Save us aoc your our only hope
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
783 points (95.6% liked)
politics
24518 readers
3161 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
During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.
And the deep-seated sexism of too many independent/moderate voters, unfortunately.
HELL YEAH THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AOC
People in america still believe there is going to be an actual election in 2028?
Yeah it's weird, and if there are elections popular opposition candidates will face a fate like mr Navalny, I'm afraid. Much as I would like AOC as a US president, I think at this point, she needs to run for her life rather than for president. And believe me, I truly hate that this is the case.
She is an amazing person and a fantastic leader. However she is the kind of person the fascists fear and she is also the right shade of skin to earn a one way ticket to El Salvador.
You see the people clamoring for the deportation of mr Mamdani, and he is at this point nothing more than one party's possible candidate for mayor of one town. Imagine what would happen if ms Ocasio-Cortez were an actual presidential candidate!?
Even now I worry about her safety often. Same for that wonderful ms Crockett, mr Frost and a few others.
I have my doubts
We just going to post this in every thread from now on?
My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.
Right wingers love the idea of hate-sex
Right-wingers tried to make fun of her, and lost.
Ask yourself a question: why can't a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.
So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don't or won't apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?
Christians won't let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don't see it.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. What are you on about?
Uh, there are lots of Christian denominations who allow women to lead churches. And majority Catholic nations who have happily elected women (like the Latino countries who you people like to also say are too dedicated to machismo to vote for women).
Don't justify your bigotry by an appeal to tradition of the people who already won't vote for Democrats. This isn't a well thought through argument, it's just a reactionary justification.
Was a female Pope ever considered after JD Vance cursed the previous one?
NGL I'll take any blue tie but we've already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.
Didn't the Dems run on 'anyone but Sanders' and they propped up Clinton instead?
load more comments
(1 replies)
While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates' loss vs. Trump.
- Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
- Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
- Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like "socialism" scary) but most Democrat politicians aren't willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.
Here is a basic logical analysis of our “democratic” republic.
Everything, and i mean EVERYTHING regarding our sociopolitical system is up for sale and easily manipulated by money. It was this way before citizens United but then citizens united just exacerbated this and pushed this so far that a study done by Princeton concluded that the amount of influence one has on any potential political policy is directly proportional to how wealthy you are with regular working class people having a statistically irrelevant near zero level of influence on any potential policy/Legislation regardless as to how popular or unpopular it may be.
So in a system where it is obvious a small group of people with immense wealth and privilege who act as though they have divine provenance to dictate how our society is run what gives anyone the extremely naive idea that for a class of people who effectively believe themselves to be above the law they would for some reason consider the American democratic process to be one step too far for them to exert influence upon by any means necessary?
In Germany there was a supreme court case concerning election integrity within the last 15-20 years or so(i don’t exactly remember when) but the supreme court ultimately decided that electronic voting is unconstitutional because it is impossible to differentiate between fraudulent results and legitimate ones for laypeople who are not cybersecurity/ IT experts. And this is what the US needs immediately as well as a repeal of citizens United, and laws that prevent a biased Supreme Court acting in bad faith.
True leftism has been eradicated from the sociopolitical discourse. The Democratic party has shifted to the right every election since LBJ refused the party nomination and then RFK was subsequently shot in the head. To think that this has not been achieved through subversive collusion of individuals/ organizations/ entities with like minded interests and agendas requires the same level of naïveté it takes to believe our presidential elections have not been tampered with to benefit wall street Military and prison industry profiteers.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(35 replies)
Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He's not the mayor of New York yet.
It's been assumed that whoever the democratic nominee is will win since Adams is extremely unpopular and so is the republican party in NY generally
Of course Cuomo running independent complicates it, and the democratic party not enthusiastically endorsing Mamdani certainly doesnt help. Then again, the party had a 30% approval rating last i checked, so maybe that actually helps....
But he's the most popular debut candidate since AOC, so he still has a very good chance.
She should run for the senate seat when chuck leaves office after he finally comes to his senses.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›