this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
893 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19859 readers
3715 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denied claims that she is secretly wealthy, stating she is worth less than $500,000 and doesn’t trade stocks or take corporate money.

Her financial disclosures show modest savings and student debt.

Some conservatives on X, despite opposing her politics, praised her perceived integrity.

Accusations of political corruption have surged online, partly fueled by Elon Musk.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 105 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I think if we don't start WW3 and nuke the planet she's gonna be the first woman president in the US

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I hope so, but she’s going to have to get through at least another four years, probably more, of being ratted and feathered by Republicans, and somehow still look clean

I still contend that was the real problem with Hillary Clinton. Not that she was a poor candidate or hade some questionable decisions but that Repugnants spent years throwing shit at her so she looked like a mess. She was at least as good as a candidate as anyone else and many of the objections were manufactured

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The difference is that AOC is doing what politicians are supposed to do and establishing an identity for herself that would allow her to connect with voters. Clinton, on the other hand, presented herself as a blank slate and then whined when her enemies filled that slate in.

Clinton had a problem with her public image for years before 2016 and resolutely refused to do anything about it, instead just blaming others at every turn. That attitude shows that she would have been a shitty President. Better than Trump, of course (there are few people who wouldn't be) but still shitty by any objective measure.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

All true but I thought she would have been an effective president, due to focussing on organization, negotiations, influence, and that she was generally for the same platform as bill, so I’d generally agree with it (but with obvious caveats). She would have gotten things done, but in a democratic way instead of a fascist way, and those things would align with the generic Democrat platform

[–] NoEsReal@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I honestly think the problem with Hillary had less to do with her as a person and more with the fact that it felt like she was being forced on folks. I am not as educated on all the shenanigans the DNC pulled to get her to be the nominee over Bernie, but I know that for a lot of folks it felt like the DNC just did what they obviously keep doing and gave the job to the person they deemed “deserved it” for their own internal bs reasons, while ignoring the constituents they claim to represent. Her nomination felt like a precursor to Harris being nominated without a primary. I think that’s also where a lot of disillusionment comes from on the left, the dem party just doesn’t seem to have any desire to even pretend that they care about their constituents

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Hillary has been groomed since her early thirties to be the DNC's precious darling. Living in mansions, waited on by servants.

AOC has been working real jobs trying to stay alive like most Americans have to.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The DNC would murder her if she broke through their primary defenses and got close enough.

They're fine with losing, the pendulum is part of the grift, what they aren't fine with is losing their half of that bipartisan oligarch gravy train. Our capitalists don't bribe both parties to have those parties stand against economic metastasis at all human cost.

We can have affirmation ribbons and be sucked dry by the oligarchs, or we can have scapegoating and be sucked dry by the oligarchs, that is the extent of our "freedom." Reagan and Kemp saw to that by getting their former opposition on the take.

[–] bayesianbandit@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Serious talk. When are people going to start calling them DINOs. Democrats In Name Only from the Jurassic period.

You think Trump took over the RNC because the old guard liked him?? No he built on the backs of the tea party.

Bernie and the squad were the lefts tea party. What they need now is a charismatic leader to build on it and kick the DINOs out by force.

The DNC is not that powerful. We outnumber them. Stop forgetting we outnumber them.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 4 points 15 hours ago

I call the old guard Geronocrats myself. They are old, tired, and very much uninspired. Far as I can tell, Bernie is the only ancient congress critter who is worthy of being called a leader.

Just look at the bill Hakeem Jeffries is trying to pass: to make raiding the US treasury illegal. WTF do we need a new laws for that?

[–] NoEsReal@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

I think this needs to be the strategy for sure. The progressives on the left need to start looking for truly progressive candidates to challenge each established Dem that is up for grabs in the 2026 primaries. Our real fight for democracy is no longer in the general election, it’s in the primaries. If we can’t change the Democratic Party then our only choices are a quick or a slow death

[–] FKA_Demosthenes@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Now would be a great time to just put the democratic party out of its misery. Looking around the party, we can be comforted that at least it will go peacefully, in its sleep. Let's at least see if we can get a fresh new party out of all this shit.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 11 points 1 day ago

That would be the golden lining from this whole damn mess - political reforms that make the spirit of the Constitution have genuine power, and a rebalancing of the scales. People like Musk should be extinguished, never to return from that dark cesspit known as capitalism.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Slave mentality is an unhealthy coping mechanism.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Good thing I don't have that.

If I did, I'd help protect the system when the molitovs start flying at it like a good house slave, I hope to assist when it isn't just me, as that would just be suicide by cop.

This isn't class war, this is 50 years of class occupation and counting. Peaceful positive change has been made impossible here on multiple levels by the owners. I put my hope in the other thing, as that's the only rational place left to put it.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 day ago

Don't kid yourself. She'll be the next Bernie.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

Unless the republicans field a multiple rapist convict again. Then it's a tossup and a guaranteed L, if there's a war somewhere the genocide people can get behind.

[–] NudeNewt@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

I sure hope so, she's got what it takes.