AOC blasts Democrats who don't unify behind the party's nominees as 'playing a dangerous game' in the face of a 'fascist threat'

AOC blasts Democrats who don't unify behind the party's nominees as 'playing a dangerous game' in the face of a 'fascist threat'


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Exactly. It's like they've learned nothing from the 4 years under Trump...


> Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans fall in line. -- Bill Clinton (apparently)




Man Clinton years where good. Gas was .99 cents and blowjobs became like a handshake on a first date. Edit. Thanks for the award. Also “babe I wasn’t cheating, it was just a blow job. If it was cheating Hillary would leave bill, she so inspirational for so many women.”


> blowjobs became like a handshake on a first date. Wut? 😂


Yea. It was great when I went to bars. Horrible when I went to job interviews.


Greeting your relatives at a family funeral must have been tough.


Yea the only one that didn't see that coming was grandpa. At least when I was done I could close the coffin.


He was expecting the second coming but not like that.


Resurrection by Erection


Democrats wants a direct democracy. Republicans want a theocratic autocracy.


Republicans are quite good at solidarity. Not only that, but they can manipulate democracy to their advantage with gerrymandering, the EC, voter suppression, influencing state legislatures, etc... Besides, the Republican ideology is the easiest position to hold: -Zero governance. (Do nothing.) -Obstruct everything else (unanimously vote against popular legislation). -Lie/deflect/gaslight/project (Looks like democrats can't do anything/are the problem of everything). -Start culture wars whenever a distraction is needed. -Sit back and watch Democrats infight. Republicans don't have much incentive to infight because they don't actually care about governance. They are a party of opposition. As long as all their problems in life can be blamed on someone else, and as long as they have their demagogue to reinforce it, they are content. From a purely competitive standpoint, it's extremely unfortunate circumstances what Democrats are up against, despite being the majority of voters.


Texas closed 500 polling stations a week before Super Tuesday in 2020 in low income and minorities areas, the solution is a full fledge up rising in those states that make voting for some almost impossible.


and thats legal suppression. They know when they see lines that dems are losing votes. and Dems still treat all this like politics. Bush had his brother jeb remove over 80,000 legal voters from the voting rolls for having similar names to felons(but they didnt evne check middle names or socials) and gore probably still won florida but our definitely not political supreme court said completing the recounts would harm bush and ordered them stopped. and whats bad is the system is already in their favor. win or lose our system is designed to resist change.. and then they also get outsized representation for rural people. Wyoming has less people than many cali cities and yet they get 2 votes just like the entire fucking state of cali.(and the only reason why there is a north AND south dakota, is because republicans wanted 4 senators instead of 2)


Yes & no. Republicans couldn't unite to repeal Obamacare a few years back when they held both branches...


That follows exactly what he said: Do nothing and vote against popular legislation. Repealing the ACA is *legislating*, it's doing something new, especially with needing to replace it. As much as they may whinge about some laws passing, they don't have the political capital to actually repeal them when they do. They just need to convince the voters that that's what they want to do and pick a few 'moderates' to vote against those repeals if they actually have to put their money where their mouth is. Whether it's abortion, the ACA or gay marriage, they don't actually intend to repeal them, because if they do, what will they bribe their voters with next election?


You’re correct about the ACA, but neither abortion or gay marriage has ever been passed through legislation. They passed due to SCOTUS decisions, not through Congress. Dems have had 50 years to legislate abortion in codified law but haven’t had the political capital to do so. Dems just attempted to pass laws legislating abortion into law but failed. The GOP doesn’t have the political capital to repeal those two, but Dems never had to legislate them in the first place either. It has been left to 9 unelected justices to do that work for both sides. If abortion was in law, then 9 justices couldn’t overturn it and the GOP would have a super small ability to repeal it in the future. Now all it takes is a conservative SCOTUS which they have.


You're right, true enough. I still don't think the SCOTUS will outlaw abortion though. It may well allow states to individually limit it by turning a blind eye, but if they actually went the whole way and ruled abortion = murder, the GOP would lose the next few elections so hard that nobody wants that. But yes, you're correct that it's a bit different.


I can assure everyone that the next unified Republican government will just go right ahead and repeal pretty much everything.* They have learned in recent years that such moves are rewarded. *except their prized socially conservative anti-civil rights fetishes.


They try. But it’s harder to pass legislation than it is to block it.


They will repeal everything including Social Security, and Medicare. Trump said he would appeal Social Security if he was elected to a second term. They are a diabolical group of nasty people. Being able to inflict pain on others gives them joy.


That's the one thing that would actually cause people to declare a Civil War... Against the Rich


People won't unite against the rich when they've been manipulated into hating other poors. As LBJ said: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."


I meant if he attempts to touch the 3rd rail. i.e. Medicare and Social Security. Too many people rely upon them to survive. We will hit a tipping point if something isn't done to balance income inequality. It's unsustainable. We'll either become authoritarian/feudallike Turkey or more socialized capitalists like Sweden. Just because of numbers I'm betting on the 2nd. You can make all the laws you want but eventually if something is broken long enough, like Congress, state and local laws take over. That's what we see and why so many states are different quality of life wise. People are literally geographically handicapped by where they end up living. In one state they get unemployment, medicaid expansion with dental and in another they don't.


Man. Once upon a time I’d have believed you. But we have people literally choosing death over admitting they might have been wrong.


14% of the county apparently. In other words, they would lose. Don't forget, their numbers are shrinking daily due to their own decisions.


Well said!!


