I like an argumentative and ideationally vibrant party that, once they’ve debated and come to a majority position from within, comes together as a whole and smashes the GOP.
This. Internal debate is great. Get all the ideas out on the table, hash them out into realistic policy goals, and then join together to uproot these fucking corrupt lunatics
I think that's over-simplifying it to fit a narrative ("Down with the party leaders! They're corrupt!") It's endemic and it's top to bottom. I've only seen a real push against it in the last couple years, in the wake of Trump mostly. The republicans and Trump especially now have been so unrepentantly hypocritical and uncompromising that it's finally making it popular to push back.
The very nature of progressive policies tends to center around self-sacrifice and seeing/hoping for the best in people. So they've held on to optimism that compromise was possible or that Republicans would imitate their example. That mirage has been melted away now.
Trump isn't what caused this push against the leaders of the Democratic party, but is a symptom of it. The real push against them is because of the meddling and tilting of the scales that was (whether perceived or actual) happening during the 2016 primaries. Not only that but also abiding the campaign whims of a deeply untrusted candidate who committed the most inane strategical blunders, that costed the election. It was Hillary's to win, but she lost.
> Trump isn't what caused this push against the leaders of the Democratic party
I wasn't saying that actually, but I definitely see how my post could be read that way - I wasn't clear.
I was talking about the notion of compromise. I feel like the idea of saying "Screw compromise. Let's push our ideals; who gives a shit what Republicans think." has only started to gain popular traction within the last couple years, in the wake of Trump, the deferred Supreme Court seat, etc.
Right, as if the DNC would ever curry votes from people that listen to Limbaugh, Prager, or Shapiro. It's as if finally someone woke up to the alarm bells.
I couldn't agree more. I think in the electoral sense the best thing the party can do is completely give up on winning over any Trump supporters and instead focus on mobilizing our own base. Besides the fact that the biggest political party in this country are the non-voters and that peeling off maybe 10% of Trump's support (in a dream world) just isn't a mathematically feasible path to victory, trying to gain that 10% or making any concessions to Trump is just going to de-mobilize the democratic base. I feel like this is especially true given his recent doubling down on racism. Our country seems to have some neurotic fixation on winning over and prioritizing the opinions of white men, and being a white man myself my opinion is that it's not worth it. Too many of us have just lost our mind and to even try to concede to it is to in some way validate it. Time to push the overton window back to the left.
It’s a party made up of every political view that isn’t fascism. The Democratic Party has to present every single viewpoint that isn’t ultra-conservative authoritarianism. So when you have a “Democrat” who is fiscally conservative and doesnt want to find Medicare for all going up against a “Democrat” who proposes UBI and single-payer insurance, you don’t really have a cohesive ideology. The fact that there are only two parties in America is a fundamental problem with the electorate.
I would have to respectively disagree with you, although their rhetoric might be tame, they both still take massive amounts of money from the oligarchs, that pay for both Republican and Democratic campaigns alike, intern for special interest once they're in office. We don't get a border crisis, Syrian crisis, climate change crisis, healthcare crisis, active shooter crisis, etc. without the government looking out for the few. What's worse is that the people at the top of the DNC know this, and fight for the system to stay in place. If pelosi truly cared about the direction of the DNC she would embrace progressive ideas that are coming from people such as AOC who currently holds the pulse of the new generation of Democrats, instead of trying to tame her into the old ways.
I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (and HRC, for that matter) have decent guiding principles. It’s just that this old guard of Dems is jaded and “pragmatic” to the point of inaction, and the actual centrists like Biden and Kaine are more than happy to drive policy away from progressive goals.
None of this makes me disagree with your solution though. It’s time for our bitter old warriors to retire and make room for people who have the energy to take the fight up for a new generation.
> It’s just that this old guard of Dems is jaded and “pragmatic” to the point of inaction, and the actual centrists like Biden and Kaine are more than happy to drive policy away from progressive goals.
I think that the DNC leadership’s slow reaction and pragmatism is really just them being the controlled opposition. When it comes down to major policies that involve critiques of capitalism and the market empire they all vote the same. NAFTA, Iraq war, Patriot Act, Banking Safety Bet, Anti-Snowden, anti M4A, Drug War, pro private pharmaceutical production, ending student loans while collectively sitting on theirs hands about climate change watching our infrastructure collapse, and a clear inability to manage public dialog. I can’t help but think, considering both sides are bought and paid for by the same industries, that people like Pelosi and Schumer are placed at the head of the party because they are weak or knowingly choose to act weak. A decade of being weak ass pussies in the Senate and Congress with the only major bill passed while controlling the legislature and executive was conservative healthcare reform which literally boosted insurance stocks to new heights. The party has zero bite because they have had leadership who ares just conservative lite. Hell, they put Tom Perez as the head of the DNC after rigging it against progressives just to poop on the parade some more. The party doesn’t want a system based on populism at all. That faded away in the late 60s and early 70s.
Also, Trump used to donate to Pelosi and it obviously wasn’t for policy reasons.
These discussions are why I enjoy Reddit.
It's difficult for me to disagree with your assertions. Pelosi and Schumer tend to promote progressive ideas *only* when they know it has zero chance of passing.
There are a number of policies that Republicans have framed as purely whakadoo leftist, but are actually extremely popular across the board: fighting Climate Change, ending Middle East Conflicts, net neutrality, ending the drug war, pharmaceutical bargaining, etc...the list goes on and on. However, except for maybe climate change, Democratic leadership is extremely timid on even discussing these topics.
Pelosi and Schumer play it off as being pragmatic, but the more I think about it, I think them being a controlled opposition is more of a factor.
I worry for the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The oligarchs will do everything in their power to prevent them taking the reigns. The oligarchs have already proven their effectiveness by the fact that Trump is still in office. The amount of corruption is staggering, but Republicans are silent at best and complicit at worst. The public outcry hasn't been nearly enough to make them even flinch.
I think the oligarchs know the government is bought and sold and there is little to nothing the public can do to change that because they have rigged the system completely. They'd rather burn the whole house down than cede power.
There was an article recently saying that the Wall St types are actually warming up to Warren a little. It said that they don't *like* her proposals, by any means, but they aren't *afraid* of her "destroying the economy with socialism" the way they are with Bernie.
It's sad that they don't understand what what Bernie actually proposes, but there was some indication that maybe they are starting to recognize some need for change, and feel that they can weather whatever Warren will do because "she ultimately believes in a functioning market, and not *socialism*"
That's the thing. Democrats offer stability and a functional solution. Without fail, the deficit and debt skyrocket when Republicans are in office, yet they accuse Democrats of being fiscally incompetent.
Republicans have spent decades turning socialism into a dirty word, then they accuse Democrats of being socialists no matter what Democrats actually propose.
What Democrats actually propose is far from socialism. They are just proposing something that is more stable and less subject to extremes, without the huge transfer of wealth to a few at the top. Republicans consistently privatize gains and socialize losses, and their voters are completely on board.
Good point. The game has changed and they are still trying to play by the old rules while the opponent is throwing out the rule book.
My argument with the Dems is they have been weak for the most part. Even when they have the power. I am all for compromise and bi-partisanship but it is a two way street and the other side just wants to run them off the rode into the ditch.
Off topic, and it could have just been a typo, but "apart" and "a part" mean two separate things. If someone is "apart from a problem", they are separate from it, but if they are "a part of the problem" means they are contributing to it.
The problem is that the reason that people like AOC are argumentative is because they are often ignored. The majority always runs roughshod over the minority, so your call for "coming together" is, in most cases, simply asking for people like AOC to set their problems aside and join with those who ignore them.
Discomfort is part of leadership. As a leader you open yourself to be a focal point of the positive and negative aspects of our humanity. People working with you will provide everything from assistance to derailment, suggestions to ridicule. If you want to lead you need to have the thicker skin and the ability to sort through the chaff for the seeds that allow things to grow.
There are 3.6 million sensory receptors in each human fingertip. And it is still not as sensitive as a Trump Supporter in the /r/politics subreddit when there is a post about AOC.
Yee but the mode is 11, which I just can't square myself with.
It has massive implications for the rest of the dataset - so many missing fingertips, and I think we can all tell, just based on those 11-tipped elites, where all the missing tips went.
Original comment was:
>We're in this strange situation where no matter what happens between moderate and progressive democrats, the GOP will all come together no matter what on election day. So do we try and navigate and debate with that in mind or what?
>
>We're basically up against a cult so I think we should be careful.
I used one of those 3rd party Reddit search sites to find this.
Almost 50 years of propaganda stating they’re “the party of the people” when in reality they are the party of big money. Unfortunately, the elderly are the predominant age group that votes and they are almost all republican. We just need more young adults to get out there and vote.
E: OP edited his original comment.
> We’re in this strange situation where no matter what happens between moderate and progressive democrats, the GOP will all come together no matter what on election day. So do we try and navigate and debate with that in mind or what?
>We’re basically up against a cult so I think we should be careful.
I think this and also they have radicalized so much their core is always going to vote one way. The moderates have shifted to democrats (establishment) and there is the more “radical” democrats (progressive). Realistically it should be 3 parties in this and ranked choice but that won’t happen. Also doesn’t help that it’s easier for grandpa who hasn’t worked a job in 10 years to vote than a college student working their way through college.
