Thread by @tamanosou

Okay yeah ... I'll be opening the library on AOC shortly. I stayed away because I hoped she'd learn how to govern, but she's far more of a far right asset than she has ever been a progressive. Yeah, I don't have a fraction of her platform but this is ridic.

https://twitter.com/Deoliver47/status/1324416141142466562

Soooo ... this is going to be scattered because regardless of what the def totes fauxgressives and also feckin' QAnon will tell you, there is no massive Democratic cabal. Sorry.

So my complaints re: AOC do range. And I wanted to like her. I REALLY did. But ... oy vey.

I am a massive nerd and hard crushed on Madison when I read some of the Federalist Papers and realized he was very much for representatives looking like their population. Probably he himself really didn't mean that Congress should be about 14% black and half female but ...

... whatever that's what I want. I want a House and a Senate that reflects our population. And while both are getting better race-wise there's still room for improvement particularly for Indigenous representation and women.

So while I don't support primarying Dems, I was actually not THAT mad at AOC for doing it. A bit, because anytime you primary a Dem the Party loses someone with some seniority in various committees but ... I figured if she was that gung-ho then more power to her.

What started me on the "ummm ..." train is when she or her stans immediately claimed she'd won her primary in a landslide. She did not. In fact the turnout for her primary was the lowest in the country. bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/upl…

I didn't like that but I'm only a bit older than her and I remember being dramatic at her age so I did just kind of chalk it up to youthful exuberance. Whatever. The "Us v. Them," talk was concerning especially given the "Them," was other female Dems, but I thought she'd grow.

I think what set me staunchly in the "girl, sit your butt down," camp was when she was involved in a sit in protesting Nancy Pelosi on her environmental policy and then went after Diane Feinstein. theintercept.com/2018/11/13/ale…

Pelosi has a long history of environmental activism and legislative support and I was easily able to find examples of statement and law dating all the way back to 2004 with a simple Google search. justfacts.votesmart.org/public-stateme…

Moreover, Diane Feinstein's raison d'entre into national politics was domestic terrorism and gun violence. She's the author of the assault weapons ban. So, it stands to reason that if AOC were ACTUALLY progressive she'd seek to make an ally of these two progressive women.

But no. She attacked them. And honestly the reason for this is that the "fauxgressive" movement that propelled AOC to the House is not actually progressive and is deeply suspicious of older women. AOC's perfect because she doesn't really have a cause and she's easily controlled.

Honestly, misogynists like nothing more than getting a cute young thang to murder grandmas. And I'm sorry, but that's what this boils down to. A LOT of AOC's supporters really only like her because she's currently young and cute and they dislike Pelosi and Feinstein ...

... because Pelosi and Feinstein are a) post-menopausal and therefore invisible to misogynists and b) powerful and effective politicians capable of implementing real change that will drive forward progressive causes.

AOC being willing to attack older women is perfect because then misogynists don't have to do it themselves and have the excuse of, "well a woman did it so it's not misogynist."

This is actually why I did a survey a few weeks back asking how old people thought I was because EVERY time a purportedly progressive man has tried to come for me his FIRST argument will be about my age and whether or not I'm actually hot.

And this is where I get into my next general complaint re: AOC.

There are effective junior Congresswomen who are roughly AOC's age and several of them are of color. Most of them have at least one enacted law to their name and they tend to get their bills out of committee.

I know it's super boring but this stuff is all available on govtrack.us. Anyways, AOC in comparison to these other young women and her delegation is ... well she's not doing well.

And that's actually not my issue. I'm not mad that she's ineffective. This is hard.

What I'm mad about is that AOC and her stans tend to block other legislation that could get us closer to a progressive society because it's supposedly not progressive enough. So, we have all these kinda awesome young women we could be championing and yet ... name one.

The issue here is that this kind of attitude means that not only can we not get enough of the GOP to go, "yeah actually I will vote for that bill because despite coming from THE ENEMY, it's actually good for my constituents," but we now have people supposedly on the left ...

... who are ALSO against progressive legislation.

If it were a situation where said legislation barred going further in the future I would totally get it. But that has NEVER been the case. This is like refusing to do weight-lifting because your last name isn't Schwarzenegger.

And I also get having an issue on which you absolutely will not compromise. Totally cool. I have a few of those one of them being women's bodily autonomy. Problem is ... AOC's compromised on some of these in the past and that's actually the issue central to the op's argument.

The issue in red states is that you are NEVER going to get hardcore super leftist liberals elected there. If I ran for office in CA I'd probably be elected. If I try it in Wisconsin .... trollololololololol, hahahaha! But you CAN get someone more moderate elected.

Sharice Davids just kept her seat in Kansas. She's pretty moderate but she's also kind of an incredible liberal-American story as well. And she won in Kansas of all places because she is moderate. AOC tried to get her primaried. With a man who never could have won in Kansas.

But on top of that one of my biggest issues with Bernie Sanders who AOC stans for is that he is dismissive of women's and civil rights. He's also against representatives looking like their constituents. So we've got a weird problem here.

The BS/AOC narrative is that the only people who should be running for office on a Democratic ticket are super leftist ... but unconcerned about women's or civil rights if that's a sticking point ...

.... but then if they HAVE a guy of theirs who is all about these things then you can't compromise even if it will cost you the seat.

So why was AOC so hardcore against Sharice Davids? Was it racism? Was it sexism? Was it homophobia? Or did she just want to help out the GOP?

Part of the reason this election has been so close is that Trump's been able to point to people like AOC and Sanders and say, "look they'll have power if you don't re-elect me." And while that couldn't be farther from the truth, it's an effective narrative.

AOC's in a safe blue district so she can go out and show her entire butt as much as she wants. I do wish she'd get some bills out of committee but whatevs. But Dems in red states and districts have to walk a very narrow line.

And if AOC's effective in tamping down enthusiasm for said Dems from the left or convincing the right that all Dems are super far left then that's going to lower the number of seats Dems hold onto in Congress.

Again, for AOC that may be irrelevant because even with a huge Democrat majority she STILL can't get anything out of committee but for those of us who ACTUALLY ARE AND HAVE BEEN progressive lowering the number of Dems in power is a problem.

So, I mean I'm glad she did one or two get out the vote events, but honestly I was really happy when that one guy merc'ed her.

She's not helping progressivism and I genuinely can't tell if that's intentional or not.