this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
885 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19865 readers
3733 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denied claims that she is secretly wealthy, stating she is worth less than $500,000 and doesn’t trade stocks or take corporate money.

Her financial disclosures show modest savings and student debt.

Some conservatives on X, despite opposing her politics, praised her perceived integrity.

Accusations of political corruption have surged online, partly fueled by Elon Musk.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The difference is that AOC is doing what politicians are supposed to do and establishing an identity for herself that would allow her to connect with voters. Clinton, on the other hand, presented herself as a blank slate and then whined when her enemies filled that slate in.

Clinton had a problem with her public image for years before 2016 and resolutely refused to do anything about it, instead just blaming others at every turn. That attitude shows that she would have been a shitty President. Better than Trump, of course (there are few people who wouldn't be) but still shitty by any objective measure.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

All true but I thought she would have been an effective president, due to focussing on organization, negotiations, influence, and that she was generally for the same platform as bill, so I’d generally agree with it (but with obvious caveats). She would have gotten things done, but in a democratic way instead of a fascist way, and those things would align with the generic Democrat platform