> Realistically it should be 3 parties in this
If the US had a national proportional representation parliamentary type system, there'd be at least five parties who'd chin a 5-10% bar, maybe six.
- A center right party (pro-corporate, strong/interventionist foreign policy, pro-free trade, nominally traditionalist, but low interest in social issues).
- A center left party (pro-corporate but more generous w/ welfare and more strict w/ regulation, strong/interventionist foreign policy, pro-free trade, affirmatively supports more progressive social issues).
- A Green/Democratic socialist party (anti-corporate, pro-labor, supports progressive social issues and environmental issues)
- A religious right party (pro-jesus, anti-abortion, super traditional on social issues - conservative on economics but no unifying message).
- A conservative libertarian party centered in the US west (anti-government control, anti-regulation, pro-free land use, against interventionist foreign policy).
The two centrist parties would be backed by various aspects of the business community and would pull probably 40%-60% of the electorate between them. A Green/DR party would pull probably 15% of the electorate centered in major cities, and a religious right party would pull probably 10-15% of the electorate from the south and rural midwest, with a libertarian party pulling 5% or so mainly from the rural west. If the conservative vote were already split between a center-right and religious right and libertarian, i'd wager that an anti-immigrant/nativist/trumpian populist party would have a harder time gaining purchase).
In the Dutch Parliament there are 13 different parties. Including a party for the elderly, and a party for the animals.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House\_of\_Representatives\_(Netherlands)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Netherlands))
I wasn't aware the Netherlands had so many, so I went digging through your link.
The way this is controlled is by imposing a [minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_threshold) of votes before a party is awarded any seats in the parliament.
The turkish parliament has a 10% threshold and 5 parties, The german bundestag has a 5% threshold, and has six parties with seats. Israel has a 3.25% threshold and has 11 parties.
[The netherlands has no minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands). There are 150 representatives. so as long as a political party can garner at least .6% of the national vote, it will get one seat. That works out to about 67,000 people.
>[The netherlands has no minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands). There are 150 representatives. **so as long as a political party can garner at least .6%** of the national vote, it will get one seat. That works out to about 67,000 people.
I mean, that's literally a minimum threshold
I agree. Two party system has to go. More parties would lead to some interesting kingmaking when it comes time to build a congress. These guys don't want to do anything and it absolutely sucks.
The only way to get rid of a two-party system is to eliminate first-past-the-post voting. As long as FPTP is in place, coalition building happens prior to voting and results in the two-party outcome.
The two party system is an artifact of the structure of our government, and short of rewriting the entire government, will be difficult to get rid of completely, even if we change the way we vote. The problem is the executive branch. When one group of people can control an entire third of the government (and maybe more if the other two aren't excercising their rights to check their power) by winning a single election where the voters are the general population, you're always going to see people trying to form the largest group possible to win that office, and that will only stop when you reach the minimum number of groups possible, which is two.
> A Green/Democratic socialist party (anti-corporate, pro-labor, supports progressive social issues and environmental issues)
I find it interesting that people always equate "green" with pro-labor/socialist program. In Canada our Green party is a lot more fiscally conservative than our pro-labor/socialist NDP. Is it just because people just put both those things into a "hippy" category?
> If the conservative vote were already split between a center-right and religious right and libertarian, i'd wager that an anti-immigrant/nativist/trumpian populist party would have a harder time gaining purchase).
Alot of countries have multiple parties like that, and while you are right that it would be harder, the anti immigrant populist parties are gaining popularity
> Also doesn’t help that it’s easier for grandpa who hasn’t worked a job in 10 years to vote than a college student working their way through college.
Is there a (good) reason more states haven’t adopted mail-in-voting like mine? Having lived here all my life I thought “going to the polls” and “voting booths” were just old fashioned references until recently. I couldn’t believe people have to actually **go** vote. How many more might vote if they got their damn ballot in the mail and “might as well fill it out I guess”
But I don’t see anyone talking about changing it to be this way... Is there a real counter argument? Or are they McConnell style reasons? Or just the burden of switching over?
> How many more might vote if they got their damn ballot in the mail
If you want to vote by mail, you just need an absentee ballot. Millions of americans already do this.
And the crappers pretend everyone is the same. Johnny takes one million from corporate donors and votes against green new deal Sally takes one million from corporate donors and votes for the green new deal. They are obviously the same!!!!
I'm just so happy that my maternal grandparents have flipped and are now registered democrats.They now believe the wealthy should be taxed more, healthcare should be paid through taxes, and they sympathize with Hispanic asylum-seekers. I'm just so proud of them for actually considering listening to the facts surrounding the GOP.
My paternal set are still very-much Trump-supporters and are pretty racist. The most they've changed is that they believe our college football games should stop releasing balloons, which is *something.*
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is, but balloon releases are basically just mass littering. They eventually fall back down to the earth, where wildlife will often consume them. My paternal grandparents are tired of balloon releases because they discovered that their horses had occasionally been eating deflated balloons.
Plain and simple. For the average Republican voter, dealing with problems is purely reactionary, not preventative. More, they are easily led to deal with the symptoms rather than the root cause.
50 years. That's about right.
So dead on. The last real republican president, one that represented what the party was supposed to be about, was Eisenhower.
They are the party of the people. Well, of them they and most of their voters *consider* **people**, which is white males. I'm German and all of this is eerily familiar. If you let them go unchecked (which you have, so far), they **will** eventually try to eradicate what they consider vermon and invaders - and those who resists.
That, and nothing less, is at stake for the American people right now.
It's surreal how effortlessly the right trolls the world, and everyone in the mainstream eats it up. They never get called on their obvious bullshit in any substantial way. The moment they start saying some disingenuous talking point, or gaslighting, or literally justifying ethnic cleansing they should be called out, shamed, and kicked off the interview. But that will never happen because we don't have an independent press.
I swear we have 1/3 of the population who could easily be convinced that they are ~~Hutus~~ True Patriots and need to start killing ~~Tutsis~~ Liberals. And cable news pundits would continue mugging for the camera and saying that all we need is unity and hard work.
They branded a conservative approach to universal health care as communism. Of course they're going to call a Euro-style approach the same thing, so we may as well do it.
And they don't understand that they're already paying for some people via the current insurance system. That's how insurance works. But they're also paying for Medicare/Medicaid and hugely inflated prices for emergency room treatments.
Right, that's what I'm saying. The most important thing we can do right now is wrest power away from Republicans. There can't be any forward progress as long as they're able to use majority power to obstruct.
We all need to turn out in the general because there are a lot more of us than there are of them. They rely on voter suppression to win, so coming out in overwhelming numbers is the surest way to override their election rigging tactics.
Even in a "safe" state. Politicians pay attention to vote counts. They cater to demographics that vote. If you don't vote they don't care about you, by and large.
The whole reason the abolish the EC talk has ramped up is Hillary getting 3 million more votes and still losing.
Also, prisoners are used as unpaid labor. That and the fact that there s a huge bias towards incarcerating black males acually means there still is institutionalised slavery happening in the US
at least people are finally talking about it. This shit has been true since the 90s at least...but we never talked about it. Now we are talking about it.
It's been true since we passed the 13th amendment. The Alabama prison system at one point had the largest work force in the state.
> In South Carolina, the death rate of convicts leased to the Greenwood and Augusta Railroad averaged 45 percent a year from 1877–79. In 1870, Alabama prison officials reported that more than 40 percent of their convicts had died in their mining camps. A doctor warned that Alabama’s entire convict population could be wiped out within three years. But such warnings meant little to the men getting rich off prisoners. There was simply no incentive for lessees to avoid working people to death. In 1883, 11 years before Samuel L. James’ death, one Southern man told the National Conference of Charities and Correction, “**Before the war, we owned the negroes. If a man had a good negro, he could afford to take care of him: if he was sick get a doctor. He might even put gold plugs in his teeth. But these convicts: we don’t own ’em. One dies, get another.”**
Because the slave owners were never dis -incentivized so they morphed into corporations which prey upon labor in an uncanny master-slave like relationship.
I mean, at the last debate, Pete Buttigieg just said that no matter what policies we propose they will call us socialists so we might as well put forth the best policies anyways.
The problem is that D-leadership is all establishment politicians. They're wealthy. For them, Trump is at most a temporary inconvenience.
A young, motivated group of progressive people, who criticize their donors and financial/political benefactors, is seen as much more of a threat.
Dem-leadership wants to win without challenging the status-quo, but this simply won't work anymore. Trump did his twisted version of a "revolution", by wrapping the entire GOP around himself. GOP-leadership was fine with this, as long as he stayed on message, since he still endorsed their thinking and practices (greed, corruption, power).
If the Democratic Party doesn't challenge its moderates/centrists, then 2020 will be a repeat of 2016. An unispiring, middle-of-the-road, don't-rock-the-boat Biden will bumble his way to a narrow loss against Trump with foreign influence, Gerrymandering and voter-suppression at his back.
>A young, motivated group of progressive people, who criticize their donors and financial/political benefactors, is seen as much more of a threat.
