486
submitted 3 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 34 points 3 months ago

AOC isn’t even in the conversation though. I think she’d face fierce opposition to even getting the nomination. She’s a pretty divisive figure.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 52 points 3 months ago

She’s a pretty divisive figure.

Not for anything she does, AFAICT.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 34 points 3 months ago

Republicans are terrified of her. She's young, attractive, charismatic, outspoken, and intelligent to say nothing of her being a woman of color. They are giving her the full Hillary treatment. It seems like she'll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way, but not for lack of trying.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, I agree, but we ought to draw a distinction between someone who acts divisively from someone who's the target of the right-wing hate machine.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

But we never do.

[-] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

she'll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way

Well Hillary is only one or two of those traits you listed. I like Hillary, but she is not charismatic. I think she had good policy sense and could have been an excellent president, but policy doesn't win elections.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 months ago

I should be clear I’m talking about public perception here, not my personal opinions or any assessment of her policies.

[-] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

When she voted to disallow train workers striking was pretty disheartening. Who'd expect someone so pro-worker to knock the teeth out of a union.

[-] eguidarelli@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Probably voted that way because she was assured Biden would continue to hammer out a better deal for the rail union, which he did! Better healthcare, more PTO, and the addition of paid sick days!

Here’s the article right from the rail union thanking Biden for not giving up on their fight. https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid#:~:text=These%2012%20unions%20represent%20more,agreement%20for%20paid%20sick%20leave.%E2%80%9D

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The fact that she’s a conservative bogeyman is kind of besides the point. The neoliberal, corporate-friendly leadership of the DNC would NEVER let her get close to the nomination. They did the same thing to Bernie 8 and 4 years ago.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago

That’s exactly what I was referring to.

To be clear, the Democratic leadership is not all powerful. The people can push through a nominee leadership hates if we unite. But given the nature of this nomination process, party leaders have an exceptional amount of power this year, and the people have very little.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Wha...what do you mean not in the conversation, you are literally conversing with someone about her, on a front page post about her. She is popular, and no presidential candidate has ever not been divisive. Not being trump is divisive.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago

The conversation among those who will decide the nominee. I’ve not heard anyone seriously discuss this outside of online forums.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

not in the conversation, you are literally conversing

  1. big-c Conversation
  2. a comma is not a colon
  3. there are other adverbs
[-] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

No its a little c

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

So what if she’s divisive? Trumps running mate called him hitler at one point. No one wanted Trump, he came in and won the voters hearts with his vision, grotesque as it may be for other people. People want certainty and vision in uncertain times.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Narrowly and due to lies, intimidation, and structural advantages the right has in this country. Wouldn’t work for the left.

Besides, I was just saying that we the people aren’t really making this decision, and the ones that are won’t pick AOC.

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I get your point, but I was saying that the RNC was super anti-Trump to start

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh well I actually agree that the left can push through a candidate that party leaders dislike if we got organized. But usually the left isn’t very good at that, and there’s no time to do so in this specific case.

[-] JCF@twit.social 6 points 3 months ago

@LibertyLizard @pearsaltchocolatebar
Lol, it's what happens when you speak truth to power.
I'd vote for her because of a myriad of reasons though.
She is the future of the party.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

Maybe maybe not but there’s 0 chance she’ll be the nominee this year.

[-] JCF@twit.social 5 points 3 months ago

@LibertyLizard

Agreed, it's not in anyone's interest to test the supreme court ATM.
I said it once here, a couple times before, & I've said it a few times in passing conversation in person. I would vote for AOC and I think she's wonderful. 👍

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

I like her too but I personally am not sure her popularity is broad enough to be president. But we’ll see. I hope you’re right.

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

She gets labeled as "divisive" because she's a woman and she's not a centrist. Name one woman who gets listed as a potential candidate and isn't under this same garbage rhetoric.

To be clear, women can and should still be scrutinized, but not to the point where the only woman who would be a great presidential candidate is the most perfect candidate who ever lived.

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
486 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5087 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS