People should see her full statement, but it's not helping anyone. "Every justification you have for frothing at the mouth to invade Cuba is correct, but we shouldn't do anything about it" is the most harmful form of liberal compromise you can make in as statement like this. It's attempting to look 'reasonable' to your opponents in a way that undercuts any point you're trying to make. This statement is a sandbag to the left, gives cover to democrats to hem and haw for a bit before continuing the embargo, and enrages the right. All this says to the right, and right-leaning democrats is that "Even the left agrees that Cuba is an evil dictatorship, they just don't have the stomach for the violence that needs to be done."
No, Segorinder has it right I think. She's making the kind of move you saw some demorcats pull in the lead up to the Iraq War. They oppose war but agree with all the premises to war. It's mollifies the left and creates cover against any anti-imperialist protest movement that might pop up.
"Those commies are crazy! Even AOC can see that Cuba is Bad and Not Good!"
Right, but she starts by riling people up about the "anti-democratic" government doing "gross violations of civil rights". If you believe in that (and AOC says you should) then ending the embargo does nothing to solve that problem.
She's sincere about the "anti-democratic" comments but insincere about ending the embargo (but for some reason said it anyway).
She's sincere about ending the embargo but insincere about the "anti-democratic" comments (but for some reason said it anyway).
She's sincere about both, maybe because she knows enough to understand that the embargo is bad, but still hasn't come around to the fact that the Cuban government is actually democratic.
I don't know or care what AOC personally believes about this, the effect of her statement is to manufacture consent for regime change, then turn around and say 'but let's not do that'.
She literally called for an end to the embargo. It's ridiculous to portray a statement expressly opposed to our policy towards Cuba as supportive of our policy towards Cuba.
Textually, the argument that she's making is a left wing one, but by making 'concessions' to state department talking points, she's muddying left wing arguments and strengthening right wing ones, and doing more harm than good.
Saying the embargo should end is great, but when you just finished giving statements that are going to get americans bloodthirsty for regime change, pulling a 180 like that isn't going to work. It either leads people to think we need to do regime change through other methods, or like I said, makes people think that leftists actually want regime change, but don't have the stomach for it.
I partly agree with you. The thing I don't exactly agree is, she didn't have to use regime change arguments. She could have stated how the people are suffering and how lifting the sanctions could ease the suffering. She does that thing where she explains herself before even being under attack
I can imagine a better statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has to operate in an environment where she's the only sitting congressperson (and probably the only congressperson in decades) to call for the end to the embargo. A politician who openly said the consensus opinion of this place would never get any measure of political power. Do we want to have any power, or do we want to be on the sidelines patting each other on the back about how perfect our takes are?
The bottom line is she suggested something that's far to the left of any national politician on this issue, and that's the #1 thing the U.S. could do to end its imperialism towards Cuba. This place is slipping into dead-end ultraleft territory if our collective response is that this makes her worse in our eyes, not better.
You're being intentionally obtuse or are too tired to have this conversation and should consider logging off. It is very clear what we're all referring to regarding regime change talking points. Take five minutes to stop straw manning everyone and actually deal with your comrades' points.
Yes, a statement that includes "end the embargo" also has a bunch of regime change talking points. In fact, it leads with them. Did you miss that? Do you need us to walk you through the statement? Of course not, you are a perfectly competent human.
So yes, please try to have good faith with comrades. Actually attempt to understand what they're saying rather than going for the really fucking stupid lazy dunk.
People should see her full statement, but it's not helping anyone. "Every justification you have for frothing at the mouth to invade Cuba is correct, but we shouldn't do anything about it" is the most harmful form of liberal compromise you can make in as statement like this. It's attempting to look 'reasonable' to your opponents in a way that undercuts any point you're trying to make. This statement is a sandbag to the left, gives cover to democrats to hem and haw for a bit before continuing the embargo, and enrages the right. All this says to the right, and right-leaning democrats is that "Even the left agrees that Cuba is an evil dictatorship, they just don't have the stomach for the violence that needs to be done."
Literally calling for the end of the embargo
No, Segorinder has it right I think. She's making the kind of move you saw some demorcats pull in the lead up to the Iraq War. They oppose war but agree with all the premises to war. It's mollifies the left and creates cover against any anti-imperialist protest movement that might pop up.
"Those commies are crazy! Even AOC can see that Cuba is Bad and Not Good!"
Right, but she starts by riling people up about the "anti-democratic" government doing "gross violations of civil rights". If you believe in that (and AOC says you should) then ending the embargo does nothing to solve that problem.
One of three things is going on here:
Option 3 looks like the most plausible to me.
I don't know or care what AOC personally believes about this, the effect of her statement is to manufacture consent for regime change, then turn around and say 'but let's not do that'.
She literally called for an end to the embargo. It's ridiculous to portray a statement expressly opposed to our policy towards Cuba as supportive of our policy towards Cuba.
Textually, the argument that she's making is a left wing one, but by making 'concessions' to state department talking points, she's muddying left wing arguments and strengthening right wing ones, and doing more harm than good.
Saying the embargo should end is great, but when you just finished giving statements that are going to get americans bloodthirsty for regime change, pulling a 180 like that isn't going to work. It either leads people to think we need to do regime change through other methods, or like I said, makes people think that leftists actually want regime change, but don't have the stomach for it.
I partly agree with you. The thing I don't exactly agree is, she didn't have to use regime change arguments. She could have stated how the people are suffering and how lifting the sanctions could ease the suffering. She does that thing where she explains herself before even being under attack
I can imagine a better statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has to operate in an environment where she's the only sitting congressperson (and probably the only congressperson in decades) to call for the end to the embargo. A politician who openly said the consensus opinion of this place would never get any measure of political power. Do we want to have any power, or do we want to be on the sidelines patting each other on the back about how perfect our takes are?
The bottom line is she suggested something that's far to the left of any national politician on this issue, and that's the #1 thing the U.S. could do to end its imperialism towards Cuba. This place is slipping into dead-end ultraleft territory if our collective response is that this makes her worse in our eyes, not better.
The "shouldn't do anything about it" is about presenting regime change talking points without calling for regime change.
"End the embargo because it's senseless cruelty" is a regime change talking point?
Try to have a modicum of good faith.
You're reading a statement that says "end the embargo" as support for regime change, and you want to talk about good faith?
You're being intentionally obtuse or are too tired to have this conversation and should consider logging off. It is very clear what we're all referring to regarding regime change talking points. Take five minutes to stop straw manning everyone and actually deal with your comrades' points.
Yes, a statement that includes "end the embargo" also has a bunch of regime change talking points. In fact, it leads with them. Did you miss that? Do you need us to walk you through the statement? Of course not, you are a perfectly competent human.
So yes, please try to have good faith with comrades. Actually attempt to understand what they're saying rather than going for the really fucking stupid lazy dunk.
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
Please try to have a modicum of good faith.