Summary

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that Trump’s mass deportation policy could lead to labor shortages and higher grocery prices.

Experts say agriculture, construction, and healthcare will be hardest hit, with farm output losses estimated between $30 and $60 billion.

Deportations could cost the U.S. economy up to $88 billion annually.

AOC argued that immigrant labor is vital to economic stability, urging Congress to pursue immigration reform.

  • Veedem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    256
    ·
    1 day ago

    I know she’s been villainized by the right, but I feel like, at this point, she needs to be elevated to key leadership of the party. She’s the only one who seems to be able to speak to specifics. I just listened to Jeffries on Jon Stewart’s podcast and it was all of the same old generalities.

    • webhead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Seriously. They all said they felt better than before but the dude barely said anything worthwhile. So disappointing it’s the exact same hand wringing bullshit where they say “we just need to get the message out” instead of actually doing shit differently. Jon really did try to get more out of him but he stayed on message like 80% of the time like a true politician.

    • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      Given how clearly she’s stood up since day 1 here, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s the first target for Trump’s Window-Pushing Squad

      Sooner or later, the idiot is gonna take the biggest chapter from Putin’s book.

    • mwproductions@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I just listened to Jeffries on Jon Stewart’s podcast and it was all of the same old generalities.

      Especially after Stewart’s recent interview with her.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      that’s exactly why the establishment limits her movements. she’s a threat to schumer and pelosi’s stranglehold on the money pipelines. what schumer and pelosi either don’t realize, or don’t care about, is they’re who the ultraradical right want dead first. they showed us as much on january 6th, 2021

    • Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      166
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can’t speak to every politician, but as a class, they seem to be elites that are disconnected from the average American.

      AOC, having been a normal person, is able to bring the message that gets through to people without having it filtered through some sort of communication agency.

      • Branch_Ranch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Would be a great time for bernie and AOC to make strides to start a new party, or other tactics to force dems to move left.

        • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I hope they pass a bill to set age and term limits, alongside with voting reforms. Our political system was built for a mere 13 colonies that shared a coastline, not a continental civilization without telecommunication.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Those could be good ideas, although I dont like the idea of forcing out good candidates based on term limits.

            I’m more concerned with fixing things like citizens united:

            “In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that any laws that try to restrict the political spending of corporations and unions is a violation of the First Amendment’s right of free speech. This significantly impacted campaign finance laws.”

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Term limits bring their own set of issues. I would do some more research on the subject before championing them.

            • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 hours ago

              I think we now have real-world examples of what being without limits can bring us. For example, a supreme justice holds their role until death or abdication. The vast bulk of the SC court cannot relate to “young” people. This is problematic, seeing how many of them were born before things like DEI, foreign content like anime, or the Internet were common. Plus, the justices tend to be confirmed by old people, which only reinforces the issue.

              If there is an overhaul when it comes to SCs in particular, I think the following would be good:

              1: Trash the current SC system.

              2: Each state can elect a single Supreme Justice to represent them. This Justice is elected through a popular vote. SCs have a term limit of ten years, and an age range of 30-70. They may be impeached by their state through a popular ballot.

              3: The justices have to have lived in their state for at least 10 years, and continue living there for the rest of their term.

              4: Digital means for justices to meet should be implemented. (For congress as well), and live feeds of their discussion process for all to see. We should be allowed to see and record how the sausage of our laws is made.

              5: The assets, wealth, and social media of a Justice should be an open record. We don’t want people like Clarance Thomas to be allowed to grift, especially not when the lives of so many people can be impacted.

              By having each state having ownership of a single SC, we will have about 50 justices. This is good for having a wide variety of backgrounds and interests to be represented during judicial discussions, along with insulating against any one faction from pushing forward candidates.

              Traditionally, we required our justices to be well versed in law and whatnot…but honestly, after the shitshow that is our current Supreme Court, it is clear that motivation trumps law and precedent. That Is why I suggest that justices be determined through a popular vote. If a justice is going to be motivated, it should be driven by the fact that they were chosen by the people of their state, not an political faction or leader.

              • chknbwl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I concur, US federal supreme court judges are appointed solely by the President. This makes these positions highly political and less about merit. Furthermore, fed circuit judges are appointed by fed SC judges, so the whole federal judicial system is just political tug-o’-war.

