What is the significance of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

This is the 28-year-old socialist who beat the heir to the throne for Democratic Congressional
leader in New York.

Are the Democrats experiencing a 'tea-party of the left' moment where the establishment is shaken up by radicals? Could it be even more significant in that American politics is set to experience real structural changes years down the line? Certainly, there will be replacement Bernies, if nothing else.

For those who don't know, I'm a British political activist and very much involved in the movement around Jeremy Corbyn, Britain's Labour Party leader. I see the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) as a US version of Momentum, so I kind of feel a kinship here.

It strikes me that the Democrats are united in opposition to Trump but in little else. There seems to be a division between party elites who accept corporate donations and have classical liberal policies and a more progressive radical base. I don't think most American Democrat voters are socialist in the classical sense but nonetheless, I think there is a political message here which will resonate.

I also think that Ocasio-Cortez is extremely impressive as a candiate. She has excellent politics, as well as charisma, authenticity and self-confidence. If I was an activist in this room, then I would walk through walls for that person:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAb2QMw9h_w]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

TexChik · F

@Burnley123 they loved disarming the citizenry , then rounded up the Jews and the infirm and killed them ... I didn’t say Hitler killed Christians Libtard ... I said the Ds’s hatred of Christians was similar to the hatred Hitler had for Jews .

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@TexChik Democratic Socialists don't have a particular beef with Christians in the least. Most of what we think of as "democratic socialist" countries are majority Christian.

And Hitler promoted gun ownership.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@TexChik They had gun laws to disarm the Jews while they spent money building a huge army. What that has to do with democratic socialism, I have no idea.

TexChik · F

@Burnley123 they disarmed all of Germany ... not just Jews . Trying to sneak around the truth makes you so slimey!

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@TexChik No, Hitler eased the registration procedures, and Nazis promoted gun ownership.

[quote]The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.[/quote]

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@TexChik https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/shot-down-the-myths-distorting-the-gun-debate

You can read the article above. Also, the whole Hitler vrs guns argument is willfully ignorant if political reality.

Most German non jewish citizens supported the Thurs Reich, at least tacitly and passively. It had already consolidated power by the time it imposed these laws.

Yes, there were greater restrictions in Jews because Hitler wanted to weaken them, though it is highly unlikely that a Jewish uprising could ever have overthrown the Third Reich from within.

So no, the Hitler analogy does not work as a comparison for US gun control. Even if the US was in actual danger of being overtaken by a tyrannical government, it would still be a factually inaccurate argument.

The first people Hitler locked up were the socialists and trade unionists. That's because, if the their would have been an militant threat to the Third Reich from within, it would have come from there.

Most Conservative Germans accepted Hitler. When push came to shove, they valued their relative priveledge and property rights over the liberty of others.

TexChik · F

@Burnley123 oh please I don’t need a socialist’s revisionist history lesson 🙄

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@TexChik You just need a history lesson

TexChik · F

@Burnley123 not from you asshole . I have no interest in lies and omissions . Take a hike

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@TexChik This is my post and you chose to engage. Tell me what aspect of what I voted was wrong?

I am guessing you can't which is why you are resorting to insults.