Progressives (Liberals)

how?

Well, to be honest, there's A LOT of room for improvement from her.

She shoots off at the mouth, thinking the Twitter Please crowd is impressed with her antics. To me, she has too much to learn in a short period of time and it doesn't look like she's interested in any type of education. Tweeting a 70% tax rate for the rich? Great! How about EVERYBODY pays a fair share of taxes. It's not that I side with the ultra-rich but I certainly don't like how running at the mouth makes her "progressive."

Sit down and shut up.

Sit down and shut up.


‎Ronda Evans‎ to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Progressives
10 hrs ·
Washington State has a full house of Democrats and is known as the most liberal state with the largest booming economy and the most extreme income inequality.

Simple Math: Proposed biannual budget of $54 billion the largest ever in the state, compared to the largest ever annual GNP $524 billion. Only 5% is being spent on all the people and state sustainability.
While the 228,000 multi millionaires, 14 billionaires and the 2 richest men in the world don't pay support/taxes to the state. While the wealthiest companies including Amazon at $1 trillion pays less than 2.5% in B & O taxes. While the legislators refuse to close the $110 billion in tax breaks, tax expenditures to the wealthiest 750 companies. And the legislators refuse to make the wealthiest companies pay a living wage where their employees qualify for food stamps.

Republicans number one goal is No Taxes on the rich and wealthy corporations, while Democrats refuse to tax the rich and wealthy corporations. All while 197 homeless people died from exposure this winter, 40,000 children are homeless, where suicide is the number one reason for middle school deaths, poverty is increasing with no hope for sustainability.

The Hillary camp treated Bernie unfairly and with contempt during the primaries, and that's a big reason why she didn't return to the white house. Can't do this mistake again next time, whether you happen to like it or not.

But from where do you expect this happy "boost" to come? Women? People of color? Young educated people? The "suburban" voters? But I expect you are right to predict that Fox viewers will yell a lot and maybe even step behind the curtain and then cast their ballot with extra-special ferocity.

To the degree such an equation is coherent or makes any sense at all, yes. That's your problem.

Opinions noted.

A suspect generality but in any case, demonstrated "contempt" was hardly uni-directional.
That's my point.

Did any of you folks actually watch the colbert interview with AOC that I linked? I don't think I've seen any other guest arriving on his stage who received a response as enthusiastic and positive as her. And I also don't think I've seen any other guest handle such a cacophony of approval and affinity better than she handled it. She is unusually adept at this aspect of politics (without any sense that she's insincere in what she is saying or faking who she is). She's a natural.

I haven't suggested (and I don't suggest) that she land on the ticket in two years. I don't think she'll be near ready for such responsibilities. That's not what I'm talking about. (and just by the by here, any Republican who, after defending Sarah Palin, criticizes AOC as untutored can just go **** him or herself).

My point or argument is that she is very likely to have highly consequential effects on motivating a LOT of people from the demographics that are moving into ascendance. That is, motivating them not simply to vote but just as importantly, to organize and even run for office. You want Congress to change? It won't be our generation that does this.

I am still on break today. Just stopped in to say that OAC is smarter and more seasoned than some 70 and 80 year old politicians currently in office. I believe she gets attacked so ferociously because she is a liberal, who won't be bought off by big money, not because she is young and new on the scene. She will not be running for VP in two years probably only because she is too young to serve as president.

A useful one rather, at least for those of us who care to learn from their mistakes. Hubris is a weakness, not a strength.

I will not be voting for Bernie or a Bernie-acolyte in the primaries this cycle...at least, I can't see myself doing that today.

Yup. I think that's exactly right.

Yeah. Different club from the one I belong to.

Your problem is that you have personalized this issue. Instead of thinking in political terms, you think in personal terms... "I won't vote for Bernie". That's just as childish as Ed's not voting for Hillary because she's soooo eeeeeevil...

Argue about ideas all you like, differ about them to your heart’s content, but leave character assassination, astroturfing and other dirty tricks to the other side. The Repukes will do all they can to destroy your candidates' reputation -- they don't need any help from your side.

I guess so...

Personal in the sense that I don't agree with all of Bernie's policy positions so I won't vote for him in the primary. Progressives haven't been able to convince me that their policy positions are better than the ones I currently believe would be better for the country. They rarely try even.

It's not childish, it's exactly what one should be doing. Voting on policy positions.

I didn't do any of the other things you told me I should stop doing.

Nobody ever agreed with all of someone else's policy positions... That's what's childish: to expect perfection. In real life, voters chose between options that imperfectly match their desires and priorities.

And if it so happen that, among the candidates still running when you get to vote in the primaries, Bernie is the closest to your positions, then you should vote for him.

I don't expect perfection, that's not what I intended to say ('many' would have been a more accurate term), but you called me childish before I stated "all". So, you're changing your story here.


Regarding Bernie being closest to my positions, I don't see that happening; of the announced candidates I expect to be closer to several of the others.

The left is divided, there is no getting away from that. Just like when the Tea Party movement started it divided the republican party, the Progressives have divided the Democrat party. It is something no matter who wins the democrat presidential nomination is going to plan for in advance IMO. The difference is that if a progressive wins the primary, most democrats, progressive or not, will end up voting for that progressive. The same can not be said for Progressives. They are a movement and their movement succeeding seems to be their goal.

At the expense of the country, it seems.

It's often said that those in privileged positions (such as already being on Medicare or having a long term unionized job) can make those principled stances because their position in life won't be affected by the negative consequences of those decisions.

I hope that they take that criticism of these "protest-votes" to heart.