*advancing her career
https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3ldhxclo4wk2c
This is about AOC losing her bid for the Oversight committee to a geriatric Dem lifer. Sure she has systematically shredded any last bit of credibility with her triangulation, but hey, at least all the 5D polítical chess is paying off! She’s changing the system from the inside! It’s working this time!
Girl, you abandoned any pretense of doing working-class mass politics when you decided to do insider politics! Why are you tweeting like Bernie Sanders circa 2012? There’s no we! There’s no mass movement behind you! It’s just NYC DSA and some Warren libs (but I repeat myself)
Okay moron, give me one example of her being effective at doing anything but voting to fund genocide. You keep saying she’s effective but she hasn’t effected any change. All she’s done is give pieces of shit like you an excuse to vote for genocide.
No, you idiots keep saying that. I’m saying shes the least harmful rep we have. very different statements. Its not my fault you lack basic read comprehension and confuse terms like ‘accomplishments’ and ‘effectiveness’. First, effectiveness requires a benchmark and we won’t agree on the benchmark metric so there is no point. secondly I’m not the one making claims about her that need refuting. they’re all basic facts about her that are common knowledge. You however are, like ‘she supports the genocide’ she clearly doesn’t. she literally voted against funding israel as a standalone bill. the omnibill version is not a vote for supporting genocide.
I can’t help the fact you’re misinformed. thats a you problem.
You really are a liberal if you think you can point to accomplishments that are not effective. Words are more important than actions, right?
We understand that’s what you’re saying. We’re saying “she’s still absolute shit”. Seems like you should wipe your own ass before you call out the stink in the room.
It’s not our fault you struggle with basic communication. I don’t know if this works in your high school debate club, but continually insisting that basic terms aren’t comprehensible to you because you normally have a slightly different interpretation of them, so as to not have to engage in the actual argument, isn’t really a good rhetorical strategy. It just makes you come off as someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
You were asked what change she has effected - ie. What has she accomplished?
You haven’t really made any claims apart from her being effective and accomplishing stuff, not bein supportive of a genocider and a lot of other claims, that’s true. I guess if you require specificity you can say you haven’t made any claims, but that’s why you’re being asked to be specific, so you can have an actual discussion.
You keep trying to tie this down to one single act for some reason, despite users referencing her entire tenure. I know being wrong can feel terrible, but it’s actually a great opportunity to learn something! It might also improve your grades in high school, since changing your attitude about learning to something less defensive would probably make your teachers despise you less.
So it doesn’t give money to Israel? Huh.
“I’m saying we should support the least harmful nazi we have” lmfao