Seriously need to knock off the AOC hate here

[berni_mccoy]

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2021, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Way too many posts that she wouldn’t vote for Pelosi and some posts say she didn’t.

You really want to divide us at this point in time?!?!

[Just_Vote_Dem]

1. K & R

[Bettie]

2. +1

K&R

[regnaD kciN]

3. She backed Pelosi two years ago, too...

[Deuxcents]

4. C-SPAN

I watched as she called out Pelosi. Today, within the hour.

[DownriverDem]

49. I was surprised that

Rep Ellissa Slotkin (8th Dist - D) voted present.

[Hortensis]

5. I suggest positive posts with her name attached, not this kind of thing.

She just enraged many of her little dissident donors by voting for Nancy Pelosi, but I salute her for being there, responsibly, for our nation when it really mattered.

Maybe post focusing attention on something else DUers can approve of.

[Roy Rolling]

18. Little Dissident Donors

The apparatus that amplifies those voices into a louder bloc than it really is bears some of the responsibility for creating a false division.

I said it here a million times. Will Rogers famously said “I’m not a member of an organized political party, I’m a Democrat“.

So it’s that ability to unite as “individual, freedom-loving anarchists” that is the strength of the Democratic Party. Republicans call themselves “conservatives”, but they are really just PESSIMISTS. There is no way for them to unite over a common disbelief in a negative.

[GB_RN]

53. Nah.

Republicans aren’t conservatives, nor are they pessimists. They are reactionary regressives. They want to take this country back to some mythical time of the (18)50’s: A time when Blacks, Mexicans other minorities and women knew their places and white men ruled the world. So let’s call a spade a spade, because that’s what they truly are, reactionary regressives.

[jaxexpat]

140. It's even simpler than that. They just hate hope.

I opine: Coincidentally, people with hope in their hearts are more difficult to control by threat.

[ancianita]

22. Yes. Not tooting my horn but this is the quickest example I can find.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214795408

[Cobalt Violet]

42. Its' good to call out hate.

It is hate as the op said. With the replies to this thread many us see it that way.

[ramen]

60. Hi, little 'dissident donor' to AOC here who also supports Pelosi as Speaker and is thrilled that

she will be. Pelosi has proven herself competent a thousand times over. I'm not sure what you aim to accomplish by belittling donors who support Democratic politicians they believe in, but it doesn't seem particularly constructive. I'm glad people are donating to Pelosi and AOC and hope they continue to do so.

[Hortensis]

89. Ramen, those who support both are of course not

angered at this vote. You must realize the enormous difference between them and you.

[Mariana]

167. That must be an example of the "positive posts with her name attached"

that the poster suggested be made. What do you think?

5. I suggest positive posts with her name attached, not this kind of thing.

[betsuni]

78. I couldn't resist going over to that weird place that used to have Bernie Sanders on their homepage

but got mad at him for endorsing Biden and replaced him with The Squad. But now they're mad at them, too, for voting for Pelosi and are saying very mean things, calling them the Fraud Squad. Lots of hate over there! Don't see any here.

Also, saw the title "What would YOU have painted on that pig's door?" and for a split second assumed it meant McConnell. How silly of me!

[Hortensis]

84. Oh, my to that last. nt

[betsuni]

95. Still trying to figure out #ForceTheVote -- apparently The Squad was supposed to do a quid pro quo

thing by refusing to vote for Pelosi unless there was a Medicare for All vote. Funny that even Cenk Uygur scolded the people mad at The Squad for voting for Pelosi because why would they want a Republican Speaker, what would that accomplish?

[Hortensis]

110. :) Just looked. Uygur's sounding like a beacon of responsibility (!)

as he explains repeatedly to the enraged how votes are counted. "Easy being destructive. You have to come up with a plan to be constructive." They really don't, they were happy to destroy, but their indomitable people's force ran into the Democrats' "no" face and they don't understand what happened there either.

[betsuni]

111. Uh oh, under the bus go Cenk and TYT.

The Movement for a People's Party is sad, saying progressives reelected Pelosi and only corporate Democrats voted against her. Worlds are colliding. The Justice Democrat's dream of infiltrating the Democratic Party and changing it from within (to what, I do not know) is dead. I notice some of the grieving on Twitter now putting progressive in quotes when referring to The Squad. This is ironic.

[Hortensis]

112. :) Typical puritopian (how's that for a word?) dysfunction.

They always crash in flames over the kind of internal disagreements less fractious people are able to hash out. Any time they care to stop dishonoring the word "progressive" is fine with me, though.