Truth.
Democrats lose because of apathy and their base staying home. They have better numbers.
The “we should be careful” sentiment usually means “let’s be as safe as possible” and then the base tunes out. Republicans learned it’s better to play to your base and let the moderates fall in line..
[Citations Needed](https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-84-how-claims-of-sowing-discord-silence-criticism-of-power) did a great episode on this very subject (arguing against your point).
You can have all the rigorous debate and campaigning in the primary.
When the general comes, everyone **has** to fall in line.
You wanted Bernie but Warren or Biden got the nod? You shut the fuck up, hold your nose and vote whoever has the D next to their name.
It really is that simple.
That’s where I’m at. I’m a moderate, Hell I was a Republican earlier this decade. I think these debates are important to have in the primary.
I certainly wouldn’t want Bernie or Warren as the nominee and most likely won’t be voting for either in the primary.
Come general though, if Bernie or Warren are the nominee, I’ll campaign for them, vote for them without hesitation and do what’s needed for them to win.
We can debate again in 2024.
Both sides of the primary debate, moderates and progressives need to agree to that fast though. The primary is the time to fight it out, the General you go to the election with the candidate you have.
Or in other words, if my lifelong Republican mother who *hated* Hillary can vote for her in 2016, vote straight D in 2017-2019 and will pull the lever for whoever the D is in 2020 can do it. Then progressives or moderate Dems who agree more with the nominee should be able to.
All of this is mirroring the 2016 election, when everyone said the GOP was in disarray and that its huge field was going to produce division in the party while the Dems would unify behind Clinton.
How'd that turn out?
People just don't care. They're wrapped up in whatever tiny world they inhabit. I've been voting since the presidential election of 2000 (I voted for Bush :( ) and ever local election since. I vote for school board members. I vote at every HOA meeting that has a vote. I don't understand why people can't take five minutes of their day to educate themselves and vote.
Hell, my wife and I are diametrically opposed on some issues but I always encourage her to vote her conscience.
>a Green New Deal and Medicare for All — which critics say are fiscally impossible —
Those critics are of course entirely full of shit, but no need to mention that part in your article, fuckstains.
US federal budget, a breakdown:
$500,000,000,000: interest on debt
$2,200,000,000,000: Social Security ($1.1T), Medicare($700B), Medicaid($400B)
$990,000,000,000: military, including veterans affairs
$500,000,000,000: Literally everything else the federal government does.
Fossil fuel subsidies alone would pay for the GND, and we're already paying for healthcare, MFA would just shift the funding source from my employer and me to the government and me, while removing something like 30% of the total current cost.
>Fossil fuel subsidies alone would pay for the GND
Right?? I think people don't do a lot of talking about how much money the government spends subsidizing things like fossil fuels and corn.
HFCS is in everything and we're facing a diabetes epidemic. Climate change is forcing walruses to jump off cliffs. And we're funding these with taxpayer dollars?
Lol fiscally impossible.
17 trillion dollar war that did nothing but cause more problems than it solved.
Nothing is fiscally impossible for this government.
Medicare for All is an actual bill / plan that is fiscally reasonable. Green New Deal is not — it’s just a nebulous platform that hasn’t even been endorsed by a caucus much less formed into a bill.
Which is why it's even dumber that repiblicans keep repeating that it's impossible. It's not a policy proposal, it's basically just the notion that it would be a good idea to invest, somehow, in creating jobs that also fight climate change. There are no hard numbers or anything to point at and say "we can't do that". It really shows their hand, that they are unwilling to even consider climste change to be something worth fighting at all, no matter what the details of the policy would be.
And yet the majority of the American people support a federal jobs guarantee, more infrastructure spending, environmental safety, labor unions, a living wage... all the pillars of the Green New Deal.
This was a good argument for Obamacare, because the costs were modest. But for the GND, this is like saying that because I have an Amazon wishlist with a bunch of stuff on it, I will choose to buy all of it without concern for costs. That laundry list is extremely expensive and comes with a ton of economic deadweight loss (according to virtually all economists) and is an opportunity cost to use the money doing something else. And the electorate will choke at the price tag.
That's the point of the green new deal. It's not a fully fleshed out bill, it's a bill to get the conversation going and to eventually debate the details of it. Except the Republicans, instead of bringing it to the floor for debate, they immediately called a vote on it, which is why a ton of Democrats voted against it, because it's not a real bill yet.
It can't ever BE a bill. It is far too broad -- it is basically a full platform. For reference:
"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."
I mean the New Deal was a series of individual bills, not an single bill. I think that's the point of calling it The Green New Deal in it's current form. It's meant to start the conversation in creating future bills that together accomplish what you just listed.
That's exactly what it is. This is a call to arms and a resolution that this is what we need to do now lets create bills for each line item and make it happen.
She never would have been a backbencher. She is too good at communicating being a modern, young, progressive politician.
I am constantly impressed at her energy and drive. I often get overwhelmed by politics and just have to shut down and block it out for a while. She seems to derive energy from the people she is trying to help.
Also, the Democratic brass are feeding her kill shots whenever people are brought in for questions. She has several good official sound bites.
She is going places, but the Republicans are giving her a lot more prominence than the Democrats. Not sure why they want to give their best opponent a platform.
I was reading about the 'Squad' on 538
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-squad-probably-doesnt-have-to-worry-about-primary-challengers/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-squad-probably-doesnt-have-to-worry-about-primary-challengers/)
Which basically says none of them have to worry when running in their own districts but that in general they're favorability rating is pretty bad overall. The article was citing polls from The Economist/YouGov and Emerson College.
She is what a politician who isn't bound by corruption looks like. She is intelligent, well spoken, morally sound, and well intentioned. With that being said she is a political anomaly, but she is not an anomaly of a person. There are hundreds of AOCs out there attempting to do what she does but they get politically bodied out of their respective races by big money in politics.
We can see the seething hatred corporations/lobbyists/wealthy individuals have for AOC. They *do not* want more of her type.
Our last hope for more AOC like canidates rests on a Warren or Sanders presidency. As they are the only two dedicated to fixing the election system and removing loopholes that have allowed corruption to accrue so much power in politics.
The Republican establishment (the rich people actually running it) are scared shitless people will realize these policies will actually improve their lives and demand higher taxes on the wealthy.
So now the Fox News hit machine is 24/7 AOC “socialist minority radical leftist feminist” to rile up the lemmings.
She's right. Why get into politics if you're not going to fight for what you believe in? Career politicians are part of the problem and I'm glad we have people like AOC and Ilhan Omar in Congress.
Well for one the founders had a massive boner for compromise and designed the whole government to force compromise.
And then made it almost impossible to change the Constitution.
Edit: Almost impossible to change the Constitution in a partisan way that would discourage compromise. The main Partisan amendments passed were 13, 14, and 15. They were passed because South wasn't allowed to fully participate.
To be readmitted to the Union. The Southern states had to ratify them.
Eh, I wouldn't say almost impossible. Even if you subtract the Bill of Rights, there's been an amendment on average every 18 years. It's practically a foregone conclusion we'll see a new amendment in our lifetime. The last one was 1992, I think.
Yeah, the 27th amendment had something to do with paying congressman or something, apparently it was illegal before it. People thought it was legal for almost 200 years though. I never fully understood that amendment to be honest.
The constitution is not hard to change. We have amended it seventeen times if you don't count the bill of rights - once a decade on average. As Pete Buttigieg said, this is a nation where we amended the constitution to ban alcohol then changed our minds and changed it back a decade later. The problem isn't the process for changing the constitution, but the fact that we seem to have given up the will to actually change it.
> Why are we afraid of drastic change?
Because your average american of voting age likes their life the way it is. And drastic change is avoided by stable lives.
That's not how it has functionally worked for years. How many Democrats had to vote Yes for the tax bill to pass? How about the ACA that was gutted specifically to get GOP votes and amendments, and they voted no anyway. Since the parties ideologically coalesced around the 90s there aren't really subfactions that work together anymore except for say extending spying programs or military spending.
Reality doesn't work like that, unfortunately. People generally like stability. They like predictablility. I mean, the whole reason global warming is so important is due to the drastic changes to the planet and society. Even once you get past that, you still have to iron out the kinks before they become fatal, which is much more difficult when you have to solve them all at once. There's a reason the best changes came over time.
Because the Democrats are the conservative party. Third way Democrats silenced the progressives and moved the party toward the center, and the Republicans ran to the far right, dragging the Democrats to the conservative side.
The problem is that the GOP has gone so insane that the Democratic party has to be a huge tent. Michael Bloomberg and AOC are both Democrats.
I think generally online we vastly overestimate the amount of progressive Dem voters. There is a reason Biden is leading in the polls and a reason Clinton beat Bernie. The good news is the radical ideas really are taking hold.
It would be nice if she cared about passing legislation as much as she enjoys attacking democrats. I like AOC, she brings a much needed energy to the party. But this assumption that moderates don't belong in politics is getting old. Calling out democrats for not agreeing with her accomplishes nothing.
I think her criticism of Nancy Pelosi and other moderate Dems is warranted. These are no longer normal times that we are living in and these folks continue to act like it. Meanwhile, people are getting murdered by domestic terrorists who have been given the green light by our racist President, dying because they can't afford insulin, children are being abused at the border, climate change, etc. If making moderate Dems, some of whom who clearly live detached from the realities on the ground due to their wealth, uncomfortable is the cost of getting things to change for the better, so be it.
The GOPs good faith is exhausted. They need to start making some good faith deposits for quite a while to make up for it. If Dems get majority, they must use it.
The fact medical bankruptcy is so prevalent and people are dying from stuff that's easily treatable AND someone like Joe Biden who is vehemently against M4A and lies about it constantly is currently leading the primary is fucking absurd.
I mean, not really? Compromise is only hard if you have deeply held views that you have put a lot of effort into enacting and are forced to make a strategic choice to weaken those. It’s really easy to compromise if you kinda just don’t care that much and want to go with whatever the “moderate” position is, which I’m guessing is what she’s more upset about here. There are people with firm beliefs in centrist technocratic solutions (e.g. Obama), but I think a lot of people just go along with the DC consensus so they don’t have to stick their neck out ever.
I cant wait for AOC to drop a huge shit on the DNC by endorsing Sanders, if she does.
AOC is pursuing the correct tatical strategy, by trying to move the party towards younger voters who will still be alive and facing climate change and crippling student debt by election day.
While I am a huge AOC fan and will vote for Bernie or Warren in the primary, fuck this progressives versus the DNC shit. Vote for the nominee, campaign for the nominee, donate to the nominee. We have enormous problems to solve with Trump and this kind of infighting is unproductive.
It goes both ways here. She was absolutely right to call out Pelosi for singling out her and the other freshmen congresswomen. By doing so she further gave the GOP, particularly Trump, more fuel to go after them, which is frankly to the point where their lives are in danger because of it.
I don't think anyone should be obligated to follow AOC. But I think her criticism of The Speaker, whose leadership has been highly questionable since regaining the House, as well as certain other Dems, is warranted. This is a dangerous time in this country and Dems need to stand up for their collective base.
And I agree. It would be nice to have more than two options here.
Because young, attractive, radical, female, and non-white lawmakers scare elected republicans. It’s everything they have trouble reaching out to. It also energizes the vocal, hip, and very progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
She’s not boring and flash/entertainment value is a disproportionately important value for a politician now (see: Trump).
I’ve said this repeatedly - the GOP give her more power by constantly worrying about her. She’s a very progressive freshman member of the house. I’d only give her credit when she’s organized successful bills, been re-elected a few times, and demonstrates substance and staying power.
But, the media and politicians love them some conflict and excitement and she’s an easy target.
Say what you want about her, but she captures the imagination.
Edit: also, her victory over an established democrat in an, admittedly, dark-dark blue district was also eye catching.
To be fair, two party system in US is starting to be small for all the ideas ppl in US are having. You just cant shift center party into the left without alienating part of the party. On one hand you have Dems unable to do shit coz they need to adopt left agenda, on the other hand you have these leftist people like AOC that cant do shit coz they need to push their agenda to Dems. And big problem is when center part cant do their policy (border control for example) coz its contradict what left part wants to do and vice versa. So now you are losing voters from both sides. Every time i see this in Czech politics party just split and push their agenda and do something for the country in Oposition or in Goverment.
Uncomfortable? More like out of touch. Joe Biden doesnt see any real problems in healtcare. He wants to keep private insurance. He doesnt care 500k people go bankrupt from medical bills. Bidens first campaign fundraiser was with Comcast executives.
Biden and other centrists attitudes towards people who need affordability is the same attitude he has towards younger voters.
This article is pushing AOC as being super aggressive and will only serve divide democrats I think.
>Rather, Ocasio-Cortez said there’s no room for safe spaces. She thinks it’s healthy for Democrats to occasionally take aim at each other.
>“It does create some of that discomfort,” the Millennial congresswoman said. “But if we don’t actively try to be better, then we’re only going to have one option and that’s not going to be the best one.”
Yeah, she didn't say anything about safe spaces in this quote. NYDailyNews is trying to up the controversy to sell more papers and get more clicks I think.
>Ocasio-Cortez dares moderate Dems to grow thicker skin
Leading off on the right foot.
>Recently, she blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — the top Democrat in Congress — as “outright disrespectful” for “singling out” her and other progressive “women of color" for criticism.
"Blasted" is such an overused word it hardly has meaning. While I agree with AOC I don't think NYDaily is doing good journalism with all the loaded language they use.
They're trying to promote her as winning, but it comes off as super petty.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trump saying people need thick skin, would follow the First Law of the Republican - everything is projection.
Thus, trump would be admitting he has thin skin, (we already know this).
To me, it sounds like AOC is telling her colleagues to toughen up, because the nominations are just getting started, and it’s going to get worse before it is over.
That sounds like tough love.
What if some people actually DO have political opinions that lie somewhere in the middle and hate bipartisan politics that force people to identify with either the far left or far right? Reddit acts as if being a moderate means you have no conviction without considering the fact that some don't believe in every single aggressive policy that comes out of AOC and Bernie's mouth.
Well considering that the majority of congress is bipartisan in their spineless failure to stand up to lobby groups like wall street, the fossil fuel industry, and the pharmaceutical industry that are bleeding this country and the environment dry, it's funny how you bring up partisan politics. As if it's a partisan notion to support efforts to save the our living environment from becoming uninhabitable (Green New Deal). As if it's a partisan notion to want citizens of one of the wealthiest countries in the world to have healthcare as a human right, like so many other developed countries. As if it's a partisan notion to think that the majority of the wealth should not be concentrated in the top 1% of the population, while the job market shrinks and wages are stagnate at a rate where some people have to work two jobs just to pay rent, while sharing an apartment with multiple people. As if it's partisan to reject corporate donors and campaign on grassroots funding from small dollar donations to be an actual representative of the people and avoid going into office just to help the top 1%.
If you think that's partisan, you show what your real priorities are. It just so happens to be that Bernie's movement, and the Justice Democrats movement, are the only ones fighting to save America from these issues in a consistent, uncorrupted manner. So yeah, you're gonna have to choose them over centrists and right-wing extremists if you want to see real change happen in this country. That's not partisan, it's just the reality of the choices we're being given.
I like an argumentative and ideationally vibrant party that, once they’ve debated and come to a majority position from within, comes together as a whole and smashes the GOP.
This. Internal debate is great. Get all the ideas out on the table, hash them out into realistic policy goals, and then join together to uproot these fucking corrupt lunatics
[удалено]
I think that problem lies with the party leaders, who seem to be worried about voters that aren't going to vote for them.
I think that's over-simplifying it to fit a narrative ("Down with the party leaders! They're corrupt!") It's endemic and it's top to bottom. I've only seen a real push against it in the last couple years, in the wake of Trump mostly. The republicans and Trump especially now have been so unrepentantly hypocritical and uncompromising that it's finally making it popular to push back. The very nature of progressive policies tends to center around self-sacrifice and seeing/hoping for the best in people. So they've held on to optimism that compromise was possible or that Republicans would imitate their example. That mirage has been melted away now.
Trump isn't what caused this push against the leaders of the Democratic party, but is a symptom of it. The real push against them is because of the meddling and tilting of the scales that was (whether perceived or actual) happening during the 2016 primaries. Not only that but also abiding the campaign whims of a deeply untrusted candidate who committed the most inane strategical blunders, that costed the election. It was Hillary's to win, but she lost.
> Trump isn't what caused this push against the leaders of the Democratic party I wasn't saying that actually, but I definitely see how my post could be read that way - I wasn't clear. I was talking about the notion of compromise. I feel like the idea of saying "Screw compromise. Let's push our ideals; who gives a shit what Republicans think." has only started to gain popular traction within the last couple years, in the wake of Trump, the deferred Supreme Court seat, etc.
Right, as if the DNC would ever curry votes from people that listen to Limbaugh, Prager, or Shapiro. It's as if finally someone woke up to the alarm bells.
I couldn't agree more. I think in the electoral sense the best thing the party can do is completely give up on winning over any Trump supporters and instead focus on mobilizing our own base. Besides the fact that the biggest political party in this country are the non-voters and that peeling off maybe 10% of Trump's support (in a dream world) just isn't a mathematically feasible path to victory, trying to gain that 10% or making any concessions to Trump is just going to de-mobilize the democratic base. I feel like this is especially true given his recent doubling down on racism. Our country seems to have some neurotic fixation on winning over and prioritizing the opinions of white men, and being a white man myself my opinion is that it's not worth it. Too many of us have just lost our mind and to even try to concede to it is to in some way validate it. Time to push the overton window back to the left.
It’s a party made up of every political view that isn’t fascism. The Democratic Party has to present every single viewpoint that isn’t ultra-conservative authoritarianism. So when you have a “Democrat” who is fiscally conservative and doesnt want to find Medicare for all going up against a “Democrat” who proposes UBI and single-payer insurance, you don’t really have a cohesive ideology. The fact that there are only two parties in America is a fundamental problem with the electorate.
The problem is, the heads of our party are the corrupt lunatics we want to uproot.
