politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Conservatives love to hate on AOC, no one is perfect indeed. But everytime I ask to point me to one specific thing she said they disagree with, it's always crickets
US politics are hyper polarized and she's a great face for the Dems and she's often in the spotlight becuase if it by both sides. I've brought this up in conversation with someone that "hated" her and I really felt like I got to him how skewed our views are by media bubbles.
She's hated for the same reason non Patriots fans used to hate Tom Brady. Because he was good.
What makes her good? Tom Brady won games. What bill has she sponsored that has passed?
For starters, she's smart, young, and competent. That already makes her a stand out in the political arena. She represents her constituency with integrity and voracity. And Furthermore, she's not bought and paid for.
The GOP hates all of those things about her.
what bills has she sponsored that have passed?
The fact that this is your metric for political acumen throughout this post is frighteningly weird.
Bills that she has sponsored or co-sponsored, including ones that have passed
The site is a great place to start if you want to find out what a congressperson has actually done. It doesn't paint the whole picture as committee work is pretty important too and isn't always represented by a specific bill, but still useful.
In my opinion, she has one huge thing going for her and it's the fact that she doesn't belong in a retirement home. We need more young people in Congress, regardless of their party affiliation.
That is another problem with our gerontocracy. Important committee assignments are doled out based on seniority, not aptitude or merit. She could do more, as could people like Porter or Frost, but they are sidelined by the fucking party.
Hahaha thank you for proving my point
how i have an idiot in my life that calls her "the democrat version of trump" and it blows my mind he truly believes this
There is a place for spokespeople to help move people but the job of a congressperson is to move policy.
the job of a congressperson is to move policy
No its not. Its to represent constituency, vote accordingly. and create representative legislation.
This is a terrible take. There is plenty she says that conservatives disagree with. She does not have the same policy goals as conservatives...obviously. She would say the same thing.
Examples:
She has called Capitalism "irredeemable" which many capitalists would disagree with.
She supports single payer Healthcare when others believe competition builds a better system overall, or believe Healthcare isn't an appropriate role of government.
She believes in a federal job guarantee when some think the government can encourage employment and welfare in other ways more effectively, or believe that isn't the role of government.
She believes in canceling all outstanding student loan debt when others believe there are more effective ways to help the needy more specifically, or believe those with college degrees should be low on the priority list for assistance, or believe people should be on the hook for loans they took out.
Obviously there are arguments for all of her positions, YOU might agree with all of them, but the idea that no conservative can give any examples of things they disagree with her about is absurd and laughable.
This is a great point as well, but I think a large point they were trying to make is conservatives have made a point of hating her and making her a point of their ridicule with almost no solid basis to stand on.
They just react to her name and initials as a dog whistle, without any of the reasons you’ve listed.
His point (as I understood it) wasn't necessarily that conservatives have nothing to disagree with her about, but that a lot of the people espousing hate for her don't actually have firm rational reasons for doing so, and are just hating on her because they were told she's bad by their favorite politicians, commentators, news media, etc.
Which frankly seems accurate for a reasonable amount of her critics based on the discourse I've personally seen surrounding her.
And that's even before we get into the weird thing a lot of conservatives have about her appearance..
Correct ^
It would be easier to get behind what "others believe" if the system they love so dearly wasn't a proven failure for anyone who isn't wealthy. It's been abused for decades, and all we have to show for it is more poor people suffering. You're 100% right in that (some) conservatives do disagree with AOC on specific issues; it's just that those issues in question were/are largely created by and/or supported by conservatives, who have little to offer aside from "we don't want anything to change."
This kind of akshually mentality distracts from the issues, which is what you're doing right now by nitpicking an obviously false absolute statement OP made. Nobody really thinks @ventrix is talking about 100% of all conservatives; to make a claim like that is more misleading and more prone to have a negative impact than anything OP said.
I never made an argument about her beliefs, only her ability to effectively realize them. The original argument seemed to imply the people can't offer up real reasons to dislike her. Her policy to me isn't her problem. I don't currently see her as an example of someone who can actually get things done. That might change over time, but that's my criticism of AOC and why her level of popularity doesn't really make much sense to me other than...populists say things the base likes to hear. Again, talk it cheap.
I've seen "center-right" conservatives call her the MTG of the left. Their idea of the political spectrum is completely bunkers.
U.S politics is so fucking to the right that Biden (actual center-right), AOC (socialist), Hillary (neoliberal), and Bernie (social democrat), are all considered "radicals" by a base of morons. The actual radicals (e.g : communists, anarchists, libertarian) are not even in the picture. Right-wing radicals is absolutely in the picture though, so I guess they need to manufacture a reason to exist.
Not a conservative, but that's not particularly hard, so I'll play Devil's advocate.
AOC is idealistic, but sometimes naive and ill informed.
She referred to a statue of Father Damian as an example of white supremacist culture. Damien spent the last 16 years of his life ministering to a leper colony on Hawaii, acted as a doctor, dug graves, eventually contracted leprosy, and died as a consequence of it. Lili'uokalani herself honoured him. He is honoured to this day in Hawaii.
