US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
Well she certainly has the qualifications! (Being a sell out and a genocide apologist)
You might want to look further into this one, hoss.
The GOP is manipulating you into hating those aligned with your interests.
I am literally a communist, the GOP couldn’t manipulate me into anything. I hate basically all American politicians because they are all servants of imperialism and enemies of the working class. Have fun cheering for
as they sit and do nothing while people get rounded up into camps (this is literally already happening btw not some hyperbolic future)
Also, “defensive” funding for Israel is still supporting the genocide. Israel’s belief in its own impunity (thanks to things like the iron dome) gives it confidence to commit endless atrocities because they don’t fear proportional consequences.
Also, Israel shouldn’t be defended. Rogue states that commit genocide have no right to exist as far as I’m concerned.
And yet you seem to be unable to comprehend the situation, instead needlessly hating the people that could (and try to) help you.
They don’t have schools in communist glimmer_twin town?
EDIT: You should know that I’m regularly reduced to tears at the atrocities. I’m not your enemy but you’re making it so very hard to be your friend.
I’m really using the word “you” to address all of those with your outlook. It’s not a personal attack.
In what way is giving a mass murderer body armor a form of “helping”?
Misrepresenting what I’ve said so far doesn’t exactly make you look honest.
Rejecting a clear and obvious analogy for what you’re saying doesn’t exactly make you look like you have the intelligence to operate a doorknob
It’s a counter-argument that has nothing to do with the initial statement. Hence, dishonest.
It would seem everyone here (including you) is simply dedicated to being angry and decided I’m a great target for that anger. Do you need a mirror?
Whatever gymnastics you’re doing in your twisted little head about what you initially said or meant, the analogy RedWizard used is appropriate to the real world situation so you can get fucked.
And you can get fucked twice for projecting yourself onto all of us by way of being a genocide supporter (but :< you cry) coming to troll and acting like we’re all just congenitally angry.
If the subject trying to help In your previous statement is AOC my comment still stands.
If its you I don’t see how you are trying to help? AOC has been running defence in her own capacity for Israel: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/monday-rep-aoc-host-livestream-antisemitism-and-fight-democracy
In this stream she conflates anti-zionism with antisemitism.
She lost support from the DSA: https://www.dsausa.org/statements/status-of-dsa-national-endorsement-for-rep-ocasio-cortez/
She seems to do this for the love of the game.
Ok.
What’s wrong?
Removed by mod
LMAO
Would you support someone who supports arming police to carry out a genocide in Portland?
No?
Then why would you support someone who supports arming IDF to carry out a genocide in Gaza?
What is the material difference that causes you to not support one thing, but support the other?
Nationalism. You are a nationalist. You just do not realise it.
You support american supremacism, as long as it comes with the promise that it will improve your life. You support genocide in Gaza if a politician will tell you they’ll make your life better while they do it.
You don’t support it in Portland because then it would be happening to AMERICANS.
You are a nationalist and you are an American supremacist.
Good thing money isn’t fungible or the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons funding would be meaningless
Didn’t read the link, eh?
No matter, you don’t need to make excuses to be angry. Just be angry. It’s cool.
Bro what I read the link and directly responded to its content. AOC’s defense amounts to “I didn’t give them money for crack, I gave them money for food”
Ok.
No, I’m perfectly aware of the GOP hate campaign. But I dislike her for her actions. I want a progressive/socialist. Not a fake progressive.
Man, I think this is so silly. I’m not here to argue with you. Enjoy your day.
Not here to argue with people but here to say they’re brainwashed. People who are way fucking smarter than you, by the way!
Has anyone recently called you a piece of shit? Because you are one!
Take ownership of your fucking actions you cowardly fucking piece of shit.
Oh wow. Anything else you’d like to say to your therapist?
You must be fun at parties
Perhaps stay away from cliches if trying to establish original thought.
Removed by mod
Ok.
I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that’s a long ways from being a “genocide apologist”. To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it’s justified. I think it’s fair to call Biden a genocide apologist because he actively participated in obfuscating the reality of what was happening and attacking critics.
Foreign policy is complicated, and there is room for someone to think pragmatically that cutting off “defensive aid” will make things worse instead of better. I disagree with that someone, but I’d much rather have them as opposition than someone who is principally in favor of a Genocide.
It’s really not complicated. It’s only complication is concern for aipac money.
