“What’s funny about that is they assume my ambition is positional. They assume my ambition is a title or a seat. My ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country. Presidents come and go, elected officials come and go, single payer healthcare is forever.”
Iron Dome-Cortez for Pres!
This is why I love her.
Baby accounts in here chirping about Jon Stewart and AOC running for president after killing Reddit. Getting prepared for the primary. AstroTurf moving over here.
In the world of politics governed by nepotism greed and optics, I am absolutely positive that the political world is anything but speechless about this particular statement.
Im pretty sure that is a “no, not this time” answer.
I think she knows where she can do the most good, and survive to do the most good.
I like AOC but i dont think she is ready for the international political scene. I think she knows it as well. Domestic issues need her more, which happens in Congress.
And Jon Stewart, well i like him too but … another celebrity/actor president? Really?
At this point I don’t care. Trump set the bar so low that a colony of fermenting yeast would do a better job.
Let alone someone with actual good intentions.
I think she’d be great because she would hire very smart people to advise her on her weak areas. “If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people. And if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.” She’s smart, and she knows a lot of smart people.
100%. Both her and Stewart are in the exact positions they need to be in to be the most useful to our country. Stewart gets the views of the center, while she works on progressive projects, where she can. Politics gets folks emotional, but it’s best to plan from reason.
Jon Stewart would be better than another establishment Democrat.
Stop promoting celebrities for high office
Presidency would actually kill him, I think
I mean, when you have like the next 40 years to run, it’s not a hurry.
"And a waitress will lead them… "
Better her than Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio by miles. If we are picking teams, AOC all the way.
It’s really great to see one of our politicians answer questions as if they were actually a public servant concerned with the good of the country. I mean, obviously.
But it’s equally tragic how unique it is for a politician to answer like that, and how many people in her own party (in addition to 99% of Republicans) will assume it is BS political talking points to suggest that somebody is serving a high profile political position for any reason other than blind personal ambition.
“single payer healthcare is forever”
The chronically underfunded NHS creaks as I weep.
I don’t disagree with her point though. In the UK, after decades of neoliberalism reigning supreme, I am often extremely depressed at how it’s changed things culturally. I was born in the 90s, so all of my life, I have seen the people who are struggling most scrutinised ever closer, and the state becomes more and more like a business.
If the NHS didn’t already exist, I can’t fathom there being political will to implement it right now. There would be far too much outcry over people “reaping rewards from the system despite not contributing to it”. There was that kind of opposition when the NHS was founded too, but far less of it. It was a different world. As I understand it, the Reagan and Thatcher era of politics were a big part of what caused things to change.
Learning the history helps ground me. A political philosopher I read a bunch of last year who influenced me greatly was Frederic Jameson, who advocated that we should “always historicise”, because connecting to our history is a great tool in resisting the cultural logic of late stage capitalism.
Or to put it a different way: the society we live in has a way of making itself seem eternal and immutable, but things have not always been this way, and they need not always remain this way. If AOC spearheaded a campaign that led to single payer healthcare, but the scheme was later repealed, that achievement would still last forever, in that it could serve as a template for those in future.
I don’t know if any of this makes sense. I’m just depressed and trying to clutch at hope. I’d say I don’t know if it’s working, but hey, I’m still alive — that’s something. I should probably get some sleep though
There is a solution for that, tax the rich and fund the NHS. This isn’t rocket science.
Yeah, but my point is that there’s currently a lack of political will to do that
Insomnia, eh?
Yeah, the NHS is horribly underfunded - but I think it’s still one of very few things the UK can still be proud of. I think most people wouldn’t mind paying a little more tax, if it were specifically ringfenced for the NHS. Yeah, I doubt it would be created today, and it’s constantly fighting creeping privatisation but it still has a great deal of public support. And desperate as services are these days, I’m still alive because of it.
Glad you’re still here with us. For a variety of reasons, I’m similar. The average person is pretty pro-NHS, but when it comes to politicians, there seems to be a lack of political will to change anything.