Calling a statue honouring a man who died helping non-white people, in the anything but enlightened 19th century, an example of white supremacy comparable to statues of racist leaders of the confederacy is absurd. Lincoln was more of a white supremacist than someone like Damien. If anything, if people followed Damien's example, the world would be a better and less racist place. It's also a self-own, that was widely reported on in right wing media, helping them to support their narrative that it's wrong to remove statues of bonafide racists. "See! They call all white men racists!"
The not wearing a mask thing and crossing state lines in the middle of an epidemic, then contracting covid? Also not a good look. Once again, widely reported on in right wing media. "See, she isn't a wearing a mask either. She's a hypocrite!"
I personally also find AOC's self lack of knowledge or clear positions on foreign policy troubling, if unsurprising. IRC she also voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs, which I found troubling. Her excuse for that, something about civil forfeiture, also seemed to suggest she hadn't properly read the bill, as it only applied to non-US nationals, and not Americans like she claimed.
Republicans don’t really have ideas, so little surprise you struck out there. I suppose, okay, that’s not fair, they have some concepts of broad principles, but are generally completely unable to explain them in terms of history, logic or details.
What accomplishments has she had that you're particularly excited about? I know people love her but people love populists, and when I think of AOC that's what I see. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see her as an effective legislator. Just someone who says things the base likes to hear. Very unpopular here but I feel that way about Bernie too. Makes great points but doesn't know how to actually navigate Congress and get any of it accomplished. Put up bills that are only supported by a small minority and make no efforts to actually build proper coalitions to get things passed. The best leaders in legislature are often not the most well known or vocal, but the ones who can put up policy, build a coalition around it, and get things passed. Despite what people might think of Biden, he's someone who knows how to do that. Talk is cheap and being a populist is easy.
Is this the sound of crickets?
I see you didn’t point out anything she said that you disagree with 😂
Because I don't disagree with things she says...
My previous comment was just pointing out how you fell into the same pattern that the original comments pointed out about how no one disagrees with her.
Your point is less of a reflection on oac and more of a reflection on our political theater. It’s pretty disingenuous to criticize her so for how other politicians vote instead of the content of her bills or actions.
You pointed out how Biden gets things passed. They are not always good things and often are quite gutted from what they were advertised as. See the railroad strikers deal they were forced to accept. They were striking for safety and compensation reasons and had their hand forced by Biden. They got a crap deal that lead to even crappier results. I would not call that a success even if Biden got it to work.
Why don’t you see her as an effective legislator? You make very broad points with not much content, you speak like a politician
Because none of her policies have actually gone anywhere. I appreciate she shows up to vote for other policy and can be a part of a broader coalition, but she has not proven to me she is able to actually push her own legislation and build a viable coalition to get things passed. When I vote for a candidate I look for two things. Their policy positions align with my own, and they have the ability to move policy. She, so far, ticks just one of those boxes. She's also young and can very well figure it out over time.
Centrist Democrats outnumber progressives in congress, and caucus with Republicans on progressive issues.
This reads less like criticism from someone who agrees with her and more like gloating from someone who doesn't.
Is there a way to quickly and easily see what someone's voting record is? Like just a list or yeah/nays. I tried to find anything before and ended up in a rabbit hole of policy points.
Scroll down and you'll see her key votes listed here- https://ballotpedia.org/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
Nice, that's a start. Thank you!
It’s sad you’re getting downvoted because this is a great point… it’s also depressing because politics is corrupt bullshit… but since that’s never going to change short of our country going full France/let them eat cake, I guess we need people that can work in the system…
I would even venture to say re: Bernie that he is actually a negative since what he proposes is too “radical” from the current status quo and it ruins any chance he has to get traction. Sadly, change won’t come over night… it’s going to take lots of little steps to get there.
It's weird that "radical" Bernie Sanders has policies that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle support. We just have some shitty voters.
I’m glad that an inability to understand nuance and have a helpful discussion wasn’t just a Reddit thing but apparently exists here as well! Reminds me why I almost exclusively lurked and avoided any posts that weren’t just talking about stuff people in the sub enjoyed… at least I’m finding out early that I need to just shut up and avoid trying to have discussions.
In response to your post, which will probably be the last engagement I have in this thread…
I put “radical” in quotes as compared to what the current status quo is (which I am not supporting FTR). We are in late stage capitalism… we are being controlled by the rich. Our government is corrupt and garbage… and to go from this to what Bernie wants is absolutely radical. Is it bad? Not generally IMHO. But is it a massive departure from where we’re at now? Yes.
As to your statement that his policies are supported by “the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle”… where do you pull this data from? Because if we only had “some” shitty voters I find it hard to believe we’d be where we’re at now… but maybe I’m wrong… that just seems like one of these “sounds good, but is ultimately based on nothing real” internet takes that people like to throw around…
I won't spend too much time responding, as your seem to be taking your ball and going home, even though I wasn't arguing with you, weird that it came across that way. Anyway, it's easy to google this. Here's a quote from politifact:
I agree with not downvoting. No one should be disagreeing with wanting to know a politicians voting record. Voting records should be widely known and easily accessible. They should be referenced in news articles the same way actors always have movie credits quickly listed anytime they're brought up.