4
AOC feels like the only hope America has at any improvement.
I hope that we can also get a younger white male progressive to work along side her. Not because I think they'd be better, but it might help draw emotionally fragile men who can't accept a woman in charge. Also, it would mean another progressive reaching the masses, which is always good.
A lot of men are sick of being told they're emotionally fragile for not wanting to be accused of thoughtcrime. Both sides are responsible for this situation and it doesn't help to attack the base you're seeking support from. Dems and you need to learn this.
You seem emotionally fragile.
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
I'm glad it seems that many democrats are quitting their Gatekeeping bullshit with AOC.
So frustrating to see people so concerned about the perception of some strawman caricature the right manufacture for our best fighters that we turn on our own. If it wasn't obvious, they attack her so relentlessly because they fear her and know her potential more some of our own.
Nancy Pelosi dedicated the month before Trump was inaugurated to ensuring AOC, a spoiler leftist in a sea of her crony neoliberals, didn't get an oversight committee seat.
Neoliberals Democrats hate actual leftwing politicians far more than they hate their fascist opposition party. Makes sense, Fascists and neoliberals have the same bosses and take the same bribe checks.
Nuh-uh! DNC only takes money from the GoOd billionaires.
There are no good billionaires. But pretending the techbros aren't destroying society at a much faster rate than the old leaches who just sucked the country dry slowly, is just closing your eyes to reality.
I did the capital lowercase thing but only for the word good, so I can see how it is hard to miss. It was supposed to indicate sarcasm, but I probably should have extended the formatting to the word "billionaires" too
I think if we don't start WW3 and nuke the planet she's gonna be the first woman president in the US
The DNC would murder her if she broke through their primary defenses and got close enough.
They're fine with losing, the pendulum is part of the grift, what they aren't fine with is losing their half of that bipartisan oligarch gravy train. Our capitalists don't bribe both parties to have those parties stand against economic metastasis at all human cost.
We can have affirmation ribbons and be sucked dry by the oligarchs, or we can have scapegoating and be sucked dry by the oligarchs, that is the extent of our "freedom." Reagan and Kemp saw to that by getting their former opposition on the take.
Serious talk. When are people going to start calling them DINOs. Democrats In Name Only from the Jurassic period.
You think Trump took over the RNC because the old guard liked him?? No he built on the backs of the tea party.
Bernie and the squad were the lefts tea party. What they need now is a charismatic leader to build on it and kick the DINOs out by force.
The DNC is not that powerful. We outnumber them. Stop forgetting we outnumber them.
Slave mentality is an unhealthy coping mechanism.
I hope that AOC has a security detail, a go bag and plan, and an ideal state to reside in. It is my expectation for Yarvin's Cabel to try to capture or assasinate her at some point, since she is one of the few major lightning rods to be the president of a Free America. We will need great people to organize the defense of our people against the fascist agenda.
Bernie, AOC, others, stay safe and strong. 🖖
I think regardless of whether you are Republican or a Democrat, AOC is probably the closest to what a representative should be. Now whether you agree with her or not is a different discussion entirely, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. She's just the only one that actually seems to give a shit about who she represents. Whereas both for Republicans and Democrats the vast majority of our "representation" are crotchety and corrupt old people that don't give a shit anymore.
That's because she's actually trying to help people, and you don't get rich helping people.
Well obviously you do. Or she isnt trying to help people. She admitted to having hundreds of thousands of dollars
Where are you from that you think hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US is "wealth"?
Do you know that 500k in the US doesn't even get you a nice house? You need literally around 2 mil saved up JUST TO RETIRE BEFORE 70.
She is helping people in that she serves her constituency, she is a representative, nobody expects her to donate her money to anyone, but she does raise money in fundraisers all the time. She helps more people than most of her peers in congress. These fundraisers do NOT make you money, you may have some very backwards ideas about how money works in politics. Even the right respects AOC to an unusual degree, like they do Bernie Sanders. At least about policy and messaging. They care more about people than party.
I mean... 200K-300K-ish can get you a ~~livable~~ survivable place in an okay part of Philly... like there is no "drug dealers" in my area, its not lile "the wire", its not Baltimore, it just... "Okay" not good, not bad.(15 years ago it was like 100K to 200K). I've never heard a gunshot in 15 years living here (or maybe I did and though it was fireworks, who knows). My mom got robbed once. That's it. Its not a terrible place to live. I mean, I haven't died, so... 🤷♂️
But yea, there are places (like NYC) that's unlivable, housing in NYC is just insane, its why we had to move out of NYC. (Brooklyn btw)
You have no idea what you're talking about. 500k in assets is like a decent house that you're still making payments on, a couple cars, and some 401k savings. People like that are not the problem. That lifestyle should be the base level for every single American, imo.
It should be, but it isn't. You're out of touch with what most people have.
It seems like you may be conflating having ~$500k net worth with being rich, which may not have been your intent, but it seemed that way based on context. I think what the other responder is getting at is that AOC is not rich. She may have a house, a car, and some retirement saved up. All of those are assets, but they do not translate into the kind of liquidity that many other American politicians have.
She was working class before she entered into politics, and some would argue that she still is based on her work and advocacy. I don't want to sound like I'm accusing your of anything, or putting words in your mouth, because that's not my intent; I just want to point out a common belief held by a lot of Americans. Lumping someone in with the rich and then holding them in contempt merely because that person is richer than you is exactly the kind of us-versus-them mentality the ruling class wants us to have.
