-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democrats to AOC "You aren't supposed to go after other Democrats" as they hope to get her to fall into line
- Thread starter Tovarisc
- Start date
i have honestly no idea how this post has anything to do with what i just said
You seem to be promoting people who bloviate well as a solution to people who bloviate well. It's not going to work.
my umbrage wasn't with its veracity - he's being 100% honest. it's the statements truth i find upsetting
aside: the dictatorship handbook has been pretty enlightening for examples like this
Sure, but that's why the Dems could go a long way by actually working with people at the grassroots level to cultivate the next generation of democrat leaders who can electrify voters while actually getting work done in congress.
Again, we need more people like AOC, and it's not going to be that difficult to find those people if they actually try and understand why she's so effective this early in her career.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...een-new-deal-winning-climate-strategy/576514/
For anyone curious.
EDIT: Actually this one is more comprehensive: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/aocs-green-new-deal-policy.html
For anyone curious.
EDIT: Actually this one is more comprehensive: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/aocs-green-new-deal-policy.html
Last edited:
Your problem with democrats is that they're, in your eyes, all talk and no action-- i.e, "they bloviate well". our point is that AoC currently just knows how to bloviate well, which is a valulable skill and a great way to get good PR, but you seem to protray it as an actual solution to our problem of people only being able to bloviate well.
This is why you rally around politicians who have actual solutions. This is why solutions are important. You're getting excited over the thing you're angry about and fighting against; just because it's worded better.
Last edited:
that's a completely substanceless take on what i've been saying.
my problem with democrats is that they're largely bad, in that they're pro-capital and when they do pass something good it's always internally compromised to the point where it usually collapses on itself in short order. i think they're actually very good at accomplishing their goals, but their goals are making a lot of money and pleasing their donors.
i think AOC is good not because she's good at talking but because she takes a principled stand against all that. reducing all of this to surface-level drama is ridiculous but par for the course when it comes to the democratic party.
having bedrock moral principles is a different thing than saying platitudes on the TV, and just because AOC can do the latter doesn't mean she's reducible to only that
There is no difference unless you actually give a shit about a path to act on it.
I agree with this whole heartedly. Being an elected official shouldn't be a career with comfortable long term job security. Primary elections shouldn't be something to be feared. Should always be ready for a chellenger.
well so far she's doing all the right things
we'll just have to see if that lasts
Can someone tell me what exactly she needs to fall in line for? There certainly is something to be said about learning the ropes from people who have been doing this a long time but people didn't elect her to fucking be a normal boring ass democrat. She won on her platform and her personality. To an extent your old boring asses need to embrace it.
She's 29, you have to embrace the young energy. Not pray she falls in line.
She's 29, you have to embrace the young energy. Not pray she falls in line.
She's already made a 70% marginal tax rate a national conversation with just 8 days in office. That's how change starts.
1. The word "insult" doesn't have the same degree as the very loaded term "slur"
2. It's problematic to imply that "centrist" is in the same ballpark as something like the homophobic f slur or the racist n slur by legitimizing the view that just any word can be a slur. It also legitimizes statements like " liberals use alt-right, republican, incel etc. as a slur"
This actually happened in 2018!
The election pattern is basically Robbie Mook's revenge.
And now right wing media has their narrative
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...at-dems-fretting-over-her-twitter-star-status
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...at-dems-fretting-over-her-twitter-star-status
our fundamental disagreement here is the fact that saying =/= doing
you care about the former and conflate it with the latter; i mostly just care about the latter. If all you care about is the fact that she slags off democrats you're in for a bad time
Last edited:
No, it doesn't, because replacing socially conservative economically liberal representatives (populists) w socially liberal economically moderate representatives (liberal<-> libertarian range) is going to make your net economic policy because racism is a bigger roadblock to implementing a better welfare state than someone's actual economic views.
Quoting myself, from yesterday:
I do not understand your obsession with desperately seeking out the "white working class" voters who have clearly told you what their priorities are.
"Years of warped lukewarm centrism has made it so I don't know the difference between principles and posturing."
"years of seeing politicans saying one thing and doing the other (or not doing anything at all) has made me not care one bit about what politicans are actually saying as far as their stances on policy go because none of it actually matters"
Those economically moderates will still perpetuate and vote for systemically racist policies even if they are socially liberally.
