Skip Navigation
United States | News & Politics @midwest.social
BrikoX @lemmy.zip

AOC Reportedly Prepping for 2028 Presidential or Senate Run

www.commondreams.org /news/will-aoc-run-for-president-in-2028

US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide.  #AOC2028

You're viewing a single thread.

172 comments

  • Well she certainly has the qualifications! (Being a sell out and a genocide apologist)

    • You might want to look further into this one, hoss.

      The GOP is manipulating you into hating those aligned with your interests.

    • I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that's a long ways from being a "genocide apologist". To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it's justified. I think it's fair to call Biden a genocide apologist because he actively participated in obfuscating the reality of what was happening and attacking critics.

      Foreign policy is complicated, and there is room for someone to think pragmatically that cutting off "defensive aid" will make things worse instead of better. I disagree with that someone, but I'd much rather have them as opposition than someone who is principally in favor of a Genocide.

      • It’s really not complicated. It’s only complication is concern for aipac money.

        Also you’re saying she is aware it’s a genocide and still approved the sale of weapons to a genocidal regime

      • I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick

        If you know what they're doing, and she knows what they're doing, and you know she knows what they're doing, then we should all be fairly clear that she's not absolving herself from complicity.

        In the case of the US-Israel relationship, the financials are more complicated than the foreign policy, and there are no consequential earmarks. The input is either more funding, or less funding.

        From one approach, if the US funds Israel's Iron Dome, Israel will have more money from not spending their own on defenses, and what they didn't have to spend on defensive weapons, they will then spend on offensive weapons. This chain of causality is fairly direct and reasonable to trace, IMHO. In fact, it's quite possible that they directly route gifts for defensive weapons into offensive weapons- this is Israel we're talking about, they're not known for engaging in good faith.

        From a second approach, her vote for Iron Dome spending signals that she is holding out for the chance that both sides will de-escalate willingly, and that a peaceful agreement can be negotiated from current positions. This is wishful thinking.

        From a third approach, the only thing we have seen with the potential to end the genocide is intervention by Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, or especially Iran. Any prospect of the US, the EU, or an alliance of Arab states putting an end to the genocide militarily is completely without precedent and infeasible. Israel continues to maim Gaza because its economy is still running, and its economy is still running because it has diplomatic ties and defensive systems. If they are subjected to a large number of missiles, their citizens will be forced to permanently retreat to bomb shelters; this will shut down the economy and persuade Israelis to repatriate to their countries of origin (or Germany and the US will take them), because they are wealthy enough and a large fraction of them have dual citizenship. This is the one thing that will certainly end the genocide, running out their defenses until they are confronted with the same onslaught that they have waged against Palestinians. It's not pretty or peaceful and a few people might die in-between the bomb shelters, but this is how genocides are stopped. The day that Israel runs out of interceptors and the Shahed drones keep flying in is the day they will start negotiating the end of the genocide. Funding defensive missile capacities is simply staving that day off. It is not an intervention that directly kills people, but it is still an American intervention in the Middle East that makes the situation worse and demonstrably causes more innocent people to die.

        To be sure, there are several different levels of genocide apologia, and AOC is a few levels down on the scale from your average Republican. But she's still not clearing the bar for ethical foreign policy. The bar is to treat Israel with at least the same level of response that was given to Russia when it invaded/escalated the war in Ukraine.

        • You’ve added another goalpost, so now we have two questions to tackle. 1: Is AOC a “genocide apologist”? 2: Is AOC complicit in genocide? You have also mixed a bunch of other arguments that are not specifically relevant to AOC. I think we are largely in agreement about those, though I do think the idea of applying an ethical standard to an entire people is problematic.

          I hate semantic argument, but the definitions I find for apologist are all pretty similar to “a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.” I know of no case where AOC has offered any argument for genocide in general, or for a specific genocide. I also don’t know of any case where she has tried to obfuscate a genocide. So no, I see no evidence to support the idea that she is a genocide apologist.

