US Politics

Also did people learn nothing from Trump. Never never apologise because within 2 weeks everyone will have forgotten.
 
Sweet Square said:
AOC it seems has pretty much given up on foreign policy after the her "I'm not the expert on geo politics" when talking about Israil and Palestine which could be said to be a smart move but does feck help to the Palestines and the idea of international solidarity. Which ok is fine for a liberal like Warren but for a socialist its bad politics.
Click to expand...
Good thing she’s a House rep so the majority of her focus is inherently going to be for her district. And it’s less of a loss for her to not engage with that as opposed to taking a loud stance if she’s not an expert so to speak. Just more trouble and she’s already dealing with enough shitheads.
 
Florida Man said:
Good thing she’s a House rep so the majority of her focus is inherently going to be for her district. And it’s less of a loss for her to not engage with that as opposed to taking a loud stance if she’s not an expert so to speak. Just more trouble and she’s already dealing with enough shitheads.
Click to expand...
Yeah she should focus on domestic affairs for now. She's not going to be eligible for a presidency run for a while so she has time to get onto those committees and get experience.
 
Florida Man said:
Good thing she’s a House rep so the majority of her focus is inherently going to be for her district. And it’s less of a loss for her to not engage with that as opposed to taking a loud stance if she’s not an expert so to speak. Just more trouble and she’s already dealing with enough shitheads.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Expecation that she should take on the pro Israel lobby because she's a socialist is a bit loco. She is doing well right now and should concentrate on domestic affairs. She will surely get the knowledge and experience going forward.

EDIT: Roseguy got there a couple of minutes ago
 
Sweet Square said:
AOC it seems has pretty much given up on foreign policy after the her "I'm not the expert on geo politics" when talking about Israil and Palestine which could be said to be a smart move but does feck help to the Palestines and the idea of international solidarity. Which ok is fine for a liberal like Warren but for a socialist its bad politics.
Click to expand...

She's perhaps gauged she's not particularly clued up on international politics at the moment and so is best off sticking to domestic issues for now. Which is fine. Better she harnesses her energy in that regard when she's not got any actual power instead of risking looking foolish on foreign policy matters she's potentially unsure about.
 
2cents said:
AOC seems smart (from the little I've seen of her). On this issue at least, Omar doesn't. There are thoughtful, nuanced ways to go about criticizing the role of AIPAC in helping to shape American foreign policy in that part of the world, but a blunt reflexive reference to "the benjamins" isn't it. With her previous comment on how Israel "hypnotized the world" she's leaving herself open to the attack-dogs from the opposing party.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that it inflamed people who were actively looking for reasons to be pissed off, I'm not sure there was too much wrong with that. A slightly snarky approach on Twitter pales in comparison to what plenty of other US politicians have come out with in recent years.

Although the "hypnotized" comment I'd agree is very problematic.
 
Cheesy said:
Aside from the fact that it inflamed people who were actively looking for reasons to be pissed off, I'm not sure there was too much wrong with that. A slightly snarky approach on Twitter pales in comparison to what plenty of other US politicians have come out with in recent years.

Although the "hypnotized" comment I'd agree is very problematic.
Click to expand...

Especially galling when Republicans regularly go after Soros and the other rich guy who keeps demanding Trump's impeachment as 'buying' the election.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm not sure there was too much wrong with that
Click to expand...

Perceived connotations/dog-whistles and previous comments aside, it's something like the equivalent of just saying "it's all about the oil" in reference to the Iraq War. It doesn't really mean anything substantive and no thought went into it, it's just a reflexive, cliched way to reduce a complex issue to a conspiratorial soundbite. A Twitter comment typical of the Age of Trump, which in this case she (like many others unfortunately, including many of those attacking her right now) has failed to rise above.
 
Florida Man said:
Good thing she’s a House rep so the majority of her focus is inherently going to be for her district. And it’s less of a loss for her to not engage with that as opposed to taking a loud stance if she’s not an expert so to speak. Just more trouble and she’s already dealing with enough shitheads.
Click to expand...