As for ironic, so is plotting to use "MfA" as an IED to bring Pelosi down. What miserable hypocrites, not that they have any idea.

[betsuni]

113. They seem to think Pelosi is the only roadblock to an MFA vote.

And if there was a vote it would overwhelmingly pass.

[Hortensis]

119. Astonishingly. If this were really about healthcare,

their leaders would idolize Pelosi and ask how they can help instead of trying to blow up "MfA" under her feet. That label is being used by this little dissident group's leadership against the party of healthcare for god's sake!, and I swing between exasperation and pity for their earnest victims. Irritating as hell.

[betsuni]

124. Yes, it isn't about health care.

Not at all.

[PatSeg]

144. I agree that it isn't about healthcare

or any particular issue. I think they just want to be perpetually disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. Maybe they are addicted to outrage and look for any excuse to be angry. If they keep throwing people under the bus, there won't be anyone left.

Meanwhile, maybe they need to learn how government works. Don't think this is how we got Social Security and Medicare.

[Hortensis]

154. No, not quite! :) Those like them in the New Deal era fought

the Democratic Party's progressive reforms then too, sure they were a dreadful betrayal of the people. 80-90 years later in another era of great anxiety, deja vu all over again. From what I've read, many are ruled by resentment and fear of the large liberal majority they always see as an obstacle. That means for those at base it's always really about us. And others are just...swept along in the crowd until they drop away.

[PatSeg]

156. I think many of them

have an unrealistic belief as to how progressive reform came about in the past. To be honest when I was younger, I did as well. The reason we don't get the kind of progressive change we want isn't because our Democratic leaders are necessarily unwilling, it is because they are unable. Our most transformative leaders have been hardcore pragmatic politicians as well and they faced the same criticisms that we see today. It just looks easier in hindsight I suppose.

[Hortensis]

157. You became more knowledgeable and sophisticated. Same for me,

but I was never so young I believed the noise that all liberal politicians were corrupt. that "corrupt corporatist" silliness. My own liberal ideals and goals were firm and I just knew that couldn't be the case.

Of course, I had the "advantage" of hanging with a whole pack of both passive and potentially violent anti-establishment types in the late 60s (my older boyfriend's circles). That familiarity and cringing contempt syndrome, and I've been recognizing their various types ever since.

“It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of shit in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still shit." ~ Nina Turner on voting for Joe Biden

[PatSeg]

158. Oh yes, same here

I remember the extremists from the 1960s, the ones who basically wanted to blow everything up and then figure out what to do afterwards. They often were just in constant "anti" mode and I don't think anything would have pleased them. The one thing that really stands out now in retrospect is they did a lot of protesting, but so many of them didn't even vote. They didn't believe in the system, so saw no need to work with it.

I was naïve in that I didn't really understand how government worked and being young, I didn't have the kind of patience I have now. I lacked appreciation for how much work went into the changes we were celebrating and had no idea how much bargaining and compromise was involved.

So now every primary season, I see a new incarnation of those people from the 1960s and very little has changed. They often make far more noise than they do progress and much like in the 1960s, their tactics turn off a whole lot of people, sometimes pushing them away from liberal causes.


P.S. I'll never forget that "it's still shit" comment.

[Hortensis]

161. Hey, was that you? :)

We couldn’t guess just how much hard work by so many and how much cooperation and compromise goes into progress, and how much time, but at least normal people have the capacity to respect that it’s about all of us and what we all want. But there are always those who despise the impediments of democracy, have such contempt for the will of the people, that they call it corruption and themselves crusaders to excuse their rage at its power and desire to smash. Turner’s shit they have to eat, always blamed on some evil group, but it’s really the majorities with their own ideas they rage at.

[PatSeg]

164. "call....themselves crusaders to excuse their rage"

That is a good description. They often put themselves above the rest of us mere mortals, for their purpose and goals are lofty and pure, but actually they come across as blindsighted and perpetually angry.

And you know, I don't necessarily disagree with some of their ideas. Many of them have merit and in a perfect world, perhaps we could do many of the things they propose. It is their tactics and stubbornness that tends to turn people off. People don't really respond well to a "my way or the highway" attitude.

This point was made quite well by Tom Hayden in the movie The Trial of the Chicago 7. Though Abbie Hoffman's rhetoric was brilliant and his ideas laudable, he didn't really believe in the system, so he had no interest in fixing it.

Abbie Hoffman: Winning elections, that's the first thing on your wish list? Equality, justice, education, poverty and progress, they're second?

