top 85 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 194 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (24 children)

Proving she’s not an establishment Dem by having the ability to read the fucking room.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -29 points 2 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Are you a right wing moron or a genocide loving Zionist scumbag? Oops sorry, I said the same thing twice. I'll put you down for both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -81 points 2 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 85 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    She's one of the only notable young Democrat leaders. Not hard to see why she gets support. Even bad socialism is better than whatever the fuck we currently have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    Even bad socialism is better than whatever the fuck we currently have.

    The economic system where oligarchs use the military industrial complex, insider trading with market manipulation and tariffs to put tax money directly into their pockets?

    It’s beyond just the violations of capitalism. Now it’s just transparent corruption.

    They’ve invented something new. It’s called Crapitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    They’ve invested something new. It’s called Crapitalism.

    For your consideration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

    Orr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Since 2011, more than $1 trillion has left developing countries annually in illicit financial outflows. A 2016 study found that $12 trillion had been siphoned out of developing economies.[15]

    In a 2011 forensic study of grand corruption cases, the World Bank found the United States was the leading victim of illegal incorporation of entities involved in money laundering schemes.[24] The Department of the Treasury estimates that $300 billion is laundered annually in the United States in violation of US law.[25]

    This kleptocratic financial system flourishes in the United States by illegally abusing the United States' liberal economic structure for two reasons.

    1. First, the United States does not have a beneficial ownership registry, and kleptocrats take advantage of this privacy benefit.[26]
    2. Second, kleptocrats take advantage of incorporation agents, lawyers, and realtors to unknowingly launder their money.

    Yeah that sounds about right. Probably conservative estimates, to boot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    First, the United States does not have a beneficial ownership registry, and kleptocrats take advantage of this privacy benefit.

    It was about to but then Trump cancelled it before it came in. Shocker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    She's trusted, she's smart, she's always 10 steps ahead, and most of all, she's a GOOD person, and incorruptible. She's thinking about the people, and she makes it very clear she works for US. I don''t have to agree with everything she's for, but that's okay, she's still the kind of person I want to see in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    Why is she incorruptible...? Calling people that seems of dubious wisdom to me 😅 its kinda hard to say whether she's corruptible until she's sat in a position of serious power long-term, and generally "incorruptible" isnt a good adjective for humans 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Let's wait for perfect instead. That'll work out wonderfully!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [–] 50 points 2 months ago (31 children)

    This is such a nonstory, but okay, cool. AOC was a member previously, certainly seems to be pretty damned compatible with her views, and once the DSA noticed she wasn't a member, renewed her membership.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 months ago* (29 children)

    The DSA didn't "notice" anything. They've known the whole time. She left the DSA to join the Democratic party because the Democratic party was the only way to get elected anywhere. Because they had such a stranglehold on the "left wing" of our political system. What changed is that's no longer the case. The Democratic party is falling to shit because of the centrists who are basically Republicans at this point. So she is leaving that party and going back to the DSA and solidifying her position there because like her we all need to abandon the Democratic party and embrace Democratic socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    The DSA didn't "notice" anything. They've known the whole time. She left the DSA to join the Democratic party because the Democratic party was the only way to get elected anywhere.

    That's not how it works though. DSA is legally a 501c4. It parasitize the Democratic ballot line, but any DSA member running on the Dem ballot line wouldn't have to give up their DSA membership.

    What happened here was likely that her dues lapsed without her knowing(a thing that happens relatively often, and it isn't anyone's fault), and nobody noticed. National has to submit requests to the relevant staff for that information, so they weren't checking. And NYC-DSA, who would have been the ones responsible for checking when doing endorsements, just assumed she was a still paying dues, when she wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The DSA didn’t “notice” anything. They’ve known the whole time.

    I'd love a source for this claim.

    She left the DSA to join the Democratic party because the Democratic party was the only way to get elected anywhere.

    The DSA is a political organization, not a political party. They do not run candidates. They do endorse people.

    If you are DSA and run for office, you run as a Democrat or Independent or whatever else.

    So this is two strikes against you knowing what you're talking about.

    So she is leaving that party and going back to the DSA

    You are ignorant of what the DSA actually is.

    because like her we all need to abandon the Democratic party and embrace Democratic socialism.

    I support the DSA because they are the most progressive organization out there, and they are actually getting support, so I feel my support of them increases the visibility and support for progressive ideas. And I am not afraid of the word "socialism", and if "democratic socialism" takes off and helps us get human rights, social safety nets, and all the other things, I'm all for it.

