Jill Stein can claim to not be a member of a party engage in genocide, can AOC say the same? neuman

Tweet

  • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So true, think of everything AOC has accomplished since being elected….. all that delectable tangible change

    • huf [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      yep, she changed her public face to better line up with her values.

      remember, her values havent changed.

    • Hexboare [they/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      She managed to get all the kids out of cages

      They're in migrant overflow facilities now but like, good vibes just relax now.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If you want to see an actual compromise between "idealism and pragmatism", look at Nelson Mandela post 1990, when he was freed from prison and proceeded to become the first democratically elected president of South Africa. While many compromises had to be made for pragmatic reasons given the state of the world at the time, It is important to note that Mandela never abandoned his principles. He remained a staunch supporter of Palestine and Cuba, called out the US to their faces during interviews, and stuck to his values.

    What AOC is doing is abandoning any values she had in the first place, if she ever had them. That is not "idealism vs pragmatism", that's just plain old opportunism and desire for power and/or influence.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      To beltway ghouls, pragmatic policy isn't about accomplishing anything. It starts and ends with getting elected. So pragmatism is all about toeing the party line, sweet talking donors, and gerrymandering.

  • vovchik_ilich [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    idealism vs. pragmatism

    Cries in 150 years old "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Friedrich Engels

    "The realistic thing is achieving meaningful change using the legal path and through the pre-existing institutions, as has never happened in history, as opposed to through worker organizing and revolutionary means!"

    • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
      ·
      2 months ago

      I saw this tweet that was something like “Marx didn’t consider x! *goes on to reinvent political tendency Marx spent essays railing against” and it’s proving to be pretty evergreen

      • vovchik_ilich [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        Marx and Lenin dunked so hard on reformists that I can't help but be surprised that these "debates" still take place 150 years later (100 for Lenin)

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because actually reading Marx is impossible for them. They know that they'd have to actually argue against his points if they read his books so they didn't and instead try to imagine what he said.

  • blame [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    When does this "pragmatism" pay off? When does it deliver results? This is the question these people never address. What is the purpose of being pragmatic?

    I'm old enough to have been around for a fair few election cycles now and I'm not sure I've ever actually seen things meaningfully change for the positive. All of the change I've been seeing throughout my life is a worsening of conditions for the majority of people, except in China and perhaps the EU until the last 10 years or so.

    • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Always makes me think of that James Baldwin quote where he says something about “you told my uncle to wait, my mother to wait, me to wait. How long do we have to wait for your progress?” Like people are suffering now. The constraints around fixing this stuff is entirely arbitrary, and asking people to just accept this shit in the name of “pragmatism” is absolutely infuriating to me

    • Infamousblt [any]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Pragmatism is building power forever without ever actually using that power

        • Infamousblt [any]
          ·
          2 months ago

          Those don't require political power because both parties equally support them

    • Barx [none/use name]
      ·
      2 months ago

      "Pragmatic" is a weasel word that, in this context, means "supports the party line even for genocide".

      • blame [they/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        i dont know why you deleted this, i managed to read through it and thought it was thoughtful and insightful.

        • peeonyou [he/him]
          ·
          2 months ago

          yeah i was just reading it and made it half through before i upvoted and it disappeared :(

        • RiotDoll [she/her, she/her]
          ·
          2 months ago

          i genuinely gave myself anxiety over the thought of leaving it up, but i appreciate the sentiment

  • Rojo27 [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    AOC can't even say she hasn't actively supported the genocide by lending her wholehearted support to the people commiting genocide.

  • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Then: staging a climate-change sit-in in Nancy Pelosi's office
    Now: Endorsing the guy who approved even more public oil and gas leases than his predecessor seconds before he drops out of the race.

    Pragmatism rating: 💯
    Power rating: 💯

  • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    AyyyyyOC "If you confuse 'change' with 'improvement' that's on you!"

    But really, I'm pretty sure that anyone who vociferously defended the Joe Biden campaign doesn't get to accuse people of running unserious and predatory campaigns... thinking-about-it

  • plinky [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    So that's why shitlibs suddenly remembered about green party existence ✍

  • usa_suxxx [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is very condescending for someone who is part of a party that ostensibly believes in the Democratic System. Voters are little unserious babies incapable of making their own decisions.They are being conned, etc. Like with this rhetoric from "one of the progressives", I can imagine in 10 years, Republicans will be running on reinstituting disenfranchisement on the Federal level and in 15, the Dems will be like, we can do that but better!

    • LaGG_3 [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      I can imagine in 10 years, Republicans will be running on reinstituting disenfranchisement on the Federal level and in 15, the Dems will be like, we can do that but better!

      the-democrat The Republicans want to disenfranchise all women and poc, but we only want to disenfranchise the poor ones!

  • Barabas [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Pragmatism is providing cover for a sham ceasefire negotiation that she knew damn well was bullshit to allieviate any pressure on Harris to change course.

    The dems have steadily been lurching right along with the republicans. They ratified almost every disastrous idea that Trump did, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, the border wall and dropping the Iran nuclear deal entirely, and have gone further calling him a coward for not attacking Iran. Soon we will have the harm reduction and pragmatism be about only conducting 2 genocides instead of 3. You don't have to be good, you just have to be slightly less bad.

  • DerRedMax [comrade/them, any]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Unpopular opinion, maybe, but in the critique of Stein, AOC is not wrong.

    Of course she could have made the case at any point in her political career but she just happened to point this out as polls are showing a 50-50 split between Harris and Stein amongst Muslim voters.

    Locally, the Green Party has been successful here, but you’re not going to see Stein sharing a stage with down ticket candidates. In an off-year election, she won’t be going around the country building the party.

    I feel bad for voters who see the Green Party as a legitimate third party. I’m sure at least some of them would like to have someone else as their nominee every four years.

    But this is about getting a member of the squad to scold the progressives into voting blue no matter who.

    • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      AOC's claim: The green party is "not serious" and is "predatory"

      For a "not serious" party, they've garnered more ballot access than any other option. I'd say AOC is worried precisely because the green party is serious. And "predatory"? That's big pot-kettle energy. The "predation" from the greens boils down to "gee, it sure sucks that the Democrats won't abandon literal genocide to earn your vote."

    • usa_suxxx [they/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      The critique AOC made against the Greens is just as valid against the Dems except the Dems are actually predatory since no one voting for the Greens actually believes they will win. This is the annoying part to me.

  • newacctidk [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The present writer cannot ride up the Falls Road in his own motor car, the penny tram has to do him. But thank God, there are no fresh made graves in Flanders or the Dardanelles filled by the mangled corpses of men whom he coaxed or bullied into leaving their homes and families.

    And that consolation counts more to the peace of his soul than would the possession of a motor car, or the companionship of grossly overfed boon companions of the bottlewasher – or of the bottle.

  • micnd90 [he/him,any]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Pragmatic lawmaker means you actually accomplish something, like passing a bill into law, not just sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills that then die at the floor or Senate. An example of pragmatic lawmaker who saved countless lives is Ralph Nader, he got the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and seatbelt. Winning election without achieving anything doesn't count.