Tom Hayden: If you don't win elections, it doesn't matter what's second. And it is astonishing to me that someone still has to explain that to you

Hoffman and others like him, served an important purpose, as they publicly pointed out the many problems in our society and amplified them so they could no longer be ignored, but aside from rebellion, they apparently had no real plan. That is when we need the boring pragmatists, who are willing to do the hard part and work within the system. They aren't necessarily less idealistic than the Abbie Hoffmans of the world, but they are also realists.

[Hortensis]

165. So agree with so much. A little problem with some whose ideals

we can admire is that the more frustrated and estranged from the mainstream these sorts are, the more anti-democracy most become. They work it out in their minds that, for the good of society, people who don't agree with them shouldn't be able to vote their blind delusions. Yet, as you indicate, their very extremism means they couldn't possibly make what they want come about, lacking many of the competencies needed.

I once read a biography about Eugene Debbs and remember a quote from a friend that he was too good for this world. My take was that he was far too dysfunctional and what a shame the talents he did have were so badly wasted but also how fortunate for many tens of millions that they were. Helped save me from being born into one of the totalitarian socialist states of the 1950s instead of the height of New Deal era.

Maybe that last is a big part of it, but with all our faults and imperfections, I believe society is best as a collection of individuals pursing their own notions of happiness, rather than the "more" we could be if organized into group collectives.

******

Hey, here's a question for anyone: Why on earth aren't those who admire socialism starting and/or working at collectively owned socialized businesses? Shouldn't there be thousands all over the nation by now? Big and small collectives, with wonderfully secure and satisfied owner-workers, serving as shining beacons that highlight the failures of dying capitalism?

[PatSeg]

166. I've enjoyed this discussion so much, very stimulating

As I was reading your comment, it dawned on me that these extremists who are striving for a perfect world are often paving the way for a dictatorship, being they will not accept the fact that the majority may not agree with their goals or tactics. Often their perceived needs for society are so urgent, that there is no time for democracy.

Of course, we've seen all this play out around the world before, in the form of totalitarian communist states. A handful of idealists who may be very sincere in their motives, think they know what is best for everyone else, so we'll just set aside democracy temporarily until we get everything up and running in the new order. Of course, "temporary" turns into years and decades, until democracy becomes a very faint and distant memory. Democracy eventually can be restored, but it now has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

It is the arrogance and hubris of these idealistic leaders that often ends up being their downfall. They were and are so very sure that THEY know what is best for everyone else. "Its for their own good." The irony is that they become obsessed with the same kind of power that they fought against when they were younger. An endless recycling of the same power structures because democracy was viewed as imperfect and nonessential.

The problem with democracy is we may have to accept policies and laws that we disagree with. It is the price we pay to have our voices be heard, but there are no guarantees we will get our way.


You know, that is an excellent point about collectives. That sounds like a much more productive way for many of these activists to utilize their energies and implement their ideals. Maybe not as sexy though, would take a long time, and probably wouldn't get them a lot of media attention.


Tom Hayden: Are we using the trial to defend ourselves against very serious charges that could land us in prison for ten years, or to say a pointless "fuck you" to the establishment?

[Hortensis]

168. A discussion of extremism. It's a real thing and we need

to recognize it as such. Unfortunate for extremists that they've made the word have such bad connotations, but not unjust ones. They've been intensively studied and continue to be, for good reason.

Our GA power company is a collective. Buy property in its area, you become a member. Of course, since the membership benefit is electrification of our rural area, the occasional monetary refunds that come to us wouldn't buy dinner out.

"Jerry Rubin: Fuck you!

Hayden: That is what I was afraid… ... If we leave without saying anything about why we came in the first place, it’ll be heartbreaking. If the jury finds us guilty, we’re not leaving at all. The only thing we need to say about why we came here is it wasn’t to incite violence."

Lol, thanks for the memory. If only we'd had cable back then. After inadvertently helping elect Nixon in 1968, Hayden of course later went on to serve in the CA legislature, married Jane Fonda, gave a nod to Bernie Sanders but endorsed Hillary Clinton, and died right before seeing his nation elect Trump in 2016.

Jerry Rubin, after retiring from anti-war activism, became an entrepreneur/businessman, was an early investor in Apple, said "wealth creation is the real American revolution. What we need is an infusion of capital into the depressed areas of our country," and died wealthy in 1994.

[PatSeg]

169. I was working in downtown Chicago during the trial

My husband at the time started work later than I did, so he went to the courthouse and sat in on the trial most days. Besides reading about it every day in the newspaper, I got first hand accounts from him in the evening. He even rode in the elevator with a couple of them once. It was nonstop entertainment and Judge Hoffman was every bit as bad, if not worse, than he was portrayed in the movie.

