That photo op was a clear ambush. I'm not surprised that people fell for it tho as you can just make things up about certain people and everyone will fall for it.
Idk what you're talking about, surely the (allegedly) CIA linked coup supporters wouldn't stage a photo op with a popular outspoken opponent of the coup... they couldn't possibly have known that her base would be divided on the op.
I just realized, we really have to be prepared to accidentally talk to weird CIA people because they are going to be talking to us and like you said, try and divide us.
There definitely are folks online, and in a more limited fashion in person, which seek to sabotage leftists groups/movements.
Look at the ops they did back in the 50-70s under COINTELPRO, infiltrating groups and starting rumors about prominent members, intimidating and blackmailing, proposing actions that would harm groups public image in order to stifle membership.
I mean if you read them, you can tell they're still using the same tactics today.
People definitely need to do a better job of mitigating this, I think.
A lot of points here is why I think bigger left-ish groups like the DSA need to move towards greater centralism.
Let the local chapters come up with programs for local issues, but anything national comes down from a national committee. I realize this is basically how it works today, but the delegates are based on chapter membership (1 for every 4-5 members/chapter), not something like 1-2 delegates per chapter.
A big chapter can be infiltrated and have outsized influence on the results of the convention.
It's way too easy for people to just come up with random resolutions and ideas that may already have an outlet for action and just jam up the whole process. This kind of happened at DSA2019 NC
I am fairly convinced I saw this in action during the Occupy movement.. I 95% sure the cops were paying homeless people to do most of the things on your list. It sucks because they're homeless and nobody really pushed back.. but it was every day and fairly obvious.
The DSA needs centralism, but with its current member/leadership, greater centralism will make them turn into yet another weak "progressive" group like MoveOn.org or something
The problem is that there's also a lot of prominent "Leftists" who might not be in the CIA, but are also very much not down for the cause. I'm sorry, but anyone who has mingled in elite circles needs to be treated with suspicion as a matter of fact. It's piss-easy to infiltrate the Left as some sort of non-profit career ghoul by consuming the right media and parroting some memes.
During the latest BLM protests multiple different people in my city alone (all of whom were somewhat respected young black folks themselves) were paid by the city to redirect protestors away from the core area and stop them from fucking with a police precinct. This shit is proven not remote speculation as documents have been leaked.
This was being done by local departments, not anything higher level than that. "Counter insurgency" as it relates to left wing infiltration happens not just from the government but also from private organizations themselves.
The point is, if it remotely looks like an op, it's better to just assume that it is one, because those folks are at best just useful idiots being manipulated by an actual operation.
If AOC hadn't frequently said she "deferred to the [Democratic] Party line" on foreign policy issues, I would not have believed the photo op.
I'm glad she learned about the conditions in Bolivia, and decided to stand with the Bolivian people. That does not absolve the fact that her first instincts are to parrot the Democratic Party line on international issues.
She is a political opportunist who will fall in line with her imperialist party in order to further her political aims. I generally support her political aims, but I can also recognize her opportunism and criticize her.
The Democratic Party did not whip opposition to Bolivia. The most reactionary line in the Democratic Party on Bolivia was "investigate the voter fraud and hold new elections."
Supporting Bolivia did not impede AOC's social democratic aims. If the Democratic Party whipped their rank-and-file to the degree they did with Libya or Syria, I'm confident AOC would have had a different line.
If AOC hadn’t frequently said she “deferred to the [Democratic] Party line” on foreign policy issues, I would not have believed the photo op.
She said that one time, that I know of, regarding Venezuela 8 weeks into her first term. She's since spoken out against rightwing coups in SA and taken actual legislative action to prevent the US from directly arming people in Bolivia.
Its ok to critique her and other "good libs", but at some point you have to put some of these things into a little more context. Maduro didn't need her to do anything - he has Venezuela locked up.. he's like the next Castro almost in terms of his resilience. She lent her support where it was needed.
