U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez castigated House Republicans for pursuing massive cuts to Medicaid "in the dead of night" as a committee markup hearing on the GOP's legislation dragged on into the early hours of the morning.
For all your words, you clearly don’t understand Politics.
Real Politics is about compromise, so ALL politicians have to have fuzzy boundaries sometimes. What really matters is the overall direction and morality of the politician. Are they compromising for the good of a bill that will offer a constructive improvement to America? Or are they compromising because it’s good for their career or their bank account?
I can get behind a decent, moral candidate, even if I don’t agree with all their positions, much more than a candidate with no morals who will tell me ANYTHING I want to hear.
Mate, I’ve been a member of two political parties in two different countries.
“Compromise” is way too often just an vague hand-waving excuse politicians give to act in unprincipled ways that ultimately only benefit themselves and their careers. This claim is more often misused by politicians of large mainstream political parties - the self-proclaimed “moderate/pragmatic center”.
In America “compromise” is what right now some Democrat politicians are claiming to support just about every Republican measure in Congress (stuff which is way, way, WAY beyond what I thought AOC voted for).
Indeed, and as you say, Politics is more often than not compromise. However a politician who comprises on everything and has no red-lines whatsoever by definition has no principles at all, or in other words, stands for nothing and in my naivety I expect leftwing politicians to have at least some principles and hence some red lines they will not cross, and I expect that anything that supports a state mass murdering children for their ethnicity is a natural red line for a leftwinger.
So as I see it, in the present day because of just how abused and hence devaluated that kind of claim has been by politicians in major parties, more than mere vague claims of “compromise” need to be provided by any politician in such a party who is supposed to be principled to justify actions that at first sight seem to go against the principles they claim to have.
That said, AOC did explained it in detail and somebody else actually explained here those details (which is really what I was asking for in order to judge if the “compromise” was really an acceptable one rather than and abuse of the “compromise” claim to excuse crossing what should have been a red line) and the resolution she voted for is actually a lot less scary than what I feared and manages to, IMHO fall into an actual grey area of that subject - even if I think she should have at least abstained, I can see how a “yay” vote would be understandable.
Hopefully, I was totally wrong in my fears about her being just another politician that talks the talk but only walks the walk when it suits her - I’ve seen politicians from afar, but at this point I’ve also met some personally, so I have good reasons to be suspicious of the carefully managed public image of celebrity-level politicians not matching their real nature, so want way more proof of their honest and are far more fickle with my trust on them.
Before I got involved in political parties I was more trusting, but not anymore.
For all your words, you clearly don’t understand Politics.
Real Politics is about compromise, so ALL politicians have to have fuzzy boundaries sometimes. What really matters is the overall direction and morality of the politician. Are they compromising for the good of a bill that will offer a constructive improvement to America? Or are they compromising because it’s good for their career or their bank account?
I can get behind a decent, moral candidate, even if I don’t agree with all their positions, much more than a candidate with no morals who will tell me ANYTHING I want to hear.
Mate, I’ve been a member of two political parties in two different countries.
“Compromise” is way too often just an vague hand-waving excuse politicians give to act in unprincipled ways that ultimately only benefit themselves and their careers. This claim is more often misused by politicians of large mainstream political parties - the self-proclaimed “moderate/pragmatic center”.
In America “compromise” is what right now some Democrat politicians are claiming to support just about every Republican measure in Congress (stuff which is way, way, WAY beyond what I thought AOC voted for).
Indeed, and as you say, Politics is more often than not compromise. However a politician who comprises on everything and has no red-lines whatsoever by definition has no principles at all, or in other words, stands for nothing and in my naivety I expect leftwing politicians to have at least some principles and hence some red lines they will not cross, and I expect that anything that supports a state mass murdering children for their ethnicity is a natural red line for a leftwinger.
So as I see it, in the present day because of just how abused and hence devaluated that kind of claim has been by politicians in major parties, more than mere vague claims of “compromise” need to be provided by any politician in such a party who is supposed to be principled to justify actions that at first sight seem to go against the principles they claim to have.
That said, AOC did explained it in detail and somebody else actually explained here those details (which is really what I was asking for in order to judge if the “compromise” was really an acceptable one rather than and abuse of the “compromise” claim to excuse crossing what should have been a red line) and the resolution she voted for is actually a lot less scary than what I feared and manages to, IMHO fall into an actual grey area of that subject - even if I think she should have at least abstained, I can see how a “yay” vote would be understandable.
Hopefully, I was totally wrong in my fears about her being just another politician that talks the talk but only walks the walk when it suits her - I’ve seen politicians from afar, but at this point I’ve also met some personally, so I have good reasons to be suspicious of the carefully managed public image of celebrity-level politicians not matching their real nature, so want way more proof of their honest and are far more fickle with my trust on them.
Before I got involved in political parties I was more trusting, but not anymore.