U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez castigated House Republicans for pursuing massive cuts to Medicaid "in the dead of night" as a committee markup hearing on the GOP's legislation dragged on into the early hours of the morning.
Mate, if somebody is willing to cross any and all lines, they don’t really have Principles - they’re practicing that good old Marxist (the Groucho rather than the Karl) adage of “These are my Principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”.
Maybe I’m naive, but in my view a genuine Leftwinger must have Principles and hence red lines, not just talk the talk whilst not walking the walk - in other words, be more than a self-promoting salesman, since a self-promoting salesman is really just a “personal upside maximizer” which is just another way of saying a follower of the “What’s in it for me?!” right-wing mindset.
Again, in my naivity, I see actual direct support for the desires of a ethno-Fascist ideology - Zionism - currently mass murdering children due to their ethnicity, as a red line that nobody with even the smallest shred of Humanitarian Principles would cross.
(I can understand the “I’m not absolutelly sure” statement of abstaining, but activelly voting for it is something else altogether).
In a way, I think you almost got there but just stopped short of following the last step in the logical chain: Trump did got elected a second time because of this shit, not because of the people complaining about the politicians who say one thing and do something else, but because almost all politicians are doing it including so many self-proclaimed leftwing ones, so the word of politicians is all worth the same in the eyes of anybody who is not a fully indoctrinated party tribalist and in such an environment a populist shamelessly lying can swindle a lot more people than in an environment were dishonesty in politicians isn’t as widespread and normalized and hence would get punished - in other words, both the election of a shameless lying populist like Trump AND people complaining about dishonest and hypocrite self-proclaimed leftwing politicians are the product of the same things: the normalization of dishonesty in Politics.
For all your words, you clearly don’t understand Politics.
Real Politics is about compromise, so ALL politicians have to have fuzzy boundaries sometimes. What really matters is the overall direction and morality of the politician. Are they compromising for the good of a bill that will offer a constructive improvement to America? Or are they compromising because it’s good for their career or their bank account?
I can get behind a decent, moral candidate, even if I don’t agree with all their positions, much more than a candidate with no morals who will tell me ANYTHING I want to hear.
Mate, I’ve been a member of two political parties in two different countries.
“Compromise” is way too often just an vague hand-waving excuse politicians give to act in unprincipled ways that ultimately only benefit themselves and their careers. This claim is more often misused by politicians of large mainstream political parties - the self-proclaimed “moderate/pragmatic center”.
In America “compromise” is what right now some Democrat politicians are claiming to support just about every Republican measure in Congress (stuff which is way, way, WAY beyond what I thought AOC voted for).
Indeed, and as you say, Politics is more often than not compromise. However a politician who comprises on everything and has no red-lines whatsoever by definition has no principles at all, or in other words, stands for nothing and in my naivety I expect leftwing politicians to have at least some principles and hence some red lines they will not cross, and I expect that anything that supports a state mass murdering children for their ethnicity is a natural red line for a leftwinger.
So as I see it, in the present day because of just how abused and hence devaluated that kind of claim has been by politicians in major parties, more than mere vague claims of “compromise” need to be provided by any politician in such a party who is supposed to be principled to justify actions that at first sight seem to go against the principles they claim to have.
That said, AOC did explained it in detail and somebody else actually explained here those details (which is really what I was asking for in order to judge if the “compromise” was really an acceptable one rather than and abuse of the “compromise” claim to excuse crossing what should have been a red line) and the resolution she voted for is actually a lot less scary than what I feared and manages to, IMHO fall into an actual grey area of that subject - even if I think she should have at least abstained, I can see how a “yay” vote would be understandable.
Hopefully, I was totally wrong in my fears about her being just another politician that talks the talk but only walks the walk when it suits her - I’ve seen politicians from afar, but at this point I’ve also met some personally, so I have good reasons to be suspicious of the carefully managed public image of celebrity-level politicians not matching their real nature, so want way more proof of their honest and are far more fickle with my trust on them.
Before I got involved in political parties I was more trusting, but not anymore.