          Complicity is a bit more complicated, just because there are dozens of ethical theories or frameworks, and you have given no indication of how you reached that conclusion. I’m most familiar with deontology. It is the dominant system of western moral ethics, and the system most concerned with determining personal culpability or sin. That is the framework I will use.

          First, we have to identify an “end”, a “means” to that end, and any relevant “concomitant ends”. I’m also going to make the untrue (but helpful to you) assumption that AOC's vote was pivotal to continuing US funding. The “means” could be her vote, but it could also be the actual shipping of weapons to Israel. Voting or the shipping of weapons don’t have any inherent moral character, so both are irrelevant.

          An “end” is the thing that the actor is trying to bring about, and I would define that as “Israel having the ability to defend itself.” Now, it’s entirely possible that her actual motivation was to enable Israel to commit genocide, but that would not be consistent with anything she has ever said publicly, and would not be fair to assume. An end that is foreseen but unintended is a concomitant end. The primary test is that the end must still be achieved if somehow the concomitant end doesn’t. Israel would still be able to use the weapons defensively if they didn’t commit a genocide, so the test passes.

          A concomitant end can still make an act immoral, if the scale of the end is disproportionately large compared to the intended end. I don’t see that here, since the potential downsides to Israel and Palestine are pretty similar in scope.

          My conclusion is that I disagree with your assertion that AOC is complicit in genocide. If you think I got the analysis wrong on any point, or if you think I should be using a different ethical framework, I’m happy to discuss it further.

          I find both of these less interesting than the question of how best to help Palestine. I see going after AOC as, at best ineffective, and at worst counterproductive. However bad you think she is, she is clearly better than most Democrats on this and other issues. I don’t think we even need to talk about Republicans. This obsession that people have with going after AOC really says a lot about their motivations. Anybody who really gave a shit about Palestine would be finding better things to do with their time. And, again, this is coming from someone who is largely in agreement with you on how bad American foreign policy is in this area.

          • "Israel has a right to defend itself" is obscurantism. Why would Israel need to defend itself? Why don't we ever hear about Sweden or Panama needing to defend themselves? The answer is that Sweden and Panama are not engaging in widespread, structural, longstanding military operations against specific ethnic groups inside their own borders.

            There is also a consistency lacking here. Why doesn't Palestine have the right to defend itself? The US gives military aid to dozens of countries; why does it give military aid to Israel but not to Palestine? Again, we know the answer: the rules do not apply to everyone equally; Israeli exceptionalism is in practice in American governance.

            The Israeli state has been engaged in a slow, grinding campaign of ethnic cleansing since its founding. There is a reason why the peace process always stalls out, and the illegal settlements keep being built and expanded, and the pogroms against Palestinians keep happening on a weekly basis. Israel's very existence is predicated on a fundamental discrepancy between ethnic groups, and the promotion of one exploiting the other. If we're getting into deontological ethics, states have the duty to grant and secure equal rights to people living within their borders, and when a state fails to do this, other states have the duty to drop their associations with it.

            If you give credibility and support to a militarized, palingenetic, class-collaborationist ethnostate to defend itself, you are giving credibility and support to fascism.

            The DSA, the org that AOC came from, has made it clear that giving any support to Israel is wrong. I don't think she's in a position to claim ignorance about the imbalanced nature of the conflict, either, or the implications of giving post-2023 Israel any support whatsoever. AOC is not going to make any policy change by her one vote, that's part of the nature of Congress as it exists today. What that one vote is uniquely useful for is taking a moral stance, and taking the visibility of the progressive cause from a tiny sliver to a more noticeable sliver. Out of the politically oriented people in the US, maybe 5% are socialists, 40% are reactionaries, and 40% are centrist liberals. We're not going to be able to do much about the reactionaries that already have seats. But if we do replace one, or successfully primary a centrist liberal, it only makes a difference if the replacement votes in accordance with humanist principles, rather than triangulating what it would take to be the "least bad Democrat". I hope you're on the same page as me that recursion of the "lesser of two evils" leads to expansion of those evils.