That and Republicans are only 2 parties under a single tent. A far-Right (Falangist/Fascist/Nazi) party and a right-wing (Neoconservative) party. They have their differences, but both of those ideologies prize adherence to right-wing authority over anything else. Democrats are 6 separate parties under a single tent. A right-wing (Neoconservative) party, a center-Right (Neoliberal) party, a right-of-center (moderately Liberal) party, a left-of-center more hardcore Liberal (Keynesian) party, a center-Left (Social Democratic) party, and a left-wing (Democratic Socialist to Socialist) party. The first 3 listed are the majority of Democrats politicians, but the last 3 listed have become a sizeable minority and have been growing in numbers each election cycle since 2012, especially after the advent of Elizabeth Warren in 2012 and the rise of Bernie Sanders in 2016. The Democrats are just the "Everyone to the Left of Mitt Romney" party, which is an extremely broad spectrum. It's very difficult to unify around just not being a Fascist or Fascism-adjacent but disagreeing about almost everything else.


It makes wonder about Biden's ratings. If those that disapprove of him don't vote for him, does that mean they will vote for 4 more years of Trump, or let him win by just not voting. That surely is wacked out thinking, to believe that Trump will govern in a way they would approve of. Do they not understand that fascism is on our doorstep??


Like many liberal-leaning people I disapprove of Biden, but would still vote for him or most any democrat over any republican, certainly over Trump or a similar GQPer. I do worry that a lot of the left aren't very pragmatic and would sit out 2024 if they don't approve of Biden.


Most people already do. More people don’t vote than vote for either major party


Imagine everyone not voting for an organized crime party got together and elected someone who isn’t a geriatric war monger for a change?


It seems to me like the Democratic party is the one that doesn't understand that people want to vote *for* someone, as they continually support poor candidates that don't motivate anyone outside the loyal Democratic voting base. Even this last election was likely only won because Trump was hated to such a degree.


If those people showed up one or more of the parties might be motivated to pander to them. Bitching online means nothing if you're not gonna get your ass to the polls.


That's not true at all. Loyal Democratic voters see no returns from voting consistently. Instead, the Democratic party chases after the almost mythological moderate Independent voting bloc when there are much larger groups out there that they can appeal to.


Democratic voters don't vote consistently. Otherwise Republicans wouldn't basically always make big gains in midterm elections.


>Loyal Democratic voters see no returns from voting consistently. So things like the ACA never happened? Are you even aware of what that did for poor people without healthcare? >Democratic party chases after the almost mythological moderate Independent voting bloc when there are much larger groups out there that they can appeal to. Democrats don't do this. And what other larger group are you even talking about?


And he will continue to be hated. The insurrection was planned in the Willard Hotel in D.C. by Trump's inner circle and some Senators and Reps. From the republican party. Heard it this a.m. and now the committee will follow the money, because transportation and accommodation were PAID FOR BY SOMEONE. I wonder who. It is difficult to find good candidates that will put themselves and their families out there to be harrassed, and threatened. Hopefully, that will change, but first we need to cut the republican party off at the knees. They have become a dangerous fascist, criminal organization. But I know what you mean. We all need to vote for someone, not just against someone.


You make it sound like milquetoast candidates and underwhelming platforms aren’t their intent


This right here. It was the first time in my life that I voted against someone, not for someone. Joe is not a good candidate and the democratic party pushed him and continue to exclude much better candidates, because we knew we had no choice.


Who are the much better candidates? Who was excluded? Was it Bernie, who got annihilated in states that Biden didn't even spend money in? Is that the much better candidate? Who was excluded? I seem to remember like 13 or 14 candidates in this last primary. Nobodies like Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson were there, so who are you talking about when you say that the party excludes people?


Democrat elites would rather see a Republican win than a progressive. Biden won states against Bernie that he still lost to trump.


This whole 'people want to vote *for* someone' is so unbelievably lame and not even a little bit true. Look around you dude. People in this country are generally very unintelligent and not engaged in politics at all. Tens of millions of eligible voters won't vote for anybody, in any circumstance, no matter what. And the only reason you're glossing over this is because it gives you an opportunity to baselessly shit on the Democrats, which most people on this sub do like they're one of Pavlov's dogs. It's just a thinly veiled Bernie whine. Bernie is the one that people would vote *for,* in contrast to every other Democratic politician whom the whole country believes only receive votes as placeholders to prevent a Republican from taking office. Is that what you think? If the Democrats don't understand what people want, does that mean that you do? Well then, why haven't you run for public office and won and gotten all of this accomplished? You make it all sound *so easy.*


That explains why Obama had a massive victory, while Hillary lost to Trump and Biden barely managed a win. Although, it's weird that some people think we should judge voters by the millions of nonvoters. But yeah, Sanders would give people a reason to vote for him, considering his record of consistency, integrity, honesty, etc. that contrast him to past nominees. Both Biden and Hillary had a huge amount of baggage from their own decisions that led them to being the lesser evil candidate instead of one that most people want to vote for. There's also polling that highlights the enthusiasm of Bernie voters compared to other candidates. It's pretty hilarious that even moderates think that voting *for* someone means Bernie. It's like they can almost realize how past moderate nominees were deeply flawed candidates. >If the Democrats don't understand what people want, does that mean that you do? Well then, why haven't you run for public office and won and gotten all of this accomplished? You make it all sound so easy. Even the Democratic party likely *knows* what people want to some degree, but they're more interested in retaining their power and keeping the money flowing in. It actually is pretty easy to understand what people want when looking at polling and past elections, but easing up on their greed is something that establishment Democrats seem incapable of doing.


