She plays the game but that doesn’t mean she’s secretly a Capitalist. We can debate the efficacy of her strategies, but I am glad she finally pushed the party on Israel’s genocide.
If that was her intention then she wouldn’t have stated Isreal should get no weapons, not even for “defense”. Unless maybe she’s trying to save the system from itself? Still seems like that shift is something beneficial for those who want the genocide to stop.
She did state Israel should get defensive weapons until that position became unholdable. Now she’s trying to keep Pelosi in power. She’s doing everything to prevent a shift to the left.
you should call the majority report, they would love to have you explain how you came to this conclusion: 646-257-3920 , you will have a much larger audience then what’s here. I would love to see it.
I mean the majority report will often say the dems loose because they support genocide, they criticize the “vote blue no matter who” line. So not sure what you mean exactly
If it weren’t for the players, there’d be no game. Also, considering human living conditions/death as a “game” emulates rent seeking crapitalism ideals.
agreed, all of politics is not exactly “real”. Its a shared conceptual structure and a “game” we humans keep making up for ourselves to play. We can choose just not to play this game anymore and play by new rules. "The system"is not immortal and immutable, its just a conceptual construct we all agree exists, and is easy enough to follow such that our day runs predictably. If enough of us state that we are playing a new game instead, people everywhere will need to decide which game they want to play: the cruel shitty one that oppresses them or some new one.
Yes because employers will totally not automatically take it out of the paycheck. Cause they’re all about getting in trouble for their employees.
The only ones who can not pay taxes are the ultra wealthy or those who are only classified as contractors. And the contractors will get fucked a lot harder if they don’t pay
Even when you’re a captive tax payer you can do things differently. I think you mean to say she has power to do things more effectively? which brings us back to debating the efficacy of her tactics
Apologies for offering my understanding of what you said, I really don’t understand your expectations here. That all politicians stop playing the game starting with AOC? And that will somehow bring down the two party system? But again, here we are talking about what is a better strategy which you insist is not the case.
That all politicians stop playing the game starting with AOC?
If it is to be stopped, it has to stop with someone. The AOC of today is not the AOC of the first campaign, and that’s by design of the game. Not faulting get that out happened, but she’s been in the game long enough to know only billionaires and corpos are winning by these rules.
Are we expecting her to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools by throwing away the tools? My expectation is that she will use the tools to do harm reduction so that organizing lasting change becomes possible.
She plays the game but that doesn’t mean she’s secretly a Capitalist. We can debate the efficacy of her strategies, but I am glad she finally pushed the party on Israel’s genocide.
What game is she playing? Keep the establishment in power while it does nothing for the left?
If that was her intention then she wouldn’t have stated Isreal should get no weapons, not even for “defense”. Unless maybe she’s trying to save the system from itself? Still seems like that shift is something beneficial for those who want the genocide to stop.
She did state Israel should get defensive weapons until that position became unholdable. Now she’s trying to keep Pelosi in power. She’s doing everything to prevent a shift to the left.
you should call the majority report, they would love to have you explain how you came to this conclusion: 646-257-3920 , you will have a much larger audience then what’s here. I would love to see it.
You mean the “vote genocide no matter who Holocaust Harris #1 fanclub” report.
Were you expecting me to recommend a show where they agree with you?
No one that didn’t tell people to vote for genocide
I mean the majority report will often say the dems loose because they support genocide, they criticize the “vote blue no matter who” line. So not sure what you mean exactly
If it weren’t for the players, there’d be no game. Also, considering human living conditions/death as a “game” emulates rent seeking crapitalism ideals.
agreed, all of politics is not exactly “real”. Its a shared conceptual structure and a “game” we humans keep making up for ourselves to play. We can choose just not to play this game anymore and play by new rules. "The system"is not immortal and immutable, its just a conceptual construct we all agree exists, and is easy enough to follow such that our day runs predictably. If enough of us state that we are playing a new game instead, people everywhere will need to decide which game they want to play: the cruel shitty one that oppresses them or some new one.
If you’re paying taxes you’re playing the game as well. It’s not much of a choice.
Yes because employers will totally not automatically take it out of the paycheck. Cause they’re all about getting in trouble for their employees.
The only ones who can not pay taxes are the ultra wealthy or those who are only classified as contractors. And the contractors will get fucked a lot harder if they don’t pay
Truth
Oh yes, the captive functioning of society is as bad as the optional “can’t do anything differently” dysfunction. 🙄
Even when you’re a captive tax payer you can do things differently. I think you mean to say she has power to do things more effectively? which brings us back to debating the efficacy of her tactics
Apologies for offering my understanding of what you said, I really don’t understand your expectations here. That all politicians stop playing the game starting with AOC? And that will somehow bring down the two party system? But again, here we are talking about what is a better strategy which you insist is not the case.
If it is to be stopped, it has to stop with someone. The AOC of today is not the AOC of the first campaign, and that’s by design of the game. Not faulting get that out happened, but she’s been in the game long enough to know only billionaires and corpos are winning by these rules.
A drop => a trickle=> a stream=> a flood
Are we expecting her to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools by throwing away the tools? My expectation is that she will use the tools to do harm reduction so that organizing lasting change becomes possible.
That’s why Democrats today are right of Reagan.
No apologies needed, thanks anyway
In your opinion, Is AOC to the right of Reagan?