            Palestinians are not simply dying, they are being mass murdered. The only way to meaningfully help them is to use any capability in our power to take down the defenses and immunities of the IDF mass murderers. When a crime is being committed, you don't concern yourself with the well-being of the guilty; you can worry about their rights once they have been brought to justice.

            • "Israel has a right to defend itself"

              You put that in quotes, but I never said it. In fact, I never even implied it. Personally, I don't even know what the word "right" means when talking about states instead of individuals. Countries don't have the right to defend themselves, they have the ability to defend themselves. We know they do, because they still exist as countries.

              There is also a consistency lacking here.

              Well yeah. That's kind of to be expected when you fabricate my arguments.

              The US gives military aid to dozens of countries; why does it give military aid to Israel but not to Palestine?

              That's a legitimately good question that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I made. You are just throwing pre-made arguments at me, not engaging in actual dialog. I'm not sure I want to fund Palestine, but I definitely don't want to fund Israel.

              the rules do not apply to everyone equally

              No shit. Welcome to foreign policy. No country is altruistic, and they all are acting in their own perceived self interest. I want to foster international relations based on mutual cooperation for the good of mankind instead of self-interest, but that's not how anybody is doing it today.

              The Israeli state has been engaged in a slow, grinding campaign of ethnic cleansing since its founding....

              Yes? Once again you are just throwing arguments at me instead of engaging in dialog. I agree with this and pretty much everything else you said here. It just doesn't apply to the two questions at argument.

              when a state fails to do this, other states have the duty to drop their associations with it.

              Tell me more. Has China disassociated with Israel? Russia? As far as I know, neither has broken off diplomatic relations. It's also arguable that every nation on Earth has failed to do this in one way or another. No country should associate with any other country? Now, I know you are going to interpret this as a defense of Israel, but it's not. I am just addressing your pattern of uninformed reckless assertions.

              I don't think she's in a position to claim ignorance about the imbalanced nature of the conflict, either,

              And I don't think you have established that she has made such a claim.

              What that one vote is uniquely useful for is taking a moral stance

              And, once again, I have to remind you that I am not supportive of her vote. However, that alone is insufficient to call her a genocide denier, or make her complicit in genocide.

              I hope you're on the same page as me that recursion of the "lesser of two evils" leads to expansion of those evils.

              I agree to a point. I don't generally support third party strategies for practical reasons, and I do support voting for the lesser evil when there is no viable alternative. However, I also don't throw in with the idea that we should never criticize Democrats because it helps Republicans - and that includes AOC. I support going hard after Democrats in primaries, but I want those resources to be used in the most strategic way possible, given that we are so far behind. I would not support going after a lukewarm progressive when we have a dozen hard-core neoliberals to choose from.

              The only way to meaningfully help them is to use any capability in our power to take down the defenses and immunities of the IDF mass murderers.

              If you are serious about that, then you better start thinking a lot more strategically. Please do.

              • An “end” is the thing that the actor is trying to bring about, and I would define that as “Israel having the ability to defend itself.” Now, it’s entirely possible that her actual motivation was to enable Israel to commit genocide, but that would not be consistent with anything she has ever said publicly

                You are ascribing her motivations as helping Israel defend itself, without distancing yourself from them by condemning Israel as a genocidal state. Genocidal states don't deserve self-defense or support of any kind. By echoing the sentiment without critiquing it, you are ceding ground to it.

                And I don't think you have established that she has made such a claim.

                She either is aware of what Israel is and decides to give it material support, which is genocide apologia, or she is not aware of what Israel is, as the livestreamer Congresswoman herself, which is genocide ignorance. I'm not sure which is worse.

