I Want More Politicians Like AOC

[dogcows]

She is not part of the elite. No rich and famous family, or big money, or Ivy League connections. We could really use more politicians who have actually worked for a living.

But here’s the big one; she’s more interested in policy goals than personal ambition. Here’s her response to being asked about a Senate or Presidential run.

Quote

What’s funny about that is they assume my ambition is positional. They assume my ambition is a title or a seat. My ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country. Presidents come and go, elected officials come and go, single payer healthcare is forever.

Whether you agree or disagree with her goals, it’s refreshing to have somebody who is interested in outcomes. Not just trying to lock down their seat and all the perks that go along with it for 50 years.

[Voltaire]

On our side, the personal history is one of the major attractions for JD Vance as well.

AOC is a bit more complex than you make her out to be. She grew up in an upper middle class home in one of the wealthiest parts of the country and then went to an expensive private college, so the girl from the Bronx persona seems contrived. She looks the part though and the Puerto Rican roots in the Bronx truly is only a generation removed.

[Caine Mutiny]

I’m not sold that this is a particular attraction. What you’re essentially saying is that you prefer a political true believer to anyone with personal ambition. Historically that hasn’t achieved the best results.

It’s true that true believers aren’t concerned with personal gain. They also aren’t usually willing to compromise, which is essential to positive political change in this country. 

Don’t get me wrong; I like AOC. I’m just suggesting that as a general rule personal ambition doesn’t bother me. 

[dogcows]

6 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

I’m not sold that this is a particular attraction. What you’re essentially saying is that you prefer a political true believer to anyone with personal ambition. Historically that hasn’t achieved the best results.

It’s true that true believers aren’t concerned with personal gain. They also aren’t usually willing to compromise, which is essential to positive political change in this country. 

Don’t get me wrong; I like AOC. I’m just suggesting that as a general rule personal ambition doesn’t bother me. 

I don’t want more people who hold seats for decades and do just enough to get re-elected. We’ve got a Congress overflowing with them.

Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, John Thune, Ron Johnson, Richard Blumenthal… Just to name a few from both sides.

SCOTUS is writing new laws and the President is trying to do the same. The biggest reason? Congress doesn’t do anything other than work on keeping their seats. Each campaign seemingly starts the day after the last election.

[dogcows]

25 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

On our side, the personal history is one of the major attractions for JD Vance as well.

AOC is a bit more complex than you make her out to be. She grew up in an upper middle class home in one of the wealthiest parts of the country and then went to an expensive private college, so the girl from the Bronx persona seems contrived. She looks the part though and the Puerto Rican roots in the Bronx truly is only a generation removed.

She didn’t grow up in poverty. But she’s definitely in the bottom percentile of wealth among members of Congress. There are others who worked for a living before getting into politics, and I like that for them too. I just used her as a famous example. And then her statement about policy being more important than keeping a seat was the big one for me.

[Engorgeous George]

43 minutes ago, dogcows said:

She didn’t grow up in poverty. But she’s definitely in the bottom percentile of wealth among members of Congress. There are others who worked for a living before getting into politics, and I like that for them too. I just used her as a famous example. And then her statement about policy being more important than keeping a seat was the big one for me.

So you seem to be taking her at her word rather than allowing she may be saying not what she believes but what she thinks her constituents want to hear.

 

Interesting, and exciting for you, I suppose.  I am old and jaded myself and can't remember the last time I took a politican at their word.  It might be refreshing to believe in one.  I seem to recall I sort of believed in John Anderson when he ran for President, sort of.  Since then, none.  My cynicism has not let me down.

[Caine Mutiny]

59 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I don’t want more people who hold seats for decades and do just enough to get re-elected. We’ve got a Congress overflowing with them.

Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, John Thune, Ron Johnson, Richard Blumenthal… Just to name a few from both sides.

SCOTUS is writing new laws and the President is trying to do the same. The biggest reason? Congress doesn’t do anything other than work on keeping their seats. Each campaign seemingly starts the day after the last election.

I get this too. 
 

But on the other hand there ARE advantages to long term politicians: simply put they tend to look at things more long term. 
 

IMO, the most serious problems we face as Americans in the world are, in no particular order, our national debt, energy, climate change, the effects of Artificial Intelligence, the effects of automation, and our role in world affairs and competition with China, Europe, and the gulf states of the Middle East. I believe that each of these issues demand long term thinking and planning and we’re not getting it at the moment from either political party, both of which constantly campaign on short term gratification for the voters coupled with lazy and dangerous demonization of whomever they regard as their enemies. The constant desire for somebody new does not, IMO, help to fight against this trend. 

[dogcows]

22 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

So you seem to be taking her at her word rather than allowing she may be saying not what she believes but what she thinks her constituents want to hear.

 

Interesting, and exciting for you, I suppose.  I am old and jaded myself and can't remember the last time I took a politican at their word.  It might be refreshing to believe in one.  I seem to recall I sort of believed in John Anderson when he ran for President, sort of.  Since then, none.  My cynicism has not let me down.