I think something that makes it harder is that it’s not just a case of funding (though that is also needed), but a restructuring to reverse some of the insidious privatisation and outsourcing that’s so prevalent these days. Additionally, there needs to be more money put into skilled administrators — whenever there’s talks about cutting the fat from the NHS, pointing the fingers at “unnecessary” administrative staff is an easy tactic, but a lack of skilled administrators means that medical staff have to spend more time filling in forms and chasing up referrals.
The greatest lie ever told about the NHS is that we need to pay more tax to fund it properly.
We don’t.
We need to unwind a web of outsourcing agreements that siphon money away from care provision and into the pockets of the 1%.
There’s enough money if you remove the grift
Edit typo
A while back, I spent a couple of weeks in hospital despite there being nothing medically wrong with me
My carer had died a few months prior, and social care services were fucking around a lot so I spent a long while without any daily living support at all, except the occasional friend travelling across the country to spend a weekend helping me. A friend who hadn’t heard from me for a while called emergency services, because they were worried I might have tried to kill myself, because the last thing they had heard from me was pretty concerning in that respect (I was in a bad place mental health wise).
When paramedics got there, they found me on the floor, having had a fall. I hadn’t even in a week, and was severely dehydrated. They took me to hospital, got me hydrated and stuff, but then I was in limbo for a while. They couldn’t discharge me, because it wasn’t safe to send me back home without care. But the various services that were meant to be supporting people like me just weren’t working. It was basically like the NHS and social care services being the meme with two versions of spiderman pointing to each other.
And so I took up a valuable hospital bed for multiple weeks, in a place that wasn’t well situated to even support me. It made me so angry because of the inefficiency of it all. It’s all so preventable, but there’s so much inefficiency.
And that’s not even counting all the x-rays I’ve had following a fall that I had because wheelchair services were fucking me around, so I had preventable falls that cost the NHS more money.
A decade or so ago my mum was in hospital for a couple of days. She had to go for a test and so missed her evening meal. So at around 7 or 8 one had to be brought to her. It was a small microwave meal for 1, still in its plastic microwave container. One of her nurses told her that the charge to the NHS for this single meal from the catering company was £45
Yep. I’m on the NDIS in Australia. You can get a quote for out of pocket for say 40$/hr or whatever. But as soon as companies hear NDIS, they charge the govt the max. It’s ridiculous.
Even though the NDIS funds only a small portion of the population, it costs MORE than Medicare which funds most of the country. Crazy shit
The US and UK has the same problem of two party system and late stage capitalism. Although, the UK has a much more dramatic shift, not seen since the 1900s, because of the rise of Reform and Green Party.
I’d vote for John Stewart if I was American. Look up how he supported the 911 firemen. He is the right mix of popular to be a viable candidate and obviously principled enough to be a second Obama.
Jon Stewart was pretty positive on Trump bombing Iran. He is not the guy.
Lol, no he wasn’t.
Source: See any of his shows.
Where did you see that?
Daily show made some jokes about it, and I have heard people alternatively claim that he is either pro Trump or pro Iran. People just looking for an excuse to hate Jon I guess
That’s kinda what I figured. Anyone claiming he’s pro trump either hasn’t seen him talk about anything or is severely misunderstanding his sarcasm and/or satire.
Jon Stewart pushed hard for ~$10 billion for roughly 90,000 9/11 responders/survivors - about $110,000 per person.
Using that same math for all 330 million Americans, - that’d be roughly $36 trillion (more than entire GDP).I dunno - something about that deal is, - feels a bit populist.
I support universal healthcare. That’s exactly why this bothers me. America refuses to build a rational universal system, but will absolutely create gold-plated exception systems for emotionally untouchable groups because the politics are driven by symbolism and emotion instead of coherent policy.
Oh yes just what we need a second Obama. First Obama worked out so well for us.
Exactly! They are both came up from Chicago and were legal scholars! Oh, no, wait. They are both Jewish born New York based comedians, who criticize politicians with over the top shows! Oh no, wait. They… um… I mean, they must have something in common?
