So she’s really radical but also really gullible or something?
That makes no sense.
She’s radical. Liberal normies are shallow and not very perceptive.
Then why didn’t she endorse? The implication is that she falsely thought she’s getting something.
Whose implication? Boredsocial’s implication? I certainly don’t think she made some kind of a deal to not endorse. That’s absurd imo.
I don’t know why she didn’t endorse.
I mean surely she was aware of the race and didn’t endorse for a reason. It seems very likely it was strategic in some way.
So you think she made a deal with the DemE to not endorse?
You seem to view that as some kind of betrayal.
I don’t think it was some official deal with a direct quid pro quo. But I think DemE puts a lot of pressure on its members regarding endorsements, and sometimes you have to pick your battles in order to maximally achieve your future goals.
1 Like
So, circling back to the beginning of this exchange, how does that square with you accusing me of suggesting that AOC is gullible?
Because I’m saying this could help her in the future and you were saying it won’t.
No, I didn’t say any such thing. I said she didn’t make a deal. You also say she didn’t make a deal.
And still, that makes no sense with your use of the word “gullible”. What did you mean by “gullible”?
What? Are we arguing over the definition of deal? You said “This is lol. She didn’t get anything. Chuck, Nancy, et al are never giving AOC anything.” Is being more willing to work with her in the future whether through money or endorsements or votes not anything? I have no idea whether it was something specific or not.
But regardless, if you don’t think she’s getting anything and yet still is not voting her heart, how is that not gullible?
Maybe she didn’t see a need to endorse a challenger to an incumbent congressman who was already a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. Maybe the deal is simply that if someone supports your priorities, you don’t turn around and stab them in the back by supporting their opponent. This doesn’t have to be about the establishment being an incumbent protection racket.
7 Likes
I don’t think she tried to make a deal or that a deal was offered and I said I don’t know why she didn’t endorse. Those are the facts you have to work with. We’re not arguing over the definition of deal. I hope not. It’s a pretty simple word.
And “voting her heart”? You mean “endorsing her heart”? Geez you make this harder than it has to be.
I don’t know why she didn’t endorse. I could speculate about a few different reasons, but that would just be following your and bored’s lead down a tangent. The simple fact is, as I stated, I don’t think she made a deal. That’s something you also seem to think. Therefore it makes no sense to suggest that she would have been gullible.
Supposing she imagined that she would get some political windfall for not endorsing. (I never even came close to suggesting that that wasn’t the case.) Imagine that she was wrong. That’s still not being gullible!
Yeah, maybe. Lots of possible reasons she might not have endorsed.