That's pretty ironic about Jerry Rubin and probably not an uncommon story about activists from that time. At least Hayden stayed true to his ideals and did participate in government.

The one problem I had with the movie was they portrayed Jerry Rubin as an airhead and I don't recall him being that dense.

I remember trying to convey to my children what it was like, but I know I didn't capture it adequately. The movie did what I couldn't though.

[Hortensis]

172. Oh, wow! What a place to be. Definitely better than cable. :)

As for Rubin, I'd looked at his age, and he remained an iconoclastic activist not just past adolescence but into the first half of his 30s, longer than some but he was a leader. As you say, though, not exactly uncommon to change with maturity and greater experience.

Leaving those who don't/can't. For instance, Nina Turner's old enough now to be Jerry Rubin's mother as he moved to the next phase of his life, so it looks like she's doomed to always reject the homogenized will of democratic majorities as...enragingly unpalatable.

[PatSeg]

170. P.S. You're in Georgia?

Wow, must be an exciting, but tense day!

[PatSeg]

143. I don't really see any such hate here either

I've seen occasional criticism that I would not categorize as "hate", just disagreement. At times, I have seen quite a bit of overreaction to the occasional criticism however, which makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. It would be nice if we could disagree with a Democratic politician now and then without feeling like we are offending someone.

Some pretty bizarre stuff goes on over at "that weird place".

[jalan48]

6. What can you do? Pavlovian reflex. Foamers gonna foam.

[Gore1FL]

51. +1

[stillcool]

7. it's too easy

The wave is easy to ride, and there are times you don't even know you're riding it.

[MustLoveBeagles]

8. She backed Pelosi

Link to tweet

Sometimes she deserves the critism she gets here and sometimes she doesn't. This time she didn't.

Thank you AOC.

[George II]

10. When her name was called during her round she did not vote.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Maybe she was in the bathroom? Do you know why she wasn't there?

FFS stop speculating the worst in good people.

[Dem4Life1102]

32. Thanks

[Hortensis]

91. If only the vote was called alphabetically so she would have

known when her name was coming up. The same for the others who were also in the bathroom when their names came up.

Come on, they pulled a stunt, seemingly hoping a show of...what, pretend insulting reluctance? would placate the anti-Democratic followers their votes for Pelosi were going to enrage. The biggest criticism is not of their hypocrisy from Democrats, believe me.

[Celerity]

116. [phone]

[MustLoveBeagles]

28. That's true

I don't know why she didn't vote during her round. It could've been for any number of reasons. I'm just glad that in the end, she did.

[Dem4Life1102]

35. Yes

And there were several other democrats who didn’t vote the first time they were called but no one has started threads about any of them.

[MustLoveBeagles]

43. I'm willing to give AOC the benefit of the doubt on this

Overall I like her a lot in spite of disagreeing with her on some of what she says and does. That's not to say that I think she's above criticism and I haven't been shy about criticizing her in the past. It's just I don't think she deserves it for this. I don't care much whether she voted for Speaker Pelosi during her round or at the end. The most important thing is that she DID do it.

[Dem4Life1102]

45. Exactly

[AmyStrange]

171. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[Blue_true]

71. Sometimes that is strategic.

When she saw that Speaker-Elect (again) needed her vote to win the speakership, she voted. I don't understand the five or six Democrats who still did not vote and would like to know who they are.

[zentrum]

29. Others who said this about her

…have deleted their posts since she did vote for Pelosi.

I know her vote doesn't fit the narrative about her.

[ShazzieB]

44. Three words:

So. Freaking. What.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I just don't understand why the timing of her vote is such a BFD. She DID vote for Pelosi, after all.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it.

[paleotn]

67. Can't we all just get along?

[rpannier]

75. Passing this on

From her interview on the Breakfast Club
If you have doubts about whether she would have voted for Pelosi or not go to the 46.20 mark

This is why there was no doubt AOC was going to vote for her

[barbtries]

9. i'm glad i've missed them.

will trash if i happen upon one.
AOC is brilliant and she did the right thing.

[dchill]

11. Exactly. Enough already!

[treestar]

12. It's been in question before

There's reason to question whether she is going to - at some point she started a threat she would not - though she ended up voting for Pelosi twice. But there is reason to think she might not in the time period before she votes.

[Miigwech]

13. Agreed. She is a helpful firebrand for sure and that's what the party needs sometimes!

Good trouble, youthful trouble, idealistic trouble .... she has so much magnetic energy. I just love her! Our party needs her and she brings in so many young voters !!!!

