General Discussion

...and Ed Schultz used to be an MSNBC commentator who later became a Trump supporter and host of a program on Russia Today.
How many progressives do you need? There are others, but these examples are about as egregious as you can get, and they were all precipitated by a willingness to cater to the attention and traffic they received when they attacked Democrats from the "left." In other words, rather than blaming Republicans for taking right wing positions, blame is heaped on Democrats for not doing enough to stop Republican over each.

Maybe I will be wrong and AOC will resist the urge to cater to social media attention when her most popular posts are not posts attacking Trump or Republicans, but posts attacking Democrats. However, many politicians will find it hard to turn away from the apparent popularity they receive when critical posts attacking Democrats. Social media sock puppets are surprisingly good at grooming attention seeking politicians to do whatever it takes to keep "relevant."

And, while based on your posts suggesting that you knew Tulsi Gabbard was a sell out all along, many progressives fell for her act, and happily repeated her lines attacking "establishment" Democrats from the "left."

Would you be able to stick to your principles if your statements criticizing Trump, Republicans, or Putin were largely ignored or even condemned, but when you attacked your fellow Democrats from the left for not doing enough to stop Trump, those statements suddenly get hundreds of likes? Perhaps you are truly virtuous, but I think there are too many examples of politicians who will happily ride that wave of algorithmic popularity. Just look at the Republican party, which once was well known for standing up to Russian aggression.