i have honestly no idea how this post has anything to do with what i just saidThat's what got Trump elected. And his government has been an absolute failure. You can't elect someone who only knows how to bloviate.
i have honestly no idea how this post has anything to do with what i just said
that's not what i said at all, but go off i supposeYou seem to be promoting people who bloviate well as a solution to people who bloviate well. It's not going to work.
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.That's what got Trump elected. And his government has been an absolute failure. You can't elect someone who only knows how to bloviate.
that's a completely substanceless take on what i've been saying.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.
i think AOC is good not because she's good at talking but because she takes a principled stand against all that.
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
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 the former
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.They don't like it only because it scares them and that's great. If any Dems are worried she may embolden someone to primary them they ought to look at their policies and course correct sooner rather than later.
well so far she's doing all the right thingsThere is no difference unless you actually give a shit about a path to act on it.
She's already made a 70% marginal tax rate a national conversation with just 8 days in office. That's how change starts.C) We have yet to see how successful she will be as a voice for this change yet
It's not "ERA's", its lefties who use it as a slur against anyone to the right of "overthrow capitalism."
Why would need help when there's nothing wrong with the statement?
It's used as an insult, invective, etc. (whatever you want to call it) by some rather than being used as a boring neutral descriptor the way it's used everywhere else.
This actually happened in 2018!*extremely white voice*
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. "
And this the party shifts right*extremely white voice*
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. "
well so far she's doing all the right things
we'll just have to see if that lasts
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.
Those moderate Democrats are almost all economically moderate, but socially liberal.
The 2019 Dem caucus is much more consistently socially liberal due to how realignment moved competitive seats away from "White Working Class" areas and opened up THE OC instead.
And this is going to result in a more liberal caucus overall because social conservatism leads to MUCH more conservative economic policy than simply having moderate economic beliefs.
"Years of warped lukewarm centrism has made it so I don't know the difference between principles and posturing."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
"Years of warped lukewarm centrism has made it so I don't know the difference between principles and posturing."
Those economically moderates will still perpetuate and vote for systemically racist policies even if they are socially liberally.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:
How much do you want done from someone who's been in office for just over a week? Like, wtf are you talking about?"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"
your star girl and star boy are no exception dude
Your social moderates will be even worse because the racism overrides everything else.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
They're much less racist because they've grown up, lived and worked with nonwhite people their entire lives.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.
Yes. Hold an inherently unfair position, and I'll mock you.Only "a little"? Is that why you jumped in this thread to flat out mock them?
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.They're much less racist because they've grown up, lived and worked with nonwhite people their entire lives.
I wonder if Congress is the best office for her. So much of the job is building alliances and compromise. It'd be cool to see her give mayor a shot.
Just now? They always have it, doesn't matter what anyone does, right wing media will make a narrative out of it.And now right wing media has their narrative
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...at-dems-fretting-over-her-twitter-star-status
And now right wing media has their narrative
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...at-dems-fretting-over-her-twitter-star-status
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/
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.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.
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.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.
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.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