937
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
937 points (98.3% 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
You know this line of thinking results in quite a bit of glass ceiling for women in the workplace.
"Oh no, she might make a mistake, better make her wait."
Meanwhile men are allowed to fail upward and transgressions are quickly forgotten.
She's 37... if she were to become president in '28 and if she were to win 2 terms she'll be an ex-president before she's 50. At that point she'll pretty much be done with politics, other than potentially being pulled out for some crucial election campaigning - but even that is very rare.
She doesn't need to be president, at least not at this point in her career. She's an effective congresswoman, and she'd make an incredible Senator. She doesn't even need to be a leader of either chamber, she just needs to be a consistent champion of progressive values and help grow the progressive coalition in our government.
If she can carry on Bernie's work and help bend our government back towards democratic socialism, then she'd be a great leader for the 2036 election. But she still has too much important work to do now to be distracted by a run for the white house.
JFK was president at 43... Do you think he would have been "done with politics" at 51 if he hadn't been shot in the head?
Yes, I do.
Obama was 55 when he left office, and he's basically sidelined now. He could come back as a senator, congressman, or cabinet... but he hasn't. He's given some speeches (and they are great speeches - he still has access to amazing writers) but he isn't writing laws or shaping policy.
Clinton was 54 when he left office... same thing. He came out at election time and stumped for candidates, but didn't get his hands dirty with the real work
George W was 62, and I don't think he's even stepped on the campaign trail for anyone else.
Why would JFK or AOC be any different?
Those things are politics
Yes, you're right, and I acknowledged that in my original post. It is politics, but it is a very small part of politics and it is very rare for an ex-president to do after serving 2 terms.
I believe that AOC has a lot more potential as an active lawmaker than as a decorative figurehead to be dusted off every 4 to 6 years to come out and read a speech.
That assumes it was about her being a woman rather than her being potentially further left than someone that could win the presidency.
Problem with the office of president is that it is rather singular, so you kind of expect a more milquetoast candidate being able to be accepted by a broader voter base.
Maybe the perspective is wrong and the voter base is ready for a more strongly socialist candidate, but I think it's a reasonable concern to test the waters in a broader scope before going all in on a presidential run. She might be able to win a broader democratic primary but struggle in a general election in a more diverse set of voters.
I personally think the office of the president should be curtailed a bit. We shouldn't have to suffer so much power held by a singular person for four years.
This is so funny to me. Like Republicans will literally run "Reality TV Show Rapist who is the most unhinged thing you've ever seen." and WIN TWICE and the Democrats like you are still out here going "But the median voter wants a moderate voice guys!"
There aren't really many of those, like you should point to a single person that is more left and therefore more popular. Bernie Sanders?
So like again this is a women being held to the standard of surpassing a theoretical man, but the men only have to surpass each other.
I don't think it's reasonable to inject gender into this, the original comment made no indication nor did I that a similarly prinicpled man would not face the same level of skepticism. A house rep who is under 40 and would still be under 40 who hasn't been elected by even a statewide election nor has shown leadership as speaker of the house... That seems a crazy bet to hope to pan out. She has only ever demonstrated proven electorate support in a single district.
Note I had similar skepticism of Buttigieg, trying to be a 30-something Mayor straight to president seemed ill-advised.
I'm acknowledging there is a disparity in the treatment between genders, I'm not doing it myself. You specifically might have an equal standard, but chili cheese lies says barely anything about US politics and the one comment I see reinforces the popular unequal standard.
I agree that if she runs for Senate, that's a good thing and it will put her on the same track as JFK, with maybe more momentum. But just to say, I'd rather she not do X without a different, more popular candidate to contrast with is just not a fair thing to say.
It's absolutely a pattern that women are compared to theoretical men, while men are just compared to each other.
It was the same dog whistle "know her place" comment that comes up on every post about her. Whether they meant it to be or not, it is absolutely about gender.