[zentrum]

27. Yes! Yes! Yes!

[ShazzieB]

46. Agreed.

[PufPuf23]

14. Way too many negative and divisive posts about AOC.

Please knock it off.

[gibraltar72]

16. Agree wholeheartedly

She is a link to younger voters. We just can't seem to figure out how to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

[NNadir]

17. I agree. She is a very bright young woman with an outstanding wit. I disagree with her...

...on many things, but I appreciate her loud and clear voice.

[MerryBlooms]

34. I agree with you. I am disgusted by the attempts to turn AOC into an 'other'.

I see it on many forums.

[matt819]

19. Agreed

She’s a fighter. And the future.

(BTW, that’s coming from an old white guy.)

[BigOleDummy]

152. Agreed

And I'm an old white guy too.

[denvine]

21. Totally agree!

[Srkdqltr]

23. There is a level of woman bashing on DU unfortunately.

Generally criticism seems to turn to belittling as in the "she was in the bathroom" comment when she voted the way everyone wanted her to.

[zentrum]

24. Agree with you 100%

Love her. She's the real deal. The future. Hope she goes all the way to the WH.

Her treatment around here is foolishly divisive.

[DeminPennswoods]

25. Agree, she's an overall plus for Dems

and is part of the future of the party although some folks seem not to want to believe that.

[Cobalt Violet]

26. I didn't see most of them.

Maybe because I had put many people on ignore during the Bernie vs Hillary primary days.

The bitter resentment is disgusting to me.

[Tommymac]

38. Me too. One of the reasons I took a long vacation from DU.

But Solidarity is the key now and for the foreseeable future.

We Dem's HAVE to learn how to get along inside Our Big Tent, how to disagree with respect and honor and not alienating those that have a different vision; or we will lose Our Democracy. Sooner rather then later.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. Yes, it's time to form a circular firing squad; ...

2022 elections are just around the corner.

[MerryBlooms]

31. R&K 'lulz', 'bazinga', hand waving, back slapping, and especially let me add the

gaslighting... It's all your imagination, no one is doing that, no one hates her...

There apparently were Dems who actually did vote against Pelosi, I don't think I've seen an OP on them yet... Hope springs eternal. Ha!

[Tommymac]

36. Mine was one. Rep Conner Lamb Western PA.

But he made that campaign promise 2 years ago in our district during the special election.

I applaud him for keeping his promise. He is a good man. Met him. Not as progressive as I like, I am a Fetterman Dem, but willing to listen with an open mind.

Law and Order guy - stopping Opioid Addiction Epidemic in our district is his (and our) #1 priority. Centrist. Very purple district.

I voted for him with no qualms twice.

[MerryBlooms]

48. Thank you for the information.

Looked up his vote history, and he's a progressive. It seems he had to distance himself from Pelosi in order to carry his district. Always good to go Blue, no matter what it takes.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/conor_lamb/412744

[Tommymac]

50. Yes he did. I live in his district.

He is still a Centrist in my mind. But then I am as far left as Fetterman.

It was a tougher fight 2 years ago when he ran in the Special Election. He was replacing a disgraced immoral long time Rethuglican, Tim Murphy who resigned.

But they did redraw the district for 2020 and I think it is an easier one for him to win now. Conner will have that seat as long as he wants it.

BTW, you are welcome!

[MerryBlooms]

62. This is why I love DU. I learn so much every day.

One post leads to a search, another search, etc... Awesome.

[yaesu]

33. Younger generation Reps like AOC give me hope for the future. They are human, they will make

mistakes but we all should feel fortunate that these smart, educated professionals like AOC have chosen to serve this country when they could be making a fortune in the private sector.

[flibbitygiblets]

66. This 👆

Personally I've not seen much of what I'd call "hate" for AOC around this site, and while were on the subject, it's important to distinguish "hate" from speaking out when any Democrat goes off the farm. Correcting someone is not hate-- as long as the intention is constructive discussion resulting in compromise and progress. If we allow ourselves to be divided, we get trump. Or worse, tRump 2.0, who's actually smart and doesn't broadcast his/her crimes because s/he doesn't know they're crimes, (or think they should be crimes in the first place).

Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything AOC wants, and her kind of idealism is wonderful, but needs to be tempered with realism, particularly when one is new and less experienced.