Last edit: Having said all that - rather than make hypothetical up... continue to critique AOC when she actually does things that are bad as they happen. Like with Ilhan Omar and the Armenian Genocide thing, wtf was that? She got roasted and apologized. Do it in the moment and it's good...
I went to a meeting the Venezuelan ambassador organised last year where they explained they were calculating the deaths the US siege has cost Venezuela and placed it 80,000 deaths and their citizens were losing weight as staple goods were becoming harder to distribute
Her answer on that was shit and everyone knows it. Ilhan Omar outright unequivocally denounced Guaido having any such legitimacy. aoc could have just done the same. I think it just needs to be said that anti imperialism is not just not doing imperialism, it involves actively countering imperialism.
Maduro didn’t need her to do anything - he has Venezuela locked up
He needs help ending the US siege on Venezuela!
The government AOC works for has prevented necessities from entering the country, sanctioned companies which work with Venezuela, and pressured international bank to freeze assets owned by the Venezuelan government.
She said that one time, that I know of, regarding Venezuela 8 weeks into her first term.
And what has she said on Venezuela since?
Last time I heard her comment on Venezuela, it was to clarify her idea of "socialism" was more like Finland & Sweden, and completely different from Venezuela.
It is politically convenient for her to enable imperialism against Venezuela because the Democratic Party is invested in that imperialist endeavor. If she attempted to correct the record on the situation in Venezuela, she would face tremendous backlash from her superiors and the Liberal media. Backlash she did not face for supporting Bolivia.
I was a leader in advocating for Venezuelan freedom
Jesus Christ. It's good that she materially opposed the coup in Bolivia, but if she could do literally anything about Venezuela, that would be great. Or, for that matter, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, or the DPRK. Like, literally anything.
It seems like her support is contingent on whether or not the general public has been convinced that a country is "authoritarian".
she rt’d some shitlib thread about the dems failures with latinos going beyond rejection of m4a/gnd where the author happens to be a gusano. not ideal but a super fucking long way from “she supports the coup in venezuela”. get serious
She said that one time, that I know of, regarding Venezuela 8 weeks into her first term.
And it was a non-answer to an obvious trap question from the fucking National Review.
If we're materialists here, why are we getting upset every time someone doesn't snap at right-wing bait? Why are we dissecting every statement someone makes in the first place? Words don't matter anywhere near as much as actions do. Why care about some answer AOC gave two years ago when she's helping keep U.S. weapons out of the hands of a coup government?
Max Blumenthal does not work for the fucking National Review my god...
You do highlight the fact that her statements on Venezuela are not a one-time thing. It's an ongoing line she has parroted since 2018.
Words don’t matter anywhere near as much as actions do. Why cares about some answer AOC gave two years ago when she’s helping keep U.S. weapons out of the hands of a coup government?
Choosing not to act is an action.
Her actions and words shows that she supports the US siege of Venezuela. Her actions in solidarity with Bolivia is evidence that she has some power to influence the conditions in these countries. This is all the more reason to criticize her line on Venezuela.
Ocasio Cortez, sometimes referred to as AOC, was asked in an interview with the National Review if she sees President Maduro as legitimate, for which she replied, "I defer to caucus leadership on how we navigate this."
Criticizing her over some unspecified hypothetical action she could have taken is weak sauce, especially when she has some concrete good action on her record.
Yes, you are quoting one of the several times she said exactly that.
Criticizing her over some unspecified hypothetical action she could have taken is weak sauce, especially when she has some concrete good action on her record.
It is fair to criticize a representative of a government who is carrying out a starvation campaign against a socialist country, especially if they refuse to comment nor take action.
I don't understand the brain worms it takes to reach a different conclusion.
If you're going to keep saying she's said this repeatedly, let's see some links.
especially if they refuse to comment nor take action
Can she unilaterally change U.S. policy towards Venezuela? No? Then it becomes a question of what she's actually able to do. So what is she actually able to do -- that would have any real effect -- that she isn't doing? Is she failing to do anything that wouldn't just immediately be shot down?
If you’re going to keep saying she’s said this repeatedly, let’s see some links.
To start. She could say this a million times and it would not change your opinion.