Two things motivate voters: Excitement & Fear In 2008 we elected Obama with an unprecedented level of excitement and enthusiasm (in my lifetime). In 2020, we voted in record numbers to beat Trump despite weak enthusiasm numbers for Biden. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024, fear will return and I think a lot of disapproving voters will still vote against Trump. The real danger is if a less controversial Republican is the nominee in 2024 (even if they are equally dangerous), as low enthusiasm and disapproval will likely translate to lower voter turnout.


Well, two come to mind, namely DeSantis, and Abbott. People better be paying attention, because they are both the deans of mean. And are capable of almost anything.


> 4 years under Trump... or the 8 years under Obama..... or the 8 years under Clinton.... been the same fucking game since the Reagan years but we pretend they want to play ball by the rules each and every time. Even Lucy has to shake her head at this point at how gullible the Democratic establishment seems to be.


Republicans make things worse, Democrats make nothing better. The thing is that the Dems need Republicans in power so that they can fund raise to "stop the bad people in government." They get in office, do nothing, deflect things they said they'd do because they want to make Republicans happy or other bullshit. They're playing off of each other, making things worse (both parties), and fuck all Americans in the meanwhile.I'm still waiting for my $600 the Dems promised me from COVID relief. No school loan forgiveness, the 7+Trillion infrastructure/green initiative bill is now 2 trillion over 10 years and dropping. Democrats keep negotiating down their own shit. I have zero faith in these people.


>I have zero faith You have zero faith they'll do anything progressive. Thats not the same as, say gutting roe v Wade. You know what you should have faith in? Faith that if you let Republicans take the wheel, there is a guarantee they will steam roll anything progressive that somehow already exists. In the past 4 years we greatly crippled the post office . We just lost roe v. Wade after decades of it being good law. And we still want to give then the opportunity to take power? if you reallt want a third party, you have to at least prove it can happen by getting them into your state congress. If you can't even get them into a state senate in large enough numbers to matter, why would anyone want to take that gamble with voting on an untested party for federal representation.. And you need to also have local representation to establisha voting record. Without a proven party with proven values. we just get a bunch of sinemas who run green and progressive and flip at convienience. Pretty much any one saying don't vote dem, instead we should just wish for a magic progressive hero from a new untested progressive party to magically get elected to save us, is just saying "stop voting dem,, we just want mcconnell in power." And while I don't love dems, 3rd party-ers never ever seem do the grass roots legwork to actually grow them locally. Parties don't just spawn out of thin air and you can't get a progressive party to spawn out of nowhere and have it be equal in weight to Republicans or democrats. And we can talk about how allegedly popular progressives are, but we also have to acknowledge that that never seems to actually equate that to voter turnout. Though maybe that's because they keep telling everybody everything is rigged, and that drops voter enthusiasm, go figurem. Which is not really a great voter strategy. If people are saying everything is rigged constantly then we can't also wonder why we aren't going more progressive as a country when all the alleged progressives decide to stay home because the internet told them it was futile to try. Go and turnout in primaries to effect party change. We know for a fact the young and progressive never vote locally or often. You want change? change that, that'll transform this country. But Instead of seeing big numbers at the polls or at local and state levels, I only place i ever see activity is on internet forums... and the most that activity seems to amount to is driving down voter enthusiasm and turnout instead of pumping it up. If you want a 3rd party stop telling people to not vote. Tell them to vote everywhere. And prove third parties can happen by voting locally and at the state level.. How do you expect people to take a leap of faith on a new party at the federal levels, if you tell them everything is rigged, and we can't even get 3rd parties into a single state legislature. And honestly given what the current former green party member, sinema, is doing, I doubt these 3rd parties will offer anything different.


I don’t care. Others feel the same way. We gave democrats enough power to do something and they did nothing all year I’m just not gonna vote unless a candidate earns it. I survived trump and a pandemic. I can survive whatever is voted in next time


>I don't care You dont care about dems. But You're commenting on reddit. Either you cared when voting rights are stripped or you cared when peoples rightsweare trampled. If you did enough to vote, you probably cared when Republicans dismantled our system. Its up to you to prevent that. Even if it means for voting for an ineffective party in the meantime. If those rights mean anything, Republicans must not be voted back into power while trump is still out there posing an existential threat to our democracy. Or give up and let Republicans have uncontested run of a global super power.


I don't know, I mean, Hillary Clinton was practically a Republican so why did 2016 matter? /s


Yes, one candidate is just a wee bit left of center, but I don't like her so I'll vote for the Nazi. /s


Thanks Hillary! No, seriously, thanks for being such a self-centered poor candidate that ultimately resulted in Trumps election and Democratic downballots losing in what should have been a huge victory, along with staying silent on RBG remaining in office so we might have had a 'historic feministic moment'. Sure, we could have had the first honest president in our lifetime that earnestly wished to enact huge positive changes, but does that really matter when had the opportunity to elect the "first woman president?"


Regardless of whether Hillary was the best choice available, she would've been a fuckload better than Trump, and people should've voted for her for that alone. The difference in where would be now with her would've been night and day. no stupid wall on the border. No sharpie of a fucking hurricane. No Paris accord shit. Etc. Etc. When the vote is down to two people, you should pick the best candidate between those two. Period.


And Sanders was a fuckload better than Hillary. ¯\\\_(ツ)_\/¯ >When the vote is down to two people, you should pick the best candidate between those two. Period. Right. People should have chosen Sanders.