Also you’re saying she is aware it’s a genocide and still approved the sale of weapons to a genocidal regime
AOC has rejected all AIPAC money. Of course they could run dark money ads for her anyways but, if you think that’s likely to happen, you are delusional.
Every foreign policy decision has ramifications that go far beyond the immediate. Israel isn’t going to not have a missile defense shield so, if they don’t get it from us, they will get it from someone else. Maybe Russia, China, or Europe. How does that shake out on the world stage?
Just to clarify again because I’m sure it’s necessary, I do not approve of sending any aid to Israel. I just don’t think that disagreeing with me automatically makes someone a genocide apologist. The world isn’t that simple.
I guess we have no choice then participate in genocide. Good analysis comrade.
What makes you think these should be included in this list?
Not what I said. Fuck off edgelord.
How else should I interpret that?
I don’t care. You’re going on my block list.
Removed by mod
Can you block me too? Thanks.
Ok, so? If U.S. does that and even if other countries starts arming them, U.S. will at least have a moral high ground.
There is no evidence any of these countries will give Israel weapons btw.
If there is an arms embargo, Israeli economy tanks since much of it is propped up on the U.S. being the backstop.
Fuck me. I knew that telling you that I don’t want any aid for Israel wouldn’t stop you from trying to convince me. Why the fuck don’t I pay attention to what my brain is telling me?
That was a “for instance”. The point was that any position in foreign policy is going to have more than one impact. I wasn’t making a full argument, and why would I when I already agree with you?
Once maybe. The fact is that the US and Israeli arms industries have commingled and each relies on the other for different expertise. A full arms embargo would certainly lead to at least the risk of Israel trading arms secrets for access to weapons made elsewhere. Israel is not a passive purchaser of weapons or intelligence technology.
No, the entire economy is propped by the U.S. backstop. Israeli bonds, currency, financial assets are valued highly because U.S. defends it. It’s not always as explicit as military ‘aid’.
Also, if these are the kind of arguments AOC is thinking about, she deserves to lose. I’m not attacking you, but AOC.
I couldn’t care less what AOC deserves. There is no realistic scenario where AOC gets replaced with somebody better on Gaza. Meanwhile there are Hundreds of Democrats that desperately need replacing and could actually swing the balance, but we get stuck in-fighting over AOC. I want things to get better, and you aren’t helping.
What does that have to do with anything I mentioned? Did I say anything about other Democrats?
We don’t believe you because you support a politician that funds the genocide and use Liberal Zionist arguments we have heard a million times from genocidal liberals
And I think your just a Republican stirring up shit because you spend all your time attacking the very few Democrats who actually acknowledge the genocide.
I have never once even “supported” AOC in this discussion. Pointing out that she isn’t a genocide apologist isn’t support, it’s just reality.
I do personally support her because (among other things) she is better than any Republican or Democrat likely to replace her. If you have a better candidate then I say “great!”. Run them against Pelosi, Schumer, or any one of hundreds of Democrats that are worse on this and a myriad of other issues.
That’s the difference between you and I. You want to aura farm off of tragedy while I want to do something productive to end it. If you actually have a shit, you wouldn’t be wasting your time attacking the Democrats closest to your position. Replace AOC with your perfect candidate and you will have achieved absolutely nothing.
This “reality” isn’t supported by reality. She is a liberal Zionist and Zionism demands the extermination and ethnic cleaning of Palestinians in order to function. You don’t support defensive weapons while being anti-genocide when those defensive weapons aid in furthering the genocide.
The gap between how much you know and how much you think you know could fit a small celestial body
“If you hate the party that is complicit in Palestinian genocide then you must belong to the other party that is also complicit in Palestinian genocide. I literally cannot imagine anyone having a principled opposition to genocide.”
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican” and other calming fantasies to soothe the panicking Liberal mind
I don’t care if you’re convinced, but I would like to know if this is because you think what is happening there is some degree of morally unacceptable, or if you just think the money would be better spent at home.
Edit:
You don’t have to respond to this but this is for the benefit of others reading.
In AOC’s case, you have claimed she believes it is a genocide. If she does in fact believe it is a genocide, then she is providing material support (money and weapons), directly to what she believes is a genocide. She is a member of Congress and could use that position to passively sit by with an ineffective protest no vote or even voting present/abstaining in every instance (although you could still argue someone like this should at least be doing more personally, in the end, policies are what matter for elected officials), to what she believes is an actual genocide. Thus, “genocide supporter” logically follows.