She is rich. There is nothing inherently wrong with being rich. There is something wrong with being a lawmaker who is so out of touch with poor people that you dont realize your own privileges
Can you explain why you think she is out of touch with poor people? I'm genuinely curious, because you may know something about her that I don't, and if she's as secretly two-faced as Sinema and Manchin, or has done something to actively denigrate or undermine the working class, I want to be informed.
I understand that most poor people feel overlooked, ignored, and exploited by the rich, and that's because that is exactly what they do--but their greatest trick is to make us think that it's not their fault that we are poor. Please look again to the last sentence of my reply: Holding someone in contempt merely because they are richer than you is exactly what the billionaires want you to do, because it distracts and redirects anger away from them, and is just another tool they use to make the working class fight amongst themselves.
She isnt richer than me. I have more money than she does.
I dont care if someone has money. That doesn't make you a bad person. The issue is that she isnt aware how rich she is. That's out of touch with reality.
I have more money than she does.
Spoiler, that means you're the one that's out of touch here.
The issue is that she isnt aware how rich she is. That's out of touch with reality.
Based on what?
The issue is that she isnt aware how rich she is. That's out of touch with reality.
Based on what, jagged_circle? Answer the question.
I love AOC. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat in primary and general elections. Now, whether she makes it to the general depends on the DNC, and I have no faith that the political consultant/establishment class will let anything remotely progressive through. No money to be made.
I guess the only way forward would be to vote for her in the primaries to such a degree that the Dems have not choice but to confirm her through.
Or, get so much grassroots activism going that you can start a new party for her.
You might go a round of everyone flaming, "nooo! You have to support Dems or Repbs will win!!1!" But if enough people try a vote for your new party, next time it might have a chance.
She doesn’t have to start a new party. The left side of the dems should just use The Tea Party and MAGA playbook. They co-opted the GOP by pushing out Republican incumbents in local elections first. A shitton of money from the far-right went to these smaller elections. Then they moved on up and replaced Republican state senators. They created enough momentum that Trump became a viable candidate.
Push enough incumbents out and the Democrats have to take the left seriously. Plus it will normalize left wing rhetoric and policies among the populace. Screaming “cOmmUniSm” won’t work anymore when the people have seen these policies being implemented in their own communities.
So, how many decades will this take, and where are we gonna get this shitton of money?
The tea party did it in two Obama terms. And the money has to come from the public. Starting a viable third party isn’t going to be easier or cheaper.
Taking over an existing party would probably be easier.
The green party is currently a shell designed to launder foreign influence in US elections. But there ain't a lot of green party members, and fewer still vote in their party's primaries. Compared to getting the Democratic party to move in a direction other than right or starting an entire new party from scratch, stealing the green party might be doable. Time it right and you can even make russia waste time, money, and effort trying to keep it.
And it's not like Democrats are ever going to hold honest primaries again.
You could steal the green party but it's not going to get you anything. You'd have to do the exact same thing of building up the party from local, to state, to federal offices. And you don't get to drag along the people who are lifelong Democrats. You'd have to build up the green party and then take on both the Democrats and Republicans.
You could steal the green party but it’s not going to get you anything. You’d have to do the exact same thing of building up the party from local, to state, to federal offices.
Without the full might of the Democratic Party stopping you from winning primaries.
You’d have to build up the green party and then take on both the Democrats and Republicans.
As opposed to having no party and having to take on both Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats can't put their putrid ancient mummy thumbs on the scale for general elections, unlike primaries, if we ever have any of those ever again.
If you're a third party in the general, the deck is stacked against you even stronger than a progressive in the primary.
I'm not so sure.
How many progressives do we have in the house? How many green party members (or any independent/third party member who wasn't initially elected as a Democrat/Republican)?
How many progressives do we have in the house?
Too few. The party pulls out all the stops to block them and doesn't protect progressive incumbents.
Dems have no choice but to confirm her through.
That was the Bernie plan in 2016 & 2020 during the primaries. Clinton had the support of the established Democratic party and with superdelegates Clinton took a commanding lead. Similar situation with Biden, most dropped out before Super Tuesday and endorsed him.
Now both of these instances could be considered "smart politics". If you've got the political maneuvering to win the primary, then maybe you've got the same maneuvering to win the general.
It didn't work out for Clinton. It did work out for Biden.
When we look at our most recent election, it's clear there was a little bit more of a rift, but Harris was chosen and there was no primary.
Now, some of this is simplified and there is plenty to argue. But suffice to say we can't just vote for AOC "so much" that she'll win. I don't see the Democratic party supporting her.
Now it's too early to talk about 2028 realistically and a lot can change between now and then, but if she were running today she'd have my vote.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the internet manifest:
1- blame her for having millions due to kickbacks
2- when she proves that her net worth is less than 500K make fun of her for having too little money
Because it's ONE SIDED around here, just like Reddit... if a Republican said this EXACT same thing, they'd be crucified.
If a republican said "I'm ONLY worth 500k...you'd all be sing a different tune...
You’re right. If someone who only cares about money and their own self interest comes out as having none, well that’s just embarrassing. Having sold your soul for something you have measurably none of? Disgusting.
Luckily AOC has never done conservative shit like that. lol
Oh brother...
Oh brother indeed, at you trying to rile people up against AOC. I mean, you’ve obviously got a lot of thoughts dinking around in that head of yours; with what, the maybe 12 words you’ve contributed here?
Why don’t you explain yourself if you’re so god damned intellectually and morally superior?
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22933 readers
2467 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS