politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I mean she's not great. She's probably the weakest among the squad cohort at actually playing the game of politics. She gives a good speech but she regularly gets her ankles broken because she seems to have, like the article demonstrates, a very calculating nature, or at least developed one after sher first two years in Congress.
And that's bad. Like, very bad if you seek higher office, because people are done with the whole not saying what you mean thing.
So you want someone stupider, or at least better at seeming like they don't think? I don't think I take your meaning. Politicians are meant to be 'calculating', it's a famously viperous workplace. I prefer one that thinks, and I don't mind if you can tell when they're doing it.
People should be less obsessed with optics, and more oriented towards what politicians do.
Maybe you just don't follow politics much, but this critique of AOC isn't new and we've been getting on her about it for years. Instincts matter in politics, a lot. Getting through a presidential primary is hard.
Just try and notice how your now defending the things that we specifically went out of our way to remove from our politics as progressives, because it's coming from someone you identify with as being in your team.
Look, politicians don't need cheerleaders. They need critics who can make them stronger, and if AOC does want to run, shes got some real issues that have been piling up shell need to address. And yes, this developed tendency to become more and more couched hlin her language, to become more and more politically calculating, it's a real problem.
You’re not wrong. But I also think this point of view is perceived as a kind of auto-fellatio.
I think the negative reaction from us, the great unwashed, is due to people being so sick of political processes devolving into a meta-game that revolves primarily around the ability to think cynically and act tactically.
Meanwhile we’re out in the world, dealing with fallout from actions in that sphere that don’t make any kind of sense to the material reality of most people. People with rent to pay and groceries to afford and gas to pump.
Playing 4-D chess with the law of averages, playing the long game, and cornering other narcissistic kitten-eaters in saying and supporting things that, on their face, sound horrible… We're just not sophisticated enough to understand it’s part of the process. We have problems that need solving right now and whatever tactical victory that moves an abstract chess piece forward doesn’t seem to do anything to remedy that.
I take your points, but we're in the pre primary stage. If that's not the time to be critical if the details, when do we get to be?
Also, it's a political forum. It's supposed to be a safe space for auto fellating in these topics. And maybe I misread or over read, but that auto fellating thing, it's the critique I'm making of AOC too. She become too calculating, too much like Pelosi.
I also think AOC can fix these issues, but they were issues she had 2 years ago too. and they aren't issues her cohort shares, they are unique to her.
Bernie takes hard interviews. Ilhan takes hard interviews. Khanna takes hard interviews.
AOC only goes for softball safe space media opportunities any more. And she's weaker because if it. She can fix that issue and strengthen her game in this regard, but that's on her.
Fair enough points, I can take them at face value. I just grew up very disillusioned with leftist infighting generally, so I tend to see any leftward scrutiny with a jaundiced eye. In a first past the post system, the side that is least critical of their candidate is going to mainly win I feel, and though I know the value of being critical too well, living in this system makes me of two minds about it.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, and I'm genuinely interested to know how you arrived at it. Like I really want to know how you arrived there.
I'm interested because, I don't think of it as a "sides" issue; what it takes for a Republican/ conservative to win an election and what it takes for a Dem/ progressive to win, they have practically nothing to do with one another. Its two entirely different sets of cohorts you have to appeal to, its two different ways of viewing and thinking about politics and power. I also don't believe that voters exist along a left-right spectrum. I think thats an appealing trope to entrench liberalism, one political class, of which both the Republican and traditional Democratic parties are a part of. So if you think along a unary spectrum to try and understand what people believe, you'll make very serious mistakes when you try to predict their behavior.
In my view, if you are running on the left, its the politician that withstands the most criticism, and stays standing, who is the strongest candidate. Graham Platner or Mamdani is an excellent example of this. And excellent examples of avoiding criticism, Hillary, Biden, Harris, they all led to republican victory. Criticism makes candidates stronger. Allowing them to persist uncritically leaves them, and you if you are they're supporter, vulnerable.
That being said, what it takes for a Democrat to win vs Republican? Absolutely different things. Apples and bananas.
Many of us are done with saying nothing with meaning thing.
I'm more concerned about how she regularly missteps and misplays moments. She genuinely doesn't have great political instincts and is usually last to the table among her peers when it comes to doing or saying the right thing. It's kind of baffling.
Both Ayana Presley and Ilhan Omar are leagues ahead of being in the right side of issues and leading when things matter the most. AOC trails them on issues.
Like, it's gotten bad to the point where I don't know if AOC could make it through a primary. Her ability to get a question and form an answer that is a good, correct take, the first time, without having to test it. It's not great.
She is so threatening to the Epstein class - so much so that it causes comments like this from “ordinary people”
I mean somewhat. Not nearly as threatening as Ro Khanna though. Someone also who has shown faaaar better political instincts. Ro might be a bit more boring and not as pretty, but they are FAR better at the game compared to AOC, who is a bit of a B student in her class.
It's the unforced errors she keeps piling up that give me the most pause.
Oh, you’re not a serious person. Got it, sorry for wasting my time
I guess you just don't really follow progressive politics.
Go away shill
Who am I schilling for?
Fascism is what it sounds like. Have the day you voted for
What the FUCK are you hallucinating?
AOC has genuinely bad political instincts as a critique of some one who got outflanked in the left by the likes of MTG and because I think the person has work to do, that makes me a fascist?
Just go through and reread this thread and rethink where you are at.
The only people siding with MTG over AOC here are not progressives
No ones siding with MTG in the issue. But AOC allowed herself to get outflanked from the left on the issue of finding weapons to Israel. Eventually AOC got on the right side of it all, but Ilhan Omar and the rest of the progressive bloc didn't get out flanked by MTG, just AOC did.
Why is that acceptable to you? That AOC couldn't take a committed stance against funding weapons to Israel? Eventually she got to the right position, but not getting it right to begin with speaks to her political instincts, and they aren't good.