So what is she actually able to do – that would have any real effect – that she isn’t doing? Is she failing to do anything that wouldn’t just immediately be shot down?
The Democratic Party mantra.
If AOC stayed silent on the issue of Bolivia, I'm sure you would offer the same defense of her. People were back when her only statement on the coup was the photo op.
I do not care about political opportunism. You can use this same line to uncritically defend any politician. I hear this shit about Trump and Biden all the time.
If a politician can't actually do what you want them to do, blaming them is ridiculous.
To have any sort of worthwhile discussion about this, you have to dig into the reality of what's possible and what's actually been done. That will be different in different situations. Lumping all situations into one "everyone has excuses" bucket is as silly as laying equal blame at a 5-foot person and a 7-foot person for not being able to dunk a basketball.
I agree, that's why I voted for Biden in the primary. I'm sure you did too. Or are we only supposed to make the "tactical calculations" you agree with?
But there's a tactical reason to propose those bills: they have the massive political support needed to advance any sort of leftist movement. An anti-sanction bill on Venezuela or Cuba or Iran would do the opposite.
Obama ran on healthcare. Biden ran on "remember Obama?"
Americans are notoriously ignorant about the rest of the world. Foreign policy in elections is more about talking points than anything substantive. It's mostly trap questions that voters will give you no credit for acing.
It’s mostly trap questions that voters will give you no credit for acing.
There's no benefit -- nothing will pass, and she will gain no supporters even if she makes the best argument possible -- and she will get dragged through the :vuvuzela: mud by even non-chud media if she breaks ranks.
You are probably the most evil person who posts here regularly.
How do you hope to get anything done if you're that far detached from reality? Calling other leftists evil for having the gall to point out that politicians make compromises is cop shit.
You are saying AOC’s line on Venezuela is good, correct
No, I'm saying that it's understandable for politicians to give non-answers when no movement on the issue is possible, and when you can only lose ground by getting drawn in to a discussion. I'm saying we shouldn't rake one of the furthest-left politicians in the country over the coals because they're making an understandable compromise on such an issue.
You're not just arguing against that, you're calling that evil. Get your head out of your ass and go talk to someone who isn't a terminally-online leftist.
I’m saying that it’s understandable for politicians to give non-answers when no movement on the issue is possible
The Democrats have removed sanctions on Venezuela before during Chavez's leadership. It is significantly more "possible" than Medicare for All or Green New Deal. The Democratic Party would not exist without the medical industry or the oil industry.
You don't see me bringing this fact up to be like "See? AOC should not talk about these things at all! She should stick to what's possible." Because that is reactionary nonsense you hear from people trying to stonewall progress.
You refuse to admit that because you care about those issues, and you do not care about the people suffering under the US sanction regime.
That is why you are fucking evil. You are aware of how the Democrats function. But you hold out hope that if your favorite politician does imperialism good enough, they'll give you health care.
What's politically possible changes over the course of a decade.
And again with the cop shit. Calling other leftists evil wrecks organizations, full stop. Hope online pissing matches feel good, because you're not ending imperialism, you're not getting healthcare, you're not agreeing on what fucking movie to watch if you turn disagreements about the best way forward into "you, personally, are evil."
Try that shit out on anyone who's working through the process of radicalization and they'll look at you like you're one of those libertarians booing driver's licenses. Just an asshole living in another reality who's totally disinterested in getting anything done.
You'd be surprised how infrequently "yes, the US does imperialism against Venezuela, but AOC commenting on it has 'no benefit'" comes up in organizing.
In fact, it has never came up for me. Anti-Venezuelan sentiment has came up in my work exactly one time. A white woman crashed a Central American Task Force event to yell about how Chavez made her family eat trash.
I'm talking about finding one of the few people in this country who outright opposes capitalism, and then accusing them of irredeemable moral failings because of a disagreement over retail politics that has zero material impact either way.
Again, I'm begging you, pull your head out of your ass and don't act like you're trying to sabotage whatever group you're in.