If she does not believe it is a genocide, but she thinks it is morally problematic, then while perhaps the label “genocide supporter” could be put into slight contention (those that read Israeli officials’ own statements such as this one 2 months ago on the matter would probably ask how AOC came to another conclusion), it is still in turn problematic that she would materially support something that she believes is morally problematic, and you should find this unacceptable.
If on the other hand, she does not find anything morally problematic there at all, but you think it is at minimum morally unacceptable, then isn’t that a legitimate criticism of an elected official who is supposed to represent her constituents to say that you think they are supporting something that you find to be morally unacceptable?
Russia and China have been diplomatically opposing this genocide (I would argue with insufficient effort, but still they are the other side of the fence and recognize Palestine and receive Hamas delegations)
Why would you knee jerk throw them in the “bad guy” genocidal category when it’s YOU and YOUR POLITICIAN that are actually funding and sending the bombs that kill children? Do you not understand the irony and how chauvinistic this comes off?
I dunno, why would you say I did that?
Rule number one of foreign policy is that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. Russia and China have the position they do because they think it’s to their advantage. Both of them are guilty of their own genocides, some ongoing. They are no more the “good guys” than the US. If they decide it’s in their interests to sell weapons to Israel, that’s exactly what they will do.
do tell
You post one Uighur body for every Palestinian body I post. How long do you think you can keep up?
Hexbear is cancer.
Mad that your made up genocide has to compete against a real one with a death toll?
If you know what they’re doing, and she knows what they’re doing, and you know she knows what they’re doing, then we should all be fairly clear that she’s not absolving herself from complicity.
In the case of the US-Israel relationship, the financials are more complicated than the foreign policy, and there are no consequential earmarks. The input is either more funding, or less funding.
From one approach, if the US funds Israel’s Iron Dome, Israel will have more money from not spending their own on defenses, and what they didn’t have to spend on defensive weapons, they will then spend on offensive weapons. This chain of causality is fairly direct and reasonable to trace, IMHO. In fact, it’s quite possible that they directly route gifts for defensive weapons into offensive weapons- this is Israel we’re talking about, they’re not known for engaging in good faith.
From a second approach, her vote for Iron Dome spending signals that she is holding out for the chance that both sides will de-escalate willingly, and that a peaceful agreement can be negotiated from current positions. This is wishful thinking.
From a third approach, the only thing we have seen with the potential to end the genocide is intervention by Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, or especially Iran. Any prospect of the US, the EU, or an alliance of Arab states putting an end to the genocide militarily is completely without precedent and infeasible. Israel continues to maim Gaza because its economy is still running, and its economy is still running because it has diplomatic ties and defensive systems. If they are subjected to a large number of missiles, their citizens will be forced to permanently retreat to bomb shelters; this will shut down the economy and persuade Israelis to repatriate to their countries of origin (or Germany and the US will take them), because they are wealthy enough and a large fraction of them have dual citizenship. This is the one thing that will certainly end the genocide, running out their defenses until they are confronted with the same onslaught that they have waged against Palestinians. It’s not pretty or peaceful and a few people might die in-between the bomb shelters, but this is how genocides are stopped. The day that Israel runs out of interceptors and the Shahed drones keep flying in is the day they will start negotiating the end of the genocide. Funding defensive missile capacities is simply staving that day off. It is not an intervention that directly kills people, but it is still an American intervention in the Middle East that makes the situation worse and demonstrably causes more innocent people to die.
To be sure, there are several different levels of genocide apologia, and AOC is a few levels down on the scale from your average Republican. But she’s still not clearing the bar for ethical foreign policy. The bar is to treat Israel with at least the same level of response that was given to Russia when it invaded/escalated the war in Ukraine.
You’ve added another goalpost, so now we have two questions to tackle. 1: Is AOC a “genocide apologist”? 2: Is AOC complicit in genocide? You have also mixed a bunch of other arguments that are not specifically relevant to AOC. I think we are largely in agreement about those, though I do think the idea of applying an ethical standard to an entire people is problematic.
I hate semantic argument, but the definitions I find for apologist are all pretty similar to “a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.” I know of no case where AOC has offered any argument for genocide in general, or for a specific genocide. I also don’t know of any case where she has tried to obfuscate a genocide. So no, I see no evidence to support the idea that she is a genocide apologist.
