- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
You put that in quotes, but I never said it. In fact, I never even implied it. Personally, I don’t even know what the word “right” means when talking about states instead of individuals. Countries don’t have the right to defend themselves, they have the ability to defend themselves. We know they do, because they still exist as countries.
Well yeah. That’s kind of to be expected when you fabricate my arguments.
That’s a legitimately good question that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I made. You are just throwing pre-made arguments at me, not engaging in actual dialog. I’m not sure I want to fund Palestine, but I definitely don’t want to fund Israel.
No shit. Welcome to foreign policy. No country is altruistic, and they all are acting in their own perceived self interest. I want to foster international relations based on mutual cooperation for the good of mankind instead of self-interest, but that’s not how anybody is doing it today.
Yes? Once again you are just throwing arguments at me instead of engaging in dialog. I agree with this and pretty much everything else you said here. It just doesn’t apply to the two questions at argument.
Tell me more. Has China disassociated with Israel? Russia? As far as I know, neither has broken off diplomatic relations. It’s also arguable that every nation on Earth has failed to do this in one way or another. No country should associate with any other country? Now, I know you are going to interpret this as a defense of Israel, but it’s not. I am just addressing your pattern of uninformed reckless assertions.
And I don’t think you have established that she has made such a claim.
And, once again, I have to remind you that I am not supportive of her vote. However, that alone is insufficient to call her a genocide denier, or make her complicit in genocide.
I agree to a point. I don’t generally support third party strategies for practical reasons, and I do support voting for the lesser evil when there is no viable alternative. However, I also don’t throw in with the idea that we should never criticize Democrats because it helps Republicans - and that includes AOC. I support going hard after Democrats in primaries, but I want those resources to be used in the most strategic way possible, given that we are so far behind. I would not support going after a lukewarm progressive when we have a dozen hard-core neoliberals to choose from.
If you are serious about that, then you better start thinking a lot more strategically. Please do.
You are ascribing her motivations as helping Israel defend itself, without distancing yourself from them by condemning Israel as a genocidal state. Genocidal states don’t deserve self-defense or support of any kind. By echoing the sentiment without critiquing it, you are ceding ground to it.
She either is aware of what Israel is and decides to give it material support, which is genocide apologia, or she is not aware of what Israel is, as the livestreamer Congresswoman herself, which is genocide ignorance. I’m not sure which is worse.
I’m not about to post verbatim online how I think the Zionist entity (or any other belligerent reactionary state) should be treated by radicalized proles in the belly of the beast. I will lend critical support to the Islamists that actually fight against it, and I’ve given about a month of savings to Palestinian refugees via our direct aid comm. Maybe if I was some tycoon I would throw money at the Resistance. I disagree with the point that Israel will never not have missile defense. To reiterate, the condition of their missile defense depletion is what will end the genocide and the illegal occupation. The more defensive aid they get, the longer they will last. Perhaps it will run out after it’s already too late for anyone in Gaza, maybe it will run out after it’s too late for the West Bank too. But it will run out at some point.
Anyway, this is about AOC, and any other progressive or nominally socialist figure to hold state or national office. If our progressives don’t take progressive stances, what good are they? We have an ongoing paradigm of Democratic reps voting like Republicans, and Progressive Caucus reps voting like blue dogs, largely out of the false assumption about how conservative the electorate is. If a rep is going to not vote by their principled conscience because of party pressure or congressional norms or whatever undisclosed power, that is a failure and an obstacle to achieving the goal. If there is any possibility of making a consequential difference through the medium of electoralism, it hinges on a candidate sticking to their guns once they get elected. You can push through any progressive policy even if your adversaries control 49% of the vote. But if you cannot garner a vote from the people who are purportedly on your side, you cannot accomplish anything. An empty ally is more of a blow than a predictable enemy. You don’t win in politics by compromising with the adversary from start to finish, you win in politics by galvanizing your base and following through on your promises. This is why Democrats are consistently losing even when they win elections, and why Republicans are in full control of the country with a small minority of the populace. That’s my thesis and I’m sticking to it.
You have been saying “don’t focus on AOC, the vote you might have but didn’t get, focus on the Republicans, the votes you will never get”. I think that is misguided.
Principled stances are what makes a change. Buckling on a stance is what the conservatives would want. So I’m going to turn the “Republican” accusation you’ve leveled at people ITT right around on you, and say that Republicans are cheering every time a progressive Democrat adjusts to a more “moderate” stance.
We’ve already been over this, and it’s a complete non-sequitur. “Genocidal states” include every state that ever existed. If there are any exceptions, then I sure can’t think of them. Even if we only consider ongoing genocides, Russia, China, and I would argue the US (even unrelated to Israel) would not “deserve self-defense”.
You keep asserting this, but it clearly isn’t. However, if it is, then you are also guilty of the same. If enabling Israel to defend itself is supporting the genocide of Palestine, then preventing Israel from defending itself must be understood as supporting the genocide of Israel. If the withdraw of US support actually had the impact you imply, the lifespan of Israel would be the travel time of missiles from Iran. (Not that a lot of other missiles wouldn’t arrive first.) You can claim that Israel “deserves” it, but that would be providing a justification for genocide which would explicitly be genocide apologia. Just to be clear, this is in response to your statement that doesn’t deserve the ability to defend itself, not that the US should stop weapons shipments.