Cheesy said:
She's perhaps gauged she's not particularly clued up on international politics at the moment and so is best off sticking to domestic issues for now. Which is fine. Better she harnesses her energy in that regard when she's not got any actual power instead of risking looking foolish on foreign policy matters she's potentially unsure about.
Click to expand...

Meh that's a kop out for me. Firstly it's the United States, the most powerful country in the world, if your going into politics then international politics is just as important as anything domestically. Secondly the United States isn't a bystander in international politics, its hands are bloody everywhere, the lets wait and see approach doesn't cut it. Especially when the expectations of these positions really wouldn't be anything other than the most basic left views. I actually want a left or whatever a left consist of in the US to have some sort of theory, to be smart. Not just to moralise how good Norway is.

A great pieces by Corey Robin in Jacobin

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-israel-palestine-occupation

So, again, this isn’t about Palestine only. Or I should say, Palestine is the proverbial canary in a coal mine. From Palestine you get into the question of the Middle East as a whole, which leads to US foreign policy as a whole, and issues of budgets, spending, war, peace, and all the rest. All the more reason for Ocasio-Cortez to get up to speed on it.

Like it or not, Ocasio-Cortez has been elevated to a national position of leadership and visibility on the Left. If she wins in the general election, as everyone believes she will, every single thing she says and does will be watched and scrutinized. It simply will not do to say, oh, she’s only twenty-eight, oh, the media is so nasty, oh, let’s not have circular firing squads. The media is always nasty, the Left will always be critical of its leaders, and one day, soon, Ocasio-Cortez will no longer be twenty-eight. To complain about any of these things is like shaking your fist at the weather (weather in the old-fashioned sense; before climate change).

People have turned to Ocasio-Cortez not simply because she won but because she’s good at what she does: she’s smart, fast, funny, and principled. Because she’s shown leadership. I understand the pressures she’s under. But as her star rises, the pressures will only increase. Ocasio-Cortez needs to be not only strong but also clear on this issue. She needs to be as subtle, dexterous, and sharp as she is on other issues, virtually every night on Twitter. This isn’t a game, especially when it comes to Israel. Or, if it is a game, she needs to be a better player.
Click to expand...

As for power I mean she hasn't actually got that much domestically other than changing the framing of the debate which of course she is very good at. So there really is no reason to try this on foreign policy other than this could cause a political backlash. Which if that's the case then say good bye to any of her other proposals and hardly the position of a self proclaimed radical.

But yes this is me being very super critically.
 
I thought 'Are you left enough' only applies to Clinton and Harris kind of figures. Does it really extend to someone like AOC as well? Socialism doesn't come with the 'Free Palestine' bumper sticker. I understand it's an issue close to many but to implore AOC to start playing 'games' every night on Twitter to prove her credential is a bit too much. That is in my opinion.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I thought 'Are you left enough' only applies to Clinton and Harris kind of figures. Does it really extend to someone like AOC as well? Socialism doesn't come with the 'Free Palestine' bumper sticker. I understand it's an issue close to many but to implore AOC to start playing 'games' every night on Twitter to prove her credential is a bit too much. That is in my opinion.
Click to expand...
My problem comes from simply saying the word socialism doesn't mean you are a socialist and really this is a bigger issue with "Democratic Socialism".

As much as I would disagree with Warren she actually does have a political ideology that 1)Makes sense 2)She understands. Warren knows she is a old school new deal liberal who believes in a reformed capitalism with strong workers rights but doesn't question private property. All good and fine and there's a successful history of this type of politics.

But ask a Democratic Socialist what democratic socialism means and you'll get a bunch of contradictions, how great Norway is, strong moralism and of course the less radical part of MLK(Everyone should go and listen to Kings views on US foreign policy to see how far behind the US left is today).

AOC was asked in recent interview what does democratic socialism mean and apparently she believes it's capitalism and socialism working together and about workers getting their fair share of the profits.

As I said before I want a left that is smart and knows what it's talking about. And considering American history of red baiting and well socialism not so great history of state power, why call yourself a socialist when you don't believe in it or don't know what the hell it is. It's a political stupid move that creates extra hassle for what are very good policy proposals.