Complicity is a bit more complicated, just because there are dozens of ethical theories or frameworks, and you have given no indication of how you reached that conclusion. I’m most familiar with deontology. It is the dominant system of western moral ethics, and the system most concerned with determining personal culpability or sin. That is the framework I will use.
First, we have to identify an “end”, a “means” to that end, and any relevant “concomitant ends”. I’m also going to make the untrue (but helpful to you) assumption that AOC’s vote was pivotal to continuing US funding. The “means” could be her vote, but it could also be the actual shipping of weapons to Israel. Voting or the shipping of weapons don’t have any inherent moral character, so both are irrelevant.
An “end” is the thing that the actor is trying to bring about, and I would define that as “Israel having the ability to defend itself.” Now, it’s entirely possible that her actual motivation was to enable Israel to commit genocide, but that would not be consistent with anything she has ever said publicly, and would not be fair to assume. An end that is foreseen but unintended is a concomitant end. The primary test is that the end must still be achieved if somehow the concomitant end doesn’t. Israel would still be able to use the weapons defensively if they didn’t commit a genocide, so the test passes.
A concomitant end can still make an act immoral, if the scale of the end is disproportionately large compared to the intended end. I don’t see that here, since the potential downsides to Israel and Palestine are pretty similar in scope.
My conclusion is that I disagree with your assertion that AOC is complicit in genocide. If you think I got the analysis wrong on any point, or if you think I should be using a different ethical framework, I’m happy to discuss it further.
I find both of these less interesting than the question of how best to help Palestine. I see going after AOC as, at best ineffective, and at worst counterproductive. However bad you think she is, she is clearly better than most Democrats on this and other issues. I don’t think we even need to talk about Republicans. This obsession that people have with going after AOC really says a lot about their motivations. Anybody who really gave a shit about Palestine would be finding better things to do with their time. And, again, this is coming from someone who is largely in agreement with you on how bad American foreign policy is in this area.
“Israel has a right to defend itself” is obscurantism. Why would Israel need to defend itself? Why don’t we ever hear about Sweden or Panama needing to defend themselves? The answer is that Sweden and Panama are not engaging in widespread, structural, longstanding military operations against specific ethnic groups inside their own borders.
There is also a consistency lacking here. Why doesn’t Palestine have the right to defend itself? The US gives military aid to dozens of countries; why does it give military aid to Israel but not to Palestine? Again, we know the answer: the rules do not apply to everyone equally; Israeli exceptionalism is in practice in American governance.
The Israeli state has been engaged in a slow, grinding campaign of ethnic cleansing since its founding. There is a reason why the peace process always stalls out, and the illegal settlements keep being built and expanded, and the pogroms against Palestinians keep happening on a weekly basis. Israel’s very existence is predicated on a fundamental discrepancy between ethnic groups, and the promotion of one exploiting the other. If we’re getting into deontological ethics, states have the duty to grant and secure equal rights to people living within their borders, and when a state fails to do this, other states have the duty to drop their associations with it.
If you give credibility and support to a militarized, palingenetic, class-collaborationist ethnostate to defend itself, you are giving credibility and support to fascism.
The DSA, the org that AOC came from, has made it clear that giving any support to Israel is wrong. I don’t think she’s in a position to claim ignorance about the imbalanced nature of the conflict, either, or the implications of giving post-2023 Israel any support whatsoever. AOC is not going to make any policy change by her one vote, that’s part of the nature of Congress as it exists today. What that one vote is uniquely useful for is taking a moral stance, and taking the visibility of the progressive cause from a tiny sliver to a more noticeable sliver. Out of the politically oriented people in the US, maybe 5% are socialists, 40% are reactionaries, and 40% are centrist liberals. We’re not going to be able to do much about the reactionaries that already have seats. But if we do replace one, or successfully primary a centrist liberal, it only makes a difference if the replacement votes in accordance with humanist principles, rather than triangulating what it would take to be the “least bad Democrat”. I hope you’re on the same page as me that recursion of the “lesser of two evils” leads to expansion of those evils.
Palestinians are not simply dying, they are being mass murdered. The only way to meaningfully help them is to use any capability in our power to take down the defenses and immunities of the IDF mass murderers. When a crime is being committed, you don’t concern yourself with the well-being of the guilty; you can worry about their rights once they have been brought to justice.