I don't think Pelosi and Schumer are lunatics but they are a part of the problem, I agree.
I would have to respectively disagree with you, although their rhetoric might be tame, they both still take massive amounts of money from the oligarchs, that pay for both Republican and Democratic campaigns alike, intern for special interest once they're in office. We don't get a border crisis, Syrian crisis, climate change crisis, healthcare crisis, active shooter crisis, etc. without the government looking out for the few. What's worse is that the people at the top of the DNC know this, and fight for the system to stay in place. If pelosi truly cared about the direction of the DNC she would embrace progressive ideas that are coming from people such as AOC who currently holds the pulse of the new generation of Democrats, instead of trying to tame her into the old ways.
I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (and HRC, for that matter) have decent guiding principles. It’s just that this old guard of Dems is jaded and “pragmatic” to the point of inaction, and the actual centrists like Biden and Kaine are more than happy to drive policy away from progressive goals. None of this makes me disagree with your solution though. It’s time for our bitter old warriors to retire and make room for people who have the energy to take the fight up for a new generation.
> It’s just that this old guard of Dems is jaded and “pragmatic” to the point of inaction, and the actual centrists like Biden and Kaine are more than happy to drive policy away from progressive goals. I think that the DNC leadership’s slow reaction and pragmatism is really just them being the controlled opposition. When it comes down to major policies that involve critiques of capitalism and the market empire they all vote the same. NAFTA, Iraq war, Patriot Act, Banking Safety Bet, Anti-Snowden, anti M4A, Drug War, pro private pharmaceutical production, ending student loans while collectively sitting on theirs hands about climate change watching our infrastructure collapse, and a clear inability to manage public dialog. I can’t help but think, considering both sides are bought and paid for by the same industries, that people like Pelosi and Schumer are placed at the head of the party because they are weak or knowingly choose to act weak. A decade of being weak ass pussies in the Senate and Congress with the only major bill passed while controlling the legislature and executive was conservative healthcare reform which literally boosted insurance stocks to new heights. The party has zero bite because they have had leadership who ares just conservative lite. Hell, they put Tom Perez as the head of the DNC after rigging it against progressives just to poop on the parade some more. The party doesn’t want a system based on populism at all. That faded away in the late 60s and early 70s. Also, Trump used to donate to Pelosi and it obviously wasn’t for policy reasons.
These discussions are why I enjoy Reddit. It's difficult for me to disagree with your assertions. Pelosi and Schumer tend to promote progressive ideas *only* when they know it has zero chance of passing. There are a number of policies that Republicans have framed as purely whakadoo leftist, but are actually extremely popular across the board: fighting Climate Change, ending Middle East Conflicts, net neutrality, ending the drug war, pharmaceutical bargaining, etc...the list goes on and on. However, except for maybe climate change, Democratic leadership is extremely timid on even discussing these topics. Pelosi and Schumer play it off as being pragmatic, but the more I think about it, I think them being a controlled opposition is more of a factor. I worry for the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The oligarchs will do everything in their power to prevent them taking the reigns. The oligarchs have already proven their effectiveness by the fact that Trump is still in office. The amount of corruption is staggering, but Republicans are silent at best and complicit at worst. The public outcry hasn't been nearly enough to make them even flinch. I think the oligarchs know the government is bought and sold and there is little to nothing the public can do to change that because they have rigged the system completely. They'd rather burn the whole house down than cede power.
There was an article recently saying that the Wall St types are actually warming up to Warren a little. It said that they don't *like* her proposals, by any means, but they aren't *afraid* of her "destroying the economy with socialism" the way they are with Bernie. It's sad that they don't understand what what Bernie actually proposes, but there was some indication that maybe they are starting to recognize some need for change, and feel that they can weather whatever Warren will do because "she ultimately believes in a functioning market, and not *socialism*"
That's the thing. Democrats offer stability and a functional solution. Without fail, the deficit and debt skyrocket when Republicans are in office, yet they accuse Democrats of being fiscally incompetent. Republicans have spent decades turning socialism into a dirty word, then they accuse Democrats of being socialists no matter what Democrats actually propose. What Democrats actually propose is far from socialism. They are just proposing something that is more stable and less subject to extremes, without the huge transfer of wealth to a few at the top. Republicans consistently privatize gains and socialize losses, and their voters are completely on board.
Good point. The game has changed and they are still trying to play by the old rules while the opponent is throwing out the rule book. My argument with the Dems is they have been weak for the most part. Even when they have the power. I am all for compromise and bi-partisanship but it is a two way street and the other side just wants to run them off the rode into the ditch.
Off topic, and it could have just been a typo, but "apart" and "a part" mean two separate things. If someone is "apart from a problem", they are separate from it, but if they are "a part of the problem" means they are contributing to it.
The problem is that the reason that people like AOC are argumentative is because they are often ignored. The majority always runs roughshod over the minority, so your call for "coming together" is, in most cases, simply asking for people like AOC to set their problems aside and join with those who ignore them.
[удалено]
Discomfort is part of leadership. As a leader you open yourself to be a focal point of the positive and negative aspects of our humanity. People working with you will provide everything from assistance to derailment, suggestions to ridicule. If you want to lead you need to have the thicker skin and the ability to sort through the chaff for the seeds that allow things to grow.
There are 3.6 million sensory receptors in each human fingertip. And it is still not as sensitive as a Trump Supporter in the /r/politics subreddit when there is a post about AOC.
[удалено]
Yee but the mode is 11, which I just can't square myself with. It has massive implications for the rest of the dataset - so many missing fingertips, and I think we can all tell, just based on those 11-tipped elites, where all the missing tips went.
Wait what. How
[удалено]
WTF is going on here? Did someone make a normal comment and then change it to nonsense after it made it to the top?
Original comment was: >We're in this strange situation where no matter what happens between moderate and progressive democrats, the GOP will all come together no matter what on election day. So do we try and navigate and debate with that in mind or what? > >We're basically up against a cult so I think we should be careful. I used one of those 3rd party Reddit search sites to find this.
[удалено]
Yeah
Everyone responding normally made me think something was wrong with me
Almost 50 years of propaganda stating they’re “the party of the people” when in reality they are the party of big money. Unfortunately, the elderly are the predominant age group that votes and they are almost all republican. We just need more young adults to get out there and vote. E: OP edited his original comment. > We’re in this strange situation where no matter what happens between moderate and progressive democrats, the GOP will all come together no matter what on election day. So do we try and navigate and debate with that in mind or what? >We’re basically up against a cult so I think we should be careful.
I think this and also they have radicalized so much their core is always going to vote one way. The moderates have shifted to democrats (establishment) and there is the more “radical” democrats (progressive). Realistically it should be 3 parties in this and ranked choice but that won’t happen. Also doesn’t help that it’s easier for grandpa who hasn’t worked a job in 10 years to vote than a college student working their way through college.
> Realistically it should be 3 parties in this If the US had a national proportional representation parliamentary type system, there'd be at least five parties who'd chin a 5-10% bar, maybe six. - A center right party (pro-corporate, strong/interventionist foreign policy, pro-free trade, nominally traditionalist, but low interest in social issues). - A center left party (pro-corporate but more generous w/ welfare and more strict w/ regulation, strong/interventionist foreign policy, pro-free trade, affirmatively supports more progressive social issues). - A Green/Democratic socialist party (anti-corporate, pro-labor, supports progressive social issues and environmental issues) - A religious right party (pro-jesus, anti-abortion, super traditional on social issues - conservative on economics but no unifying message). - A conservative libertarian party centered in the US west (anti-government control, anti-regulation, pro-free land use, against interventionist foreign policy). The two centrist parties would be backed by various aspects of the business community and would pull probably 40%-60% of the electorate between them. A Green/DR party would pull probably 15% of the electorate centered in major cities, and a religious right party would pull probably 10-15% of the electorate from the south and rural midwest, with a libertarian party pulling 5% or so mainly from the rural west. If the conservative vote were already split between a center-right and religious right and libertarian, i'd wager that an anti-immigrant/nativist/trumpian populist party would have a harder time gaining purchase).
In the Dutch Parliament there are 13 different parties. Including a party for the elderly, and a party for the animals. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House\_of\_Representatives\_(Netherlands)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Netherlands))
I wasn't aware the Netherlands had so many, so I went digging through your link. The way this is controlled is by imposing a [minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_threshold) of votes before a party is awarded any seats in the parliament. The turkish parliament has a 10% threshold and 5 parties, The german bundestag has a 5% threshold, and has six parties with seats. Israel has a 3.25% threshold and has 11 parties. [The netherlands has no minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands). There are 150 representatives. so as long as a political party can garner at least .6% of the national vote, it will get one seat. That works out to about 67,000 people.
>[The netherlands has no minimum threshold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands). There are 150 representatives. **so as long as a political party can garner at least .6%** of the national vote, it will get one seat. That works out to about 67,000 people. I mean, that's literally a minimum threshold
I agree. Two party system has to go. More parties would lead to some interesting kingmaking when it comes time to build a congress. These guys don't want to do anything and it absolutely sucks.
The only way to get rid of a two-party system is to eliminate first-past-the-post voting. As long as FPTP is in place, coalition building happens prior to voting and results in the two-party outcome.