                I'm not about to post verbatim online how I think the Zionist entity (or any other belligerent reactionary state) should be treated by radicalized proles in the belly of the beast. I will lend critical support to the Islamists that actually fight against it, and I've given about a month of savings to Palestinian refugees via our direct aid comm. Maybe if I was some tycoon I would throw money at the Resistance. I disagree with the point that Israel will never not have missile defense. To reiterate, the condition of their missile defense depletion is what will end the genocide and the illegal occupation. The more defensive aid they get, the longer they will last. Perhaps it will run out after it's already too late for anyone in Gaza, maybe it will run out after it's too late for the West Bank too. But it will run out at some point.

                Anyway, this is about AOC, and any other progressive or nominally socialist figure to hold state or national office. If our progressives don't take progressive stances, what good are they? We have an ongoing paradigm of Democratic reps voting like Republicans, and Progressive Caucus reps voting like blue dogs, largely out of the false assumption about how conservative the electorate is. If a rep is going to not vote by their principled conscience because of party pressure or congressional norms or whatever undisclosed power, that is a failure and an obstacle to achieving the goal. If there is any possibility of making a consequential difference through the medium of electoralism, it hinges on a candidate sticking to their guns once they get elected. You can push through any progressive policy even if your adversaries control 49% of the vote. But if you cannot garner a vote from the people who are purportedly on your side, you cannot accomplish anything. An empty ally is more of a blow than a predictable enemy. You don't win in politics by compromising with the adversary from start to finish, you win in politics by galvanizing your base and following through on your promises. This is why Democrats are consistently losing even when they win elections, and why Republicans are in full control of the country with a small minority of the populace. That's my thesis and I'm sticking to it.

                You have been saying "don't focus on AOC, the vote you might have but didn't get, focus on the Republicans, the votes you will never get". I think that is misguided.

                Principled stances are what makes a change. Buckling on a stance is what the conservatives would want. So I'm going to turn the "Republican" accusation you've leveled at people ITT right around on you, and say that Republicans are cheering every time a progressive Democrat adjusts to a more "moderate" stance.

                • Genocidal states don’t deserve self-defense or support of any kind.

                  We've already been over this, and it's a complete non-sequitur. "Genocidal states" include every state that ever existed. If there are any exceptions, then I sure can't think of them. Even if we only consider ongoing genocides, Russia, China, and I would argue the US (even unrelated to Israel) would not "deserve self-defense".

                  She either is aware of what Israel is and decides to give it material support, which is genocide apologia.

                  You keep asserting this, but it clearly isn't. However, if it is, then you are also guilty of the same. If enabling Israel to defend itself is supporting the genocide of Palestine, then preventing Israel from defending itself must be understood as supporting the genocide of Israel. If the withdraw of US support actually had the impact you imply, the lifespan of Israel would be the travel time of missiles from Iran. (Not that a lot of other missiles wouldn't arrive first.) You can claim that Israel "deserves" it, but that would be providing a justification for genocide which would explicitly be genocide apologia. Just to be clear, this is in response to your statement that doesn't deserve the ability to defend itself, not that the US should stop weapons shipments.

                  If our progressives don’t take progressive stances, what good are they?

                  What the hell are you talking about. AOC takes lots of progressive stances. She does not, however, take the most progressive stance possible on every progressive issue.

                  That’s my thesis and I’m sticking to it.

                  Your thesis is pretty muddled. You seem to be under the impression that hyperbole can take the place of strong arguments. I don't even disagree with the general direction of your "thesis", but the amount of inaccurate conflation and hyperbolic generalizations makes it pretty incomprehensible. I promise you that I have personally made those arguments a whole lot better against supporters of the Democratic establishment. I have no problem at all with criticism of AOC, but the way you approach it isn't going to convince anyone.

                  Principled stances are what makes a change.

                  Not all by itself it doesn't. AOC is probably gearing up for a run against Schumer. If you don't think her replacing the most Zionist Democratic senator (or arguably the most Zionist Senator period) is going to be an earthquake against Israel, then I don't know what to tell you.

                  Buckling on a stance is what the conservatives would want.

