Anyone trying to overhaul a corrupt system would know that infiltrating it is a highly effective opposition tactic. You’re not speaking for progress, you’re speaking for contrarianism.
Edit - besides, she’s using political donations to feed people. Corrupt systems absolutely have uses for honest individuals, because your potential allies in poverty are starving to death and she is feeding them.
This isn’t infiltrating the vague concept of capitalism, it’s infiltrating congress. She’s not trying to climb some corporate ladder here.
What, exactly, has been more effective in the US? Capitalism still isn’t defeated, as far as I can tell.
What the fuck do you want her to do, stop? Go home?
If you want heroes, if you want martyrs, if you want real people with real power and real megaphones, you need to work with the tools you have available. Whatever else you’re doing hasn’t worked any better than what she’s doing. Unions are still operating under the umbrella of capitalism - they sign deals with capitalists all the time. Do you think we should stop unionizing?
and yes, it has worked in the US to give workers better wages, and famously the right for workers to have a weekend and the 8hour-maximum workday. entrism on the other hand never did much of anything.
… HAH. No… just, no. That’s not what centrism is, and that’s NOT the story of how we got the 8 hour workday.
We have (or in some cases had) the 8 hour workday, OSHA, social security, legally protected unions, etc as a result of the New Deal.
What was the New Deal?
Well, an extremely progressive “centrist” (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt - ran for President, and won. He took over the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, and Democrats attained majority in both chambers of congress.
They gained complete political power largely because Republican policies had sent the United States into an economic nosedive. They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
Sound familiar?
He - alongside Congress - passed a whole bunch of legislation, created a whole bunch of federal agencies, and forced through massive leaps forward in labor protections and social welfare programs.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
She’s from outside her own district. That’s the primary thing that shows her blatantly questionable goals. She lives in a challengeable district with a dem who should be taken out. And she chose to campaign in an entirely different one.
Yes, she’s very likely corrupt. She’s unemployed, runs a sketchy campaign with astroturfing and refuses to address in any AMAs why she’s moving to our district later and why she’s going straight for the highest seat in a district that isn’t hers.
She has an extremely consistent track record of progressive advocacy
Since when does temporary unemployment imply corruption?
Her campaign seems almost entirely social media and local charity work.
She has 200,000 followers which seems to have grown over time with several prominent videos.
Her funding is tiny compared to the average $2.8 million spent by winners of House races.
Not here to reduce a woman to her husband, just pointing out a cool fact and rock-solid evidence that she’s probably legit - she’s MARRIED TO THE CEO OF THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE ONION?! The source of the Pultizer-worthy headline, " ’ No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"?
With regard to #7 - there’s no evidence she “lives off her republican parents” - nor would that be an indication of corruption.
She lives in Chicago, is campaigning in Chicago, and has *specifically answered this question, spoiler to limit the wall of text
Abughazaleh currently doesn’t live in the 9th District. Though in-district residency isn’t required of congressional representatives, Abughazaleh said she and her partner are “imminently moving to the district” in Chicago’s Far North Side, explaining that they moved to the area last year on “very short notice” and had to take the first viable apartment they could. When the RoundTable asked why she’s running for the seat currently held by incumbent Rep. Jan Schakowsky in particular, Abughazaleh said her campaign “isn’t a referendum on Schakowsky” but does see the district as an especially good fit for her aim of disrupting the Democratic Party’s status quo.
“I was already gonna move to this district in the first place, and it’s also historically one of the most progressive, on the cutting edge, influential districts in the country,” Abughazaleh said. “I can’t think of a better place for a campaign like this one to be received.”
By the way, anyone in the back: did you watch the goal posts move? Did you watch us move right along, without any defense for the first claims? Do you notice how no matter how many times OP is objectively incorrect or uninformed, they just double down?
Since when does temporary unemployment imply corruption?
It makes me question where she’s funding her lifestyle.
Her campaign seems almost entirely social media and local charity work.
That’s bad. Real world efforts are necessary. Giving campaign funds to charity is sketchy at best when you’re showing it off to pretend you’re morally superior
She’s campaigning in a district where she will replace an 80 year old retiring progressive
Irrelevant as the 80 year is retiring anyways.