Lol, another Obama is exactly what is needed: a statesman and a diplomat, a rational person, someone who works to improve America rather tells fools that he is there for America but is actually only in it for himself and his mentor Putin. But America got to do America so…enjoy the shitshow.
I get what you’re saying, but Americans, for whatever reason, paint Obama as the farthest left option when he was centrist at best.
The “they go low, we go high” mentality sounds nice but we’re seeing that directly play out where establishment Dems play by the rules and are too scared or too paid off to fight for the people while the Republicans break the rules all the time. And we choose to “move on” rather than hold them accountable. So, they learn that they can just fuck everyone over and no one will charge them with any crimes. Exactly what Obama campaigned on.
Not to mention that, rather than bail out the people who were suffering during 08, Bush bailed out the banks who caused the crisis. And what did the banks do with the money? Lay people off still and use that money to pay executive bonuses and for stock buybacks. Obama continued this oversight, and for what it’s worth he did attempt to send more funds to small businesses. But the fact still remains that the funds should’ve gone to the people affected and not the large banks that were deemed “too big to fail” similar to how AI is currently trying to position itself.
Also not to mention all the deportations and bombings across the world still. And the ACA being a right wing heritage foundation project that was adopted to provide more funding to private healthcare insurers. Which many just increased the prices of services to fleece taxpayers with so 🤷♂️
Obama is no comparison to Trump, of course, and I don’t hate Obama. But I also can’t forgive him for how ineffectual he actually was for the working class. We don’t need another “work across the aisle” “oh, let’s focus on the future, we don’t need to prosecute Trump or his administration” type candidate. We need one that will be an enemy of organized wealth and corporations so we can pull ourselves back out of authoritarian/billionaire control. The elite need to be held responsible. Otherwise, why would any citizen believe in the rule of law if it can be selectively applied?
I imagine many Virginians are feeling exactly that right now. They voted and approved a map and then their SC knocked it down because they felt like it. Meanwhile, the Republican maps are being forced through, held privately with no voter input, in some cases ongoing elections are even being halted with votes being thrown out to redistrict. All without any voter say to remove voter power. Why would anyone feel like their vote even matters anymore?
We need accountability. And I’m sorry, but a neoliberal Obama I don’t believe would hold any of them accountable.
Just one small correction: although the 2008 bank bailout did happen during Obama’s presidency, it was the Bush administration who created it and signed it into law. This is usually framed as Bush being a class act and doing it to spare Obama the blowback of having to do the same (back in the days when presidential class was still a thing), but it seems not to have worked, as everybody still blames Obama entirely.
Entirely fair, you’re right. It looks like Obama tried to move TARP funds to make it easier for small businesses and new programs to receive funding. I stand corrected on that point.
I agree with almost all of this and even the parts I disagree with I agree in principle. There will never be someone who can reach level or power needed to actually do what you’re describing without being a very, very good liar. Because they are never reaching that position on merit and message alone. It’s not just republicans outnumbering us. It’s people who are indifferent outnumber republicans and democrats and progressives combined. And not performatively indifferent. I mean people who genuinely do not care and do not vote and never will vote no matter how bad their circumstances get. A rock bottom low enough to engage that many people can not exist in a world with drive thrus, cell phones, and air conditioning. There’s no way to make that many people uncomfortable enough to care without it already being too late.
I’d like to point out that Obama is responsible for the most amount of deportations in the history of this country. And he bombed more of the middle east that bush. He’s still one of the greatest presidents in our history, but…
Yeah, the same guy who killed two American citizens in Pakistan with no due process. The one that accepted a transparency award in a CLOSED meeting. The president that didn’t close gitmo. The one that expanded our wars to six countries. And remember how George Bush was spying on Americans by listening in on that fiber optic cable coming into the ATT center in California and how Obama stopped all of that? Oh, right he didn’t. In fact I believe it’s still going on. And Obama care, what a great idea. Force people to buy health insurance. What a great idea. So great the heritage foundation came up with it, you know the people who brought you Project 2025. People seem to think that just because he wasn’t Bush or Trump, he was great. I think they can all be shit.