>people should have chosen sanders But they didn't. And so tons of self proclaimed progressives did the utmost progressive move of... not voting. Because, apparently, we all know progress is made by do nothing /s Remember the last 4 years? Such progress! Such progress was made by staying home in spite ! I tremble to think what the next 4 years of "progress" will look like.


>proclaimed progressives did the utmost progressive move of... not voting. Because, apparently, we all know progress is made by do nothing This is false, and has been debunked repeatedly.


I never said all progressives, i deliberately said "self-proclaimed progressives". a.k.a the people who get on the internet and tell people not to vote because of a rigged system or whatever flavour of the day suits their reason to not vote. A.k.a the "progressives" out here trying to turn down voter turnout. People who consider themselves progressive but go on the internet and try to get people unenthused about voting. people who aren't really that progressive to begin with because they're trying to get less people to vote.


No, that's wrong. They have learned that if they don't rock the boat, they'll keep their seats when the new order takes over; because the new order is petty, vindictive, and vengeful.


progressives are often portrayed as unreasonable radicals, but progressives have always compromised and always worked to help the party. just look at how bernie got behind hillary and biden when they won the primaries (despite the party basically intentionally trying to ruin bernie's campaign). And EVERYONE was yelling about how progressives have to get in line and help the party bc this is how we get things done. and we did. but these republican democrats like manchin and sinema are portrayed as bold leaders for defying their party and their own constituents. ugh, american politics is so f*cking stupid.


Who is calling Manchin and Sinema bold leaders? Literally all of the press is ignoring the policy and fixated on process, condemning them for stonewalling. I'd consider myself a moderate and think what Manchin and Sinema are doing is shitty and am behind Bernie in trying to get this done. As are most moderates you'd talk to about this.


Certainly not on Reddit. I do detest media calling them moderates, implying they're *reasonable* people.


I think a better adjective than moderate is corrupt.


As a moderate Democrat I concur. Manchin and Sinema are more regressive and doing little to give to the development of the reconciliation bill.


They're either money-grubbing sandbaggers or outright malicious saboteurs. I'm not sure which of the two is worse.


Manchin and Sinema are Republicans with a D next to their names, and nobody can tell me differently. They are extreme outliers in the party and calling them moderates is an insult to the actual moderates.


It really bothers me that the media has stuck with the term moderate/centrist to describe them. They are anything but that.


Smerconish had a segment expressing that sentiment a week or two ago on CNN. That's really the only opinion reporter in real media that I've heard it from.


And now we're not even getting the compromise to the compromise, because bribery


Maybe if we compromise the compromised compromise, the Republicans will finally notice and stop calling us dangerous radicals! Like, what if we made our SCOTUS nominee one that *they* suggested? They'd have no choice but to stop the bad-faith rhetoric!


Can you give any example anywhere of Manchin and Sinema being displayed as bold leaders? Their press outside the conservative bubble is almost entirely negative, it’s by far the most negative I have ever seen the mainstream press go against a democrat since Bill Clinton. I don’t see why we need to perpetuate this illusion that they are being respected in the media. Their approval readings are tanking because the media is correctly portraying them as obstructionist with inconsistent demands, and in the hands of lobbyists


No, their approval ratings are tanking because their constituents have an accurate grasp of the facts and that’s despite 90% of media coverage, not because of it. If the media were truly neutral reporters of news, it would be discussing the actual policies contained in Biden’s agenda/BBB and reporting on GOP bad faith obstruction and behavior. But the media is always “both-sides”ing everything and can’t resist a “Dems in disarray” narrative so treats the fact that one of our major political parties is always going to obstruct everything in bad faith as an unnewsworthy given and never call the GOP out on it. They also pretend Sinema and Manchin are acting in good faith with their horse race bullshit coverage and never bring up the fact that their votes have been bought and paid for and everything else is a kabuki show.


Yeah the most you hear about "Biden's plan" is that "It cOsTs $3.5 tRIlLiOn dOlLaRs" and that's it. It's rare to see anything reported about what actually is in it, even rarer to see that that $3.5e12 is over 10 years, therefore making it a fraction of what we newspeakily call "defense spending". The Media is not your friend.


I could not have said it better


Is anyone calling Joe Manchin a “bold leader”? Most of the commentary I read is “Joe Manchin represents one of the reddest states in the union. He either pushes back or West Virginians vote him out and Democrats lose the Senate”


> He either pushes back or West Virginians vote him out and Democrats lose the Senate” A common liberal apologetic. Manchin is currently **detested** by his supporters. His approval in WV has tanked among voters since he’s been playing dirty pool with the infrastructure bill and filibuster. Republicans hate him, Democrats hate him, and independents hate him. WV isnt some ruby red state that liberals make it out to be. They only have a Republican governor **because they elected him as a Democrat**, and he promptly switched parties once the election was over. WV, like most Republican strong holds, is extremely racially and politically gerrymandered. This is why their non-gerrymandered offices contain Democrats. The fact is that Manchin is going against his own legislation and campaign promises. He is going against what his own constituents want on a broadly popular bipartisan basis.


Yet when they vote for president they vote overwelmingly for Republicans which tells me all those West Virginia Democrats might as well be considered Republicans anywhere else in America.


🤔Yup that's why Trump had over 70% in WV because of all the liberals that live there....oh...wait.... nevermind 🙄


Ironically, the overwhelming majority of Trump voters want what's in this legislation. They might not want Biden to win, but the majority of them (obviously some don't) think grandma should get dental services. They just hate Biden so much that nothing else matters. Exactly where they want them.


