You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
39 points

A career criminal (with chronically bad spray tan) and host of the apprentice managed to do it, and he thinks you need a license to buy bread. I think she could manage and for her to be the first woman president would actually be a meaningful harbinger of change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-42 points
*

I mean, at that time he wasn’t a criminal (at least publicly, we all know in hindsight he definitely was), but I honestly think the only reason Trump won was because he was running against such a hated person. Democrats made a massive misstep in rallying behind Hillary in that election, just like republicans are making a mistake rallying behind Trump in 2024.

But, that doesn’t mean that the moderate voter base isn’t important. That was the exception to the rule in my opinion.

Honestly, I don’t really like AOC. I agree with her a lot of the time, but I find her extremely disingenuous. How can you truly fight for the working class when you lived a life of extreme privilege? (EDIT: I was wrong about this. I either feel for misinformation, or misattributed something I heard about a different politician to her. Either way I was wrong.) She can get away with saying extreme things, because there’s zero risk for her. She has no actual power to act on what she says, and she knows her voter base will eat it up. That would change if she were to make a serious bid for the presidency, and I think like every politician she would compromise her “values” for more power in an instant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

lived a life of extreme privilege

What fucking propaganda have you been consuming? AOC lived a life of extreme privilege? Her father was an architect, she went to public school and was a bartender when she got elected, sounds pretty working class to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

AOC is both extremely privileged but also a communist bartender.

We can reconcile this: her critics are full of shit

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

How can you truly fight for the working class when you lived a life of extreme privilege?

That’s ridiculous. Can someone not fight for LGBTQ rights of they aren’t part of the community? For POC rights if they aren’t POC? For women’s rights if they aren’t a woman?

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

It’s bullshit anyway, AOC’s background is the definition of working class, this dude is just in here spewing bullshit propaganda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

I’m a well-off middle-aged white male, I guess I should just give up my convictions about how people should be treated equally and fairly. And when I say “equally” I also mean taking into account generational privileges and opportunities that are not received equally by all people.

But fuck me, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fellow cishet white male nerds assemble! Let’s discuss how there’s just nothing we can do. We can have our servants feed us grapes if we get bored.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

I get your point, but I don’t think it applies to this specific situation. My point is that I don’t believe that anyone from the wealthy or ruling class can genuinely advocate for people within the working class. That would have a direct negative impact on their own self interests. I can be straight, and still advocate for LGBTQ rights without that having a negative impact on me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

They’ll run their media machine of slander on whoever happens to run. In a sense it’s largely up to the media how effective that is. I saw a recent polling graph on here showing the composition of the dem base. The progressive flank is lager than the liberal and moderate one combined now.

AOC is not a monolith, nor is she beyond corruption, but I think she has the education, youth and talent to lead a generation back into politics. I’m unsure how being a bartender in the Bronx to fund your house keeper mother is privilege or living with three other people in DC and shopping for bargain shoes, but perhaps I’m missing something there. Also, I think she has tons of risk. Specifically being primaried from within her own party or from people out to stalk her (which has happened) but OK.

Who would you like to see run for president that’s better?

Edited: said the same thing twice about polling, so deleted an instance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I would’ve said John Fetterman before his stroke. But that’s almost exclusively because I’m Pennsylvanian and married to a Brazilian like him lol. Outside of that he’s seriously had great stances and been absolutely uncompromising in stances that make no sense in 2022.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I’m wary of polling in general (see almost every poll leading up to the 2016 election), but I agree that is likely the case. However, the Democratic base is still not big enough to win elections without drawing from moderates who could swing either way.

I’m really glad you challenged me on my view of her being privileged! I had heard that she attended either Yale or Harvard and had the entirety of her education funded by her family, but after looking into it that’s clearly not true. I either fell for misinformation, or misattributed something I heard about a different politician to her. Either way, I was wrong.

When I say she has zero risk, what I mean is that she knows her progressive views will resonate with the vast majority of her constituents. But if she were to run for Senate or President, that would no longer be the case.

As for who I would rather see run for president, the answer is nobody. I can’t think of a single public figure or politician who I actually trust. I’m pretty cynical about politics at this point, but I truly think everybody involved in politics is self serving and corrupt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

This is the real reason why Dems won’t bring her in. People will make excuse after excuse. Your first main point was disproven and you just come up with another.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I never understood the hatred for Hilary Clinton either. She may not have had the charisma we seem to elect these days but had a very effective organization. I believe she would have been quite effective

Was it for ACA? Was it being the first woman with a chance at President? The email thing and the Benghazi thing were mostly slander from the other party and would happen to any candidate.

Do you really think AOC could survive being tarred and feathered in this political environment, regardless of whether she deserved it?

Maybe next time around, when Caesar Trump is no longer a possibility and Rhonda Sanity has fallen apart

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Trump won because people didn’t show up to vote for Clinton, because no one is inspired by these people. They were inspired to vote for Biden only because Trump would have been horrible for another four years, not because Biden was what they wanted. If only they showed up to the primaries…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The Clinton bashing campaign was a Russian active measure (they spent military resources on propaganda operations) designed to keep Obama’s head of the state department out of the presidency while they were planning to invade Ukraine. The emails thing and the Benghazi thing could ONLY have been levied at the former head of the state department. In this political environment, survival is a matter of being able to keep your staff paid.

Frankly, the precision of your errors makes me doubt their authenticity.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 467K

    Comments