Maybe she’ll end up like the rest, or maybe the party will force her out. But I’ll leave space open for at least a little hope. And not even for her personally. For more politicians to put people first.

[seafoam1]

4 hours ago, dogcows said:

She is not part of the elite. No rich and famous family, or big money, or Ivy League connections. We could really use more politicians who have actually worked for a living.

But here’s the big one; she’s more interested in policy goals than personal ambition. Here’s her response to being asked about a Senate or Presidential run.

Whether you agree or disagree with her goals, it’s refreshing to have somebody who is interested in outcomes. Not just trying to lock down their seat and all the perks that go along with it for 50 years.

Cool. You sound like like you are extremely mentally ill. You are finally admitting it, and now your next step is to seek help. 

[Maximum Overkill]

 

[seafoam1]

13 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

 

Every time I hear a liberal talk, I think, "damn, that's the dumbest person on the planet." Then I hear what the next liberal says. 

[Maximum Overkill]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

Every time I hear a liberal talk, I think, "damn, that's the dumbest person on the planet." Then I hear what the next liberal says. 

@dogcows wants more politicians like AOC 

[Tree of Knowledge]

Empty headed crisis actress and the OP buys it hook line and sinker. 
 

 

[seafoam1]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

@dogcows wants more politicians like AOC 

Yep. It's cyclical liberal stupidity. 

[Frozenbeernuts]

Just like the democrat party, you have to pretend to think like this in order for the facade to stay up.

An entire party of smoke and mirrors which ignores very basic facets of reality.

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

What has AOC done. Other than line her pockets and keep jobs out of NY?

[Frozenbeernuts]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

What has AOC done. Other than line her pockets and keep jobs out of NY?

Get uglier.

When she is old, that nose is going to be something to behold.

[Maximum Overkill]

10 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Get uglier.

When she is old, that nose is going to be something to behold.

Let's hope she gets those horse teeth fixed 

[seafoam1]

2 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Let's hope she gets those horse teeth fixed 

Here's hoping these violent , sick liberals die by the sword that they have been swinging at the normals. 

[TBayXXXVII]

8 hours ago, dogcows said:

She is not part of the elite. No rich and famous family, or big money, or Ivy League connections. We could really use more politicians who have actually worked for a living.

But here’s the big one; she’s more interested in policy goals than personal ambition. Here’s her response to being asked about a Senate or Presidential run.

Whether you agree or disagree with her goals, it’s refreshing to have somebody who is interested in outcomes. Not just trying to lock down their seat and all the perks that go along with it for 50 years.

You want more socialists?  Yeah, we know.

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

10 hours ago, Voltaire said:

On our side, the personal history is one of the major attractions for JD Vance as well.

AOC is a bit more complex than you make her out to be. She grew up in an upper middle class home in one of the wealthiest parts of the country and then went to an expensive private college, so the girl from the Bronx persona seems contrived. She looks the part though and the Puerto Rican roots in the Bronx truly is only a generation removed.

Let's not forget  that for all that expensive and rich upbringing she had (despite her trying to cover that up as much as possible), she's as dumb as a box of rocks.  She LITERALLY just said the American Revolution was really against the "Billionaires" of that time.  No, really.  She really said that.  Don't believe me?  Check it out:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/aoc-triples-claims-american-revolution-billionaires-time

And none of the hosts called her out on it.  In fact, the seals in the audience clapped like, well, seals.  And the kicker is the liberals are dumb enough to believe her that it's true.  No one on that side of the aisle will bother fact-checking her.  They'll just take it as gospel.  The cult is strong on the left.  In fact, I anticipate the forum liberals to come in and defend this.

 

[supermike80]

My God this is what resonates with the left.  Focking AOC.  Its amazing  

[Kopy]

3 hours ago, supermike80 said:

My God this is what resonates with the left.  Focking AOC.  Its amazing  

Hey. I actually agree with one of these clowns for once. I hope she ends up the Democratic nominee in a couple years.

Kamala Harris 2.0 

Let's put her on center stage for all us normal people to see. Let's have her talk from that cold, hard, black, f'd up heart in front of all the world to see.

 

 

[BudBro]

No grown adult votes for democrats...and, yet, the OP somehow garnered a page full of responses with his fishing bait that AOC has ever had anything relevant to say.

[Voltaire]

4 hours ago, BudBro said:

No grown adult votes for democrats...and, yet, the OP somehow garnered a page full of responses with his fishing bait that AOC has ever had anything relevant to say.

49% do. It's scary.

[Voltaire]

[Grace Under Pressure]

Circle jerk commence!

AOC aside, the premise that Congress reps should be regular, middle-class people who are passing legislation for regular, middle class people shouldn't be a controversial take.

Pay attention to the voters who simp for the mega-millionaires and billionaires. These are the dopes who have been brainwashed into fighting for the 0.1% wealthiest. The politicians who do this are getting paid to move up into their ranks. The simps just do it for free.