    That said, most people who are running for office who affiliate with the DSA will be running as....... wait for it.......... Democrats.

    Including AOC.

    So please go do a little research.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

    I’d love a source for this claim.

    The source is literally in the OP article.

    Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    No, the source does not make that claim. But more importantly, I see you're ignoring the rest of their misinformation. Even if I concede that point, which I am not prepared to do, the rest of their comment is sheer bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I didn't say anything about the rest of their comment. You asked for a source and I provided it.

    How on earth does a source talking about the DSA deliberately withdrawing their support not contradict your claim that they "didn't notice" she wasn't a member?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    It added: “Previously, the representative joined DSA in 2018 with a one-year membership, which DSA’s national leadership recently noticed had lapsed, in 2019. She has since renewed her membership as of this month.”

    Do you not understand language?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    AOC has previously made a deliberate point of talking about not being a member of the national organization, but rather her local one. The national DSA withdrew their conditional endorsement over her stance on Israel.

    Now that they're making amends, they're putting it that way to be diplomatic, as though it was a simple oversight. But there have been significant rifts and disagreements, so it isn't a non-story like you suggested.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Now you're making new claims that are NOT in the article that you have not sourced.

    Don't bother, I don't care enough to look further nor care more to listen to you. Have a day. Maybe even a good day. :) But certainly have a day (becuse the alternate would suck, and I'm attempting humour by implying "have a bad day', but it's just being silly at you. In case that feels like mixed messages, our interaction is irritating, but c'est la vie, humour indicates it's not personal, just disagreement with what you're saying)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    She left the DSA to join the Democratic party

    DSA is not a party. That's part of the reason it's unable to discipline elected officials . . . which is one reason that AOC is able to do nonsense like "working tirelessly for a ceasefire" and find no reprecussion from the org.

    But nobody leaves DSA to join the Democrats. Most DSA members ARE registered Democrats, especially in closed primary states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    do nonsense like "working tirelessly for a ceasefire" and find no reprecussion from the org.

    Explain how that's nonsense? It's not like she has the power to actually solve it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Stating that the Biden administration, which controls the weapons going to Israel, is "working ceaselessly for a ceasefire" is nonsense because they could have forced one any time they chose.

    In fact, they were legally required not to provide arms to a genocide.

    AOC didn't have to give them cover. But she did. DSA, meanwhile, can't do shit about her doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (18 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    I'm as left wing as they get but I wont support the closest American political group with a chance at getting representation in government. In fact, I'll actively denigrate and discourage others from supporting them too. That'll unlock the future I claim to want!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    If they run (or endorse, whatever) another ex-military psycho candidate with a Nazi tattoo I’m gonna really stop trusting them. Til then when they show up I’ll vote for em, sure. But absolutely no veterans and no Neo Nazi / Nazi affiliate whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Here's a history lesson.

    Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. In 1860 he was a famous speaker who had a lot of influence even though he himself couldn't vote. He had a choice; support the Abolition candidate who had virtually no chance of winning the election, or throw his support behind Abe Lincoln. Lincoln's position was that saving the Union was more important than freeing the slaves.

    Douglas chose Lincoln. He figured that it was better to have an actual win and be able to talk to the President, than it was to lose and be out in the cold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I literally laughed out loud when I read your comment.

    You call yourself an 'anarchist' and then get on other people for cosplaying?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not upset that you don't like unjust hierarchies, I'm amused that you picked the silliest possible way to express it.

    And I did in fact answer your question. It's not my fault you didn't understand it.

    Back in the Spanish Civil War the anarchist troops happily took orders and worked with other groups in a bigger cause.

    Reread what I wrote and really think about it.

    Here’s a history lesson.

    Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. In 1860 he was a famous speaker who had a lot of influence even though he himself couldn’t vote. He had a choice; support the Abolition candidate who had virtually no chance of winning the election, or throw his support behind Abe Lincoln. Lincoln’s position was that saving the Union was more important than freeing the slaves.

    Douglas chose Lincoln. He figured that it was better to have an actual win and be able to talk to the President, than it was to lose and be out in the cold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensible

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    And I consider myself extremely mature and thoughtful in not using a meme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    You used 'be' instead of 'me'

    Were you trying to be funny?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    And exactly when did I claim to represent the DSA in any way?

    You wanted a reason why you should ally yourself with others.

    I showed you twice that an imperfect ally who can get things done is better than a perfect ally who can't do anything.

