this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
213 points (99.1% liked)

politics

31192 readers
2140 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
213
AOC's colleagues already floating a future leadership bid (www.axios.com)
submitted 2 years ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 84 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I mean, what do people want AOC to do? Just roll over and give up?

Not giving up and continuing to fucking try is the way, as much as it sucks and feels like it's a neverending battle.

AOC is trying because she understands the horrors of civil war and revolution. No clear headed rational individual actually wants us to go down that path, because of the untold suffering it would cause.

Trying to keep the system from collapsing entirely is a good thing actually, no matter how much you hate that the Democrats often act as a shield for the Republicans, and no matter how shitty our original constitution actually is.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's what Democrats want.

I for one am glad that progressive in office aren't giving up and are committed to push forward despite the complete and utter continued failings of the Democratic party here.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The fact that she won't give up in the face of insurmountable odds tells me she's exactly the kind of representative we actually need in government.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not giving up, and even making a little bit of headway. It's impressive, given the open disdain from even members of her own party, how far she was able to get in this process.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah, she and the rest of the progressive caucus have done a great job of pushing and representing progressive ideas, as slow and painful as it has been. I hope she and the rest of them continue to push and fight and set and example for others because some progressives need to get their heads on straight.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In reading your submission, it is exactly the opposite. No one wants her to give up.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Right...those quotes are what you call "Fucking Lies", in my book.

Let's see about the actions of these crappy, corrupt dinosaurs, not their flowery lies and bullshit and if the past four years are any indication, I'm not expecting a lot of action.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I get downvoted for this on Lemmy, but if you want to make AOC the voice of the Democratic Party, exercise your first amendment rights and donate to her: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/alexandria-ocasio-cortez

You bet her billionaire opponents are also exercising their “free” speech with their money.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

It's weird: every time the gutless dems ratfuck the left I feel the clarity leaving my body. Probably not my best trait.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Interesting. ASSUMING all these words in the article aren't hollow, many colleagues do support AOC. If it wasn't for ol' Nancy sticking her finger in the dike this may not have been too controversial.

Problem is this reads, and probably is, a buying time sort of deal. To the old geriatric leadership AOC is a threat to how they do things. More importantly, like with Bernie, she's a threat due to her supporters.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

She would have been a direct threat to them...

That's why instead they went with 74 year old with terminal cancer, he's recently violated insider trading laws, he won't go after Dems because they likely have dirt on him

Like how a new cop has to participate in stealing money/drugs before the old cops will trust them.

There has to be dirt both ways so you know they won't snitch.

AOC hasn't participated, so they won't let her into leadership roles, definitely not the Oversight committee

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

There are a few words in this article I hope are entirely hollow

[AOC] was pressed, for instance, on her support for primary challengers to fellow House Democrats during a Steering and Policy Committee meeting on Monday and promised to discontinue the practice.

This is the exact wrong thing to be doing and not something she can compromise on

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Its becoming more and more clear that, at least working from within, that the project of the DNC is working against our interests.

[–] AlijahTheMediocre@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We need more involvement to outnumber the old hags who can still be bought.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah thats not how that works. You are advocating for effectively the same strategy thats been in place since 2018. We've got the receipts (this article). It hasn't worked.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

She got 84 votes. That's not a "forever doomed" insurgent. Primary (or let time handle) a few more of the old guard trying to shut her out and she could just win.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not just the old ones. Pete Buttigieg comes to mind.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What did he do?

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

In four years at the department of Transportation? Not much, though the people of East Palestine have some complaints.

The real problem is that he is cut from the same cloth as the rest of the Democratic establishment. Lots of pretty but meaningless platitudes, zero accomplishments, and a myriad of connections to wealthy donors. He's just another empty clone like Harris.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I have been incredibly impressed with AOC over even the last 3 or 4 years.

She used to be "generic Squad member" in that she mostly was focused on antagonizing establishment democrats and not actually accomplishing anything other than giving republicans a chance to regroup.

But basically since the war in Ukraine started it feels like someone gave her a stern talking to and she realized how to actually help people. She is still more than willing to tear into the shittiest parts of the Democrats but she also understands... we have a common enemy and need to focus on that. And when she DOES compromise, she is actually really good about explaining why and what her hard lines are.

She is basically what I wish sanders actually had been: A progressive (with leftist tendencies) voice that also understands how to make progress.

That said: She is still young for a politician. In five or six years (when she is in her 40s) I think we need her in leadership roles. That said... I also think she probably should be ready to flee the country come February because republicans hate her with the fury of a thousand suns.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 years ago

because republicans hate her with the fury of a thousand suns.

Smart, capable, self-made, brown-skinned woman. Oh, and she's very attractive. There's nothing that makes their hate wheels spin more.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She is basically what I wish sanders actually had been: A progressive (with leftist tendencies) voice that also understands how to make progress.

I mean has she made any kind of progress? Her track record isn't better than Bernie to my knowledge.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

People forget that sanders was literally a meme about how nobody watches c-span. He spent so much of his political career actively antagonizing Democrats (seriously, look up how he abused primaries to guarantee he won) that it completely undermined most of his attempts to get anything other than a pork amendment on bills.

It is hard to measure direct contributions by the nature of politics. But the fact that they have a comparable track record and AOC has only been in congress for six-ish years kind of says it all. There is plenty of argument that sanders paved the way for her and the rest of The Squad (I go back and forth on that) but... assuming she survives the next four to infinity years, she has a VERY bright political future.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

she has a VERY bright political future.

She has a bright political future, but the question is how much that political future will do for the working class. The reality is that there's simply not much you can do with >10% of congress, and I doubt that AOC's approach (or any approach that focuses on working within the Democratic party) will cause enough change to turn Congress into a place that can pass progressive policy.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Okay....

Well, short of leading a revolution to replace congress, I am not sure what you are expecting there? But as a progressive politician with leftist tendencies who is not actively leading a coup, she seems to be doing pretty good.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago

Well I'm firmly in the "found/participate in a new party" camp, but that's not really my point. I'm trying to say that it's way too early to applaud AOC for achieving actual progress because she... Well, hasn't.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

Bernie did exactly what the party would want a caucusing-independent to do. Run in the Democratic primary and win it so he wouldn't split the vote. Not doing that would have been actively antagonistic to the party. The (I) is mostly just aesthetics.