[keithsw]

37. I admire her tremendously

And like it or not, the type of politician she is, is the future

[Tommymac]

39. This

[liberalmuse]

40. Agreed, and thank you.

What people don't understand is that millennials and the generations after have had a completely different American experience than those of us who grew up in the height of American propaganda. It's okay to disagree. I don't agree with some things AOC says, but I am thrilled she has a platform. She pushes back hard and instantly on conservative bullshit and I love her for both that, and her progressive perspective. This country obviously needs a change, and I welcome the vision she and others like her add to progressivism.

[appalachiablue]

41. It's done intentionally to provoke and divide & is unhealthy.

As well, the FDR bashing has to cease.

K/R

[athenasatanjesus]

47. AOC is not allowed to be pragmatic.

She must fight battles she has no chance of winning or she is considered a fake.

[Cobalt Violet]

55. Bit off topic here aren't you?

N/t

[AmyStrange]

52. Well said...

-

and thank you.
==============

[Always Randy]

54. Build bridges not fences

[marble falls]

56. I agree. I hope to live long enough to see her in leadership.

[dawn5651]

57. she is the future of the party.

[R B Garr]

81. All the election results don't really support this,

considering that her alignment with Bernie is how she self-identified and his losses are not the future as determined by voters.

Katie Porter, Stacey Abrams, they seem to be the future. AOC is popular in her district...a blue district in a blue state.

[treestar]

104. only the present matters

the vote was today.

[AmyStrange]

162. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

-

Welcome to DU.
============

[Cyberologist]

58. I don't hate AOC

I just think she is disrespectful to my party and a backstabber. Would I support her? Absolutely, once I crawl from up under the bus, pull the knives out my back, I'm fine.

[Celerity]

121. In what way is AOC a backstabber? That's a vicious attack against an elected Democratic House Member

How the hell did she stab you with knives in your back?



You have been on DU for over 4 and a half years, and one of your grand total of EIGHT posts in that entire time is a flat out smear of a Democratic House member?

You should self delete.

[betsuni]

130. AOC said Joe Biden wouldn't be in the same party as she in another country because

"There's usually kind of a neoliberal party, usually there's a party that's kind of corporate consensus but not socially regressive."

What does that mean? Nothing. Nothing. Backstabbing for nothing.

[Celerity]

131. Of course she would not be, as the US is one of the very few Western democracies with no

form of proportional representation for its electoral system. It is a first past the post majoritarian single member district system, which by nature breaks down into a 2 party system that forces ideologically diverse politicians and voters into an either or situation.

There is not a single PR system-based, western advanced democratic nation where you have only two parties represented in its parliament. Even the UK has more than two parties despite not being a full PR system.

Ludicrous to call that backstabbing. It is a basic truism.

[betsuni]

163. Not the point. It's not true that Biden is a neoliberal corporatist and isn't progressive.

[LanternWaste]

59. As well as the corollary.

It's frustrating to watch rational adults treat her a sacred cow.. which is it's own version of division too.

I imagine the one will remains as long as the other.

[berni_mccoy]

61. She's a hard working Democratic Congresswoman

She deserves the admiration this site can afford.

[LanternWaste]

63. No one is arguing differently.

However, treating any politician as a sacred cow or the second coming of progressivism is not respect. It's abject fawning.

[berni_mccoy]

65. What does that mean exactly. I certainly see way more negative comments than anything like that

[LanternWaste]

69. There are specific definitions to each word I used.

And if you are unable or unwilling to see comments fawning over even the most benign or inconsequential tweet she makes, that's on you.

If you are unable or unwilling to see the day to day criticisms received by other Dems that are discussed without the aggressive defenses and rationalizations made for her, that's on you.



I'm not emotionally invested in her, or any politician for that matter... allowing my eyes to remain open to even that which doesn't validate my biases.

[berni_mccoy]

73. I don't think you know what the words you are using mean or imply

To say members here treat her like a sacred cow is in itself a divisive statement meant to imply that the members here don’t or won’t think critically about Democratic officials. That simply isn’t the case.

[mtnsnake]

79. You nailed it, berni

[AmyStrange]

80. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[questionseverything]

82. They know, they are just calling a young, bright democratic congressperson a cow

[MerryBlooms]

93. Dehumanizing. 'Other'.

[treestar]

101. Now that's reaching

trying to claim a victimhood that does not exist. We know "sacred cow" is an expression.

[treestar]

99. She is a sacred cow if we cannot criticize

knocking off the "hate" which means criticism.

[Mariana]

160. Yesterday, she was criticized based on a lie that she voted against Pelosi.

If someone feels the need to make up a lie just so they can criticize someone, they probably do hate that person. Calling that behavior out does not mean the person who was lied about is a sacred cow.

[betsuni]

76. +1

[AmericanCanuck]

173. [phone]

[AmyStrange]

85. Is the way we fawn over Biden & Harris wrong too?

-

Fawning and criticizing are NOT mutually exclusive.

ETA: My sister's fawn over me, but that don't stop them from criticizing me like it's a free ride at Disneyland.
=============

[Celerity]

122. 'No one is arguing differently.'

You have posters openly calling her a backstabber and that they have had her stick knives in their back

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214798498#post58


Also, it is disingenuous to claim that people treat her like a 'sacred cow' when almost all of what the vast majority are doing is simply defending her against a multiplicity of seemingly endless attacks, diminutions, and flat out lies by a small, extremely vocal clique that started as soon as she defeated Crowley in the 2018 primaries.

[treestar]

97. So did President Obama, but if we didn't like criticism of him

we were scolded that his feet should be held to the fire, we were like Tiger Beat fans, etc. Seems like that is flipped when it comes to AOC for some posters.

[betsuni]

108. It was feet held to the fire; echo chamber, rah rah cheerleaders, fan club, blind loyalty,

glassy-eyed adoration, Stockholm syndrome, paid shills, etc., it was endless (about other Democrats too).

[R B Garr]

77. Exactly. I'm not her mother. I reserve the same rights to

“critique” that she bestows upon herself.

[MerryBlooms]

83. Mostly, it's what others 'critique' and bestow upon AOC. Even when correcting the record,

doubling down and dehumanizing.

You can skip the gaslighting step. Thanks.

[R B Garr]

87. No it's not what others bestow on her. It's excused

under the “firebrand” moniker...

You can skip the gaslighting step, too. Thanks.

[MerryBlooms]

88. lulz

[R B Garr]

100. lulz

[treestar]

96. +1

We are scolded about lockstep for wanting support for Biden or Hillary or Obama.

[cwydro]

132. "It's" vs. "its"

No apostrophe needed in your second usage.

[Jay25]

64. Absolutely agree.

[greenman3610]

68. or any circular firing behavior

[myohmy2]

70. +1...

...

[Ferrets are Cool]

72. K and R

[rpannier]

74. These people have obviously never listened to the Breakfast Club

Her interview with Charlemagne the God and the Breakfast Club was quite interesting
At about 46.20 she gives her opinion about Nancy Pelosi... which is positive

[dansolo]

125. Which makes these kind of stunts aggravating

I believe that AOC does admire Pelosi a lot. But her persona is that of a revolutionary, so he has to keep selling this image of opposing her. This latest stunt is just another example. She held up her vote to see if she could safely oppose Pelosi. If she was just one vote in the caucus, she wouldn't be able to get all this attention.

[dustyscamp]

86. Don't attack Democrats!!!!

except if it's AOC

[AmyStrange]

92. The irony of it all...

-

and the hypocrisy of believing tht it's ok to attack a fellow democrat (AOC), but it's NOT OK for her to do the same?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it?
===========

[MerryBlooms]

94. AOC voted for Pelosi today. She did the right thing.

That's the topic for today.

[AmyStrange]

98. Sorry for meandering

[treestar]

103. Well come on, it's holding his feet to the fire

when it's President Obama, it's OK for AOC and others to attack Democrats, making the OP most unreasonable in demanding that she, the criticizer, not be criticized herself. AOC should knock if off too then, as should other progressives. Next time Biden is called a corporatist or Hillary a warmonger, I will remember this.

[AmyStrange]

106. Personally, I find it funny...

-

how blind some people are to their own hypocrisies.

Even though I'm aware of it, I still find find myself being hypocritical anyway.

Of course, it takes a deep critical analysis of your own belief systems in order to see it, but that's for another discussion.
==========

[dustyscamp]

114. What I posted wasn't about Obama or Pelsoi it was about the hypocrisy of the Anti AOC Clique here

They think they are sly by posting constant streams of Anti-Aoc articles to hurt her image and then bash her in the discussions. "She doesn't do anything but tweet or she hasn't passed any legislation". That is all bullshit. When it's a more traditional Dem that does something dumb people just brush it off and say they know what they are doing so better bugger off. I'm fine with people constructively criticizing AOC, but we should be able to do the same with someone like Pelsoi for instance without making someone cry. Or another option we could just make every Democrat off limits for now and focus on our real enemies.

[Celerity]

134. +100

Not even just posting negative OP's, but swarming onto any OP about her, even the positive ones. Or, if she is tangentially mentioned in a thread of a 'not-directly about AOC' OP, then that mention (if remotely positive) is swarmed with negative posts. It is endless diminution, negative-framing, and even falsehoods for 2 and a half years now.

[treestar]

102. Or except if AOC does it

[Celerity]

120. +1000

[MrsCoffee]

126. Attack any Democrat you want

if you are AOC though, right?

The cognitive dissonance is strong.

[AmericanCanuck]

174. If AOC can attack other Democrats

why can't other Democrats defend themselves?

[Tarc]

90. Indeed. The Speakership isn't a hereditary position

I like Pelosi, but it is a vote, and she has to earn those votes if she wants the spot again. AOC has every right to speak her mind, gain concessions, etc...

[mvd]

105. K&R

We can disagree with each other of course, but the hate does get too much and I feel she’s one of our brightest stars. Sanders needs young people to carry the progressive mantle.

[AmyStrange]

107. !!!AOC RULES!!!

-

but that don't mean that I have to like EVERYTHING she says.
==========

[H2O Man]

109. Recommended.

Thank you.

[Blue Owl]

115. K&R

[diva77]

118. +1,000,000 This! K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hortensis]

138. And a million cheers for incitement of what we deplore!

After all, we all enjoy coming here and DU just wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without these pop-up rumbles. And what would happen to political involvement, piss-poor as it already is, if it didn't offer endless opportunities to indulge tastes for hypocrisy and partisan divisions?

[diva77]

148. not sure i understand your post

[Hortensis]

155. It's commending the utility of this OP, which can be different

things to different people. Have a nice day, Diva.

[Kaleva]

123. I don't hate her and she's free to do what she feels is best as far as I'm concerned

I usually just ignore the threads that discuss her but this one caught my eye.

[brooklynite]

128. So, any criticism is "hate" or "bashing".....

Could you help by telling us what subjects we CAN discuss about her?

[Dem4Life1102]

137. How about people falsely claiming that she didn't vote for Pelosi

or claiming without any evidence that she was withholding her vote because she didn’t vote until the final group?

[Mariana]

139. Criticizing her for not voting for Pelosi as speaker

when she hadn't even voted yet qualifies as bashing, I think.

[PufPuf23]

142. oh never mind. nt

[Sloumeau]

129. It was 5 Centrist Dems that failed to vote for Pelosi, not the Progressive Dems.

From TheHill.com

Five centrist Democrats oppose Pelosi for Speaker in tight vote

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532452-five-centrist-democrats-oppose-pelosi-for-speaker-in-tight-vote|

It was the same thing as 2 years ago. Back then, it was the Centrists, not the Progressive Democrats, that failed to vote for Pelosi.

[AmyStrange]

133. I say let them eat cake...

-

oooops, wrong thread
=======

[BlueJac]

135. I agree

[BlueWavePsych]

136. Let's win the GA Runoffs and get our Senate Majority, then

fine-tune our agenda

[Lunabell]

141. Yep.

[McKim]

145. Yes, just stop it!

Yes'm just stop it! AOC is the future of our party. She says things that needed to be said a long time ago. Democrats need to listen to her and respect her! We do not need to worry about somebody who is a swing voter in Dumfkistan Ohio thinks when we can gather in more and more young people who had given up hope on voting, and all the low income folks who had given up because it never changes!

[BobTheSubgenius]

146. This is not the time for division and acrimony.

The GOP is willing - hell, slavering - to rend flesh and finish off any opposition it sees. Give them no openings...they create enough of their own.

[Ingersollman]

147. Agreed.

Pie is not needed at this time. Solidarity as the party that wants to keep democracy, even if we have disagreements on the best way to move it forward.

[Caliman73]

149. I think that we need to come to an agreement on "Hate" versus "Criticism".

We should be able to have discussions about things we disagree with within our caucus.

I do think that there are people who find fault with everything AOC does which is certainly not conducive to discussion. People who dismiss her because she is popular and contrarian.


I also think that there are people who think everything she does is genius, which is not true either. She is young, energetic, and out spoken, but sometimes rash. She is given way too much media attention.

I think that we need to manage our emotions and reactions and have discussions rather than making snarky comments pro or against.

[Mariana]

159. People who feel compelled to make up lies about her

and then criticize her based upon those lies most likely hate her.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

150. Why is it even considered wrong to begin with? This group

fhink is so annoying to begin with imho. Thought WE believed a person's vote is sacred. Except for us?

[mtnsnake]

153. Oh come on. The OP doesn't "cry and stomp their feet anytime someone criticizes her"

That is just plain nonsense.