938
Democrats were ‘horrifically cruel’ to me, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(www.thetimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2026
938 points (98.4% liked)
politics
31898 readers
3988 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well I think the cart is being put before the horse; for we must deal with the present reality instead of far-fetched idealism: Israel exists, and that fact isn't changing anytime soon. If we want to talk about net data: then providing defensive missiles so errant rockets don't strike civilians isn't necessarily a bad thing because ultimately a net-reduction of child deaths occur. The absence of funding for the Iron Dome further yields no evidence as to the damage wrought by Israel (e.g., Iranian and Hamas missiles have in no way shape or form deterred Israel from carrying out its offensive strikes of genocide).
It just leads to a net-increase in civilian deaths, overall.
When each child's life is sacred, I can see why one would advocate to mitigate all. Either way, I suppose this is water under the bridge considering AOC's position has since shifted anyway and she's still better than any Republican -- which is why every single true dissenter to the war caucuses with Democrats, at least while in elected office. A few Republicans protest, but mostly from the sidelines and having since been primaried out.
Not sure what you mean with respect to Sanders; for independent of the movement outgrowing Bernie, you do see why Bernie continues to caucus and endorse Democratic candidates under the same principle of "lesser evil" politics? Why the man himself does try to play the game of sitting out of elections or partaking accelerationism? Why Ilhan Omar does the same. Even Ilhan Omar endorsed Harris, rightfully so. So how can they be both sides of the same coin when one side is simply better than the other on practically every issue, including Gaza, USAID, and Ukrainian support?
Some of your quotes from Harris are anachronistic. She went further, called for Palestinian self-determination, ceasefire, and two-state solution. In order to deal with the greater evil of Trump, she had to toe the line on battleground swing states with considerable populations of Jewish supporters who at the time were still somewhat sympathetic to Israel (we all saw what happened to Cori Bush). She got scared, tried to play safe by listening to advisors. In spite of this she was still better (again, see Sanders and Omar's endorsement).
But the ethical stance you have of "protecting all children" is itself the far-fetched idealism you admit we're not in a position to deal with, given that we can't really stop Israel from bombing Palestinian children (as it's proven to do perpetually) as long as it's recognized as a sovereign state.
Agreed, but it (a) doesn't stop our pursuit of idealism or perfection, and (b) it doesn't stop concurrent pursuits. We can both advocate for a two-state solution (whatever framework that looks like where both predominant ethnic groups cohabit peacefully and with share of power), and simultaneously mitigate loss of civilian life overall wherever we can.
Of course the chief offender is Israel, no dispute there. But in theory providing only defensive weapons mitigates future offensive capacities of Israel and thus harm to civilians in Gaza, while also protecting children in Israel just the same. (There is more nuance to this in retrospect, I merit).
Clearly we all also want a permanent ceasefire as another step further, putting an end to the deaths everywhere. But you try every avenue you can in damage mitigation.
Yeah, I mean I don't see how you could make the case that providing Israel defensive weapons (which, setting aside that they shouldn't be trusted not to find a way to use them offensively, has the direct and immediate effect of strengthening the continued existence of the genocidal state and thus its ability to continue the genocide) is simply harm reduction. It'd be great if there were a way to dismantle the Israeli state to the extent that they no longer have the capability to carry out a genocide while simultaneously protecting Israeli children from the few attempts Hamas has made at resisting the genocide. I'd support that. But it's idealistic given our current reality. We can work towards it, but in the meantime, if we want to mitigate the most harm, we need to be taking power and capability away from the genocidal state wherever it exists--including its "defensive" weapons.
Disagree with the starting premise. Rhodesia existed. Then it didn't. Israel must meet the same end.
If it must, but not at the cost of children killed by unguided rockets and inaccurate missiles.
So you condemn Nat Turner?
All children are innocent. None should be hurt. That's not the world Israel has built so it may not be the one they receive. Of course the children don't deserve it, but I won't tell a people they should exist in subjugation and ethnic cleansing for decades instead of fighting back by whatever means are necessary.