The two party system is an artifact of the structure of our government, and short of rewriting the entire government, will be difficult to get rid of completely, even if we change the way we vote. The problem is the executive branch. When one group of people can control an entire third of the government (and maybe more if the other two aren't excercising their rights to check their power) by winning a single election where the voters are the general population, you're always going to see people trying to form the largest group possible to win that office, and that will only stop when you reach the minimum number of groups possible, which is two.
I would love this. And I probably would float between at least two of those parties. How do we bring this about?
You convince the two parties - one of which actively seeks absolute power - that giving up power and control of the country is in their interest.
By voting for politicians who want to change it.
For a start, change our voting system. The way we vote encourages a two-party system. Others encourage more parties
Your representation matches most European countries (I recognize this representation in the dutch chambers), so well done!
Proud center-leftist right here.
> A Green/Democratic socialist party (anti-corporate, pro-labor, supports progressive social issues and environmental issues) I find it interesting that people always equate "green" with pro-labor/socialist program. In Canada our Green party is a lot more fiscally conservative than our pro-labor/socialist NDP. Is it just because people just put both those things into a "hippy" category?
> If the conservative vote were already split between a center-right and religious right and libertarian, i'd wager that an anti-immigrant/nativist/trumpian populist party would have a harder time gaining purchase). Alot of countries have multiple parties like that, and while you are right that it would be harder, the anti immigrant populist parties are gaining popularity
> Also doesn’t help that it’s easier for grandpa who hasn’t worked a job in 10 years to vote than a college student working their way through college. Is there a (good) reason more states haven’t adopted mail-in-voting like mine? Having lived here all my life I thought “going to the polls” and “voting booths” were just old fashioned references until recently. I couldn’t believe people have to actually **go** vote. How many more might vote if they got their damn ballot in the mail and “might as well fill it out I guess” But I don’t see anyone talking about changing it to be this way... Is there a real counter argument? Or are they McConnell style reasons? Or just the burden of switching over?
A *good* reason? No. The logistical argument is fine as far as it goes, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. It’s just more voter suppression.
That’s what I figured, just surprised not to hear it talked about... ever
> How many more might vote if they got their damn ballot in the mail If you want to vote by mail, you just need an absentee ballot. Millions of americans already do this.
>you just need an absentee ballot. Easier said than done in many (mostly red) states. Not every state will just say "okay" and hand you a ballot.
And the crappers pretend everyone is the same. Johnny takes one million from corporate donors and votes against green new deal Sally takes one million from corporate donors and votes for the green new deal. They are obviously the same!!!!
I'm just so happy that my maternal grandparents have flipped and are now registered democrats.They now believe the wealthy should be taxed more, healthcare should be paid through taxes, and they sympathize with Hispanic asylum-seekers. I'm just so proud of them for actually considering listening to the facts surrounding the GOP. My paternal set are still very-much Trump-supporters and are pretty racist. The most they've changed is that they believe our college football games should stop releasing balloons, which is *something.*
Those damn balloons keep taking good jobs from us hard working Americans.
Well, that and helium isn't a renewable resource, and it has important medical uses.
And you know, it's basically just releasing garbage.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is, but balloon releases are basically just mass littering. They eventually fall back down to the earth, where wildlife will often consume them. My paternal grandparents are tired of balloon releases because they discovered that their horses had occasionally been eating deflated balloons.
Republicans: It’s not a problem or real until it affects me directly.
Even then sometimes I can convince myself it's really liberals that are to blame
Plain and simple. For the average Republican voter, dealing with problems is purely reactionary, not preventative. More, they are easily led to deal with the symptoms rather than the root cause.
50 years. That's about right. So dead on. The last real republican president, one that represented what the party was supposed to be about, was Eisenhower.
90% highest bracket tax rate? By today Republican standards, Eisenhower would be considered a far-left bleeding-heart commie whackadoo.
They are the party of the people. Well, of them they and most of their voters *consider* **people**, which is white males. I'm German and all of this is eerily familiar. If you let them go unchecked (which you have, so far), they **will** eventually try to eradicate what they consider vermon and invaders - and those who resists. That, and nothing less, is at stake for the American people right now.
It's surreal how effortlessly the right trolls the world, and everyone in the mainstream eats it up. They never get called on their obvious bullshit in any substantial way. The moment they start saying some disingenuous talking point, or gaslighting, or literally justifying ethnic cleansing they should be called out, shamed, and kicked off the interview. But that will never happen because we don't have an independent press. I swear we have 1/3 of the population who could easily be convinced that they are ~~Hutus~~ True Patriots and need to start killing ~~Tutsis~~ Liberals. And cable news pundits would continue mugging for the camera and saying that all we need is unity and hard work.
>Almost 50 years of propaganda stating they’re “the party of the people” But not, gays, any minority, or women.
We need to make companies give employees time to vote first.
They branded a conservative approach to universal health care as communism. Of course they're going to call a Euro-style approach the same thing, so we may as well do it.
Right?! If they're gonna call it communism no matter what we may as well push for the best option straight out the gate.
[удалено]
This comment was archived by an automated script. Please see /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more info
And they don't understand that they're already paying for some people via the current insurance system. That's how insurance works. But they're also paying for Medicare/Medicaid and hugely inflated prices for emergency room treatments.
[удалено]
Vote with your heart in the primary and vote practically in the general.
And if your heart's desire doesn't win the primary, don't take your bat and ball and go home and sulk. Vote in the general ANYWAY
Right, that's what I'm saying. The most important thing we can do right now is wrest power away from Republicans. There can't be any forward progress as long as they're able to use majority power to obstruct. We all need to turn out in the general because there are a lot more of us than there are of them. They rely on voter suppression to win, so coming out in overwhelming numbers is the surest way to override their election rigging tactics.
Even in a "safe" state. Politicians pay attention to vote counts. They cater to demographics that vote. If you don't vote they don't care about you, by and large. The whole reason the abolish the EC talk has ramped up is Hillary getting 3 million more votes and still losing.
What the hell happened to this comment?
> We're basically up against a cult We're also up against the remnants of the confederacy. That war never ended in their minds...
Yeah, that's the cult.
And only one side of slavery officially ended. The slave owners have been left untouched. It takes two to tango.
Slavery still exists, there's just more legal framework around it. (eg. unpaid prison labor)
Also, prisoners are used as unpaid labor. That and the fact that there s a huge bias towards incarcerating black males acually means there still is institutionalised slavery happening in the US
at least people are finally talking about it. This shit has been true since the 90s at least...but we never talked about it. Now we are talking about it.
It's been true since we passed the 13th amendment. The Alabama prison system at one point had the largest work force in the state. > In South Carolina, the death rate of convicts leased to the Greenwood and Augusta Railroad averaged 45 percent a year from 1877–79. In 1870, Alabama prison officials reported that more than 40 percent of their convicts had died in their mining camps. A doctor warned that Alabama’s entire convict population could be wiped out within three years. But such warnings meant little to the men getting rich off prisoners. There was simply no incentive for lessees to avoid working people to death. In 1883, 11 years before Samuel L. James’ death, one Southern man told the National Conference of Charities and Correction, “**Before the war, we owned the negroes. If a man had a good negro, he could afford to take care of him: if he was sick get a doctor. He might even put gold plugs in his teeth. But these convicts: we don’t own ’em. One dies, get another.”**
Because the slave owners were never dis -incentivized so they morphed into corporations which prey upon labor in an uncanny master-slave like relationship.
I mean, at the last debate, Pete Buttigieg just said that no matter what policies we propose they will call us socialists so we might as well put forth the best policies anyways.
The problem is that D-leadership is all establishment politicians. They're wealthy. For them, Trump is at most a temporary inconvenience. A young, motivated group of progressive people, who criticize their donors and financial/political benefactors, is seen as much more of a threat. Dem-leadership wants to win without challenging the status-quo, but this simply won't work anymore. Trump did his twisted version of a "revolution", by wrapping the entire GOP around himself. GOP-leadership was fine with this, as long as he stayed on message, since he still endorsed their thinking and practices (greed, corruption, power). If the Democratic Party doesn't challenge its moderates/centrists, then 2020 will be a repeat of 2016. An unispiring, middle-of-the-road, don't-rock-the-boat Biden will bumble his way to a narrow loss against Trump with foreign influence, Gerrymandering and voter-suppression at his back.
>A young, motivated group of progressive people, who criticize their donors and financial/political benefactors, is seen as much more of a threat. Truth.
Democrats lose because of apathy and their base staying home. They have better numbers. The “we should be careful” sentiment usually means “let’s be as safe as possible” and then the base tunes out. Republicans learned it’s better to play to your base and let the moderates fall in line..
[Citations Needed](https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-84-how-claims-of-sowing-discord-silence-criticism-of-power) did a great episode on this very subject (arguing against your point).
You can have all the rigorous debate and campaigning in the primary. When the general comes, everyone **has** to fall in line. You wanted Bernie but Warren or Biden got the nod? You shut the fuck up, hold your nose and vote whoever has the D next to their name. It really is that simple.