He is a bold leader. He's a shitty monstrous corrupt asshole, but his **tactics are correct**. He blocks things he doesn't want to happen by announcing he won't vote for them unless the other side compromises. And they do it, cause they're cowards. If "progressives" did this, we'd have M4A by now.


> If "progressives" did this, we'd have M4A by now. lol. No. You'd be lucky to get even 2 or 3 Democratic Senators, and you'd never even get 1 Republican to vote for it.


> progressives are often portrayed as unreasonable radicals, but progressives have always compromised and always worked to help the party. just look at how bernie got behind hillary and biden when they won the primaries (despite the party basically intentionally trying to ruin bernie's campaign). And EVERYONE was yelling about how progressives have to get in line and help the party bc this is how we get things done. and we did. And nothing got done, which is why caving to shitty centrist moderates sucks and is stupid and counterproductive. >but these republican democrats like manchin and sinema are portrayed as bold leaders for defying their party and their own constituents. > >ugh, american politics is so f*cking stupid. What's stupid is that "progressives" spend all day tweeting about Manchin and Sinema being Thanos and Maleficent, rather than being smart, and adopting their strategies, except to use them for good. Manchin and Sinema are on the wrong side, but they are doing politics **correctly**. This is how it's done. Tweeting and wearing slogan-dresses to twirl around rich people at a Met gala is not how you make taxing the rich happen. You take the fight to them, and block legislation they want to do to enrich themselves.


That’s unfair to progressives. It’s always easier to be a blocker than a doer in politics. The Senate is also overwhelmingly gerrymandered and otherwise rigged for conservatives.


I agree with you initial comments but for clarity Senate races are statewide and not subject to gerrymandering.


And how exactly would progressives get something done by blocking legislation? What legislation could they block that would convince Sinema and Machin to relent? Because that is who they are fighting against.


>And how exactly would progressives get something done by blocking legislation? What are they getting done now? By accepting an infrastructure bill 1/3 as big as it was when it started (already woefully inadequate even then), voting for Trump's awful gross military budgets and continuing under Biden, and approving welfare to Israel for their genocidal Iron Dome funding? You fight for things. Even if you lose, you show voters that you give a shit and aren't a coward and a pussy. That's how you build a coalition. What they're doing now is going to lead to what it always leads to: Dems getting wiped out in midterms, and going "i just can't understand how this happened" as people starve and die of preventable diseases.


You asked what they’re getting done then listed what they’re getting done in the next sentence. Just cause you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Some infrastructure is better than no infrastructure and with your strategy im pretty sure we’d have the latter


>If you don’t know anything about the subject matter lmao. I listed a shitty thing they "got done", that is awful and hurts people. Do you really want to add that to the list of accomplishments? Why not throw "aid to Saudi genocide" and "Israeli Iron Dome funding" and "three quarters of a trillion dollars in Pentagon budgeting allocations" onto the list of "accomplishments" too while we're at it? >Some infrastructure is better than no infrastructure Eating a little shit is better than eating a lot of shit! Therefore, vote for Democrats! It's a little wordy, but it might fit on a bumper sticker with the right font. >and with your strategy im pretty sure we’d have the latter I haven't mentioned "my" strategy. My strategy is to tell the Dems to get fucked completely, and find a charismatic person (like Bernie Sanders, but with a spine) to back a third party, and do the long, hard work of making it viable. Which will take a decade or more, but could have been started in 2016, if Bernie Sanders had some balls, and we might be halfway to Somewheres-ville by now. What I suggested here, is not "my" strategy, but a Plan B that would work better for the people already in Congress than the bullshit they're doing now, to stop the bleeding for poor, sick, old people and minorities, in a rapidly declining country where misery grows by the second. What I'm suggesting (voting smarter) will not change anything in the long run; what we need to do is tear it the fuck down and start over. Abolish capitalism and embrace worker collectives and a society where people make decisions over their own livelihoods. But AOC actually sticking up for people and shitting on Dems from the left (with legislative tactics, not tweets and slogan-dresses) would be a nice tourniquet on the wound in the short-term.




I want ‘SUPLEX’ to become a thing.


DEFENESTRATES. Send em straight out that window.


Mentally I put suplex in place of all of the buzzwords like blasts and slams now


AOC FUCKING PILEDRIVES EVERYONE ...please click on our page.


Add something like “it’s time for” or “(shitty politician) must resign”


She understands the nature of the threat. I wish the other members of the party took this just as seriously


Did she endorse Biden?


After the primaries were decided, if I recall.


She’s not wrong.


I imagine like us she's probably uncomfortable with the idea of having to line up behind a political figure, but when dealing with a threat like this, we have to be united.


"Blue no matter who" - AOC


Asked for a profile by New York Magazine about what role she might play as a member of Congress should Biden capture the White House, the freshman House Democrat from New York responded with a groan. “Oh God,” she said. “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642


Just goes to show just how responsible AOC is for supporting Blue No Matter Who! :)


In this current landscape, yes? Do you think allowing Republicans to win power anywhere will help anything? Unless you think Republicans are chemo, and that the US will survive being poisoned enough to kill the cancer that is capitalism. I personally do not believe that will work, and will just bring out a fascist overthrow of democracy.


> will just bring out a fascist overthrow of democracy. Happened a while ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot


That's why AOC and I are both Blue No Matter Who.