You put that in quotes, but I never said it. In fact, I never even implied it. Personally, I don’t even know what the word “right” means when talking about states instead of individuals. Countries don’t have the right to defend themselves, they have the ability to defend themselves. We know they do, because they still exist as countries.
Well yeah. That’s kind of to be expected when you fabricate my arguments.
That’s a legitimately good question that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I made. You are just throwing pre-made arguments at me, not engaging in actual dialog. I’m not sure I want to fund Palestine, but I definitely don’t want to fund Israel.
No shit. Welcome to foreign policy. No country is altruistic, and they all are acting in their own perceived self interest. I want to foster international relations based on mutual cooperation for the good of mankind instead of self-interest, but that’s not how anybody is doing it today.
Yes? Once again you are just throwing arguments at me instead of engaging in dialog. I agree with this and pretty much everything else you said here. It just doesn’t apply to the two questions at argument.
Tell me more. Has China disassociated with Israel? Russia? As far as I know, neither has broken off diplomatic relations. It’s also arguable that every nation on Earth has failed to do this in one way or another. No country should associate with any other country? Now, I know you are going to interpret this as a defense of Israel, but it’s not. I am just addressing your pattern of uninformed reckless assertions.
And I don’t think you have established that she has made such a claim.
And, once again, I have to remind you that I am not supportive of her vote. However, that alone is insufficient to call her a genocide denier, or make her complicit in genocide.
I agree to a point. I don’t generally support third party strategies for practical reasons, and I do support voting for the lesser evil when there is no viable alternative. However, I also don’t throw in with the idea that we should never criticize Democrats because it helps Republicans - and that includes AOC. I support going hard after Democrats in primaries, but I want those resources to be used in the most strategic way possible, given that we are so far behind. I would not support going after a lukewarm progressive when we have a dozen hard-core neoliberals to choose from.
If you are serious about that, then you better start thinking a lot more strategically. Please do.
You are ascribing her motivations as helping Israel defend itself, without distancing yourself from them by condemning Israel as a genocidal state. Genocidal states don’t deserve self-defense or support of any kind. By echoing the sentiment without critiquing it, you are ceding ground to it.
She either is aware of what Israel is and decides to give it material support, which is genocide apologia, or she is not aware of what Israel is, as the livestreamer Congresswoman herself, which is genocide ignorance. I’m not sure which is worse.
I’m not about to post verbatim online how I think the Zionist entity (or any other belligerent reactionary state) should be treated by radicalized proles in the belly of the beast. I will lend critical support to the Islamists that actually fight against it, and I’ve given about a month of savings to Palestinian refugees via our direct aid comm. Maybe if I was some tycoon I would throw money at the Resistance. I disagree with the point that Israel will never not have missile defense. To reiterate, the condition of their missile defense depletion is what will end the genocide and the illegal occupation. The more defensive aid they get, the longer they will last. Perhaps it will run out after it’s already too late for anyone in Gaza, maybe it will run out after it’s too late for the West Bank too. But it will run out at some point.
Anyway, this is about AOC, and any other progressive or nominally socialist figure to hold state or national office. If our progressives don’t take progressive stances, what good are they? We have an ongoing paradigm of Democratic reps voting like Republicans, and Progressive Caucus reps voting like blue dogs, largely out of the false assumption about how conservative the electorate is. If a rep is going to not vote by their principled conscience because of party pressure or congressional norms or whatever undisclosed power, that is a failure and an obstacle to achieving the goal. If there is any possibility of making a consequential difference through the medium of electoralism, it hinges on a candidate sticking to their guns once they get elected. You can push through any progressive policy even if your adversaries control 49% of the vote. But if you cannot garner a vote from the people who are purportedly on your side, you cannot accomplish anything. An empty ally is more of a blow than a predictable enemy. You don’t win in politics by compromising with the adversary from start to finish, you win in politics by galvanizing your base and following through on your promises. This is why Democrats are consistently losing even when they win elections, and why Republicans are in full control of the country with a small minority of the populace. That’s my thesis and I’m sticking to it.
You have been saying “don’t focus on AOC, the vote you might have but didn’t get, focus on the Republicans, the votes you will never get”. I think that is misguided.
Principled stances are what makes a change. Buckling on a stance is what the conservatives would want. So I’m going to turn the “Republican” accusation you’ve leveled at people ITT right around on you, and say that Republicans are cheering every time a progressive Democrat adjusts to a more “moderate” stance.
