to stop the bleeding, we're trying to reattach the leg. If someone like Bernie makes someone as liberal as Warren more palatable, all the better.

Medicare for All is only on the table now because of progressives. AOC has also jumpstarted the conversation on taxes and student loan forgiveness. This is more important than playing pattycake with donors in a congressional session where we can only pass legislation by conceding legislation. She was in the trenches shaking hands with Republicans today. She's trying.
 

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,005
This is a really silly handwave that is almost as empty as the dreaded buzzword you are attacking. It's not hard to separate out "leftist" ideas and more "moderate" ideas from each other without it just being another way of saying "I disagree"
But my point is that's generally not what's happening when the phrase is thrown around. You can say that that's the way those words typically have been used in the past and people would pretty much agree, but post-2016 they've become go-to insults to anybody who doesn't fall 100% in line with the Justice Democrats or the Democratic Socialists of America or Bernie Sanders-- basically anything in that particular sphere of influence. It's, "You're not as pure as I am and therefore you're worthless"-- where pure is defined entirely by conformity to the speaker's political identity as opposed to the previously extant meaning.