                Cherry on top is a lot of civil judges, typically circuit-level as well, run unopposed in local elections. Their tenure tends to keep red-state law red and vice-versa. So much for US America being our self-proclaimed “Marketplace of Ideas”.

                I agree with revolutionizing our current federal judicial system. It is severely outdated and regularly exploited.

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        97
        ·
        1 day ago

        I agree but she spends a lot of time reciting very rehearsed and morally charged statements that are great for sound bites. I don’t even disagree with them, but it’s what a lot of “elites“ do as well, so if she wants to separate from them then she needs to speak in a little more plain language when the cameras are rolling on her if you ask me.

        • SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          80
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Half the population is below average intelligence. As a politician you have to speak in a way that is both to the point and emotionally charging to get your point across as simply as possible. It’s the best way to actually reach the most people. You also have to repeat yourself ad nauseam. It’s just a pitfall of the job. Simultaneously, they have to treat people like idiots and not treat people like idiots.

          It also works. Remember all those signs in yards this past election cycle that said “Trump: lower taxes, Harris: higher taxes” and “Trump: good for America, Harris: bad for America”? They were wrong, and simple and they worked.

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            39
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            again, I don’t disagree with her at all. I like and support her. The issue is if she wants to separate herself from elites maybe she could consider a slightly blunter approach. Apparently people are really angry that I have a slightly different opinion on strategy.

            She isn’t Trump. She can’t be Trump. I don’t want signs like Trump.

            • SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              So what’s your issue? What does “not speak like an elite” even mean? Politicians speak like politicians and they do so for reasons I’ve already outlined. She isn’t talking down to you, she’s empathizing with you. What do you want her to say? You want her to talk like the room is filled with post-doctorates? How does that help a chronically under-educated populace who literally can’t afford get a good education, let alone pay attention to anything of substance after sifting through our hellscape of a media?

              She isn’t Trump, of course. I don’t think anyone in Lemmy is asking for her to be. My point was that repeating yourself and speaking simply literally just won an election. “Me, good. Other guy, bad” as a message, works. Bernie has been repeating himself for longer than I’ve been alive. He’s been right about everything he’s ever said in the simplest of terms. Why do you think he keeps doing it? Because it’s still true, and people still need to hear that message.

                • SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I haven’t downvoted a single one of your comments. I’m asking questions I wanted answers to. Sorry people don’t like what you’re saying, but I’m trying to have a conversation.

                  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    14
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Not singling you out intentionally just don’t feel like writing what I think and getting endlessly downvoted and then inevitably answering the same questions over and over as folks chase upvotes lol

        • Gerudo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          She stands by what she says though. It may sound familiar, because it’s the same shit all the time. She doesn’t take lobby money, she doesn’t take pac money and she doesnt take corpo money. Her donations are working class citizens that fuel her campaigns. If you want her to speak simple language, go watch her John Stewart interview. It’s as plain and “common folk” speak as you can get.

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            I never said she didn’t stand by what she says or is otherwise inauthentic. I’m talking about communication style. I think she’s as real as it gets and believes what she says/acts on her values.

            As I said another comment this is clearly just an angry dog pile. I’m just going to move on.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s the game, she’s just doing her best to play it. Listen to her more casual interviews if you want a normal person, she gets seconds of the average person’s attention at a time

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 day ago

            I understand she is playing the game and I’m not even against it. But if the goal is to separate herself from sounding like elites, it seems to me that’s a reasonable place to start. Get more granular and direct. Apparently that’s a really unpopular take?

            To be clear I fully support her and I hope she runs for president soon to be perfectly honest

            • moody@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              It’s not that it’s an unpopular take, it’s that you’re not going to get that from mainstream media. They only want snippets and blurbs to present to the people, so if you’re not able to articulate your point in a short sound bite, you don’t get to send your message at all.

              • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                You mean the same mainstream media that no one trusts anymore apparently?

                We can’t use the old systems anymore dude.

                • moody@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I won’t disagree with that, but there are still lots of people who consume mainstream media. A lot of them also think that their choice of media isn’t mainstream, only other media.

    • Breve@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      The big money and corporate donors to the Democratic Party would never allow someone like AOC or Bernie to lead the party.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      She will never be allowed anywhere close to real power for the same reason they’ve kept Bernie from power for decades.