Current situation is a direct result of first Obama
Indirect result - racist reactions to a black President.
Compared to literally every other American president in my lifetime, this is unironically true. I’m 47. What’s your point?
Tan suit
Mic drop
/s … Which is hopefully obvious
Obama wasn’t perfect, but at least he wasn’t a trainwreck and he was sandwiched between two of them.
No, you don’t understand - if you can’t get a 110% perfect leftist president, you might as well just elect the next Trump to reinforce fascism!
Man ain’t that the damn truth. I’m so tired of that mindset that if the only tolerable option isn’t perfect, let the terrible option win. Just wtf.
I get that we want to have a better system, but if people let the side that is intent on non-rich people having zero say or rights, we will be worse off than the imperfect solution. Really need people to quit letting perfect be the enemy of good.
It’s really the only other alternative.
She literally told you it is not about president, masters never changed. Now you understand?
Are you suggesting that, assuming magically Obama won president in 2025, things would be going exactly the same because “masters never changed”?
I am saying that I was disappointed long ago seeing my friends, colleagues and others getting fooled by politicians. At least their pink glasses were striped off. As the saying goes, it has to get really bad before we see changes. The only one right now who I am interested to watch is Mamdani, he seems pretty legit so far
Same track, slower train
Suggesting that Obama-equivalent would threaten allies with military takeover of land, tariff literally everybody fucking up the global economy, start supporting the enemy and rolling out the red carpet for Putin, or attacking Iran for absolutely no reason… is just flat out delusional.
And look where we are today. Our “president”pulling meme coin and fake smartphone rug pulls. Gas at $6+ a gallon and rising. Please snap out of it!!!
We don’t need a second Obama. We need a first of a new kind of president, one that manages to actually change things. Not a party line tower, not a middle of the roadster, but a daring and principled changer. The type of person we’d need would be fighting both parties, not just pissing the other one off. Because both parties right now are fubar and our future looks bleak.
The DNC took Bernie down…now AOC is the closest to what u describe.
We need her to step up. And we need to put the DNC as well as the GOP out to pasture.
Speechless to old white redneck fucksticks perhaps. To the rest of us she sounds like a goddam American patriot who has the good of THIS fucking country in her heart.
To young white redneck fucksticks, too, tho’.
Clickbait headline is Clickbait.
News at 11
I know many of you will dismiss this as the ramblings of a Third-worlder… Yet, as someone who saw and suffered under the socialists, I can identify a populist demagogue the moment I see and hear/read one.
Her ambition is the seat and to perpetuate herself in the power, nothing unlike Cristina de Kirchner, or Hugo Chávez, or Maduro.
And, unless you do something about the illegals, her “ambition” is just a bait.
look inside
account created less than a month ago
Yeah, I’m dismissing this as rambling, but of a bot account funded by a right-wing organization.
Sure… I am a bot.
Repeating like a good sheep what is written in Reddit.
I haven’t been on Reddit in at least two years, maybe longer. I can’t remember and honestly don’t care enough to check. But that sort of statement sounds exactly what I would tell my staff to have the bots write when accused of being bots, if I worked at an agency aiming to stir up dissent on social media.
So how about this: if you want to prove that you’re not a bot, try being kind and thoughtful about what you say, be introspective about your edgelord views, and actually write something that has respect for the dignity of human life.
What is “the illegals”?
Brown people, ofc
I am Latino. And there are many Latinos who come illegally, and worse, to ruin their environment… Like in Perrysburg, Ohio.
What about The Gays™? Aren’t
weahm… THEY also illegals? You know, for… Scorning imaginary friends and fascists?Don’t forget the trans people!
And people with dissenting opinions?
Strong “I lived through the holocaust. Israel is definitely not doing a genocide” energy.
Try making a line to buy only one carton of milk (we buy cans). And every time, it increases the price by the minute.
All while someone blew a car anytime. That is what O have lived.