Also I have to add in that Bernie Sanders is a 200 years old senator and is also potentially running for president and yet he finds the time to talk about a range of international politics such as Yemen, Brazil, Israil and Palestine etc. If Bernie can do it so can any other lefty.
 
Sweet Square said:
My problem comes from simply saying the word socialism doesn't mean you are a socialist and really this is a bigger issue with "Democratic Socialism".

As much as I would disagree with Warren she actually does have a political ideology that 1)Makes sense 2)She understands. Warren knows she is a old school new deal liberal who believes in a reformed capitalism with strong workers rights but doesn't question private property. All good and fine and there's a successful history of this type of politics.

But ask a Democratic Socialist what democratic socialism means and you'll get a bunch of contradictions, how great Norway is, strong moralism and of course the less radical part of MLK(Everyone should go and listen to Kings views on US foreign policy to see how far behind the US left is today).

AOC was asked in recent interview what does democratic socialism mean and apparently she believes it's capitalism and socialism working together and about workers getting their fair share of the profits.

As I said before I want a left that is smart and knows what it's talking about. And considering American history of red baiting and well socialism not so great history of state power, why call yourself a socialist when you don't believe in it or don't know what the hell it is. It's a political stupid move that creates extra hassle for what are very good policy proposals.

Also I have to add in that Bernie Sanders is a 200 years old senator and is also potentially running for president and yet he finds the time to talk about a range of international politics such as Yemen, Brazil, Israil and Palestine etc. If Bernie can do it so can any other lefty.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders need to talk about all that. AOC is a freshman Congresswoman who has been elected at a very young age who has time on her side. You don't expect a bartender in NYC who has been pushed into politics as an activitst to be pushing international politics daily? Also, Sanders is not some sort of watermark that others have to test themselves on and push themselves to the left of him.

Well, let's leave it here.
 
Sweet Square said:
Also I have to add in that Bernie Sanders is a 200 years old senator and is also potentially running for president and yet he finds the time to talk about a range of international politics such as Yemen, Brazil, Israil and Palestine etc. If Bernie can do it so can any other lefty.
Click to expand...
:lol: Let’s see. A seasoned Senator of more than 30 years vs a freshman Congresswomen who is under 30 years old and you’re expecting the latter to be just like the former. AOC’s primary focus is on her district. And to be fair to her, she’s pushing the conversation on climate change which is far more important than pushing the conversation on Palestine.
 
Florida Man said:
:lol: Let’s see. A seasoned Senator of more than 30 years vs a freshman Congresswomen who is under 30 years old and you’re expecting the latter to be just like the former. AOC’s primary focus is on her district. And to be fair to her, she’s pushing the conversation on climate change which is far more important than pushing the conversation on Palestine.
Click to expand...
Not I'm expecting her to be clued up on very basic left foreign policy ideas.
 
Florida Man said:
:lol: Let’s see. A seasoned Senator of more than 30 years vs a freshman Congresswomen who is under 30 years old and you’re expecting the latter to be just like the former. AOC’s primary focus is on her district. And to be fair to her, she’s pushing the conversation on climate change which is far more important than pushing the conversation on Palestine.
Click to expand...

The new crop of lefties will quickly figure out that being anti-Israel will be more of a detriment than a benefit to advancing their other policies. Whether they will drop the issue in favor of advancing their broader agenda is another matter.
 
Raoul said:
The new crop of lefties will quickly figure out that being anti-Israel will be more of a detriment than a benefit to advancing their other policies. Whether they will drop the issue in favor of advancing their broader agenda is another matter.
Click to expand...

Sanders a Jew is hardly Pro-Israel on all matters.
If you stand on principles you preserve your integrity.
 
Red Dreams said:
Sanders a Jew is hardly Pro-Israel on all matters.
If you stand on principles you preserve your integrity.
Click to expand...

Sanders having nuanced positions on issues like Israel, Guns, and Drones is a positive for him imo.
 
Raoul said:
The new crop of lefties will quickly figure out that being anti-Israel will be more of a detriment than a benefit to advancing their other policies. Whether they will drop the issue in favor of advancing their broader agenda is another matter.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, I don't doubt a district in the Bronx would have a fairly large Jewish contingency too.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Not really, Mccarthy was about to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. Was he not? You puritans are going to be the death of us
Click to expand...
I really don't know what this post means.