We’ve already been over this, and it’s a complete non-sequitur. “Genocidal states” include every state that ever existed. If there are any exceptions, then I sure can’t think of them. Even if we only consider ongoing genocides, Russia, China, and I would argue the US (even unrelated to Israel) would not “deserve self-defense”.
You keep asserting this, but it clearly isn’t. However, if it is, then you are also guilty of the same. If enabling Israel to defend itself is supporting the genocide of Palestine, then preventing Israel from defending itself must be understood as supporting the genocide of Israel. If the withdraw of US support actually had the impact you imply, the lifespan of Israel would be the travel time of missiles from Iran. (Not that a lot of other missiles wouldn’t arrive first.) You can claim that Israel “deserves” it, but that would be providing a justification for genocide which would explicitly be genocide apologia. Just to be clear, this is in response to your statement that doesn’t deserve the ability to defend itself, not that the US should stop weapons shipments.
What the hell are you talking about. AOC takes lots of progressive stances. She does not, however, take the most progressive stance possible on every progressive issue.
Your thesis is pretty muddled. You seem to be under the impression that hyperbole can take the place of strong arguments. I don’t even disagree with the general direction of your “thesis”, but the amount of inaccurate conflation and hyperbolic generalizations makes it pretty incomprehensible. I promise you that I have personally made those arguments a whole lot better against supporters of the Democratic establishment. I have no problem at all with criticism of AOC, but the way you approach it isn’t going to convince anyone.
Not all by itself it doesn’t. AOC is probably gearing up for a run against Schumer. If you don’t think her replacing the most Zionist Democratic senator (or arguably the most Zionist Senator period) is going to be an earthquake against Israel, then I don’t know what to tell you.
You have not established that this is what AOC did. Her not supporting your stance (and mine) does not equate to “buckling”. She has her own principals, and what’s going on in Gaza is not the only relevant consideration. The amendment she voted against wouldn’t even have cut offensive weaponry, just iron dome, and AOC ultimately voted against the entire funding bill.
That’s so unbelievably facile, a complete semantic cop-out. “Oh, they all are genocidal.” Are we just going to dump every use of violence as genocide, or are we actually going to use meaningful definitions, like the intention, follow-through, and direct profit on killing a large fraction of a population or demographic?
You are both-sidesing this issue based on empty assumptions. If Israel stopped fighting, there would be peace through Israelis moving back. If the Resistance stopped fighting, they would all be exterminated. If you think it is permissible for Israel to defend itself while committing genocide, that is equivalent to permitting that genocide.
This is a baby-brained tu quoque, and borderline offensive. It is the same hasbara that Israel uses, saying “in their place they would kill us all too”. Iran and Palestine have never enacted a genocide on anyone. Ending a government is not genocide; ending a people is. The end of the State of Israel would mean a plurinational Palestine that included Jews as citizens with equal rights. Israelis mostly don’t die when missiles hit, they have bomb shelters to flee to and can easily leave the country. Palestinians have nowhere to go, only the land that they have continuously inhabited for millennia. A Resistance victory means a sort of Truth and Reconciliation commission, and an outcome like South Africa. An Israeli victory means the death of all Palestinians in Palestine, they say this in all corners of Israeli society every day.
You don’t seize the party leader position by defeating the party leader. AOC taking Schumer’s seat would result in 2 nominally democratic socialists in the Senate. But what good would it do if they don’t vote differently? An earthquake is when something big shifts and changes things. Two dissenting votes is not an earthquake. More specifically, in Israel’s case, two senators that vote against offensive weapons but support defensive weapons would be completely without consequence. It doesn’t matter which of the 99 Zionist senators you dislodge, especially when you vote alongside the Zionists on the most consequential thing.
AOC already has a track record of pivoting toward the center, it didn’t start with this issue. As soon as 2021 she was already disappointing with how much she was compromising on.
You have addressed nothing about my core assertion that coherent appeals and consistency and follow-through is what wins elections. Our 2 most influential presidents each lost the popular vote, had a popularity below 35%, and had a base of around 15% of American society. You don’t win by being the closest to the middle of the seesaw, you win by giving people a reason to rally around you.
I don’t expect the Democrats to learn anything about winning in politics. They are nothing but careerists and fundraisers. And at this point I don’t expect to get anything through to you, or even treat you as serious.