I know many of you will dismiss this
Yep!
Oof. Plenty of countries have implemented socialist programs. Healthcare, access to basic necessities are needed. No one “illegal,” they’re just people trying to establish themselves. Whole country was built on the blood of Native Americans. So, yeah that shit about this country being a melting pot is more relevant.
Most of them, privatised.
And tell the “illegal” part to “El Tren de Aragua”.
They’re democratic socialists, not corrupt communists.
Tell me what happened during the Biden Administration? Why withhold all the good/plans until she (or Harris) enter the White House?
I’d vote for her. I’d also vote for Bernie again, if he ran again. I don’t care about his age, all that would matter is he got into office, and established a cabinet, and had a good Vice President to take over.
Bernie is 84 years old.
I am a huge fan of Bernie. Have been for over a decade. He is too old to be the president.
The point of Bernie or AOC or Zohran or any socialist candidate is the movement behind them, which represents the will of the masses. The actual figurehead is largely irrelevant because everything they do is in the interest of their constituents. They might use their charisma to win (but usually it’s the movement that actually wins the campaign), but once they’re in power they just have to fulfill their promises, and they have staff to do this.
A regular politician, by contrast, enacts the will of the corporate class. In this way they’re mostly irrelevant too.
Shouldn’t be getting downvotes for this. Bernie deserves to rest, he’s been saying the same message for decades and it’s up to us to make it better for him, now.
He would be more valuable as an advisor.
Less energy wasted on the bullshit.
Exactly. He’d make a wonderful cabinet member or top advisor.
If Bernie wants to rest, then he can rest.
He isn’t acting like a man that wants to rest.
He’s also incredibly sharp for 84…but he’s 84…
He’ll be 86 at the next election.
And 90 by the time he is out of office, at least.
As president you get way more stress, more travel, less sleep. He wouldn’t do well in the president’s office.
Yeah his opening came and gone, unfortunately. Time doesn’t care, it marches on.
That’s the same thing everybody said last time and Bernie is in better physical, mental, and psychological condition than Trump.
better physical, mental, and psychological condition than Trump.
That bar is so low I’d need to dig a hole to find it.
Of course, and because of that he would never win an election, because people won’t vote for him because “he’s too old”. Like I said, I don’t care about his age, or that he would likely die in office, perhaps even in the first year. I’d still vote for him, because I agree with him, and I want his ideas in that office. That’s why he’d need a good V.P. I don’t understand why anyone would care how old he is, as long as they agree with him. Is it because he would probably die in office? Why does that matter?
I don’t care about Trump’s age per se, I do care that he’s got dementia. Bernie doesn’t have dementia.
Anyway, it’s a pipe dream, and I’ll happily vote for one of his protégés, too.
More importantly, he’s too old, and not aggressive enough, to win. We need someone that knows how to build and run a political machine, that can seize control of the party and purge the old guard. A true populist that can play a crowd. Bernie unfortunately lacks the killer instinct to overcome the establishment.
Bernie for president and AOC for vice president? That’d be something.
IF he died in office, the position likely would be taken good care of
What if we had a candidate that is not on his 80s, maybe?
This “Bernie” mentality elected Trump twice already.
Bernie was not the candidate in any general election
I’d door-knock for her.
Sheesh, and I haven’t canvased for a candidate in almost 20 years.
I canvassed for Bernie. It was a good experience. And he won the state.
I phone banked for her in her 2018 campaign.
UAW Boss Sean Fein would be a good candidate.
Well they need to get out and start doing media now. Regardless, a successful candidate is going to have to out in hundreds of hours in front of cameras and developing a level of comfort and ease of answering questions that only comes with practice and putting in the hours. It’s also one of my biggest critiques of AOC. She also hasn’t/isn’t putting in the reps in terms of media cycles. When they do, it’s very controlled and brief.
You are a fascist.
Explain how.
Explaim how you complain to management to get your critiics cancelled? You gave your hand away.