How much do you want done from someone who's been in office for just over a week? Like, wtf are you talking about?
Your social moderates will be even worse because the racism overrides everything else.
Why did the American "working class" never unify here like it did elsewhere? Because the "white working class" didn't want to.
If you think that's what I've been saying you need to read my posts again without inserting your own conclusions.
Thinking people shouldn't gravitate towards politicians based solely on their own PR isn't an earth shattering take.
They're not mine, let's get that straight. And let's not forget that those white moderates are still racist even if they might be socially liberal. They want to keep the white supremacist infrastructure because they benefit from it.
I think your expectations are a little whack. Some of us consider her proposal and stances--voicing them and making them actual talking points where they would not have been before--doing something positive insofar as how much is even possible yet.
Only "a little"? Is that why you jumped in this thread to flat out mock them? Hard to have a good faith conversation with someone who's only interested in dunking on other participants, so don't pretend that's what we're doing here.
I guess I really don't see what the issue would be here. Congress is an entity where deal making and relationship building is crucial to getting things done. Her advocating for sitting members in her own party to be primaried doesn't be help build those relationships. No one wants AOC to become the Ted Cruz of the left.
This is what I'm most concerned with, I think naturally any person will begin to feel beat down and succumb to compromise on some of her positions when even those in her own party aren't in line with what's best for the poor and middle class. I hope she is able to keep that fervor for true progressive values.
They're much less racist because they've grown up, lived and worked with nonwhite people their entire lives.
No one's trying to say they're perfect unicorns. But they're a hell of a lot better when it comes to being reliable votes for progressive legislation because "wait we don't want to help the Welfare Queens" isn't going to be a roadblock for them. The bigger issues are going to be with some of them being YIMBYs locally, but that's largely irrelevant at the federal level.
If you haven't read Osita Nwanevu's piece on the failure of Jesse Jackson's 1988 campaign I strongly, strongly recommend doing so. https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/...cs-neoliberalism-and-the-white-working-class/
Yes. Hold an inherently unfair position, and I'll mock you.
No, they're still racist, they're just expressing it systemically instead of in-your-face slurs and shit. Like they'll talk about equality and shit but stil gentrify the shit out of your neighborhood.
If nothing else it'll teach her the realities of holding a political position. One would hope, anyway.
We're seeing it with Trump. Going out of your way to make everyone your enemy means nobody will work with you and you will not be able to accomplish anything you actually set out for.
Just now? They always have it, doesn't matter what anyone does, right wing media will make a narrative out of it.
Is it so wrong to go to Washington with the intention to change the game rather than play it as it is? Especially considering the side everyone agrees is the greatest threat, are not playing by the games rules?
Reminds me when Tea Partiers first started getting elected and the establishment Republicans said the incoming freshmen would learn how to go about things the right way and learn their place in the pecking order.
A few years later, Boehner was out on his ass and their caucus was setting the agenda for their Party.
A few years later, Boehner was out on his ass and their caucus was setting the agenda for their Party.
If you like that article. you should follow Osita Nwanevu on Twitter, you could learn a lot from his perspective on liberalism and the Democratic Party
Except this is about what people want, and not billionaire asshole, astroturfing, scum like the tea party. It's strange that people that want to do good for the greater whole have to go through the gauntlet of hate because comfortable pieces of shit think their meal ticket will end.
The amount a house rep has to do with local gentrification is approximately 0. Which is another reason why trading more-racist "working class" reps for less racist metropolitan reps is a positive trade.
Like, unless you're trying to literally convey that you believe all white people are equally racist regardless of where they live, and thus the only thing that matters is class. Which would be completely wrong based on the data we have showing gigantic differences in how metropolitan white voters perceive the world as opposed to rural ones.
I do! I'm not opposed to good-faith criticism! Like, I want Lipinski gone, I want whatshisface in Texas gone, I would have voted Nixon in NY, etc.
I gotta find the story on Grossman's timeline, but they actually found (via surveys from people asked to bet on election results) that learning about how politics works inherently moderates people's political opinions. It doesn't make their core views moderate, but it changed how they were approaching the subject.