There's nothing "irredeemable" about this, and I don't care that you "oppose capitalism."
You are arguing for social democratic candidates to go along with imperialism, because Americans may be rewarded with social democracy.
You are arguing that people should not criticize social democrats supporting empire because it may damage this negotiation. That is supremely evil.
You claim it is about "pragmatism", but it is not. If Cuba and Iran are any indicators, we are more likely to see sanctions dropped on Venezuela than we are to see Medicare for All implemented.
I will support the actions of politicians when they support my political aims. I will criticize them when they don’t.
This has been my line on AOC. This is the line you have been pushing back on. You don't want people criticizing AOC because you support her political calculations.
Again, I’m begging you, pull your head out of your ass and don’t act like you’re trying to sabotage whatever group you’re in.
Get over yourself. This is not an organization. We are not organizing. You got called something mean online for saying depraved shit.
Link to interview with Blumenthal? IIRC a lot of people lost their shit over the bait question meant to alienate her from the braindead american populace before she could gain any influence...
the bait question meant to alienate her from the braindead american populace before she could gain any influence
"The US must end the economic siege and illegal coup of Venezuela" can be said in response to any "bait question" about Venezuela. Her line of Venezuela is politicking within the Democratic Party.
I'm just not going to be silent when a politician enables imperialism, just because they do things I support occasionally. I can make the same justification to be silent on Biden.
I won't run for national office because it's only possible through the Democratic Party, and you will be forced to play their game or you will not last.
I'm going to continue doing work in my city through local unions. When a viable national workers party emerges, I will try to connect the organizing work I do now to it.
That photo op was a clear ambush. I'm not surprised that people fell for it tho as you can just make things up about certain people and everyone will fall for it.
Idk what you're talking about, surely the (allegedly) CIA linked coup supporters wouldn't stage a photo op with a popular outspoken opponent of the coup... they couldn't possibly have known that her base would be divided on the op.
That's kind of wacky :crazy-frog-trans:
I just realized, we really have to be prepared to accidentally talk to weird CIA people because they are going to be talking to us and like you said, try and divide us.
There definitely are folks online, and in a more limited fashion in person, which seek to sabotage leftists groups/movements.
Look at the ops they did back in the 50-70s under COINTELPRO, infiltrating groups and starting rumors about prominent members, intimidating and blackmailing, proposing actions that would harm groups public image in order to stifle membership.
I mean if you read them, you can tell they're still using the same tactics today.
People definitely need to do a better job of mitigating this, I think.
Problem is everyone believes the group they disagree with are COINTEPRO.
deleted by creator
A lot of points here is why I think bigger left-ish groups like the DSA need to move towards greater centralism.
Let the local chapters come up with programs for local issues, but anything national comes down from a national committee. I realize this is basically how it works today, but the delegates are based on chapter membership (1 for every 4-5 members/chapter), not something like 1-2 delegates per chapter.
A big chapter can be infiltrated and have outsized influence on the results of the convention.
It's way too easy for people to just come up with random resolutions and ideas that may already have an outlet for action and just jam up the whole process. This kind of happened at DSA2019 NC
I am fairly convinced I saw this in action during the Occupy movement.. I 95% sure the cops were paying homeless people to do most of the things on your list. It sucks because they're homeless and nobody really pushed back.. but it was every day and fairly obvious.
The DSA needs centralism, but with its current member/leadership, greater centralism will make them turn into yet another weak "progressive" group like MoveOn.org or something
It's on the Marxist caucuses to educate their branch in conjunction with pushing for centralism
Now I'm sincerely concerned about being called a fed for being wordy even though thats just because of my autism.
deleted by creator
The problem is that there's also a lot of prominent "Leftists" who might not be in the CIA, but are also very much not down for the cause. I'm sorry, but anyone who has mingled in elite circles needs to be treated with suspicion as a matter of fact. It's piss-easy to infiltrate the Left as some sort of non-profit career ghoul by consuming the right media and parroting some memes.
During the latest BLM protests multiple different people in my city alone (all of whom were somewhat respected young black folks themselves) were paid by the city to redirect protestors away from the core area and stop them from fucking with a police precinct. This shit is proven not remote speculation as documents have been leaked.
This was being done by local departments, not anything higher level than that. "Counter insurgency" as it relates to left wing infiltration happens not just from the government but also from private organizations themselves.
The point is, if it remotely looks like an op, it's better to just assume that it is one, because those folks are at best just useful idiots being manipulated by an actual operation.
link?
link if you can do it without doxxing yourself.
It's Seattle, look up Raz Simone and Andre Taylor.
👁️
If AOC hadn't frequently said she "deferred to the [Democratic] Party line" on foreign policy issues, I would not have believed the photo op.
I'm glad she learned about the conditions in Bolivia, and decided to stand with the Bolivian people. That does not absolve the fact that her first instincts are to parrot the Democratic Party line on international issues.
She is a political opportunist who will fall in line with her imperialist party in order to further her political aims. I generally support her political aims, but I can also recognize her opportunism and criticize her.
The Democratic Party did not whip opposition to Bolivia. The most reactionary line in the Democratic Party on Bolivia was "investigate the voter fraud and hold new elections."
Supporting Bolivia did not impede AOC's social democratic aims. If the Democratic Party whipped their rank-and-file to the degree they did with Libya or Syria, I'm confident AOC would have had a different line.
She said that one time, that I know of, regarding Venezuela 8 weeks into her first term. She's since spoken out against rightwing coups in SA and taken actual legislative action to prevent the US from directly arming people in Bolivia.
Its ok to critique her and other "good libs", but at some point you have to put some of these things into a little more context. Maduro didn't need her to do anything - he has Venezuela locked up.. he's like the next Castro almost in terms of his resilience. She lent her support where it was needed.
Last edit: Having said all that - rather than make hypothetical up... continue to critique AOC when she actually does things that are bad as they happen. Like with Ilhan Omar and the Armenian Genocide thing, wtf was that? She got roasted and apologized. Do it in the moment and it's good...
Maduro does not have it "locked up"
I went to a meeting the Venezuelan ambassador organised last year where they explained they were calculating the deaths the US siege has cost Venezuela and placed it 80,000 deaths and their citizens were losing weight as staple goods were becoming harder to distribute
They repeated the same on Telesur
Her answer on that was shit and everyone knows it. Ilhan Omar outright unequivocally denounced Guaido having any such legitimacy. aoc could have just done the same. I think it just needs to be said that anti imperialism is not just not doing imperialism, it involves actively countering imperialism.
He needs help ending the US siege on Venezuela!
The government AOC works for has prevented necessities from entering the country, sanctioned companies which work with Venezuela, and pressured international bank to freeze assets owned by the Venezuelan government.
And what has she said on Venezuela since?
Last time I heard her comment on Venezuela, it was to clarify her idea of "socialism" was more like Finland & Sweden, and completely different from Venezuela.
It is politically convenient for her to enable imperialism against Venezuela because the Democratic Party is invested in that imperialist endeavor. If she attempted to correct the record on the situation in Venezuela, she would face tremendous backlash from her superiors and the Liberal media. Backlash she did not face for supporting Bolivia.
And she appears to still support the coup against Venezuela.
Jesus Christ. It's good that she materially opposed the coup in Bolivia, but if she could do literally anything about Venezuela, that would be great. Or, for that matter, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, or the DPRK. Like, literally anything.
It seems like her support is contingent on whether or not the general public has been convinced that a country is "authoritarian".
she rt’d some shitlib thread about the dems failures with latinos going beyond rejection of m4a/gnd where the author happens to be a gusano. not ideal but a super fucking long way from “she supports the coup in venezuela”. get serious
And it was a non-answer to an obvious trap question from the fucking National Review.
If we're materialists here, why are we getting upset every time someone doesn't snap at right-wing bait? Why are we dissecting every statement someone makes in the first place? Words don't matter anywhere near as much as actions do. Why care about some answer AOC gave two years ago when she's helping keep U.S. weapons out of the hands of a coup government?