What did you get banned for being a gif hating loser in the other thread? I would never report you for being that kind of a loser; it’s far more fun to just mock you relentlessly when you have a psychological moment like that. Which was truly fun and brightened my day, so I do want to say thanks and I appreciate your participation. It was probably some one who agreed with me on how silly you were being that reported you. I would never do that, it’s far more entertaining to have you staying in the game.
For your participation yesterday, I sincerely appreciate it:
Now, into the comment at hand…
You can be and should be a critic of me but you should also have the charity to take my arguments on their face. I think AOC is mid among current progressives and I’ve outlined why several times in this thread. I can reiterate those points if you like and we can take it from there.
ha ha, you are pathetic.
She has work to do, because if she ran right now, she’d get eaten alive.
Notice that AOC doesn’t do very many hard interviews, and that when she gets a question asked of her that she isn’t prepared for, she stumbles.
AOC has been basically absent from leftwing media while plenty of other very solid progressives are out there putting in reps doing hard interviews in combative environments. AOC doesn’t do that and is only does very controlled media opportunities. That’s not good for someone who wants to be president. I don’t think she’s done the time like others have to be able to weather a primary.
AOC doesn’t do very many hard interviews
Define “hard”. If you mean antagonistic, that’s because she wisely tries not to waste too much time and energy boosting the false narratives of the billionaire-owned mass media that bear a lot of the blame for how things got awful enough for fascism to return.
she gets a question asked of her that she isn’t prepared for, she stumbles
As do pretty much anyone. Which is why she and most competent politicians make sure to be prepared for all possible pertinent questions.
It still depends btw: do you call refusing to entertain a deliberately false narrative “stumbling”?
AOC has been basically absent from leftwing media
That’s a bit of an exaggeration but she’s not made herself available as much as for example Ro Khanna, I’ll give you that.
Ro and most of the ones making that many media appearances don’t seem as genuine and principled, though.
Whether that’s due to the sheer volume of gotcha questions or because they ARE less principled, that’s not a good look to the ones they need to reach.
hard interviews in combative environments
AKA contributing to disinformation by accepting their clickbait false narratives as legitimately in the interest of the people.
AOC doesn’t do that and is only does very controlled media opportunities.
Yeah, imagine preferring to talk about the REAL issues rather than how everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan are either immature children or dangerous radicals 🙄
That’s not good for someone who wants to be president.
I’d argue the exact opposite. If you mud wrestle with a pig, the pig beats you with experience and you get filthy no matter how well you do.
I don’t think she’s done the time like others have to be able to weather a primary
Dude. The way she ENTERED politics was by going from volunteering for Bernie to unseating a 10-term incumbent who was the third ranking Dem representative in two years!
She has since easily beaten more right wing Dems favored by the DNC in primaries twice (and won unopposed except for the Republican nominee once).
If anyone knows how to beat overwhelming odds and win against the experienced establishment favorite, it’s her.
Fox news, Piers Morgon, are both very antogonistic as examples, and I would list Zeteo, any interview with Medhi or Pratt as a hard interview (I personally think Medhi is one of the bester interviewers in medi, hands down).
It’s not a matter of it being time wasting, it’s a matter of putting in reps and communicating a message. It’s about rhetoric and convincing an audience. Bernie finds time for those audiences. Ro Khanna finds time for those audiences. Ilhan finds time for those interviews. And go read the comments under those interviews: MAGA trust Bernie and Ro more than they do most of their own Republicans because Bernie and Ro have put in the reps, done the laps.
And to volley the question back over the net, why does AOC get an accountability pass when all the rest of her squad cohort don’t suffer from this same issue? Its not like they aren’t effective or productive members of Congress, I’d argue quite the opposite. It was not the Cortesse-Massie bill that got the Epstein files released it wash the Khanna Massie bill that did, and Ro found ample time to take his messages and arguments before the people while doing so.
It still depends btw: do you call refusing to entertain a deliberately false narrative “stumbling”?