                  You have not established that this is what AOC did. Her not supporting your stance (and mine) does not equate to "buckling". She has her own principals, and what's going on in Gaza is not the only relevant consideration. The amendment she voted against wouldn't even have cut offensive weaponry, just iron dome, and AOC ultimately voted against the entire funding bill.

                  • "Genocidal states" include every state that ever existed.

                    That's so unbelievably facile, a complete semantic cop-out. "Oh, they all are genocidal." Are we just going to dump every use of violence as genocide, or are we actually going to use meaningful definitions, like the intention, follow-through, and direct profit on killing a large fraction of a population or demographic?

                    You are both-sidesing this issue based on empty assumptions. If Israel stopped fighting, there would be peace through Israelis moving back. If the Resistance stopped fighting, they would all be exterminated. If you think it is permissible for Israel to defend itself while committing genocide, that is equivalent to permitting that genocide.

                    If enabling Israel to defend itself is supporting the genocide of Palestine, then preventing Israel from defending itself must be understood as supporting the genocide of Israel.

                    This is a baby-brained tu quoque, and borderline offensive. It is the same hasbara that Israel uses, saying "in their place they would kill us all too". Iran and Palestine have never enacted a genocide on anyone. Ending a government is not genocide; ending a people is. The end of the State of Israel would mean a plurinational Palestine that included Jews as citizens with equal rights. Israelis mostly don't die when missiles hit, they have bomb shelters to flee to and can easily leave the country. Palestinians have nowhere to go, only the land that they have continuously inhabited for millennia. A Resistance victory means a sort of Truth and Reconciliation commission, and an outcome like South Africa. An Israeli victory means the death of all Palestinians in Palestine, they say this in all corners of Israeli society every day.

                    If you don't think her replacing the most Zionist Democratic senator (or arguably the most Zionist Senator period) is going to be an earthquake against Israel, then I don't know what to tell you.

                    You don't seize the party leader position by defeating the party leader. AOC taking Schumer's seat would result in 2 nominally democratic socialists in the Senate. But what good would it do if they don't vote differently? An earthquake is when something big shifts and changes things. Two dissenting votes is not an earthquake. More specifically, in Israel's case, two senators that vote against offensive weapons but support defensive weapons would be completely without consequence. It doesn't matter which of the 99 Zionist senators you dislodge, especially when you vote alongside the Zionists on the most consequential thing.

                    AOC already has a track record of pivoting toward the center, it didn't start with this issue. As soon as 2021 she was already disappointing with how much she was compromising on.

                    You have addressed nothing about my core assertion that coherent appeals and consistency and follow-through is what wins elections. Our 2 most influential presidents each lost the popular vote, had a popularity below 35%, and had a base of around 15% of American society. You don't win by being the closest to the middle of the seesaw, you win by giving people a reason to rally around you.

                    I don't expect the Democrats to learn anything about winning in politics. They are nothing but careerists and fundraisers. And at this point I don't expect to get anything through to you, or even treat you as serious.

                    • Are we just going to dump every use of violence as genocide...

                      No we aren't, and no I didn't. History is packed with countries doing genocides, either of local populations or as part of a colonial project. Russia is currently committing genocide against ethic Ukrainians. China is currently committing genocide against the Uyghurs. I would argue that the US genocide of native Americans never ended, and the current Hispanic purge is clearly going well beyond just undocumented immigrants.

                      If Israel stopped fighting, there would be peace through Israelis moving back.

                      You are almost certainly correct. It just has nothing to do with your assertion that they should lose the ability to defend themselves.

                      If the Resistance stopped fighting, they would all be exterminated.

                      The resistance is unfortunately pretty irrelevant at this point. This is low key feeding Israeli propaganda that what's going on is a war.

                      This is a baby-brained tu quoque, and borderline offensive.

                      Calling you a genocide apologist is only borderline offensive? Anyways, since my position is that AOC is not a genocide apologist, this isn't a "you also" it's a "just you".

                      Ending a government is not genocide; ending a people is.