You’re not wrong about the dishonesty and hypocrisy—it has poisoned the well across the board. A politician without red lines or real principles isn’t on the left, no matter what they call themselves.
But where we differ is in how we respond to that reality. As much as I agree with your point, I have to take a more pragmatic view. Not voting against Trump is part of how we got Trump. Sitting it out or refusing to engage just hands power to the worst option.
I hate the choices as much as anyone. It’s a shit sandwich. But I’d rather work with what I’ve got and try to make it suck less than give the whole table over to outright fascism.
I’ll keep calling out the hypocrisy, and I’ll keep pushing from the left—but I won’t step aside and let something far worse win by default. Idealism has to live in the real world, or it ends up serving the very thing it claims to resist.
Chose a faker like AOC to be the Democrat candidate and you’re just switching the swindlers, thus maintaing the climated of “say one thing do something else” political dishonesty that leaves the door open for another Trump-like populist to win next time around.
If I was an American in American I would be working my ass off in the Democrat Primaries and even at local level, including guerrila political propaganda tactics, to make sure that the real leftwingers were being pushed forwards in large numbers at that level and doing all I could to screw the AIPAC supported candidates, since continuing the Democract strategy of fielding liars and hypocrites is only going to make sure that the Trump problem happens again and again and again until one day one of them finally succeeds in becoming dictator for life.
I mean, surelly Democrats learned from Trump’s second victory that “more of the same” isn’t a solution for far-right polulism.
I think you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree. I looked through your comments and it is clear the side you are on. You have a nice day.
Only mindless tribalists have “sides” and think others are like that too.
Having Principles, on the other hand, means having no “sacred cows” who are above criticism when their actual actions do not respect such principles.
Tagging everybody who disagrees with their views with a “side” is how people who would otherwise be thinking individuals reduce themselves to easilly led muppets.
I understand why you might not agree with her but seeing things in such black and white in what got Trump elected a 2nd time.
Mate, if somebody is willing to cross any and all lines, they don’t really have Principles - they’re practicing that good old Marxist (the Groucho rather than the Karl) adage of “These are my Principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”.
Maybe I’m naive, but in my view a genuine Leftwinger must have Principles and hence red lines, not just talk the talk whilst not walking the walk - in other words, be more than a self-promoting salesman, since a self-promoting salesman is really just a “personal upside maximizer” which is just another way of saying a follower of the “What’s in it for me?!” right-wing mindset.
Again, in my naivity, I see actual direct support for the desires of a ethno-Fascist ideology - Zionism - currently mass murdering children due to their ethnicity, as a red line that nobody with even the smallest shred of Humanitarian Principles would cross.
(I can understand the “I’m not absolutelly sure” statement of abstaining, but activelly voting for it is something else altogether).
In a way, I think you almost got there but just stopped short of following the last step in the logical chain: Trump did got elected a second time because of this shit, not because of the people complaining about the politicians who say one thing and do something else, but because almost all politicians are doing it including so many self-proclaimed leftwing ones, so the word of politicians is all worth the same in the eyes of anybody who is not a fully indoctrinated party tribalist and in such an environment a populist shamelessly lying can swindle a lot more people than in an environment were dishonesty in politicians isn’t as widespread and normalized and hence would get punished - in other words, both the election of a shameless lying populist like Trump AND people complaining about dishonest and hypocrite self-proclaimed leftwing politicians are the product of the same things: the normalization of dishonesty in Politics.
For all your words, you clearly don’t understand Politics.
Real Politics is about compromise, so ALL politicians have to have fuzzy boundaries sometimes. What really matters is the overall direction and morality of the politician. Are they compromising for the good of a bill that will offer a constructive improvement to America? Or are they compromising because it’s good for their career or their bank account?
I can get behind a decent, moral candidate, even if I don’t agree with all their positions, much more than a candidate with no morals who will tell me ANYTHING I want to hear.
Mate, I’ve been a member of two political parties in two different countries.