[Caine Mutiny]

49 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Circle jerk commence!

AOC aside, the premise that Congress reps should be regular, middle-class people who are passing legislation for regular, middle class people shouldn't be a controversial take.

Pay attention to the voters who simp for the mega-millionaires and billionaires. These are the dopes who have been brainwashed into fighting for the 0.1% wealthiest. The politicians who do this are getting paid to move up into their ranks. The simps just do it for free.

Again more populist, group think nonsense.

Vote for the INDIVIDUAL you think is best (or least worse) regardless of his or her economic, social, cultural, racial, or ethnic background. Focus on what you think they’re going to do rather than who they are. 

[Engorgeous George]

Do we pay attention to the donors who support those regular old joe, middle class, working folks who run for congress to determine to whom they may be beholden for their office and their political future?  Do we listen to words or do we evaluate actions?  Do we want a system where  the majority can make a call on the fruits of the labor of the minority?  Do we want to let folks rob others by the ballot box rather than the gun barrel?   Do we want to make voting the last industry as we unravel as a social system? 

[Hawkeye21]

How do democrats ever expect to win an election when people like this are who they want to vote for?

[TheNewGirl]

Isn't she the one who said that Deloitte has been poisoning the country for years? 

She also leans too far towards communism for me and has shown how unhinged she gets; I don't find this a strength in female politicians, or males for that matter. But it bothers me more when the women become unhinged. I think it looks bad for women as a whole. 

[dogcows]

24 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Do we pay attention to the donors who support those regular old joe, middle class, working folks who run for congress to determine to whom they may be beholden for their office and their political future?  Do we listen to words or do we evaluate actions?  Do we want a system where  the majority can make a call on the fruits of the labor of the minority?  Do we want to let folks rob others by the ballot box rather than the gun barrel?   Do we want to make voting the last industry as we unrival as a social system? 

Because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this became a massive problem.

Not only are there no limits on how much donors can spend, but many can hide their identities while doing it.

You might never know who really funded the candidates. IMO, the key is something you said: evaluate their actions.

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Do we pay attention to the donors who support those regular old joe, middle class, working folks who run for congress to determine to whom they may be beholden for their office and their political future?  Do we listen to words or do we evaluate actions?  Do we want a system where  the majority can make a call on the fruits of the labor of the minority?  Do we want to let folks rob others by the ballot box rather than the gun barrel?   Do we want to make voting the last industry as we unrival as a social system? 

I am anti-democracy

 

[Engorgeous George]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

Because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this became a massive problem.

Not only are there no limits on how much donors can spend, but many can hide their identities while doing it.

You might never know who really funded the candidates. IMO, the key is something you said: evaluate their actions.

Some maybe, but not many.  They are so stupid and so arrogant they post their own perfidy on the social network sites bragging about their lifes and exposing their masters.  They gather at events from pedo Islands to Met galas to fashion weeks and film festivals and awards shows right along with their masters.  They can be filmed going in and out of private resorts and golf clubs to meet their sponsors and can be seen at exclusive clubs from Monaco to Vegas.  No matter how exclusive their events they forget they are catered or served by us, the little people, and no one likes gossip like us little people so word gets around.

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

6 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Circle jerk commence!

AOC aside, the premise that Congress reps should be regular, middle-class people who are passing legislation for regular, middle class people shouldn't be a controversial take.

Pay attention to the voters who simp for the mega-millionaires and billionaires. These are the dopes who have been brainwashed into fighting for the 0.1% wealthiest. The politicians who do this are getting paid to move up into their ranks. The simps just do it for free.

As usual, you're taking an argument no one made and started arguing against that because, well, you're also dumb as a box of rocks. 

[Hawkeye21]

5 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Isn't she the one who said that Deloitte has been poisoning the country for years? 

She also leans too far towards communism for me and has shown how unhinged she gets; I don't find this a strength in female politicians, or males for that matter. But it bothers me more when the women become unhinged. I think it looks bad for women as a whole. 

She definitely doesn't do any favors for women when it comes to stereotypes.  She would be an absolute disaster. 

[Engorgeous George]

It was sort of cute in a she still has time to grow out of it way when she first appeared on the scene.  Now, she panders for attention but does little else.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

She definitely doesn't do any favors for women when it comes to stereotypes.  She would be an absolute disaster. 

We'd all be clamoring for the good old days of Kamala Harris! 

[TheNewGirl]

And she's kind of latched onto Bernie. Which I am not sure is a great idea, but that's just me. 

[JuneJuly]

7 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Circle jerk commence!

AOC aside, the premise that Congress reps should be regular, middle-class people who are passing legislation for regular, middle class people shouldn't be a controversial take.

Pay attention to the voters who simp for the mega-millionaires and billionaires. These are the dopes who have been brainwashed into fighting for the 0.1% wealthiest. The politicians who do this are getting paid to move up into their ranks. The simps just do it for free.

Top 5%