Hmm. My bad. I've seen a lot of screeching virtue signalling nutters on sites like Reddit who unironically believe that because Bernie, AOC aren't leading a bloody revolution in congress, they're traitors and fascists and that voting is a waste of time.


I hate that stuff. And you know what's funny? I always see people cite politics moving to the right because Republicans always vote as proof that voting doesn't work. The argument boils down to "They voted and we didn't, at least not in as many numbers as them, therefore voting doesn't work." Hmm, maybe try, I don't know, voting next time?


Fortunately for the Republic, AOC and Bernie agree much more with me than with them :)


lol. they were saying the same thing about nixon, and basically every election before and after. when is the right time to vote for a candidate who is actually good? it certainly hasn’t been at any time since the 1950s.


>when is the right time to vote for a candidate who is actually good? The primary


>In this current landscape, yes? Do you think allowing Republicans to win power anywhere will help anything? How does this make one substantially different from Republican voters who get blasted for voting for the magical (R) next to a name? ​ Blue no matter who is just an excuse to support unpalatable politicians. Blue no matter who is **exactly why** we have a Senate doing basically nothing. It is why Biden isn't issuing all those EO to address issues that he promised he would so confidently on the campaign trail. ​ >Unless you think Republicans are chemo, and that the US will survive being poisoned enough to kill the cancer that is capitalism. Yeah, the wildfire analogy. ​ ​ >I personally do not believe that will work, and will just bring out a fascist overthrow of democracy. I'd argue we *already* have a fascistic overthrow of democracy. The popular vote often doesn't matter because of gerrymandering and election fuckery, Republican presidential candidates haven't won the popular vote more than once in more than 30 years, and the people who do get elected subvert the will of the people. ​ Look at us right now; being forced to vote for *Not Republican* isn't really a choice. It doesn't really make you represented. I've voted my entire adult life for Democrats because they are not Republicans, not because I agree with the agenda. And look where it has gotten us? Look how the Democrats stand by and do nothing in the face of 25+ states passing anti-voting and anti-election laws. There is no urgency except from breakaway members. There is no follow through. What you have are the liberals, who serve at the pleasure of the capital class that finances both parties, doing their best to subvert the rising progressives. That's what AOC is talking about. She's talking about things like how the liberals hamstrung the NV party after progressives took it over. The liberals took the money, staff, and equipment rather than supporting the changing party. ​ So why should we go high when they go low? Look at how well that's work out for us. It is toxic positivity. It perpetuates the cycle. ​ What we need is either a cleansing fire or for them to be afraid of one enough such that real change happens. ​ They *are* afraid. That is why the media is putting out these "alarmist" stories about the coming progressive and leftist defections. **Liberals are disenfranchising the Democratic voters more than Republicans could ever hope to accomplish.**


Democrats have to blindly support Democrats the way Republican blindly back Republicans. And they do it quite literally... like they have rules in some states that they will automatically endorse someone if they're the sole Republican, to the point they have endorsed literal, loud and proud, holocaust denying Nazis.


“Blasts”… At least it’s not an article about a tweet.


There is no fascist threat. It is here now. How bad does it have to get?


There's alot of denial, particularly from centrists and moderates who just refuse to see the danger. The worst part is there is counters from the other side claiming the opposite is what we are in danger of. So people don't know what to believe.... Not good.


How is it centrists/moderates that don’t see the danger? I can’t count how many times I’ve seen “both sides are the same” and “burn it all down” from leftists.


Because American exceptionalism and white privilege....


Also limited understanding of the past and what fascism *is*.


I Think what we're seeing is white supremacy being given the nod and a wink by the moderates.


Did AOC endorse Biden?


They are the danger. If “half-fascist” is the goal for some and tolerated by others then the only thing the opposition has to do is keep them in office. This is what bipartisanship means now.


The Democrats will bring on their own downfall refusing to stand together as Republicans do. If things don’t change Republicans will once again become the majority and all will be lost.


I can not believe how lax, lame and useless the Democratic party appears in it's responce to both Trump and the continued GOP menace. I am dissapoited by their perceived lack of seriousness and courage. I fear not only for America but for all of North America and it's way of life of life and freedoms. A social plague is trying to eat us all from the inside out and it is gaining ground.




They don't understand what's going on. We're so dumb that politics is nothing more than a team sport. Fox news brainwashes their victims into believing anything and everything while Dems fall victim to gaslighting as well all around. There are only a handful of Congressmen who are not intentionally misleading their constituents and they're all progressive. It's no coincidence that the 1% have almost all the wealth as they're the only ones being represented.


The issue is that there are few legal and legitimate avenues in which the American government can actually fight against them. The system was built on the idea that everyone would be working with the same rules and when one side isn't there isn't really a built-in mechanism to stop them. And going outside the system conversely would damage everything even further.


>I can not believe how lax, lame and useless the Democratic party appears You must be younger or new to politics


I wish I was. Sure, the first time I voted, I did vote for Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau.


Ohhh I didn't notice the Canada bit. Look upon our works, ye neighbor, and despair.


Gotta say, the recent years have really shown how much a lie it is that we tell ourselves we’re way better then America and the shit going on down there could never happen up here


Dude, all of North America needs to seriously re-examine things. We could be so much better.


Brother, we are all in this together. Thanks.


What more do you want to see? All of them were talking about the anti-democratic nature of Republicans. The House committee investigating the queue is being pushed very seriously and the justice department is backing them. Biden is now talking about getting rid of the filibuster to support voting rights. I’m not sure what more there is to expect other than the conservative members who support the Republican party more than Democrats to change.


