It's a bad thing, but she has so little control over foreign policy that it doesn't make sense to describe a bad take on Tibet as outweighing everything else she does. Describing her as "a malignancy who might also do nice things for her New York constituency on the side" is way off base when her foreign policy takes don't actually do anything to anyone.
I'm agreeing that it's bad. It's just not bad enough to make everything else she does a footnote.
This is a statement about something most people don't care about, on an issue she has no control over. If this matters, than surely her (vastly more common) statements in favor of stuff people do care about, and that she does have some input into -- Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, public opinion on socialism in general -- matter far more.
It will hurt the true radicalization of many prospective leftists whose politics die in the sucdem stage because AOC goes on national TV to call me a tankie
It's a bad thing, but she has so little control over foreign policy that it doesn't make sense to describe a bad take on Tibet as outweighing everything else she does. Describing her as "a malignancy who might also do nice things for her New York constituency on the side" is way off base when her foreign policy takes don't actually do anything to anyone.
deleted by creator
I'm agreeing that it's bad. It's just not bad enough to make everything else she does a footnote.
This is a statement about something most people don't care about, on an issue she has no control over. If this matters, than surely her (vastly more common) statements in favor of stuff people do care about, and that she does have some input into -- Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, public opinion on socialism in general -- matter far more.
You'd think so, yeah
It will hurt the true radicalization of many prospective leftists whose politics die in the sucdem stage because AOC goes on national TV to call me a tankie