Some people are wealthy because they provide a valuable, well-paid skill (neurosurgeons, for example). Some people are in positions of power because they sincerely want to make their communities a better place.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s probably more likely to get there through sociopathic greed. But that doesn’t mean they are all horrible people.

Are you talking about specific wealthy, powerful people?

From my understanding, Spanish translations broadly sane-washed his speeches.

Agreed, but I don’t really think of any power tool when I think of “hand tools”. That’s like hammers and screwdrivers and wrenches and stuff.

Drills, dremels, anything with a motor is a “power tool” to me. I take my ring off whenever I work with a power tool it could possibly get caught on.

Huh, I always take it off when I shower or wash more than a couple dishes. I actually don’t think I’ve been swimming or hand-washed my car since I started wearing it, but I’d probably take it off then too. If my hands are soaking wet, it can work its way off.

No idea why you’d take it off for any of the others. Maybe certain kinds of hand tools? Simple bands are usually fine even in professional kitchens. I’ll admit I got a little worried when I got an induction stove, but my ring has yet to burn me while cooking.

Who takes off a ring to carry groceries or vacuum?

Maybe. Maybe not. You’d be surprised how much inertia the general population has.

Like I don’t deny that there is some shifting of sentiment, but we’ve had sentiment shifts before. I think you may be overestimating the extent of that shift. People are mostly oblivious.

If this is for personal interest, go into it with relatively concrete questions, and then try to answer them.

That’s just not logistically realistic. Less frequent protests give time to gather broader support. If we had protests every 4 days, they’d be tiny, making it look like people don’t actually care.

As for a general strike, that requires a massive amount of resources and organization. It’s still something we should do, but it’s silly to pretend we can just do it at the drop of a hat. Make the effort to organize.

Mamdani won in quite possibly the most left wing office in the nation. Good for him, good for them, and I hope it spreads.

Maybe it does by 2027ish, that would be really cool. That would be a radically different political landscape and my strategic opinion would change.

But in general I find that it’s usually most accurate to assume things will roughly remain the same. So while I’m optimistic that the landscape might change, I would still prefer to focus my strategy on assuming that it doesn’t.

If the tides start turning with some volume, it’s easy to pivot. But I’d rather be overprepared than naïve.

Uh, basically the entire right and a good chunk of the center

I’m not saying their criticisms are justified, it’s all a bunch of vapid shit and straight up lies. She’s too young, she’s too sassy, she was a bartender, she’s a communist, whatever. None of it matters, even when what they’re saying isn’t just made up. But it’s out there, a lot. I’m actually kind of jealous of you for not being exposed to enough right wing sentiment to have experienced it.

Look, I love the theory kiddies for the scholarship and devotion. But you have to spend at least a little time considering sociology and rhetoric, learning how the average person actually responds to stimuli.

The bourgeoisie owns the media. The majority of the proletariat mostly consume corporate media. If I could make a genie wish that everyone woke up tomorrow with perfect rational faculties, to educate themselves and act in their own best interests, we could have a bloodless revolution by next week.

But I don’t have a magic lamp, and the average voter is going to wake up tomorrow the way they woke up today: highly susceptible to propaganda.

So as baseless as the criticisms are, they are ubiquitous. Search any right wing, or “centrist”, media source for “AOC” and you’ll find hundreds of insults and mischaracterizations. I really would not be surprised at all if she is the most criticized political figure (excepting presidents) of this generation.

That’s why I think a VP position for a relatively bland, but roughly progressive, old white candidate would be a great opportunity to offset all that vitriol.

Last I read I think that provision was struck before the vote since Texas had already moved ahead? I’m not sure though. It would be very funny if due to the timing, California can redistrict anyway.

Yeah, I know. I’m just humorously implying it was the horse because that’s worse.

The difference being that the right wing is populist and authoritarian by nature. You can’t drum up the left with the same methods as the right. Biden was a boring geriatric neo-lib, and he’s the one who won.

I don’t wanna wish on a star when I’m gambling with fascism. Yes I want progressive policies, I want more than progressive policies. I would have no problems with AOC being the president. But it’s not about what I want. It’s not about what you want. It’s about what the 10s of millions of voters who don’t lean far left want.

I don’t have that kind of faith in the average American voter, even the average non-Republican voter. I think progressive policies are a winning platform, I just think AOC specifically is too risky of a run right now. Run Tim Walz, or some other 50-65 year old white progressive, with AOC as VP. That’ll make it easier for her to demonstrate the efficacy of her platform so she can run afterwards.

I like her, if anything she’s a bit moderate for me, but she’s DC young. The stodgy moderates might not show up because they’re afraid she’s inexperienced. If you can find a way to sway millions of voters between now and then, great. I’d love to see it.

But we’re not doing ourselves any favors by appealing to our hearts at the expense of our brains. Maybe the next 3 years will alter the political landscape in a way that makes her a safer candidate. I’m both excited at that prospect, and terrified at what would be necessary to do that. But if not, we have to face the landscape as it is.

A chance at the best candidate isn’t necessarily worth the risk of the worst candidate. We cannot afford to be reckless right now.

Obama also hadn’t been nationally mocked, caricaturized, and vilified from the beginning of his political career. I’m far from a political historian, but I can’t think of any domestic political figure who has been so frequently and intensely criticized as AOC.

I could maybe see it with a decisive blue wave in 2026, but then only if it fuels like another one in 2028. That said, a lot of things can happen between now and then, morning is impossible.

That’s what you want. And if Lemmy elected the president, I seriously believe the country would be a better place. But it doesn’t, so what you or I want doesn’t really matter that much. What matters is what the stodgy moderate majority wants, and a large portion of them are subtly guided by subconscious bias.

I still think being young AND a woman AND progressive might be courting a bit more voter reluctance than I’d want to gamble with. The progressives will eat it up, but we’re gonna need some moderates to get over the finish line.

I’d prefer she go VP for a Tim Walz type for two terms and then run after that. She’s only going to get better at navigating DC politics, which she’ll need to actually accomplish any of whatever platform she runs.

I feel like pushing AOC in 2028 is premature. I’d definitely vote for her and hope she wins, but the odds don’t seem great and the consequences of losing are more dire than I’m personally comfortable with.

He did not, it was confirmed!

Now the horse on the other hand…

Right, what I’m saying is where do you draw the line at where “in the sun” ends?

What? You didn’t verify anything, you just said you remember being told once. It’s not an obvious fact because it isn’t true, you made it up. It’s not foolish to believe a word means what it means, you can just look up the definition. Are you high or something?

Whoever told you that was incorrect. Literally means the plain textbook definition of the words written, as opposed to euphemism or metaphor. If I say “I would literally die on this hill”, it means that there is an actual large mound of dirt that I am willing to lose my life on.

Any other interpretation is literally incorrect.

I’m thinking about it, and I think they might be right. Sunbeams are a part of the sun, albeit mingled with atmosphere. If they were in direct line of the sun, i could consider them technically, literally, correct.

It all depends on whether you consider an object bathed in the radiance of something to be “in” that thing, but I’m kinda inclined to consider that.