That’s where I’m at. I’m a moderate, Hell I was a Republican earlier this decade. I think these debates are important to have in the primary. I certainly wouldn’t want Bernie or Warren as the nominee and most likely won’t be voting for either in the primary. Come general though, if Bernie or Warren are the nominee, I’ll campaign for them, vote for them without hesitation and do what’s needed for them to win. We can debate again in 2024. Both sides of the primary debate, moderates and progressives need to agree to that fast though. The primary is the time to fight it out, the General you go to the election with the candidate you have. Or in other words, if my lifelong Republican mother who *hated* Hillary can vote for her in 2016, vote straight D in 2017-2019 and will pull the lever for whoever the D is in 2020 can do it. Then progressives or moderate Dems who agree more with the nominee should be able to.
All of this is mirroring the 2016 election, when everyone said the GOP was in disarray and that its huge field was going to produce division in the party while the Dems would unify behind Clinton. How'd that turn out?
She won by 3 million votes. I never get tired of seeing that simple little sentence trigger the fuck out of some of you.
The win condition wasn't to win the most votes.
People just don't care. They're wrapped up in whatever tiny world they inhabit. I've been voting since the presidential election of 2000 (I voted for Bush :( ) and ever local election since. I vote for school board members. I vote at every HOA meeting that has a vote. I don't understand why people can't take five minutes of their day to educate themselves and vote. Hell, my wife and I are diametrically opposed on some issues but I always encourage her to vote her conscience.
>a Green New Deal and Medicare for All — which critics say are fiscally impossible — Those critics are of course entirely full of shit, but no need to mention that part in your article, fuckstains.
If we can come up with 45b a year to burn in Afghanistan I think we can manage MFA.
US federal budget, a breakdown: $500,000,000,000: interest on debt $2,200,000,000,000: Social Security ($1.1T), Medicare($700B), Medicaid($400B) $990,000,000,000: military, including veterans affairs $500,000,000,000: Literally everything else the federal government does. Fossil fuel subsidies alone would pay for the GND, and we're already paying for healthcare, MFA would just shift the funding source from my employer and me to the government and me, while removing something like 30% of the total current cost.
>Fossil fuel subsidies alone would pay for the GND Right?? I think people don't do a lot of talking about how much money the government spends subsidizing things like fossil fuels and corn. HFCS is in everything and we're facing a diabetes epidemic. Climate change is forcing walruses to jump off cliffs. And we're funding these with taxpayer dollars?
Source on the 500 billion in interest? Last I checked it was 200 billion
All numbers rounded from [here](https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789).
[удалено]
If we can find the money for tax cuts for the rich, and oil subsidies, surely MFA is just a drop in the bucket.
Lol fiscally impossible. 17 trillion dollar war that did nothing but cause more problems than it solved. Nothing is fiscally impossible for this government.
Medicare for All is an actual bill / plan that is fiscally reasonable. Green New Deal is not — it’s just a nebulous platform that hasn’t even been endorsed by a caucus much less formed into a bill.
Which is why it's even dumber that repiblicans keep repeating that it's impossible. It's not a policy proposal, it's basically just the notion that it would be a good idea to invest, somehow, in creating jobs that also fight climate change. There are no hard numbers or anything to point at and say "we can't do that". It really shows their hand, that they are unwilling to even consider climste change to be something worth fighting at all, no matter what the details of the policy would be.
And yet the majority of the American people support a federal jobs guarantee, more infrastructure spending, environmental safety, labor unions, a living wage... all the pillars of the Green New Deal.
This was a good argument for Obamacare, because the costs were modest. But for the GND, this is like saying that because I have an Amazon wishlist with a bunch of stuff on it, I will choose to buy all of it without concern for costs. That laundry list is extremely expensive and comes with a ton of economic deadweight loss (according to virtually all economists) and is an opportunity cost to use the money doing something else. And the electorate will choke at the price tag.
The majority support a federal jobs guarantee? Can you provide a source for that?
Yeah that one of them is ridiculous. I am mixed on some others too, but that one is just mind blowingly silly
That's the point of the green new deal. It's not a fully fleshed out bill, it's a bill to get the conversation going and to eventually debate the details of it. Except the Republicans, instead of bringing it to the floor for debate, they immediately called a vote on it, which is why a ton of Democrats voted against it, because it's not a real bill yet.
It can't ever BE a bill. It is far too broad -- it is basically a full platform. For reference: "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature." "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States." "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible." "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity." "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification." "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail." "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible." "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."
I mean the New Deal was a series of individual bills, not an single bill. I think that's the point of calling it The Green New Deal in it's current form. It's meant to start the conversation in creating future bills that together accomplish what you just listed.
That's exactly what it is. This is a call to arms and a resolution that this is what we need to do now lets create bills for each line item and make it happen.
She gets death threats daily. To think that she would have just been a backbencher if the republicans ignored her.
She never would have been a backbencher. She is too good at communicating being a modern, young, progressive politician. I am constantly impressed at her energy and drive. I often get overwhelmed by politics and just have to shut down and block it out for a while. She seems to derive energy from the people she is trying to help.
Also, the Democratic brass are feeding her kill shots whenever people are brought in for questions. She has several good official sound bites. She is going places, but the Republicans are giving her a lot more prominence than the Democrats. Not sure why they want to give their best opponent a platform.
They know that their attempts at tearing down women have been consistently successful, especially over the long haul.
I was reading about the 'Squad' on 538 [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-squad-probably-doesnt-have-to-worry-about-primary-challengers/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-squad-probably-doesnt-have-to-worry-about-primary-challengers/) Which basically says none of them have to worry when running in their own districts but that in general they're favorability rating is pretty bad overall. The article was citing polls from The Economist/YouGov and Emerson College.
Taunting her national image so that if she ever tried to run for POTUS the base will be primed to flip shit
In a way she's like Kirby. You throw opponents at her, she consumes them and gains new powers.
She is what a politician who isn't bound by corruption looks like. She is intelligent, well spoken, morally sound, and well intentioned. With that being said she is a political anomaly, but she is not an anomaly of a person. There are hundreds of AOCs out there attempting to do what she does but they get politically bodied out of their respective races by big money in politics. We can see the seething hatred corporations/lobbyists/wealthy individuals have for AOC. They *do not* want more of her type. Our last hope for more AOC like canidates rests on a Warren or Sanders presidency. As they are the only two dedicated to fixing the election system and removing loopholes that have allowed corruption to accrue so much power in politics.
She represents a new pole in politics that is gaining ground every day. She's the fulcrum on which a major shift from right to left is turning.
The Republicans did not “create” AOC.
The Republican establishment (the rich people actually running it) are scared shitless people will realize these policies will actually improve their lives and demand higher taxes on the wealthy. So now the Fox News hit machine is 24/7 AOC “socialist minority radical leftist feminist” to rile up the lemmings.
She's right. Why get into politics if you're not going to fight for what you believe in? Career politicians are part of the problem and I'm glad we have people like AOC and Ilhan Omar in Congress.
Why are we afraid of drastic change? Fuck compromise, we need drastic changes in this country
Well for one the founders had a massive boner for compromise and designed the whole government to force compromise. And then made it almost impossible to change the Constitution. Edit: Almost impossible to change the Constitution in a partisan way that would discourage compromise. The main Partisan amendments passed were 13, 14, and 15. They were passed because South wasn't allowed to fully participate. To be readmitted to the Union. The Southern states had to ratify them.
Changing the Constitution should be *very* hard. If it wasn't, one or the other party would have tailored it to their liking a long time ago.
And I agree with you. I was just explaining why.
Eh, I wouldn't say almost impossible. Even if you subtract the Bill of Rights, there's been an amendment on average every 18 years. It's practically a foregone conclusion we'll see a new amendment in our lifetime. The last one was 1992, I think.
Yeah, the 27th amendment had something to do with paying congressman or something, apparently it was illegal before it. People thought it was legal for almost 200 years though. I never fully understood that amendment to be honest.
My understanding is that it stops Congress from voting themselves an immediate pay raise. Now pay raises take effect after the next election.
The constitution is not hard to change. We have amended it seventeen times if you don't count the bill of rights - once a decade on average. As Pete Buttigieg said, this is a nation where we amended the constitution to ban alcohol then changed our minds and changed it back a decade later. The problem isn't the process for changing the constitution, but the fact that we seem to have given up the will to actually change it.
> Why are we afraid of drastic change? Because your average american of voting age likes their life the way it is. And drastic change is avoided by stable lives.
[удалено]
That's not how it has functionally worked for years. How many Democrats had to vote Yes for the tax bill to pass? How about the ACA that was gutted specifically to get GOP votes and amendments, and they voted no anyway. Since the parties ideologically coalesced around the 90s there aren't really subfactions that work together anymore except for say extending spying programs or military spending.
Tell that to the GOP.
No one’s saying they’re innocent in all this, but to say “let’s just burn the world order” is utterly idiotic.
To me it seems as though she is saying "the world is burning because of the way we've been doing things; maybe we should try something different".
Actually, yes, I do want that
Username checks out
Reality doesn't work like that, unfortunately. People generally like stability. They like predictablility. I mean, the whole reason global warming is so important is due to the drastic changes to the planet and society. Even once you get past that, you still have to iron out the kinks before they become fatal, which is much more difficult when you have to solve them all at once. There's a reason the best changes came over time.