They are talking about making moves they should have acted on 6 months ago. Talking is not getting things done. They let Republicans control the narrative and hold civility above progress.


I would like them to fire the parlimentarian when she makes an obviously incorrect ruling about what can and can't be included in reconciliation. Even better, I would like them to exercise the powers of the vice president to end the filibuster. I would like them to actually do something rather than hide behind two scapegoats. The media is also complicit in the scapegoat myth. Joe manchin and sinema reflect the will of the democratic party establishment.


>I would like them to fire the parlimentarian when she makes an obviously incorrect ruling about what can and can't be included in reconciliation. Why in your legal opinion was she incorrect? If they had fired or ignored her it would probably have cost them D votes on the bill by giving centrists an excuse to vote against it. I agree the whole episode was really frustrating. >Even better, I would like them to exercise the powers of the vice president to end the filibuster. Wait, what? Never heard anyone say anything about that. >Joe manchin and sinema reflect the will of the democratic party establishment. Little evidence of that. The democratic establishment hasn't needed scapegoats this big before, and when they did use scapegoats, they didn't have the entirety of the leadership openly lobbying them to change. Not saying that you're definitely wrong about this, but if you're right then they are doing the scapegoat thing in an unprecedented way in terms of scale and length of time. The whole Joe Lieberman thing on Obamacare was super mild in comparison, for example.


Thank god someone in a position of actual legislative authority is f*inally* openly calling (at least some of) the Republican party the Fascists leftists have known they been for decades.


Completely agree. I dont care if you're a moderate who has to vote for a progressive or a progressive forced to vote for a moderate. Vote for your preferred candidate in the primaries- and then vote again in the general no matter what. Stop fucking around and start showing up.


'Criticizes', 'opposes', 'rebukes'... The English language is chock-full of words that aren't 'blasts'. It'd be nice to see some of them used again.


50 democratic senators isn’t enough because we can’t get them all on board and even if we could we’d have the fillibuster. So what we need is 60 to avoid the fillibuster but even that wouldn’t be enough cause you’d need to get 60 people on board, and all it would take is 1 defection. So what we really need is 62-65 democratic senators in case 1 or 2 peel off. And when you realize that you realize this isn’t politics… this is goddamn fantasy. In a healthy democracy you wouldn’t need one party to be in utter lock step with one another, maybe you’d get a few votes from the other aisle, you certainly wouldn’t be fillibustered on everything. the senate is a sick old man, paralyzed, ineffective, and capable of only maintaining the status quo.


This year has been an utter failure for the Democratic party.


The bottom line is, whatever or whoever you wanna blame, if the Dems don't get their shit together and get something passed, it's gonna be another L for Biden. And then GOP will shellac them in midterms and then nothing will get done for 2 years. Then in 2 years we either have President Trump 2.0 or President DeSantis to look forward to. Find SOMETHING you can pass before it's too late to pass anything.


>Last week, a range of political figures, including Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer, criticized a statement made by New York State Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs to Spectrum News 1 where he said that the winner of the primary is not guaranteed a party endorsement, offering an example of the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke winning a primary. Here's the thing that bothers me about moderate democrats. They will casually say racist things like this and expect just an apology is fine afterwards. That should have never been said to begin with.


Yeah it's almost as if the comfortable political class is used to playing by different rules or something...


we need any type of ranked-choice voting. I like [STAR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting) voting.


I'm so fucking sick of Manchin. Even after the huddle, still no deal.


When I learned about the history, I was fascinated by how a few rich and powerful individuals behaved in a once-powerful failing kingdom under mortal danger. They see a powerful enemy knocking on their border, but these wealthy and powerful individuals of the kingdom are all busy taking a cut of military budget, fortress budget, etc. These corrupt individuals don't care about the country. They are all in for themselves. It might be a bit hyperbolic to say US is under same predicament. But I can easily see the same pattern as those kingdoms. Too many selfish individuals who is trying to only enrich themselves at the cost of the country and the people.


I've been saying this for years. Though they make it really difficult to "unify" when a huge portion of them are just diet Republicans. "You deserve a living wage, but not $15 an hour. Absolutely no universal healthcare or tax funded college either. But we believe Black Lives Matter so vote for us."


I find it somewhat disingenuous that a progressive waxes poetic about party unity. If you trashed democrats as, “but they’re all the same” before, stay the course. She’s understanding now the fundamental reason why republicans always win - they never have to worry about party unity - even were they to say, shoot someone on 5th Ave.


She literally backed Biden in the GE and helped organise voters for him. Perfectly reasonable she's asking centrists to do the same.


Vote blue no matter who.




There’s a of things wrong with this post, but I’ll focus on legislation. Extensive research have been done on her and it turns out the reason why she hasn’t passed many bills is because both democrat and republican politicians vote against her, despite the fact that her stances poll very high, even among republicans.


Dems and GQP vote against her bills, you say? I wonder why that is? Could it be that she was trying oust the Speaker of the House in her freshman term, and that the speaker was a fellow Dem? Antics like that don't exactly endear you to your colleagues. A lot of her stances do have broad appeal but she has managed to alienate her own caucus. She needs to read about Reagan's 11th Commandment to have success in Congress. Katie Porter, on the other hand, isn't sniping her colleagues and trying to deliver sick burns on Twitter. Instead she researches issues in her committee and brings her notorious whiteboard to hearings and sweats witnesses. THAT is how you are effective early in your career while you build relationships in your caucus. AOC doing fundraising during the February power outage in Texas was great work. It helped people in need, promoted her party's proposals, and hit Fat Wolverine hard. Do more of that while mending fences in your caucus. Then you can talk about being a uniter.


yeah not sure how that is a point against her. She represents things I like. When her legislation fails its not her I am pissed off at. Its everyone else who killed her bill.


