The Left can’t sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. If AOC chooses not to run for president, Eric Blanc argues that socialists should run a working-class candidate — even an unknown one — who can inject anti-billionaire politics into the race.
Look at her rolling back pledges and word salad. Half the time I don’t even know what she’s talking about. She claims she’s progressive but still supports ‘defensive weapons’ for Israel. She claims to be anti-establishment despite being the establishment. She would fold and bend the knee under pressure. I don’t understand why don’t people demand better. Her and Sanders had a chance to prove voters but they keep being a disappointment because they’re not brave enough to stand up to Jeffries and the rest. They claim they’re different because that sounds good and it’s what people want to hear. Those are just words, though. They show with their actions that they would just continue with business as usual. I wish she would be it, but I’m afraid she’s just another disappointment. Somebody fresh and bold who is not afraid to stand up to bullies is desperately needed.
You gave a single actual example, which she has since changed her mind on after learning more about the situation and a whole lot of nonspecific language.
NTA but I did lose a lot of love for her when she voted against MTG’s bill to ban arms sales to Israel. It showed a kneejerk reaction to vetoing anything the other side did as opposed to a willingness to neutrally review any proposal.
The fact that it was a very plain-language amendment proposing to do one of the most popular things on the left (block on arms to Israel), but she voted against it.
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?
Elaborate?
Look at her rolling back pledges and word salad. Half the time I don’t even know what she’s talking about. She claims she’s progressive but still supports ‘defensive weapons’ for Israel. She claims to be anti-establishment despite being the establishment. She would fold and bend the knee under pressure. I don’t understand why don’t people demand better. Her and Sanders had a chance to prove voters but they keep being a disappointment because they’re not brave enough to stand up to Jeffries and the rest. They claim they’re different because that sounds good and it’s what people want to hear. Those are just words, though. They show with their actions that they would just continue with business as usual. I wish she would be it, but I’m afraid she’s just another disappointment. Somebody fresh and bold who is not afraid to stand up to bullies is desperately needed.
You gave a single actual example, which she has since changed her mind on after learning more about the situation and a whole lot of nonspecific language.
NTA but I did lose a lot of love for her when she voted against MTG’s bill to ban arms sales to Israel. It showed a kneejerk reaction to vetoing anything the other side did as opposed to a willingness to neutrally review any proposal.
What is your evidence for a “kneejerk reaction” being the specific reason she opposed that bill?
The fact that it was a very plain-language amendment proposing to do one of the most popular things on the left (block on arms to Israel), but she voted against it.
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?