894
AOC says she's worth less than $500,000 after kickback claims — and seems to get kudos from Trump fans in response
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
894 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19859 readers
3606 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From a politician's standpoint, it would be scorched earth. Think about it from his perspective: what would that have accomplished? It certainly wouldn't have ended the DNC as previous DNC email scandals hadn't. It would have made his fans even more loyal, but would have pissed the rest of the democratic party apparatus. He would have said goodbye to any and all opportunities for being in committees and any cooperation from establishment democrats from then on, possibly have had an intense primary challenge afterward. A lot of libs still blame him for Hillary losing to Trump, even though he didn't do anything questionable. It was all lose no gain from his perspective.
I agree he's not president material, but because he's too old to win now (even though he's still sharper than either Biden or Trump when they won their elections).
What he accomplished would have been starting an actual leftist movement instead of continuing to step rank and file with a party that isn't interested in supporting any of his policies.
He's literally an independent because he didn't fit into the role the DNC made for him. I was extremely disappointed someone who recognized the existence of the Duopoly would allow himself to be intimidated into supporting it.
I can understand the sentiment. The problem as I see it is that the political duopoly in the US has a complete death grip on the electoral system. One of the very few ways that that can be loosened is via alternative voting methods like ranked-choice, approval, star voting, etc. That's why if I spend any energy in politics in the future it will be to push these alternatives.
So why do you think either of the two parties who support the rich would uproot the system they exist to enforce?
I never thought they would. They would have to be forced to do it by voter initiatives/referenda, like has happened in various cities and states so far, usually with resistance by one or both parties.
I wish I beleived this system could still be fixed from within.
So do I. I see voting/electoral reform as the only hope of change short of a literal revolution.