What the hell are you talking about. AOC takes lots of progressive stances. She does not, however, take the most progressive stance possible on every progressive issue.
Your thesis is pretty muddled. You seem to be under the impression that hyperbole can take the place of strong arguments. I don’t even disagree with the general direction of your “thesis”, but the amount of inaccurate conflation and hyperbolic generalizations makes it pretty incomprehensible. I promise you that I have personally made those arguments a whole lot better against supporters of the Democratic establishment. I have no problem at all with criticism of AOC, but the way you approach it isn’t going to convince anyone.
Not all by itself it doesn’t. AOC is probably gearing up for a run against Schumer. If you don’t think her replacing the most Zionist Democratic senator (or arguably the most Zionist Senator period) is going to be an earthquake against Israel, then I don’t know what to tell you.
You have not established that this is what AOC did. Her not supporting your stance (and mine) does not equate to “buckling”. She has her own principals, and what’s going on in Gaza is not the only relevant consideration. The amendment she voted against wouldn’t even have cut offensive weaponry, just iron dome, and AOC ultimately voted against the entire funding bill.
That’s so unbelievably facile, a complete semantic cop-out. “Oh, they all are genocidal.” Are we just going to dump every use of violence as genocide, or are we actually going to use meaningful definitions, like the intention, follow-through, and direct profit on killing a large fraction of a population or demographic?
You are both-sidesing this issue based on empty assumptions. If Israel stopped fighting, there would be peace through Israelis moving back. If the Resistance stopped fighting, they would all be exterminated. If you think it is permissible for Israel to defend itself while committing genocide, that is equivalent to permitting that genocide.
This is a baby-brained tu quoque, and borderline offensive. It is the same hasbara that Israel uses, saying “in their place they would kill us all too”. Iran and Palestine have never enacted a genocide on anyone. Ending a government is not genocide; ending a people is. The end of the State of Israel would mean a plurinational Palestine that included Jews as citizens with equal rights. Israelis mostly don’t die when missiles hit, they have bomb shelters to flee to and can easily leave the country. Palestinians have nowhere to go, only the land that they have continuously inhabited for millennia. A Resistance victory means a sort of Truth and Reconciliation commission, and an outcome like South Africa. An Israeli victory means the death of all Palestinians in Palestine, they say this in all corners of Israeli society every day.
You don’t seize the party leader position by defeating the party leader. AOC taking Schumer’s seat would result in 2 nominally democratic socialists in the Senate. But what good would it do if they don’t vote differently? An earthquake is when something big shifts and changes things. Two dissenting votes is not an earthquake. More specifically, in Israel’s case, two senators that vote against offensive weapons but support defensive weapons would be completely without consequence. It doesn’t matter which of the 99 Zionist senators you dislodge, especially when you vote alongside the Zionists on the most consequential thing.
AOC already has a track record of pivoting toward the center, it didn’t start with this issue. As soon as 2021 she was already disappointing with how much she was compromising on.
You have addressed nothing about my core assertion that coherent appeals and consistency and follow-through is what wins elections. Our 2 most influential presidents each lost the popular vote, had a popularity below 35%, and had a base of around 15% of American society. You don’t win by being the closest to the middle of the seesaw, you win by giving people a reason to rally around you.
I don’t expect the Democrats to learn anything about winning in politics. They are nothing but careerists and fundraisers. And at this point I don’t expect to get anything through to you, or even treat you as serious.
No we aren’t, and no I didn’t. History is packed with countries doing genocides, either of local populations or as part of a colonial project. Russia is currently committing genocide against ethic Ukrainians. China is currently committing genocide against the Uyghurs. I would argue that the US genocide of native Americans never ended, and the current Hispanic purge is clearly going well beyond just undocumented immigrants.
You are almost certainly correct. It just has nothing to do with your assertion that they should lose the ability to defend themselves.
The resistance is unfortunately pretty irrelevant at this point. This is low key feeding Israeli propaganda that what’s going on is a war.
Calling you a genocide apologist is only borderline offensive? Anyways, since my position is that AOC is not a genocide apologist, this isn’t a “you also” it’s a “just you”.
And? You think Iran (and others) are only interested in ending the Israeli government? Please. The fact that Israel is evil doesn’t make all of Israel’s enemies good. As much as Oct 7 has been abused to justify genocide, it’s a fact that the attacks were focused on civilians, not military or symbols of the Israeli government.
No, you do seize momentum though. A plucky progressive knocking out the highest ranking public face of the Democratic establishment is a pretty big deal. How do you think we get to 3 democratic socialists in the Senate? And again, I have to point out your ridiculous hyperbole. Are you really ignorant enough to think that AOC and Bernie don’t vote differently? Are you really ignorant enough to think that voting is the only tool they have to drive change? A tiny number of progressives in congress have been able to drag the Democrats left on a bunch of issues. You don’t approve of one vote on one amendment that wouldn’t pass anyways for a bill that she also voted against.
Agreeing with it isn’t addressing it? OK. I guess I have to remind you again that there are exactly two claims you made that I disagree with, and that this is irrelevant to both. No, AOC isn’t perfect. No, I don’t have any problem with productive criticism of AOC. Calling her a genocide apologist and claiming that she is complicit in genocide based on a bill she actually voted against is not productive criticism. Hyperbolic bullshit is just going to marginalize you. Why the fuck would AOC ever take you seriously?
With that, I’m done. Go ahead and close it out if you want.