    But yes, take the W if it means that much to you.

    Congratulations, you won an interwebs argument with a stranger. You've done so much for your cause I can't even imagine it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    Yes I'm glad they're winning more elections this year but it really has more to do with anti-Trump, anti-tech feelings and progressive messaging than the DSA itself. They have some stupid out of touch nonsense on their website that just provides fodder to use against their candidates.

    If I ran as a progressive I'm not sure I'd affiliate with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    DSA is the field, not the team. If you're left wing, you go there because that's where you can find left wing people to organize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    The DSA didn't originate that slogan, and it was originally "Defund, disarm, disband the police." Anyway, how can anyone "seize the levers of power" without changing anything about how policing works in this country?

    Also, taking over the Democratic Party from the inside is literally the DSA's stated goal. Why are you so mad at them? They agree with you on this one!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's been the strategy for 10 years, since Bernie's first run.

    How's that working?

    I'm not knocking the DSA, but the idea of a left-wing takeover of the Democratic Party is less applicable than ever. Unlike 2016, the centrist Dems are well aware of the threat to their left - and it's obvious, that's the ONLY thing they're determined to stop. Which is why they're currently spending their time attacking Hassan Piker and anyone else opposing the genocide in Gaza, not Donald Trump.

    Any victory you find in the Democratic Party will be pyrric at best, imho. By the time you defeat these people, what will be left?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    How can you say it doesn't work when that's literally what maga did?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    it hasn't worked with the Democratic party. That's what happened in 2016 . . . the Dems were able to stop the revolt from the wing, the GOP was not. Now the GOP is MAGA, and the Bernie wing is contained.

    There's a few reasons for that - one of which is that the GOP process is not as controlled, and another is that the Dems were smarter than the GOP, which had already seen its leadership wounded from the Tea Party.

    The Dems didn't show that. After losing to an insane gameshow host in 2016, their leadership remained identical in 2018 and 2020. There wasn't even window dressing changes. And 2020 saw the center and party establishment firmly not only win (Biden over Bernie), but use that to systematically lock out the left. Why do you think the first primary was moved to South Carolina, a state which will NEVER go for the Dems in the general?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Rejoins is present tense, by the way, not past.

  • source
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What does AOC and DSA have to do with Epstein ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    I'm a fan of the DSA for the time, but I'm afraid they have the same structural weakness of all political organizations. I can't bring myself to give then money.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I'm afraid you'll have to get over that hangup. Considering how politics literally means "of the people"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Literally cannot stand politics. It maybe I can't stand that I need to pay attention to them and be involved. I just want everything to work, but it's those goddamn people fucking things up all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Not being engaged in politics is synonymous with not being engaged in life.

    Politics is "of the people", unless you're living alone in a cave in the middle of the woods and never using anything you didn't yourself make or extract, you are engaged in politics. Every time you interact with literally anything, ever, at all, for any reason, you are doing something political.

    My biggest complaint about modern neo liberalism is the cultural work it's done to convince people "politics" is not synonymous "existence".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I think it's because it's taken on a modern meaning that as synonymous with rich people getting richer, poor people going and fighting wars, taxing working class folk and not the businesses they work for, and so much more. When I hear politics, I certainly don't hear "of the people," I hear "special interests only."

    So me, personally, I don't consider much of what I do politicking, but I also know I need to be engaged and involved, or else someone is going to politick away the rights of me and my neighbors. And that is why I can't stand it. I just want things to work, but they won't because people actively work to make things a fucking mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    How do you think it got this way? Because most Americans don't engage with politics, therefore letting the people who perpetrate those things have nearly free reign to decide for you that's what you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • *american "politics" (or rather late stage capitalism).

    but I feel you, for my own sanity, i would probably also try to disconnect a little bit of the politics in the USA, it's also a bit demotivating/depressing in europe (Not as bad as in the USA yet, but we are on the track of that), with the rise of right-wing parties, like, why don't those people see what they are actually trying to elect, how don't they see how much they are propaganda-ized by fossil-fueled companies and capitalists, voting against their own interests??

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    It's hard for me to articulate, but I'll do my very best.

    I'd say my biggest fear is that the power and wealth borrowed from supporters will be used to entrench ambitious, self centered, career politicians into government. Effectively creating no progress, but taking steam out if an important movement.

    With no real framework to guarantee that a group will do what they say, and no way to ensure they stay loyal to their supporters interests behind closed doors, I don't think I could ever give any real level of trust.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    78 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post