US Representatives receiving money from AOC and her PAC

[ConservativeElector2]

Obviously AOC and her PAC can spend their money on whomever they want, but I think the list is rather interesting on determining who could face tough re-election campaigns.

The 31 vulnerable Democrats who received $5,000 from Ocasio-Cortez’s PAC include:

New Jersey’s Andy Kim;

Minnesota’s Angie Craig;

California’s Antonio Delgado;

Pennsylvania’s Matt Cartright;

Georgia’s Carolyn Bourdeaux (returned);

New Hampshire’s Chris Pappas;

Iowa’s Cindy Axne;

Texas’s Colin Allred;

Maine’s Jared Golden;

Pennsylvania’s Connor Lamb (returned);

Oregon’s Peter DeFazio;

Washington’s Kim Schrier;

Virginia’s Elaine Luria;

Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin (returned);

Texas’s Lizzie Fletcher;

Connecticut’s Jahanna Hayes;

Georgia’s Lucy McBath;

Michigan’s Haley Stevens;

California’s Josh Harder;

California’s Katie Porter;

Wisconsin’s Ron Kind (returned);

Illinois’s Lauren Underwood;

California’s Mike Levine;

New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill;

Nevada’s Steven Horsford;

Kansas’s Sharice Davids;

Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger;

Pennsylvania’s Susan Wild;

Nevada’s Susie Lee;

New Jersey’s Tom Malinowksi;

Arizona’s Tom O’Halleran;

and Texas’s Vincente Gonzalez.

[Rodja]

With this move AOC proved that she is not some radical extremist that Republicans and even some Democrats like to portray her as,she values party unity above all.The same cannot be said about Conor Lamb and others who returned her donation.A reminder to them:Party Unity!A house divided cannot stand.They all cared about it in 2016,nagging Bernie to drop out.

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

The, "radical left," is imperceptible on the American political radar. How much talk in 2016 and 2020 were devoted to Gloria de la Riva? Sanders, Warren, and AOC are fairly bland and moderate Social Democrats, and I often why @ConservativeElector2, coming from Europe and knowing the difference damned well (even if he still disagrees, personally, with both movements) still insists on parroting the uneducated and slanderous term, "radical left extremist," for these politicians. In his case, it makes no sense, unless he's pushing a disingenuous point or, as I often fear, not really thinking about political labels and viewing political leaders and movements in cliched and troped "packaging," by stated ideology, from within or without.

 

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

@PringlesWhat's with the confusion? Have you actually studied the Political Spectrum, if I may ask?

Yeah, the radical left probably entails only about 2-5% of voters. Non-radical LW Populists (Sanders and AOC) are probably 10%. All other liberals, whether Warren or Pelosi are probably 30% of voters. 10% are probably true moderates. Another 20% are standard conservatives. Another 20% are non-Radical RW Populists. I'd say about 2-5% are probably radical right. I define radicals as those that would encourage violence against other citizens or the government, advocate seceding or overthrowing the government, and those who will not seek compromise. 

[pilight]

As always "radical" means "person who wants more change than I am comfortable with".  Unless, of course, you're in an 80's teen movie.

[Pringles]

I do think a lot of the radical extremist stuff is overblown. But AOC is the one who wont denounce Maduro, a totalitarian dictator who has plunged his country into chaos... while I believe Sanders and Warren have. I respect them for that despite disagreeing with them profoundly. I also think CE2 deserves a chance to explain himself. Rather than be accused of thinking one way or another. I await his response, if he even wants to respond that is. I'm also willing to criticize Trump for having totalitarian tendencies, and the Capitol Riots are proof of that. Just thought I'd say that before I get accused of anything. 

[Pringles]

Just now, Patine said:

This is an, "interesting," comment. The man in your avatar, and his infamous Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, not only refused to denounce quite a few totalitarian dictators who plunged their countries into either chaos or draconian tyranny in their day, but gave them support, money, arms, political recognition, and military and CIA "advisors," - as long said bloody-handed, brutal, human-rights-abusing enemies of freedom and basic human dignity were opposed to those doing the same thing who were instead propped up by the Soviets. Again, I find this comment to be, "interesting," given the man in your avatar image, and the fact you've shown significant admiration for him.

Just because I roleplay as him and believe he is underrated... doesnt mean I like the man in every aspect. Or "admire" him at all really. If you're suggesting George McGovern could've gotten detente done, or really, anyone other than the Nixon Administration who had the right people in order to do so, I'd suggest you rethink your take on him. Sure, lots of bad things were done. Such as the Chile coup. Theres a reason I havent done that in the RP I'm playing him in. Every President has done something we'd all deem terrible. I think we also have to see the long term effects of them as well. Because without detente, who knows what would happened.

 

You might as well criticize another person on this forum for having George Wallace as their profile picture as well. Other than the people you support of course. 🙂

[The Blood]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is an, "interesting," comment. The man in your avatar, and his infamous Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, not only refused to denounce quite a few totalitarian dictators who plunged their countries into either chaos or draconian tyranny in their day, but gave them support, money, arms, political recognition, and military and CIA "advisors," - as long said bloody-handed, brutal, human-rights-abusing enemies of freedom and basic human dignity were opposed to those doing the same thing who were instead propped up by the Soviets. Again, I find this comment to be, "interesting," given the man in your avatar image, and the fact you've shown significant admiration for him.