She has 200,000 followers which seems to have grown over time with several prominent videos.
So? Genuinely hilarious how irrelevant this point is.
Not here to reduce a woman to her husband, just pointing out a cool fact and rock-solid evidence that she’s probably legit - she’s MARRIED TO THE CEO OF THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE ONION?! The source of the Pultizer-worthy headline, " ’ No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"?
I had not heard this. However, it will not change my viewpoint that she’s as this post demonstrates running an extremely questionable and too early campaign, as well as being an out of district plant by not even trying to have lived a real period of time in the district she’s planning to run in.
She lives in Chicago, is campaigning in Chicago
The vast majority of the district is out of Chicago. Also, she’s not campaigning in Chicago. She’s campaigning online.
By the way, anyone in the back: did you watch the goal posts move? Did you watch us move right along, without defending the first claims?
Any one of the points is enough to make her not worth voting for. Her being out of district alone is ridiculous. If she genuinely cared, she should be running for a district she actually lived in. You are blatantly ignoring how much an issue an out of district congressperson is. Pretending it doesn’t matter just because you like the vibes of the candidate. And it really is just that and nothing more, just vibes. She has zero lower experience in politics, no record, no evidence of capability.
Especially when she’s consistently astroturfing reddits, it makes me question where her actual in district relations are. If she even has any.
She has past jobs, and a husband, as you’ve learned and instantly made up bullshit about
That’s BAD? Campaign financing is almost exclusively used for shit like billboards, TV ads, and wealthy silver spoon galas and you think it’s bad that she’s using hers for charity? What the fucking bad faith, Batman.
Almost all congresmen have extremely blatantly obvious corruption and political bribery, and you’re just pulling absolute bad faith bullshit from thin air about how giving crowd-funded money to charity is a bad thing.
Get the fuck out of here. Unbelievable.
The fact is she has a large social media presence that explains her funding, her campaign strategy, and her so-called “astroturfing”. Which, again - if you gain a large part of your political support from an organic social media presence primarily focused on progressive politics, that’s the goddamn definition of grassroots, the literal fucking origin and opposite of the term “astro-turf.”’
Especially when she’s consistently astroturfing reddits, it makes me question where her actual
Ohhh, you still give a shit about Reddit. Okay, now I understand the type of conversation this is. L, O, fucking, L.
Although I agree with you, we will not get out of the hole we’re in if we don’t support people like this to overtake the ones that are legitimately hungry for power.
On the flipside, there’s always the possibility she’s doing this as a stunt and doesn’t mean any of it. Plenty of Gen-Z pretend to feed homeless people on TikTok, could just be a glorified version of that.
She’s got a beach cleanup going on this weekend. From what I’ve heard, she’s been at every event she’s hosted and she’s actually out there getting dirty. I’m not in her district but it’s not far from me. I might go just to see how it all works.
I do genuinely hope I’m wrong, but even at a very basic level here - she’s using funds people donated to her campaign for a purpose other than campaigning,.did she make this clear to people before they donated? If it is just being done for campaign clout then it’s kinda disingenuous by definition. I do hate that I’m this cynical fwiw.
Yes, she’s been very upfront about it. She makes it clear at her fundraising events that the proceeds are going to charitable organizations. Her campaign has been soliciting canned goods and menstrual hygiene products, instead of cash, in exchange for yard signs and stickers.
I get your cynicism, it’s a well-known adage that anyone who seeks power doesn’t deserve it. But for as long as we have elected federal representatives, I’d prefer to elect representatives who actually make tangible efforts to take care of people. Even if you see it as self-serving, to me it’s refreshing to see a candidate appeal to voters’ compassion instead of appealing to their fears and prejudices.
It’s all good, I’m in a similar cynical boat. By default I don’t trust anyone that’s in the spotlight by choice.
However, if shitty people start doing things like this just for clout, well it’s better than the Nazis that are taking things over right now I guess that don’t even try to pretend to be a good person.
Kat Abu is amazing and just the kind of grass roots candidate we need everywhere.
.
Anyone trying to overhaul a corrupt system would know that infiltrating it is a highly effective opposition tactic. You’re not speaking for progress, you’re speaking for contrarianism.
Edit - besides, she’s using political donations to feed people. Corrupt systems absolutely have uses for honest individuals, because your potential allies in poverty are starving to death and she is feeding them.
I always imagined that if I won an office and lobbyists were throwing donations at me, I would spend all of it plus $1 on charities they despised
.
This isn’t infiltrating the vague concept of capitalism, it’s infiltrating congress. She’s not trying to climb some corporate ladder here.
What, exactly, has been more effective in the US? Capitalism still isn’t defeated, as far as I can tell.
What the fuck do you want her to do, stop? Go home?
If you want heroes, if you want martyrs, if you want real people with real power and real megaphones, you need to work with the tools you have available. Whatever else you’re doing hasn’t worked any better than what she’s doing. Unions are still operating under the umbrella of capitalism - they sign deals with capitalists all the time. Do you think we should stop unionizing?
.
… HAH. No… just, no. That’s not what centrism is, and that’s NOT the story of how we got the 8 hour workday.
We have (or in some cases had) the 8 hour workday, OSHA, social security, legally protected unions, etc as a result of the New Deal.
What was the New Deal?
Well, an extremely progressive “centrist” (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt - ran for President, and won. He took over the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, and Democrats attained majority in both chambers of congress.
They gained complete political power largely because Republican policies had sent the United States into an economic nosedive. They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
Sound familiar?
He - alongside Congress - passed a whole bunch of legislation, created a whole bunch of federal agencies, and forced through massive leaps forward in labor protections and social welfare programs.
That’s why you have the 8 hour workday.
Read a book.
Been on your side up to this point.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
.
You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
The one you claimed we “have no use for.”
If by grassroots you mean suspiciously funded by 80% out of district and living off her rich republican parents money to do it
You seem to be literally the only one who is saying this …
… If you had some type of proof we’d be willing to see it
https://news.wttw.com/2025/04/17/progressive-media-star-kat-abughazaleh-raised-378k-congressional-campaign-only-small
Here’s proof. Basically entirely outside funding.
It’s interesting how no one else is saying easily findable information.
Minor Internet Influencer uses minor internet influence to raise funds for campaign.
No mention of her parents was made in the article linked.
, yes, I didn’t make the claim that her parents donated to the campaign
Why are you upvoted
because they’re not pissing all over someone doing some fucking good for a change.
Christ, you’re acting like joe rogan or pewdiepie or mrbeast or hawk tua girl are running.
Do you think her tiktok audience is all local? Because that’s what’s happening lol
I think her tiktok audience doesn’t understand the actual issues at hand.
Irrelevant.
You’re implying she’s corrupt because her funding comes from outside her district.
I am pointing out that her funding comes from her Tiktok audience - who come from outside her district.
Are you willfully approaching this conversation in bad faith?
She’s from outside her own district. That’s the primary thing that shows her blatantly questionable goals. She lives in a challengeable district with a dem who should be taken out. And she chose to campaign in an entirely different one.
Yes, she’s very likely corrupt. She’s unemployed, runs a sketchy campaign with astroturfing and refuses to address in any AMAs why she’s moving to our district later and why she’s going straight for the highest seat in a district that isn’t hers.
Wow, thanks for making me look more into this.
So:
She lives in Chicago, is campaigning in Chicago, and has *specifically answered this question, spoiler to limit the wall of text
Abughazaleh currently doesn’t live in the 9th District. Though in-district residency isn’t required of congressional representatives, Abughazaleh said she and her partner are “imminently moving to the district” in Chicago’s Far North Side, explaining that they moved to the area last year on “very short notice” and had to take the first viable apartment they could. When the RoundTable asked why she’s running for the seat currently held by incumbent Rep. Jan Schakowsky in particular, Abughazaleh said her campaign “isn’t a referendum on Schakowsky” but does see the district as an especially good fit for her aim of disrupting the Democratic Party’s status quo.
“I was already gonna move to this district in the first place, and it’s also historically one of the most progressive, on the cutting edge, influential districts in the country,” Abughazaleh said. “I can’t think of a better place for a campaign like this one to be received.”