I'm just pointing out that a lot of pressure on Omar came not from the GOP but from her own party - including the united House leadership.

McCarthy's petition to remove her doesn't is meaningless since the Dems control the House- but it does have weight if there are Democrats willing to vote for her impeachment. Of course the GOP will vote against her - that is politics. But they don't (alone) have the power to remove her.

I don't see how I'm being a puritan.
...

@2cents
Her apology was welcomed by the entire party including AOC, I don't think anyone defended her. Again, I don't think the current Dem party is divided on Israel, and I'm skeptical they will be no matter their base
...

Just so everyone is clear about this: she wasn't punished for anti-semitic implications of her tweet.
a. Forget implications, Steve King has explicitly said that white supremacy should be welcomed. There are no impeachment proceedings against him, even though his party is in the minority in the House.
b. Kevin McCarthy, the very guy calling for Omar's impeachment, has tweeted about Soros' influence on the Dems. Singling out "Soros, Bloomberg and Steyer" as donors has about as much anti-semitic implication as Omar's tweet. There's been nothing, zilch, against him, apology not asked for and not given.

So no, she's not being punished for implied anti-semitism, since no one else gets punished for open racism or implied anti-semitism. She's he centre of attention for the reasons I mentioned above (new and vulnerable/not established, visibly Muslim, bad tweets some years ago, left-of-centre and thus an irritant to the leadership) along with the simple fact that AIPAC does indeed have genuine bipartisan appeal in Congress and would not have been happy with her stance on Israel and her focus on their free trips to Israel for new Congress members.
 
Last edited:
I think the overriding difference between the two parties right now is that the dems - particularly the new ones - want to in some way use policy to change America.

The GOP just want to be in power, and that is it. There are no policies. There is no consistency on issues. If Trump decides tomorrow morning after receiving a particularly good breakfast hamberder from an undocumented immigrant that all immigrants who can cook should be allowed in without question, there's at least 50% of the GOP that would follow suit.

Reminder, the GOP chose Mitch McConnell to lead the senate. This is a man who literally doesn't allow any policy discussion to take place unless it suits him. No debate, no votes unless he deems it good for his chances of staying in power so...he can stay in power. Best example is the criminal justice reform bill that just passed - it was bipartisan and had the votes to pass into law under Obama. So McConnell just wouldn't allow a vote, because it would be viewed as a win for the 'other team'. That is the most cynical bullsh*t in the world, and any right-minded person should have voted out the turtle-faced scumbag. Instead he'll scaremonger and gerrymander his way to victory by getting all the stupid votes.

There shouldn't be false equivalency here. And I should say that through college (a fair while back admittedly) I was more GOP leaning, because I genuinely believed in a fair number of their economic policies. But the GOP is no more. It exists as a negative. It is simply anti-issue. It stands for nothing constructive, and that just won't move a country forwards.
 
Anyone who actually thinks and the Democratic Party and Republican party is the same needs their head examined. It's cop out or lazy ass thing to say when you're either not following politics or wanna score some cheap talking point shot that has nothing to do with the reality of American politics.
 
Il Prete Rosso said:
Anyone who actually thinks and the Democratic Party and Republican party is the same needs their head examined. It's cop out or lazy ass thing to say when you're either not following politics or wanna score some cheap talking point shot that has nothing to do with the reality of American politics.
Click to expand...

Only people on the fringes believe they're exactly the same, although there are unsettling similarities in certain areas in terms of how both parties are funded etc.
 
Il Prete Rosso said:
Anyone who actually thinks and the Democratic Party and Republican party is the same needs their head examined. It's cop out or lazy ass thing to say when you're either not following politics or wanna score some cheap talking point shot that has nothing to do with the reality of American politics.
Click to expand...

no one says they are exactly the same but they have far more in common than most people will admit. they are both right wing parties fully committed to the death of the planet and an imperialist foreign policy.

 
Eboue said:
no one says they are exactly the same but they have far more in common than most people will admit. they are both right wing parties fully committed to the death of the planet and an imperialist foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Wow, I mean wow, no words for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.