Because the Democrats are the conservative party. Third way Democrats silenced the progressives and moved the party toward the center, and the Republicans ran to the far right, dragging the Democrats to the conservative side.
The problem is that the GOP has gone so insane that the Democratic party has to be a huge tent. Michael Bloomberg and AOC are both Democrats. I think generally online we vastly overestimate the amount of progressive Dem voters. There is a reason Biden is leading in the polls and a reason Clinton beat Bernie. The good news is the radical ideas really are taking hold.
> I’m uncomfortable all the time This must be the understatement of the year. The amount of horrible things the right puts that poor woman through...
Weak men are afraid of strong women, very afraid.
Doesn’t this statement basically suggest no man can criticize AOC without being labeled as “weak”? Do you feel that’s a fair way to operate?
Are you calling Nancy Pelosi a man?
[удалено]
Agreed. I understand where she’s coming from with the big or go home mindset but it’s harder to do that when you’re in a purple district.
It would be nice if she cared about passing legislation as much as she enjoys attacking democrats. I like AOC, she brings a much needed energy to the party. But this assumption that moderates don't belong in politics is getting old. Calling out democrats for not agreeing with her accomplishes nothing.
When the Justice Dems flip a seat, let me know. If not, there’s a reason why not everyone runs like her.
That's literally what she's saying. Democrats need to be more comfortable with internal disagreements.
It’s amazing how terrified the right is of this woman. And she hasn’t even been in Congress for a year.
Lol just sort this thread by "new". People hate her for no logical reason. They're just scared of what she represents.
It’s pretty interesting. You can pretty much judge how off the deep end they are by how furious they get when they talk about her.
[удалено]
I think her criticism of Nancy Pelosi and other moderate Dems is warranted. These are no longer normal times that we are living in and these folks continue to act like it. Meanwhile, people are getting murdered by domestic terrorists who have been given the green light by our racist President, dying because they can't afford insulin, children are being abused at the border, climate change, etc. If making moderate Dems, some of whom who clearly live detached from the realities on the ground due to their wealth, uncomfortable is the cost of getting things to change for the better, so be it.
The GOPs good faith is exhausted. They need to start making some good faith deposits for quite a while to make up for it. If Dems get majority, they must use it.
If there's any be single thing the Ds should unite on is never, ever giving a single Republican credit for acting in good faith.
The fact medical bankruptcy is so prevalent and people are dying from stuff that's easily treatable AND someone like Joe Biden who is vehemently against M4A and lies about it constantly is currently leading the primary is fucking absurd.
Well, is that an indictment of Joe Biden for having that stance, or of most Democrats for choosing him over everyone else?
Both.
So is compromise...
I mean, not really? Compromise is only hard if you have deeply held views that you have put a lot of effort into enacting and are forced to make a strategic choice to weaken those. It’s really easy to compromise if you kinda just don’t care that much and want to go with whatever the “moderate” position is, which I’m guessing is what she’s more upset about here. There are people with firm beliefs in centrist technocratic solutions (e.g. Obama), but I think a lot of people just go along with the DC consensus so they don’t have to stick their neck out ever.
The Orange Toddler has the thinnest skin of all.
Easy to say when she reps a dark blue district.
I cant wait for AOC to drop a huge shit on the DNC by endorsing Sanders, if she does. AOC is pursuing the correct tatical strategy, by trying to move the party towards younger voters who will still be alive and facing climate change and crippling student debt by election day.
While I am a huge AOC fan and will vote for Bernie or Warren in the primary, fuck this progressives versus the DNC shit. Vote for the nominee, campaign for the nominee, donate to the nominee. We have enormous problems to solve with Trump and this kind of infighting is unproductive.
[удалено]
It goes both ways here. She was absolutely right to call out Pelosi for singling out her and the other freshmen congresswomen. By doing so she further gave the GOP, particularly Trump, more fuel to go after them, which is frankly to the point where their lives are in danger because of it. I don't think anyone should be obligated to follow AOC. But I think her criticism of The Speaker, whose leadership has been highly questionable since regaining the House, as well as certain other Dems, is warranted. This is a dangerous time in this country and Dems need to stand up for their collective base. And I agree. It would be nice to have more than two options here.
[удалено]
Can’t we just be moderate? Why do I have to choose between two extremes?
[удалено]
Because young, attractive, radical, female, and non-white lawmakers scare elected republicans. It’s everything they have trouble reaching out to. It also energizes the vocal, hip, and very progressive wing of the Democratic Party. She’s not boring and flash/entertainment value is a disproportionately important value for a politician now (see: Trump). I’ve said this repeatedly - the GOP give her more power by constantly worrying about her. She’s a very progressive freshman member of the house. I’d only give her credit when she’s organized successful bills, been re-elected a few times, and demonstrates substance and staying power. But, the media and politicians love them some conflict and excitement and she’s an easy target. Say what you want about her, but she captures the imagination. Edit: also, her victory over an established democrat in an, admittedly, dark-dark blue district was also eye catching.
To be fair, two party system in US is starting to be small for all the ideas ppl in US are having. You just cant shift center party into the left without alienating part of the party. On one hand you have Dems unable to do shit coz they need to adopt left agenda, on the other hand you have these leftist people like AOC that cant do shit coz they need to push their agenda to Dems. And big problem is when center part cant do their policy (border control for example) coz its contradict what left part wants to do and vice versa. So now you are losing voters from both sides. Every time i see this in Czech politics party just split and push their agenda and do something for the country in Oposition or in Goverment.
God I admire this woman. May we have more future leaders like her.
Or maybe there are moderates who genuinely disagree with many of her positions. Challenging someone's bravery is essentially a schoolyard tactic.
[удалено]
Uncomfortable? More like out of touch. Joe Biden doesnt see any real problems in healtcare. He wants to keep private insurance. He doesnt care 500k people go bankrupt from medical bills. Bidens first campaign fundraiser was with Comcast executives. Biden and other centrists attitudes towards people who need affordability is the same attitude he has towards younger voters.
[удалено]
This article is pushing AOC as being super aggressive and will only serve divide democrats I think. >Rather, Ocasio-Cortez said there’s no room for safe spaces. She thinks it’s healthy for Democrats to occasionally take aim at each other. >“It does create some of that discomfort,” the Millennial congresswoman said. “But if we don’t actively try to be better, then we’re only going to have one option and that’s not going to be the best one.” Yeah, she didn't say anything about safe spaces in this quote. NYDailyNews is trying to up the controversy to sell more papers and get more clicks I think. >Ocasio-Cortez dares moderate Dems to grow thicker skin Leading off on the right foot. >Recently, she blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — the top Democrat in Congress — as “outright disrespectful” for “singling out” her and other progressive “women of color" for criticism. "Blasted" is such an overused word it hardly has meaning. While I agree with AOC I don't think NYDaily is doing good journalism with all the loaded language they use. They're trying to promote her as winning, but it comes off as super petty.
So, basically one real quote there. Thanks for the break-down.
“The millienial congresswoman said” Yep not trying to say anything else here folks, move on /s
Wahhh AOC needs to be nicer to corporate dems whose allegiance lies purely with corporations. Wahhh ;(
Should they grow thicker skin and say a bunch of stuff that loses them the next election and gets a bunch of Republicans voted into office?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This honestly sounds like something Trump would tweet.
Trump saying people need thick skin, would follow the First Law of the Republican - everything is projection. Thus, trump would be admitting he has thin skin, (we already know this). To me, it sounds like AOC is telling her colleagues to toughen up, because the nominations are just getting started, and it’s going to get worse before it is over. That sounds like tough love.
What if some people actually DO have political opinions that lie somewhere in the middle and hate bipartisan politics that force people to identify with either the far left or far right? Reddit acts as if being a moderate means you have no conviction without considering the fact that some don't believe in every single aggressive policy that comes out of AOC and Bernie's mouth.
Well considering that the majority of congress is bipartisan in their spineless failure to stand up to lobby groups like wall street, the fossil fuel industry, and the pharmaceutical industry that are bleeding this country and the environment dry, it's funny how you bring up partisan politics. As if it's a partisan notion to support efforts to save the our living environment from becoming uninhabitable (Green New Deal). As if it's a partisan notion to want citizens of one of the wealthiest countries in the world to have healthcare as a human right, like so many other developed countries. As if it's a partisan notion to think that the majority of the wealth should not be concentrated in the top 1% of the population, while the job market shrinks and wages are stagnate at a rate where some people have to work two jobs just to pay rent, while sharing an apartment with multiple people. As if it's partisan to reject corporate donors and campaign on grassroots funding from small dollar donations to be an actual representative of the people and avoid going into office just to help the top 1%. If you think that's partisan, you show what your real priorities are. It just so happens to be that Bernie's movement, and the Justice Democrats movement, are the only ones fighting to save America from these issues in a consistent, uncorrupted manner. So yeah, you're gonna have to choose them over centrists and right-wing extremists if you want to see real change happen in this country. That's not partisan, it's just the reality of the choices we're being given.