1164
Bernie Sanders floats AOC as potential 2028 presidential contender: ‘Very good politician’
(www.latintimes.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
1164 points (98.6% liked)
politics
26209 readers
2658 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, because you have a terrible read of politics and this political moment. Your view is an anachronism and its incredibly important that people learn to ignore and dismiss views like yours. Its this exact kind of trepidation that leads to candidates like Hillary 16, Biden 24, Schumer, Jeffries: Its a failed approach to electoralism, and while it was the dominant paradigm for several decades (77-2008), its now a knife that cuts against a party or candidates or political movements ability to win.
And, the most important thing we can be doing right now is shuttting down people who approach politics from this angle. They are incredibly dangerous to the ability for the Democratic party to win. They get to split the difference between "caution" which always comes across as being more reflective, yet never having to show the receipts for their approach.
I can tell you this, that its not on accident, and if you want to have a conversation on the effectiveness of approach we can, but I consider it an aside to this current topic. I consider your approach to be the most significantly harmful thing to American politics, in existence, after it handed the presidency to Trump in 2016. Trump and other fascists are some of the most beatable candidates in the history of elections, but this anachronistic perspective, its literally the only thing they can beat. So its not just a matter of how well discourse follows the polities of the past; its that an approach to politics which continues to fuel fascism is incredibly dangerous, and needs to be pushed back on with the most extreme dialectic possible. Gloves are off.
You don't know Pritzker so you obviously only have a superficial understanding of the political landscape (genuinely surprising because he's in the news constantly right now). Its also clear that you are operating under an understanding of politics and electorism that loses elections. Its a species level threat to continue operating under that perspective. Expect incredible push-back when your viewpoint inadvertently sponsors fascism.
To the matter at hand:
You don't/ won't have the time. You are talking about a kind of long-term political project that takes decades. And the powers that be which you are advocating for, have already had decades to do so and have done nothing. So your argument is effectively the same as every other liberal, which is "use the system, trust the process, give it time". However, it is now clear that time is working against us. And this is an example of the exact kind of anachronism I'm talking about. Its an assumption about mechanisms and abilities a party might have had in the US system 30-40 years ago, but which simply isn't present in the current moment.
No I'm acknowledging the reality of the political moment and the total restructuring of power which happened from 2000- now. The fact is that both the judiciary and the legislative have handed the executive basically unlimited power. There is no power in the senate or the house at this point. You want to make changes? You need the executive and not much more.
Bold move cotton.
That's for you and your much needed therapist to discuss.
I just can't take you seriously because all of your assertions are just appeals to authority with no arguments or evidence to back them up. Never mind your laughably incorrect assertions about me and my perspective.
Like explain how doubling down on the consolidation of executive power mitigates the rise of fascism?
Jfc you are not only insufferable with a utterly terrible political read, you also lack reading comprehension.
I'm not making a judgement about the consolidation of executive power: I'm accepting where things actually are instead of the fantastic world you wish existed. The fact is the US government in the previous 20 years has transformed such that there is an exceptional consolidation of power in the executive. That simply is.
Then you try and misrepresent it as advocacy.
AND THIS is why I approach these conversations these ways, because it gets you to put yourself on display. You've got nothing when it comes to the merits and when your bag of tricks trying to fool people is empty, you go back to personal attacks.
Its exactly why people need to dismiss you.