Xi shakes hands with Netanyahu: “I mean come on guys he HAS to do that, 5D chess and all.”
The only honest reading of AOC’s foreign policy is that she has none worth talking about. It’s effectively not part of her job description. The president runs the business end of foreign policy almost unilaterally on everything short of an Iraq-scale invasion. AOC has had one term in the House and wasn’t even on any foreign policy committees. Votes on this or that foreign policy issue are almost always tied to some domestic program specifically to brow beat anyone who would vote against it.
Any opinion on AOC’s foreign policy is just reading tea leaves. It’s trying to guess intentions not even based on substantive actions, but on peripheral stuff like "hey troops in the capitol, my office has snacks if you want them." There is zero excuse to interpret that stuff in the worst possible light, and calling for socialists to oppose AOC based on something she has no real influence over is beyond counterproductive.
“I am very concerned about U.S. interventionism in Venezuela and I oppose it,” she said, explaining that she particularly opposes the leadership of U.S. Special Envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams, who is known for pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress during the Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra scandal. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Abrams in 1992.
“I am generally opposed to U.S. interventionism as a principle, but particularly under this administration and under his leadership I think it’s a profound mistake,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
She also called the Bolivian coup a coup. Again, there's zero excuse for interpreting ticky-tacky stuff in the worst possible light when she has clear statements like this.
You have no business calling yourself a “socialist”, or running on a socialist platform
Did she?
Have you been standing a lib this whole time? Or are you calling social democrats libs right now?
Damn, how will I recover from a spelling mistake, you sure showed me
That's not a rule, legislators can and should call out, you know, the genocidal wars being waged every day, especially if it's on brand for so called socialists.
In terms of actual power to influence real-world outcomes, it's absolutely a rule. The president can order troops out of whatever country you can think of; AOC can't.
As for calling out genocidal wars:
I remember a time when it was “unacceptable” to question the Iraq War.
All of Congress was wrong, including both GOP & Dem Party, and led my generation into a disastrous + wrong war that virtually all would come to regret, except for the one member who stood up: Barbara Lee.
What is there to be upset at here?
That doesn't mean they can't talk about it to draw attention, especially if they have a popular following that the media at large would be forced to cover. Wow, she worked up the courage to say the Iraq war was bad 18 years after the fact, when's the last time she uttered the word Yemen? I await your Google results. Is it really so much to ask that so called leftists stop playing 5d chess with Pelosi long enough to oppose the current mass murder campaign?
She's spoken out about Yemen a number of times. Keep moving the goalposts, though -- that's a fast track to One True Leftist territory.
Lol yeah you mean to blame Iran? Expecting leftists to actually oppose bloody imperial wars is just a bridge too far I guess
What is there to be upset at here?
I think most folks who've been here a while can see exactly what some users are trying to do.
AOC is a nobody and she doesn’t have to perfomatively stan war criminals; that’s a concious choice and she should be open to criticism for making the wrong one.
I disagree.
I'm no AOC fan, but lets be honest, "the troops" are somewhat of a sacred cow in US politics and any figure who said anything even mildly negative about them would get their ass roasted. So even the most left-wing person imaginable with any shot at holding any kind of electoral power in the US would have to play friendly with the troops. Saying "lmao fuck these douches who ran Abu-Ghraib" wouldn't achieve anything beyond us thinking she's cool for a hot second, and hate to say it but we don't matter much.
the point is all politics is harder than pressing a button. i don't exactly know what people are expecting out of aoc but good god some people hate-post about her more than shapiro for the most useless, symbolic shit
NOT meeting with the Zionist war criminal apartheid ruler takes even less effort still.
meeting with other heads of state is literally part of the job description
Foreign policy is part of the job description, but a common tactic of foreign policy is refusing to even meet with leaders you find objectionable. The reasoning for this doesn't even have to be stated outright -- you can just never schedule a meeting if you don't want to even imply state support.
Buying black market US technology is also part of the description, they already got a bootleg fighter jet off the zionists, all the while buying Iranian oil.
If you're saying that it's OK for politicians to accept some bad optics now and then in pursuit of a more tangible goal, I agree.
Or they could just shut the fuck up and stop virtue signaling about Troops getting "screwed" out of the penthouse suites at the DC Ritz-Carlton
yeah lets explore the real meaning of meaninglessness.....
Who was talking about putting the troops up at the Ritz?
You saying the troops ain't good enough for the Ritz huh buster? Dam, that's cold-blooded
So no one? We should treat people who want many of the same things we want generously, and the bare minimum of that is not exaggerating "can we at least get them a mattress?" into "we should put them at a $500/night hotel."
They don't want the same things "we want", they already have the things we want, I should know I once had the things they have, and virtue signaling about somehow getting 10,000 guardsmen mattresses is in terms of realism and practicality equally as meaningless as signaling a desire to put them in the Ritz
You are not going to win the troops over because on a fundamental level you have nothing to offer them, which is why this is a case study in meaningless optics
They don’t want the same things “we want”
Do you want Medicare for All? Are you against the U.S. intervening in Venezuela? There are two issues you have in common with AOC. Making shit up about people who make the case for stuff you want in mainstream politics is a fast track to getting nothing done.
You are not going to win the troops over because on a fundamental level you have nothing to offer them
This isn't even about winning over the troops, but holy shit, socialism (and even social welfare policies like AOC is talking about) has a ton to offer troops. You're telling me you couldn't make the case for socialism to some grunt? "You won't get your legs blown off so some rich asshole can make oil money" is pretty convincing, for starters.
Xi could stop virtue signalling to the Jewish community about how much he fucking loves Israel.
Supporting Israel's greatest enemy, Iran, is though, as well as supporting the DPRK who built the tunnels that Hezbollah used to humiliate the IDF in 2006.
Just leave these things to the adults.
OK so how does meeting with Bibi support Iran? As opposed to, you know, not meeting him.
Looking forward to the so called "adult" explanation here.
Does anyone know if there has ever been a successful revolution without the support of the military, or better yet against opposition from the military?