Let’s take the example I gave. AOC got asked by dropsite if she supported her former chief of staff who is trying to oust Pelosi in California. A fairly gentle question from a friendly source about litterally the person who helped get you into Congress. And she fumbled it. Badly. In a way that should give any progressive pause.
When Ilhan Omar was attacked by a maga supporter at a recent event she didn’t back down. She litterally got in the attackers face in a way that should have made national headlines. We’re she running for another seat, it would have.
It’s fair to juxtapose AOC against her cohort, and she is at the back of that pack in my view. The pack is still leagues ahead of other Democrats but that’s beside the point, because now is when we need to make these evaluations.
I’d argue the exact opposite. If you mud wrestle with a pig, the pig beats you with experience and you get filthy no matter how well you do.
I think your an utter fool to believe you can get away from hard interviews. I will not support a candidate who can’t handle the pressure of a campaign or read the room or the moment. That’s how you get “Please clap.” Jeb, and “Nothing would fundamentally change Harris”.
These politicians are not your children. It’s not your job to protect them. They need to be held up and have their mettle tested before we need to rely upon them to be a backstop against fascism, not after.
You not only have to be able to get jnto the mud and learn to wrestle with the pigs, you need to be able to do so and win. I’m not interested in someone who hasn’t put the time in to win dirty fights.
The candidate will have to face down Tucker Carlson or Candice Owens, or any one of the innumerable shit birds who have piled up on the right.
Dude. The way she ENTERED politics was by going from volunteering for Bernie to unseating a 10-term incumbent who was the third ranking Dem representative in two years!
Yeah and for the first two years she was a fire brand. Then something happened and she became far more reserved and calculating. She genuinely changed after getting iced by Pelosi for occupying her office. I think it impacted her and she shifted her approach.
I need to see her taking harder more competitive interviews. I need to see her all over leftwing media and safe space interviews. I need to see her in spaces where her team doesn’t control the questions getting asked.
Because there are other progressives who had just as difficult if not more difficult fights than AOC has had, and they don’t seem to have a problem taking in those battles.
But to be fair, when is the last time that is there wasn’t a softball interview or debate? A huge portion of the US population have never seen a real debate lol
There have been softball interviews and debate for liberal/conservative/fascist candidates the corpos like. Leftist candidates, on the other hand, get a hostile treatment or get ignored entirely.
Bernie takes hard debates ALLL THE TIME and uncle is strong because if it.
Ro Khanna also. They take every media call they can and because of that they are very comfortable getting asked tough questions.
AOC got a softball from dropsite about endorsing her former chief of staff who is challenging Pelosi, and she dropped the ball in an utter what the fuck moment.
You gotta be tough to stand up to nonstop events and pressers and interviews that come with a campaign. AOC genuinely hasn’t been putting in the reps and it shows.
That’s my girl.
I have been thinking about the problem with politicians in general: they want to climb, they want positions of power and probably also money. But do they want to make policy even more? As in, for the people? Maybe in the beginning, but at some point, it seems, they all made a deal with the devil.
I hope what she said is an answer to such thoughts.
As a European this is how I read it too. Politics in the US are so driven by “team sport” and grand personalities the actual policy sometimes gets forgotten. “He says what I think” and “I’ve always voted for party X.” are very common arguments and you may occasionally hear about some wedge issue, but really understanding how these people would govern?
AOC has policy goals and fight for them regardless of her title. If she thinks she can there as President she will run, if not she will do something else.
deleted by creator
lmao this comment was up less than a minute without anyone even seeing it, before I removed it. Yet the downvotes started non the less… And kept coming 😂
Something like 75% of American voters want universal health care, 90% of Democrat voters want it, and over 50% of Independents.
(these are approximations there are many polls pick your favorite)
Unfortunately, in the USA it’s “donations” that control legislation, cash is king. Our reps have two choices… do what Americans want (healthcare, higher wages and benefits, less bombs), or do what makes them and their entire family filthy rich.
It’s hard to resist the allure of money, they won’t give it up willingly. Landing leadership positions means millions of dollars a year, cushy political appointments (like your husband/wife landing an abassadorship to Bermuda), and other fantastic benefits, it’s blatant.