Max Blumenthal does not work for the fucking National Review my god...
You do highlight the fact that her statements on Venezuela are not a one-time thing. It's an ongoing line she has parroted since 2018.
Choosing not to act is an action.
Her actions and words shows that she supports the US siege of Venezuela. Her actions in solidarity with Bolivia is evidence that she has some power to influence the conditions in these countries. This is all the more reason to criticize her line on Venezuela.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/AOC-Refuses-To-Condemn-Venezuela-Coup-20190504-0029.html
Criticizing her over some unspecified hypothetical action she could have taken is weak sauce, especially when she has some concrete good action on her record.
Yes, you are quoting one of the several times she said exactly that.
It is fair to criticize a representative of a government who is carrying out a starvation campaign against a socialist country, especially if they refuse to comment nor take action.
I don't understand the brain worms it takes to reach a different conclusion.
If you're going to keep saying she's said this repeatedly, let's see some links.
Can she unilaterally change U.S. policy towards Venezuela? No? Then it becomes a question of what she's actually able to do. So what is she actually able to do -- that would have any real effect -- that she isn't doing? Is she failing to do anything that wouldn't just immediately be shot down?
To start. She could say this a million times and it would not change your opinion.
The Democratic Party mantra.
If AOC stayed silent on the issue of Bolivia, I'm sure you would offer the same defense of her. People were back when her only statement on the coup was the photo op.
I do not care about political opportunism. You can use this same line to uncritically defend any politician. I hear this shit about Trump and Biden all the time.
If a politician can't actually do what you want them to do, blaming them is ridiculous.
To have any sort of worthwhile discussion about this, you have to dig into the reality of what's possible and what's actually been done. That will be different in different situations. Lumping all situations into one "everyone has excuses" bucket is as silly as laying equal blame at a 5-foot person and a 7-foot person for not being able to dunk a basketball.
You sound like you are pitching Biden to me.
I'm not a bourgeois politician. I do not need to do opportunistic political calculations. I don't care about the AOC you imagined in your mind.
I will support the actions of politicians when they support my political aims. I will criticize them when they don't.
Good luck getting anything done without ever compromising or making a tactical calculation. That approach has worked out great for the left.
I agree, that's why I voted for Biden in the primary. I'm sure you did too. Or are we only supposed to make the "tactical calculations" you agree with?
Then why rip on AOC for not doing something more, when you can't specify what meaningful additional step she could have accomplished?
I never said I couldn't specify steps she can take. Introducing a bill to lift sanctions on Venezuela would be a great start.
Would that have any chance of passing?
That's a great argument against her Green New Deal bill. Or her Medicare-for-All bill. She can't even get those up for a vote.
But there's a tactical reason to propose those bills: they have the massive political support needed to advance any sort of leftist movement. An anti-sanction bill on Venezuela or Cuba or Iran would do the opposite.
Obama ran on lifting sanctions against Cuba, and it was incredibly popular.
Biden ran on re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal, which lifts sanctions on Iran.
Your "tactics" are just "prioritize things that benefit me." It's incredibly obvious.
Obama ran on healthcare. Biden ran on "remember Obama?"
Americans are notoriously ignorant about the rest of the world. Foreign policy in elections is more about talking points than anything substantive. It's mostly trap questions that voters will give you no credit for acing.
Then there's no reason AOC should be silent on the US sanctions regime.
There's no benefit -- nothing will pass, and she will gain no supporters even if she makes the best argument possible -- and she will get dragged through the :vuvuzela: mud by even non-chud media if she breaks ranks.
There's no benefit to standing up for the people oppressed by the government you represent.
You are probably the most evil person who posts here regularly.
Agreed, just a massive fucking lib
How do you hope to get anything done if you're that far detached from reality? Calling other leftists evil for having the gall to point out that politicians make compromises is cop shit.
You aren't pointing out politicians make compromises. I've said that several times already.
You are saying AOC's line on Venezuela is good, correct, and criticizing it is wrong.
This is what you are arguing against.