                      And? You think Iran (and others) are only interested in ending the Israeli government? Please. The fact that Israel is evil doesn't make all of Israel's enemies good. As much as Oct 7 has been abused to justify genocide, it's a fact that the attacks were focused on civilians, not military or symbols of the Israeli government.

                      You don’t seize the party leader position by defeating the party leader. AOC taking Schumer’s seat would result in 2 nominally democratic socialists in the Senate. But what good would it do if they don’t vote differently?

                      No, you do seize momentum though. A plucky progressive knocking out the highest ranking public face of the Democratic establishment is a pretty big deal. How do you think we get to 3 democratic socialists in the Senate? And again, I have to point out your ridiculous hyperbole. Are you really ignorant enough to think that AOC and Bernie don't vote differently? Are you really ignorant enough to think that voting is the only tool they have to drive change? A tiny number of progressives in congress have been able to drag the Democrats left on a bunch of issues. You don't approve of one vote on one amendment that wouldn't pass anyways for a bill that she also voted against.

                      You have addressed nothing about my core assertion that coherent appeals and consistency and follow-through is what wins elections.

                      Agreeing with it isn't addressing it? OK. I guess I have to remind you again that there are exactly two claims you made that I disagree with, and that this is irrelevant to both. No, AOC isn't perfect. No, I don't have any problem with productive criticism of AOC. Calling her a genocide apologist and claiming that she is complicit in genocide based on a bill she actually voted against is not productive criticism. Hyperbolic bullshit is just going to marginalize you. Why the fuck would AOC ever take you seriously?

                      With that, I'm done. Go ahead and close it out if you want.

                      • The tu quoque is saying that Palestinians/Iranians are poised to genocide Israelis. This is reactionary garbage without precedent or evidence, Israeli hasbara propaganda that you are echoing point-for-point. The genocide in Gaza is the most flagrant and clear example since 1994, if not since 1945. Little else this century even comes close. Giving defensive weapons to Israel is like giving anti-aircraft weapons to Nazi Germany's Eastern Front. That is what AOC, along with 400+ representatives in the imperial center, voted to do. It's meaningless to say that "she made no pro-genocide arguments" when she made a very clear pro-genocide vote. There is no purely diplomatic solution without violence, and only a few delusional people in the Global North fail to understand that.

                        Your awareness of the world is a fabrication of the State department. If you were honest in talking about Russian genocidal actions, you would have mentioned Chechnya, not Ukraine. Mentioning the Uighurs (who have been targets of surveillance and mass incarceration to a lesser degree than African Americans, not genocided) and leaving out the more dramatic case of the Rohingya is clown shit. Do you pay any attention to news on Earth beyond what the CIA rubber-stamps?

                        You have an amnesic reading of politics. AOC herself got the same criticism for supporting Sunrise's sit-ins of Nancy Pelosi's office. What did the establishment Democrat respond with? Each part of your line of reasoning. The DCCC has been fighting the progressive wing categorically harder than it fights Republicans, from 2016 to 2020 to this year's mayoral elections.

                        Seizing momentum means nothing if that momentum doesn't convert into anything. If you seek to change the Democrats from within without pitching a fundamentally oppositional fight, the party will prevail over the individual. There's a reason why they call it the Iron Law of Institutions.

                        I don't think you "share my view" or "agree with me" on having a different stance than AOC. You don't distance yourself from someone by defending all of their positions. You've admitted to being a compromising tailist. There's no use talking about "democratic socialists in the House" when you use it as a label with no rigorous definition. On the other hand, the Democratic Socialists of America, a party I'm a member of, has clearly denounced all aid to Israel and distanced itself from AOC, with a supermajority in favor of strict BDS. Arguing against this makes you a right-wing, anti-progress, conservative Democrat. Have fun retreating back to your comfortable political non-position and being on the wrong side of history.

                        I'm not even certain you're not a bot, latching onto keywords and outputting a canned response that ignores central points and doesn't follow the course of argument.

172 comments