That's rich coming from AOC. She's arguably the single biggest promoter of political brinkmanship between progressive and moderate Democrats in Congress. NPR specifically mentioned her in this podcast about game theory in Congress: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046180183/congressional-game-theory


That's interesting that you reference Game Theory, a scenario for Theoretical Decision Making - Party Loyalty ≠ Good for the US - Specific State Election Politics ≠ Nationwide Party Politics - Uncompromising Party Line (R) ≠ Compromising Party Line (D, I) Progressives have More Sway by Numbers in the House - If they do not use those House numbers to push forward Progressive Policies - how do you go against an abuse of the party line (Republican gridlock under a 60 vote filibuster --> will never be Bipartisan) There is a House majority: - Elect Progressives that toe a moderate line is not useful if (the progressive policies have no sway politically... and can even lead to losing elections (in the House of Rep) to a moderate or the other party The Democrats need more votes in the Senate... so Senate Dems can be past a Party line threshold due to the Filibuster (2 Senators are holding the party at gunpoint)... **2 Senators are holding the Dems hostage, not House members (AOC etc)** (+ 50 R Senators if that is not apparent)


She's right. As much as I dislike Democrats I understand that it is irrelevant when the only other option is a the cult of Trump and Covid. We do not have a 2-party system in America anymore. The GOP no longer exists as a functioning political party.


Everyone can stop pretending like the US hasn't been a fascist country for like 80 years. Just look up how Americans viewed Mussolini in the 1930s and you'll realize why we so easily slid into our current era of corporatism.


[Fascism Def](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/what-is-fascism/) When in the History of the US have 80 year period of total suppression in opposition?


Liberals will always hate socialists more than they hate fascists.




This is pretty laughably hypocritical coming from her. It's only talk of "unity" when it's a progressive candidate.


This is the same sheep mentality that holds the U.S. back from advancing past the corrupt duopoly. Supporting a party regardless of who the candidate is vs supporting the best candidate is why we are where we are today.


These Democrats are not beholden to the DNC, they're beholden to their constituents. Many of whom aren't uber progressive.


That's often the excuse that's used to cover for politicians who are beholden to corporate interests over their constituents.


WHAT IS UBER PROGRESSIVE ABOUT THE BUILD BACK BETTER BILL? The things in that bill are just common sense, not “uber progressive.”


> The things in that bill are just common sense Sure. [200 Million apportionment to a park that isn't supposed to have taxpayer funds.](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/9/steve-cohen-nancy-pelosi-deserves-200-million-pres/) >The Presidio Trust, which manages 80% of the park, was charged at its founding in 1996 with “operating the park without taxpayer support.”


This article is fucking hysterical. They try to make it look like Republicans are negotiating in good faith with Democrats on this bill. Lmfao, like Democrats should give them anything…These assholes will all vote no anyway even after they get their concessions. The Washington Times, you’d be better off wiping your ass with that shit rag of a publication.


Didn’t she only make it into Congress in the first place by positing herself as an alternative to mainstream democrats? What


Yes, she made it into Congress by becoming the party's nominee: what are you confused on here?


Progressives must drag the Democrats through legislation or Republicans will go full on Facist after they rig 2022 and 2024.


Oh, you mean like the Squad and related people spent the past two election cycles bad mouthing Liberals and spreading right wing rhetoric against them and borderline attempting to hold the party hostage if you didn't get your way with your chosen DemSoc candidates? Is this the same person talking?


I would be more understanding if Democrats had been doing much about the fascist threat.


They've sent some sternly worded tweets, so I'm sure the GOP will change course soon.


Biden already said he had a great time meeting with elected Republicans recently. He also said Trump losing would be their "come to Jesus" moment. Sure sounds like he wasn't fit for the job!




She’s 100% right, but unfortunately she’s dealing with sociopaths so…


lmao fascists don’t get voted out of office, sweety 😘


This message would have been much more timely 6 years ago.


Many have been trying to raise the alarm for years now. Until recently our efforts have been met with ridicule.


Plenty of people called for those that voted in the 2016 democratic primary to unify behind the nominee. We all would have been much better off if everyone listened.


Sorry, I’m done. No more voting for people I can’t stand. Tell the DLC to meet us halfway this time; and then another party demographic can be team players and vote blue no matter who. I’m not playing around. I showed up to get rid of DT, and so far the party has shown zero regard for the progressive wing. If the Dems want my vote, let them earn it for a change.


Yup was just looking at potential '22 dem candidates and only see one I'm willing to vote for,,, the rest are neo-libs so,,, fuck em


This would be a real good time for her to STFU...


Why not pass the infrastructure bill then instead of holding it hostage to try and blackmail other Democrats to pass the recon bill?


Because if you pass the first one the second one has no chance of passing.


Sooo if they disagree with some fuck shit they’re supposed to just agree ?? Lol that’s not how this works


This. So much this. Fuck Republicans. Fuck Trump. Black Lives Matter. That is all.


Rent free


She will make a great President some day.


She would get demolished though.


She's really not very bright. Horrible choice and she'd never be nominated


Happiest vote of my life if AOC runs.


'Fascist threat' is an appropriate description. Only difference of note is that in the US the uniform hat colour is *red*, instead of black or grey.


Like Manchin and Sinema ?