No, I'm saying that it's understandable for politicians to give non-answers when no movement on the issue is possible, and when you can only lose ground by getting drawn in to a discussion. I'm saying we shouldn't rake one of the furthest-left politicians in the country over the coals because they're making an understandable compromise on such an issue.
You're not just arguing against that, you're calling that evil. Get your head out of your ass and go talk to someone who isn't a terminally-online leftist.
The Democrats have removed sanctions on Venezuela before during Chavez's leadership. It is significantly more "possible" than Medicare for All or Green New Deal. The Democratic Party would not exist without the medical industry or the oil industry.
You don't see me bringing this fact up to be like "See? AOC should not talk about these things at all! She should stick to what's possible." Because that is reactionary nonsense you hear from people trying to stonewall progress.
You refuse to admit that because you care about those issues, and you do not care about the people suffering under the US sanction regime.
That is why you are fucking evil. You are aware of how the Democrats function. But you hold out hope that if your favorite politician does imperialism good enough, they'll give you health care.
What's politically possible changes over the course of a decade.
And again with the cop shit. Calling other leftists evil wrecks organizations, full stop. Hope online pissing matches feel good, because you're not ending imperialism, you're not getting healthcare, you're not agreeing on what fucking movie to watch if you turn disagreements about the best way forward into "you, personally, are evil."
Try that shit out on anyone who's working through the process of radicalization and they'll look at you like you're one of those libertarians booing driver's licenses. Just an asshole living in another reality who's totally disinterested in getting anything done.
We are not an organization. I am not organizing with you.
You're not organizing with anyone with your lack of perspective.
You'd be surprised how infrequently "yes, the US does imperialism against Venezuela, but AOC commenting on it has 'no benefit'" comes up in organizing.
In fact, it has never came up for me. Anti-Venezuelan sentiment has came up in my work exactly one time. A white woman crashed a Central American Task Force event to yell about how Chavez made her family eat trash.
I'm talking about finding one of the few people in this country who outright opposes capitalism, and then accusing them of irredeemable moral failings because of a disagreement over retail politics that has zero material impact either way.
Again, I'm begging you, pull your head out of your ass and don't act like you're trying to sabotage whatever group you're in.
There's nothing "irredeemable" about this, and I don't care that you "oppose capitalism."
You are arguing for social democratic candidates to go along with imperialism, because Americans may be rewarded with social democracy.
You are arguing that people should not criticize social democrats supporting empire because it may damage this negotiation. That is supremely evil.
You claim it is about "pragmatism", but it is not. If Cuba and Iran are any indicators, we are more likely to see sanctions dropped on Venezuela than we are to see Medicare for All implemented.
This has been my line on AOC. This is the line you have been pushing back on. You don't want people criticizing AOC because you support her political calculations.
Get over yourself. This is not an organization. We are not organizing. You got called something mean online for saying depraved shit.
Cop shit.
Ending the "Democratic rhetorical strategy" marathon with "foreign interference." Nice.
You did good work today, officer -- log off for a bit. You deserve it.
Link to interview with Blumenthal? IIRC a lot of people lost their shit over the bait question meant to alienate her from the braindead american populace before she could gain any influence...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrapYLtkBhY
"The US must end the economic siege and illegal coup of Venezuela" can be said in response to any "bait question" about Venezuela. Her line of Venezuela is politicking within the Democratic Party.
Ok so that video was clearly him just seeing her as she was about to enter a meeting and he caught her at the door.
If you're so pissed that nobody is taking those hard stances why don't you run for something?
https://twitter.com/BikeSlutty/status/1329150610957082626?s=19
She keeps reaffirming her line on Venezuela.
I'm not pissed. I think you are projecting.
I'm just not going to be silent when a politician enables imperialism, just because they do things I support occasionally. I can make the same justification to be silent on Biden.
I won't run for national office because it's only possible through the Democratic Party, and you will be forced to play their game or you will not last.
I'm going to continue doing work in my city through local unions. When a viable national workers party emerges, I will try to connect the organizing work I do now to it.