Whenever polls regarding universal healthcare are discussed, I always add that that if you want to gauge how popular universal healthcare is in the US, you need to subtract the over age 65 respondents (which leads to it polling even more favorably). Why? Because despite being the age demographic most opposed to universal healthcare, that is the one demographic that already has universal healthcare. And it’s not because they think Medicare is bad - on the contrary, Medicare is very popular among seniors. They love it. They just think they deserve universal healthcare while everyone else just wants to mooch off the system. So frankly I don’t care what they think about universal healthcare, actions speak louder than words.
Sadly, I fear the Dems keep her around for the same reason they keep Bernie.
To keep them reigned in so they don’t become a threat to the old money powers. The last thing the Dems want is for them to splinter off into a viable third party, gain traction and actually make life better for the poor.
Keep your friends close and all that…
I don’t even know if that’s a thought. This country has little hope of a third party without radical changes to how we vote.
But keeping loud progressives in the party where they can be seen and heard is good to keep progressive voters engaged. Note that Bernie, AOC, and the more outspoken libs are given more airtime come election years whereas they only get minor sporadic coverage the rest of the time. So the Dems attract the progressives by amplifying convenient voices when it suits them, but otherwise progressive policy is essentially nullified by neo-lib willful failure to block shitty conservative policy.
The only way a third party gets in is if there’s a coup. The Big Two aren’t going to let anyone else at the table willingly.
The US system is similar to the UK as far as I can tell, and our two party system is starting to collapse.
The third party in question is actually even fucking worse, but at least it’s no longer a two horse race.
I think any system of government where one party can end up with an overall majority over everything is fundamentally flawed. Policy needs discussion and compromise, not just shoving through because “we won you lost get over it”
The US system is similar to the UK as far as I can tell, and our two party system is starting to collapse.
Not really since UK has a parliamentary system, which is far more hospitable to third (and fourth and fifth…) parties.
We’ve never been as two-party solidified as the US and our system isn’t thaaat similar really imo
They elect the president by state, with senate and house seats separately
We elect our priminister by voting in mps in constituencies and then the leader whichever party if any has enough mps to vote down the other members is the prime minister
It’s more like, for the US, if the leader of whichever party wins the most members of Congress appoints the president but there’s way more congressmen and smaller constituencies and the senate isn’t a thing
We’ve had hung parliaments and coalition governments - both recently and in the 40s, 10s, etc - and that just doesn’t exist in the US
Don’t get me wrong, our version of FPTP is bollocks and leans toward a two party system, it sucks
But I don’t think it’s really comparable to the US
People doom way too much about the two party duopoly. It’s a deeply ahistoric and defeatist narrative.
Yes, you can’t have a stable three party system in the US, but independent candidates can win and the parties in the duopoly can be swapped out for one another. Ross Perot almost won in 1992, losing only because he suspended his campaign for a time. And the Republican party was itself originally a third party. Abolitionists got tired of do-nothing centrists dragging their heels on slavery. Ultimately they found it was easier to start a new party rather than to work within the existing power structures that had been thoroughly captured by slave interests.
One thing i never see coconsidered is in the two part system, which two parties does it have to be? Third parties in our system will never work, but who said those two parties need to be dem or gop? There used to be different parties.
At some point, if traction cant ve made to cha ge the parties, then we may have no cboice but to replace them. Not with an unserious party like the green party, but a real party
This is literally how the Republican Party was formed. Slaveholders had captured both parties. Abolitionists found it easier to create a new third party rather than working within the other two.
Yeah, and Bernie spawned AOC, the Squad, Max Frost, and more, and there’s more on the way. They all can see the door Bernie opened, and they have already enlarged it, and are pouring through it.
It’s too late for the DNC. We don’t care what they want. They better do what they’re hired to do, or they’ll face the same punishment as MAGA.
lol punishment? Maga got rewarded by giving the turd the presidency.
She’s a prodigious fundraiser and a fantastic “this left and no further” stalking horse
