|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 27 2026 12:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway. "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!"
See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it.
|
On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are.
Why would that be inconvenient, did they lynch a nurse in the street?
I don't understand the hidden premise you're alluding to. Organization of people with empathy endorsed politician that seems empathetic, where's the oh my god?
|
What infighting? A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent.
|
On July 27 2026 03:42 dyhb wrote:So the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been sending its officials out to do interviews, and this Sunday they sent their co-chair out to do Fox News Sunday. This month they released a new platform (see https://program.dsausa.org/) Their candidates are expected to grow with primary wins in safe Democratic seats. So she's out to explain the platform. Abolish the Senate? True Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them? Yep Abolish Ice? Absolutely Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally? As a long term plan, yep. Defund the Pentagon? Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part? Yeah again as part of a long term program yeah. Government or public ownership of most large corporations. Yeah, absolutely. This is going to be some interesting fodder against AOC & Rashida Tlaib as well as Congressional hopefuls.
It's a hearty chuckle when people who want to destroy the Constitution complain that Republicans are somehow destroying the Constitution first.
Just the other day the eloquent orator AOC falsely claimed the Senate was built on Jim Crow.
On July 27 2026 20:36 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 21:00 oBlade wrote:On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power. You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this. On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters) Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault. Yes, everytime Trump says something, I at least assume the opposite is true.. most times it's so wrong however that not even that metric helps. So if he tells us the nuclear deal with saudi arabia does not include centrifuges, the deal totally covers future centrifuges. If he tells you they won't enrich up to weapons grade.. they probably already bought weapons grade plutonium or uranium from Pakistan, along with mid-range ballistic missles from china. And yes, Saudi Arabia dot gov or MBS never proudly posted "We did it" on Facebook, yet however funding terror via the "golden chain" still can be read about in your own government's reports. Saudi officials had close ties with the terrorists, supported terrorism or bin Laden himself, or helped to move money to bin Laden's organization. Saudi Arabia, MBS himself stated that Saudia Arabia will immediately try to get a nuclear bomb if iran should ever successfully test one (or is close to or is planning to). So this "DEAL" is one giant leap for the Saudi Bomb. Imagine China pushing their new green deal over the world.. diminishing the value of oil to a mere petrochemical use... making Saudi Arabia... poor... with a bomb. That's basicly another Iran.
You're remarkable, KT_Elwood. You have intelligence, you have perception, you have great tenacity. You've got everything except proof.
Somehow US intelligence doesn't know what you know or they skipped it the past 25 years to go with the alliance thing.
Or does your allegation include the US government knew or was even involved in 9/11 itself?
Keep digging but I'm incredibly open minded so if you have something concrete I'm certainly willing to consider support for your war with Saudi Arabia.
|
I'm pretty sure proposing a lawful amendment does a lot less damage to the Constitution compared to actually blatantly violating it while in power, but ok.
I searched for "AOC Senate Jim Crow" and only far-right websites are reporting on it. But here's what Newsmax (again, far-right) reports her as saying:
"When Duchardt pressed the lawmaker on whether she supports the Senate itself, Ocasio-Cortez criticized the chamber's history. 'We've all got our complaints,' she said. 'I don't support the filibuster. I don't support elements of this institution that we know ... were founded on Jim Crow.'"
So, fake news?
|
|
|
On July 27 2026 21:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Why would that be inconvenient, did they lynch a nurse in the street? I don't understand the hidden premise you're alluding to. Organization of people with empathy endorsed politician that seems empathetic, where's the oh my god? He wants to claim that I lied and got called out for it, so the facts are inconvenient to that charge. She came to power and unseated a Democratic member of House leadership by seeking and obtaining the NYC-DSA endorsement and receiving active and daily campaigning by the chapter in her long-shot bid. She continues to show up to NYC-DSA events to garner their endorsement, and has be re-endorsed by the same chapter five consecutive times. Those are quite inconvenient if you want to allege that she's broken with the DSA and I'm a liar. Only the Marxist and Marxist-Leninist factions of the national organization have broken with her.
|
On July 27 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 12:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 27 2026 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway. "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!" See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it. What infighting? + Show Spoiler + A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent. I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest...
The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party.
Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016.
|
On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are.
Amazing.
Quoted you making shit up, you double down again.
AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up.
Clown.
|
On July 27 2026 22:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 03:42 dyhb wrote:So the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been sending its officials out to do interviews, and this Sunday they sent their co-chair out to do Fox News Sunday. This month they released a new platform (see https://program.dsausa.org/) Their candidates are expected to grow with primary wins in safe Democratic seats. So she's out to explain the platform. Abolish the Senate? True Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them? Yep Abolish Ice? Absolutely Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally? As a long term plan, yep. Defund the Pentagon? Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part? Yeah again as part of a long term program yeah. Government or public ownership of most large corporations. Yeah, absolutely. This is going to be some interesting fodder against AOC & Rashida Tlaib as well as Congressional hopefuls. It's a hearty chuckle when people who want to destroy the Constitution complain that Republicans are somehow destroying the Constitution first. Just the other day the eloquent orator AOC falsely claimed the Senate was built on Jim Crow. Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 20:36 KT_Elwood wrote:On July 24 2026 21:00 oBlade wrote:On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power. You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this. On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters) Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault. Yes, everytime Trump says something, I at least assume the opposite is true.. most times it's so wrong however that not even that metric helps. So if he tells us the nuclear deal with saudi arabia does not include centrifuges, the deal totally covers future centrifuges. If he tells you they won't enrich up to weapons grade.. they probably already bought weapons grade plutonium or uranium from Pakistan, along with mid-range ballistic missles from china. And yes, Saudi Arabia dot gov or MBS never proudly posted "We did it" on Facebook, yet however funding terror via the "golden chain" still can be read about in your own government's reports. Saudi officials had close ties with the terrorists, supported terrorism or bin Laden himself, or helped to move money to bin Laden's organization. Saudi Arabia, MBS himself stated that Saudia Arabia will immediately try to get a nuclear bomb if iran should ever successfully test one (or is close to or is planning to). So this "DEAL" is one giant leap for the Saudi Bomb. Imagine China pushing their new green deal over the world.. diminishing the value of oil to a mere petrochemical use... making Saudi Arabia... poor... with a bomb. That's basicly another Iran. You're remarkable, KT_Elwood. You have intelligence, you have perception, you have great tenacity. You've got everything except proof. Somehow US intelligence doesn't know what you know or they skipped it the past 25 years to go with the alliance thing. Or does your allegation include the US government knew or was even involved in 9/11 itself? Keep digging but I'm incredibly open minded so if you have something concrete I'm certainly willing to consider support for your war with Saudi Arabia.
Who won the 2020 election?
|
On July 27 2026 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 12:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 27 2026 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway. "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!" See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it. What infighting? + Show Spoiler + A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent. I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest... The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party. Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016.
But the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz before they switched to Trump. If you're following a similar precedent then the establishment/progressive in-fighting is going to lead to someone becoming POTUS that's barely tolerable to both of those sides, not a progressive.
|
Northern Ireland27231 Posts
On July 27 2026 22:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 03:42 dyhb wrote:So the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been sending its officials out to do interviews, and this Sunday they sent their co-chair out to do Fox News Sunday. This month they released a new platform (see https://program.dsausa.org/) Their candidates are expected to grow with primary wins in safe Democratic seats. So she's out to explain the platform. Abolish the Senate? True Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them? Yep Abolish Ice? Absolutely Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally? As a long term plan, yep. Defund the Pentagon? Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part? Yeah again as part of a long term program yeah. Government or public ownership of most large corporations. Yeah, absolutely. This is going to be some interesting fodder against AOC & Rashida Tlaib as well as Congressional hopefuls. It's a hearty chuckle when people who want to destroy the Constitution complain that Republicans are somehow destroying the Constitution first. Just the other day the eloquent orator AOC falsely claimed the Senate was built on Jim Crow. Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 20:36 KT_Elwood wrote:On July 24 2026 21:00 oBlade wrote:On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power. You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this. On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters) Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault. Yes, everytime Trump says something, I at least assume the opposite is true.. most times it's so wrong however that not even that metric helps. So if he tells us the nuclear deal with saudi arabia does not include centrifuges, the deal totally covers future centrifuges. If he tells you they won't enrich up to weapons grade.. they probably already bought weapons grade plutonium or uranium from Pakistan, along with mid-range ballistic missles from china. And yes, Saudi Arabia dot gov or MBS never proudly posted "We did it" on Facebook, yet however funding terror via the "golden chain" still can be read about in your own government's reports. Saudi officials had close ties with the terrorists, supported terrorism or bin Laden himself, or helped to move money to bin Laden's organization. Saudi Arabia, MBS himself stated that Saudia Arabia will immediately try to get a nuclear bomb if iran should ever successfully test one (or is close to or is planning to). So this "DEAL" is one giant leap for the Saudi Bomb. Imagine China pushing their new green deal over the world.. diminishing the value of oil to a mere petrochemical use... making Saudi Arabia... poor... with a bomb. That's basicly another Iran. You're remarkable, KT_Elwood. You have intelligence, you have perception, you have great tenacity. You've got everything except proof. Somehow US intelligence doesn't know what you know or they skipped it the past 25 years to go with the alliance thing. Or does your allegation include the US government knew or was even involved in 9/11 itself? Keep digging but I'm incredibly open minded so if you have something concrete I'm certainly willing to consider support for your war with Saudi Arabia.
Who won the 2020 election?
|
On July 27 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 12:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 27 2026 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway. "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!" See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it. What infighting? + Show Spoiler + A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent. I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest... The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party. Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016. But the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz before they switched to Trump. If you're following a similar precedent then the establishment/progressive in-fighting is going to lead to someone becoming POTUS that's barely tolerable to both of those sides, not a progressive.
So you did know about the infighting...
DSA is the closest thing Democrats have to the Tea Party (as most people understand it), but it's lacking some critical components that made the Tea Party work.
You're missing the forest for the trees focusing on the individual champions. I'm coming to realize how people fundamentally misunderstand what happened from the Tea Party to now because they don't recognize what US politics actually is.
The simple version is that the old "establishment Republicans" used their leverage over corporations (that they could regulate/tax/investigate them basically) to secure local "wins (formerly known as 'pork')" which in turn secured their reelections by making it prohibitively expensive to oust them, rather than just make some minor concessions that ultimately had negligible impact on the corporations' bottom lines.
The Tea Party was billionaires exploiting an oblivious populism to systematically remove as much of the leverage that those establishment politicians and their constituencies had on them as possible.
|
Okay so why did you bring up Republican infighting if their "success" in electing Trump is completely incomparable to what the DSA is doing to the Democratic Party?
|
On July 27 2026 22:16 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Amazing. Quoted you making shit up, you double down again. AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up. Clown. Same as before, membership is private, endorsements are public. She's an endorsed candidate of the local DSA chapter, and has been since her first election. She participates in their events (Q&As, DSA protests, DSA rallies) and seeks their endorsement.
Let's check in on her last term:
Tonight, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) joined one thousand working class New Yorkers to discuss the broken political system that has failed working people and empowered Trump’s fascist movement. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called on New Yorkers interested in fighting back to join NYC-DSA.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also discussed NYC-DSA’s ongoing campaigns to push New York State to build 15 gigawatts of affordable, union-built green energy, strengthen labor power through union campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon, end the genocide in Palestine, and win a massive investment in social housing to guarantee safe and affordable homes for all.
“We are up against an incredibly powerful political establishment. But times are changing. These are sites of real political struggles, in which an ascendant and organized working class can and will gain power. This is an opportunity to embark on a new mass movement of the working class,” said Representative Ocasio-Cortez. “DSA is a political home to take our own power back and organize. NYC-DSA
I know you're big on "Who won the 2020 election," so here's a few easy ones for Jankisa
Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row?
Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing."
Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?"
Three frankly easy questions. But given your dodging, I might have to start calling you oBlade, Jankisa. This has become a trend for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUybXo4bTR5ZGFuajBuOHk1d3JoZzUwbXJ1bWRpNndoYWlmajQwZm0yayZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/HqqHk2vFicdig/200w.gif)