To quote a prominent poster on this forum, "You're basically a ball of the most concentrated negative energy that I've ever seen on the internet," Please, for the sake of everyone, stop going into rants over a person having a given President as their avatar. 

[Dobs]

Just now, The Blood said:

To quote a prominent poster on this forum, "You're basically a ball of the most concentrated negative energy that I've ever seen on the internet," Please, for the sake of everyone, stop going into rants over a person having a given President as their avatar. 

Just wait until he finds out I have Ronald Reagan's girlfriend as mine 😳

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

@Dobs and @The Blood have obviously, by their confusion, not studied the Political Spectrum, either.

Buddy..

[Pringles]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

@Dobs and @The Blood have obviously, by their confusion, not studied the Political Spectrum, either.

Someone hasnt studied a little civility either. 😕

A sad lacking in today's society.

[Dobs]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Anyone who calls Sanders, Warren, or AOC, "radical leftist extremists," does need to at least brush up...

Did I call them this? 

[Dobs]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

No, but seem to be denouncing me for chastening those who have, and showed confusion in a post where I clarified such a label.

My confusion was at your need to personally attack Chris in the way you did. 

[The Blood]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

First of all, I don't resort to such puerile insults of other posters here, so please don't sink to that level. Second, I expanded my point with my last question to @Pringles, above.

You may not be resorting to "puerile" insults, but you are derailing an entire conversation by attacking someone for their avatar, and by flaunting your inflated sense of knowledge over others. But to get involved at the root of this conversation, in the context of American politics, yeah, AOC and Sanders are viewed as the far-left in most circles, because guess what, this isn't Europe. Even in Europe both of them would likely be clearly on the left, as let's be honest, Sanders moderated his views for his Presidential bids. 

[Pringles]

These "attacks" often seem oriented to only one side as well. 😕

[Rezi]

🌚

[The Blood]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, thus, if Sanders moderated in the Presidential election, could he called as far to the left as a Presidential candidate as he was running in Vermont? That, too, is an important question. In politics, "leopards can change their stripes," especially older ones. Ronald Reagan making radio endorsements for Anti-Wall Street Democrats and labour in unions in 1948, or even his stated belief in 1969 that there's no reason people should carry guns around in the city in modern days, is another good example.

I think you missed my point. I said clearly that in many American circles, Sanders is considered far-left, and in my book is clearly left-wing in the context of American politics. What I was saying, is that even in Europe, Sanders would be given the environment to shift to where he more genuinely aligns, with the left-wing in a European context. 

[The Blood]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I still have a very hard time getting around the idea that Sanders, who is currently no more extreme left than Jack Layton or Rachel Notley here in Canada, is, "far-left." I can agree to lay off the excoriation for the term, but I don't think I could ever use that extreme of a term, myself. I think that's where the line will have to be drawn. To me, Sanders is a fairly moderate Social Democrat, and that's how I'll term him, but I won't go kegbusting on others' terms (unless ridiculous ones like outright Communist, Anarchist, or Revolutionary Marxist are used). Deal?

Deal. In the end this is just up to what framing you're using to define him, and I do agree that "far-left" is a little much, even in an American context. 

[ConservativeElector2]

9 hours ago, Pringles said:

I also think CE2 deserves a chance to explain himself. Rather than be accused of thinking one way or another. I await his response, if he even wants to respond that is. 

Thank you. Initially I didn't want to respond, because I am already used to the fact that my posts or poll votes get too much scrutinized and I don't think lengthy discussions will be helpful. Out of nowhere criticism is still a rare phenomenon.

I don't even know if I have AOC or Sanders or Warren ever labelled as a radical left extremist. Personally, I don't believe so because an extremist is for me person who engages or at least openly advocates for violence e.g. people planning to kidnap Governor Whitmer. I don't believe AOC has done so, unless we call her twitch and selfie videos violent propaganda.

Anyway, LW populist is a term I'd use for her, but as @Pringles points out there is still a difference between Warren for example and AOC. I'd probably label Warren as progressive (with populist tendencies). Sanders is a definitely a LW populist, but I believe AOC has an even greater notion of populism. I think these descriptions apply to European standards as well.

9 hours ago, Patine said:

There was no personal attack. [...] I'm unsure where the personal attack is.

I don't agree to be honest. I posted a list which I found interesting and you are criticizing me for things I am not even sure to have said at any time and things which are besides AOC herself completely unrelated to what my initial post was about. Even if I may have called her that at any point that way, it's not such a high crime or misdemeanor to still call me out for that months after it may have happened. Lastly I don't believe this sort of ''cross-criticism'' is in any way helpful, therefore I can't agree on the criticism of @Pringles's avatar as well. I usually don't give other people's avatars much thought, but I happen to believe he chose it just for fun because of the role play.

I am pretty sure that not all of my thousands posts on 270soft or here have been perfect. Some were written in a tense political discussions, some without much sleep and others without thinking twice. Sure, but that happens to anyone here and it's not the worst thing possible. We should be happy to have this forum in the first place.