117
If AOC Doesn’t Run for President, Run a Union Worker
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
117 points (98.3% liked)
politics
30712 readers
1846 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Elaborate?
Look at her rolling back pledges and word salad. Half the time I don't even know what she's talking about. She claims she's progressive but still supports 'defensive weapons' for Israel. She claims to be anti-establishment despite being the establishment. She would fold and bend the knee under pressure. I don't understand why don't people demand better. Her and Sanders had a chance to prove voters but they keep being a disappointment because they're not brave enough to stand up to Jeffries and the rest. They claim they're different because that sounds good and it's what people want to hear. Those are just words, though. They show with their actions that they would just continue with business as usual. I wish she would be it, but I'm afraid she's just another disappointment. Somebody fresh and bold who is not afraid to stand up to bullies is desperately needed.
You gave a single actual example, which she has since changed her mind on after learning more about the situation and a whole lot of nonspecific language.
NTA but I did lose a lot of love for her when she voted against MTG's bill to ban arms sales to Israel. It showed a kneejerk reaction to vetoing anything the other side did as opposed to a willingness to neutrally review any proposal.
What is your evidence for a "kneejerk reaction" being the specific reason she opposed that bill?
The fact that it was a very plain-language amendment proposing to do one of the most popular things on the left (block on arms to Israel), but she voted against it.
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?