Source
By the way, anyone in the back: did you watch the goal posts move? Did you watch us move right along, without any defense for the first claims? Do you notice how no matter how many times OP is objectively incorrect or uninformed, they just double down?
It makes me question where she’s funding her lifestyle.
That’s bad. Real world efforts are necessary. Giving campaign funds to charity is sketchy at best when you’re showing it off to pretend you’re morally superior
Irrelevant as the 80 year is retiring anyways.
So? Genuinely hilarious how irrelevant this point is.
I had not heard this. However, it will not change my viewpoint that she’s as this post demonstrates running an extremely questionable and too early campaign, as well as being an out of district plant by not even trying to have lived a real period of time in the district she’s planning to run in.
The vast majority of the district is out of Chicago. Also, she’s not campaigning in Chicago. She’s campaigning online.
Any one of the points is enough to make her not worth voting for. Her being out of district alone is ridiculous. If she genuinely cared, she should be running for a district she actually lived in. You are blatantly ignoring how much an issue an out of district congressperson is. Pretending it doesn’t matter just because you like the vibes of the candidate. And it really is just that and nothing more, just vibes. She has zero lower experience in politics, no record, no evidence of capability.
Especially when she’s consistently astroturfing reddits, it makes me question where her actual in district relations are. If she even has any.
Almost all congresmen have extremely blatantly obvious corruption and political bribery, and you’re just pulling absolute bad faith bullshit from thin air about how giving crowd-funded money to charity is a bad thing.
Get the fuck out of here. Unbelievable.
The fact is she has a large social media presence that explains her funding, her campaign strategy, and her so-called “astroturfing”. Which, again - if you gain a large part of your political support from an organic social media presence primarily focused on progressive politics, that’s the goddamn definition of grassroots, the literal fucking origin and opposite of the term “astro-turf.”’
Ohhh, you still give a shit about Reddit. Okay, now I understand the type of conversation this is. L, O, fucking, L.
You don’t have kids do you?
Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t trust anyone who wants this kind of power.
Although I agree with you, we will not get out of the hole we’re in if we don’t support people like this to overtake the ones that are legitimately hungry for power.
On the flipside, there’s always the possibility she’s doing this as a stunt and doesn’t mean any of it. Plenty of Gen-Z pretend to feed homeless people on TikTok, could just be a glorified version of that.
She’s got a beach cleanup going on this weekend. From what I’ve heard, she’s been at every event she’s hosted and she’s actually out there getting dirty. I’m not in her district but it’s not far from me. I might go just to see how it all works.
Definitely not normal, excellent. I wish I was closer to IL, I kinda want to see for myself as well.
She just started a discord server to organize volunteer work. Katforillinois.com I guess. Haven’t checked it out myself but just saw it.
My to do list is a mile long so idk if I’m gonna be able to go but I wanna!
I do genuinely hope I’m wrong, but even at a very basic level here - she’s using funds people donated to her campaign for a purpose other than campaigning,.did she make this clear to people before they donated? If it is just being done for campaign clout then it’s kinda disingenuous by definition. I do hate that I’m this cynical fwiw.
Yes, she’s been very upfront about it. She makes it clear at her fundraising events that the proceeds are going to charitable organizations. Her campaign has been soliciting canned goods and menstrual hygiene products, instead of cash, in exchange for yard signs and stickers.
I get your cynicism, it’s a well-known adage that anyone who seeks power doesn’t deserve it. But for as long as we have elected federal representatives, I’d prefer to elect representatives who actually make tangible efforts to take care of people. Even if you see it as self-serving, to me it’s refreshing to see a candidate appeal to voters’ compassion instead of appealing to their fears and prejudices.
It’s all good, I’m in a similar cynical boat. By default I don’t trust anyone that’s in the spotlight by choice.
However, if shitty people start doing things like this just for clout, well it’s better than the Nazis that are taking things over right now I guess that don’t even try to pretend to be a good person.
At least it’s a better platform than “Everything is that other groups fault, let’s hate on them and be angry!” that s eems a bit too common.
Yeah you’re not wrong and it’s not like I have any suggestions or solutions either.
There is no way to change power without taking it.