She has shifted a lot of her policy stances over the last 2-4 years to be more pragmatic.
Someone who represents the State of Georgia and thinks it was named after George Washington would be an example of an idiot.
3 Likes
Iâm not sure I would call Trump idealistic. What are his ideals? Does he have a vision for the country, other than âI can do whatever I want and nobody can stop meâ?
2 Likes
Hahahahaha-(deep breath)-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Reap it all.
I also wouldnât call our Glorious Geezer idealistic, but part of how he got into office is that a bunch of Americans were convinced that he was going to change what they perceived as a very broken politics-as-usual status quo, as well as fixing various other ills.
Thatâs a very attractive premise if youâre in a position of being dissatisfied with how the government/country has worked.
Itâd be incredible to have someone with the guts to change the status quo use their skills for good.
Unfortunately, we got our Glorious Geezer instead.
AOC is a lot smarter than I am. But so are most of the posters here, too. I donât agree with her on everything, but I trust her values and motivations for the most part.
Romney was perhaps the only Republican in my voting lifetime that falls in a similar category - smart, has decent values, even if I disagree with a lot of his policy. He would have been a decent POTUS compared with Bush/McCain/Trump. McCain would have been fine, but wasnât all that smart.
2 Likes
I subscribe to the notion that when an elected official abides by the spirit of the Constitution, and makes decisions based on what they believe is best for the country (as opposed to their own political careers, party, etc.), theyâll be a pretty good official even if I disagree with them.
Romney definitely met those criteria for me. AOC might, but itâs difficult to test the extent to which sheâd place country over party in an environment when the GOP has become so objectively horrible.
3 Likes
Seems like these have nearly converged to the same thing at this point.
1 Like
True, but if, hypothetically, the Dems were to gain the trifecta and have inertia, would any particular Dem be willing to vote against the party line if/when the party line were geared towards expanding the partyâs power?
In such an environment, it would be very tempting for the party to want to protect the countryâs tradition of gerrymandering. Would AOC or any other D politician be willing to buck the party and advocate for restricting or prohibiting gerrymandering even though doing so might make the Râs more competitive, just because gerrymandering is fundamentally bad for a democratic republic?
Iâd bet that early-career AOC might have done that. Now that sheâs gained experience in how government actually works, howeverâŚ?
If at that point republicans are still mask-off fascists I would prefer they keep the gerrymandering and push for something like ranked-choice voting. That would allow a new party that actually respects our country and wants to follow the constitution to rise up to replace them. If we manage to regain control, this current crop of self-serving sociopaths should never be allowed close to the levers of power again imo.
2 Likes
Actual clickbait link: AOC Surges to Lead in 2028 Primary for First TimeâMost Accurate Pollster - Newsweek
Well, anything calling itself the âmost accurate pollsterâ must be right!