“Compromise” is way too often just an vague hand-waving excuse politicians give to act in unprincipled ways that ultimately only benefit themselves and their careers. This claim is more often misused by politicians of large mainstream political parties - the self-proclaimed “moderate/pragmatic center”.
In America “compromise” is what right now some Democrat politicians are claiming to support just about every Republican measure in Congress (stuff which is way, way, WAY beyond what I thought AOC voted for).
Indeed, and as you say, Politics is more often than not compromise. However a politician who comprises on everything and has no red-lines whatsoever by definition has no principles at all, or in other words, stands for nothing and in my naivety I expect leftwing politicians to have at least some principles and hence some red lines they will not cross, and I expect that anything that supports a state mass murdering children for their ethnicity is a natural red line for a leftwinger.
So as I see it, in the present day because of just how abused and hence devaluated that kind of claim has been by politicians in major parties, more than mere vague claims of “compromise” need to be provided by any politician in such a party who is supposed to be principled to justify actions that at first sight seem to go against the principles they claim to have.
That said, AOC did explained it in detail and somebody else actually explained here those details (which is really what I was asking for in order to judge if the “compromise” was really an acceptable one rather than and abuse of the “compromise” claim to excuse crossing what should have been a red line) and the resolution she voted for is actually a lot less scary than what I feared and manages to, IMHO fall into an actual grey area of that subject - even if I think she should have at least abstained, I can see how a “yay” vote would be understandable.
Hopefully, I was totally wrong in my fears about her being just another politician that talks the talk but only walks the walk when it suits her - I’ve seen politicians from afar, but at this point I’ve also met some personally, so I have good reasons to be suspicious of the carefully managed public image of celebrity-level politicians not matching their real nature, so want way more proof of their honest and are far more fickle with my trust on them.
Before I got involved in political parties I was more trusting, but not anymore.
You’re not wrong about the dishonesty and hypocrisy—it has poisoned the well across the board. A politician without red lines or real principles isn’t on the left, no matter what they call themselves.
But where we differ is in how we respond to that reality. As much as I agree with your point, I have to take a more pragmatic view. Not voting against Trump is part of how we got Trump. Sitting it out or refusing to engage just hands power to the worst option.
I hate the choices as much as anyone. It’s a shit sandwich. But I’d rather work with what I’ve got and try to make it suck less than give the whole table over to outright fascism.
I’ll keep calling out the hypocrisy, and I’ll keep pushing from the left—but I won’t step aside and let something far worse win by default. Idealism has to live in the real world, or it ends up serving the very thing it claims to resist.
Chose a faker like AOC to be the Democrat candidate and you’re just switching the swindlers, thus maintaing the climated of “say one thing do something else” political dishonesty that leaves the door open for another Trump-like populist to win next time around.
If I was an American in American I would be working my ass off in the Democrat Primaries and even at local level, including guerrila political propaganda tactics, to make sure that the real leftwingers were being pushed forwards in large numbers at that level and doing all I could to screw the AIPAC supported candidates, since continuing the Democract strategy of fielding liars and hypocrites is only going to make sure that the Trump problem happens again and again and again until one day one of them finally succeeds in becoming dictator for life.
I mean, surelly Democrats learned from Trump’s second victory that “more of the same” isn’t a solution for far-right polulism.
Right?!
Right?!..
If you think AOC is a “faker” because of her position on a single issue, then you are just a MAGA propagandist.
I think you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree. I looked through your comments and it is clear the side you are on. You have a nice day.
Only mindless tribalists have “sides” and think others are like that too.
Having Principles, on the other hand, means having no “sacred cows” who are above criticism when their actual actions do not respect such principles.
Tagging everybody who disagrees with their views with a “side” is how people who would otherwise be thinking individuals reduce themselves to easilly led muppets.
Have a nice day, sir.
Cheers.
How about you mind your own business since it’s a pretty fair guess to say you cannot vote in my country.
Unless I’m wrong, in which case, carry on.
If you look through thier comments you will see their agenda. I will leave it at that. Best thing to do is just ignore them.