|
Fister Roboto posted:https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1355881104117526531 Rather than admit anything regarding the message was deceptive or even simply misleading they've all pivoted at the party level to calling it $600 + $1400, it's full-on gaslighting, and mass media has followed in lock step and it makes me loving sick. https://twitter.com/besf0rt/status/1355972434453782529
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Shere posted:Rather than admit anything regarding the message was deceptive or even simply misleading they've all pivoted at the party level to calling it $600 + $1400, it's full-on gaslighting, and mass media has followed in lock step and it makes me loving sick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
It's pretty clear the Dems lied through their teeth about this, but what really pisses me off is that the original $2000 discussion from December was in the context of Trump being president. The number 2000 started floating around because it was, miraculously, a number that Trump would publicly agree to. He wanted $2k checks, the Dems in the house wanted $2k checks, but getting it through the senate was the obstacle. Now that Democrats control the house, the senate and the presidency, shouldn't the number be much higher, regardless of what was discussed during the previous administration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The Democrats adjusted their messaging to account for people complaining that "$2000 checks" rhetoric in the context of the Georgia runoffs was misleading (which it seems that it was). I'm sorry they didn't include a rider to that adjustment saying "Also, we are bad liars who poop their pants, and you might as well have voted for Republicans instead of us, vote Hawkins '24" to it, but that's not how political messaging works. Gosh, perhaps there's a solid middle ground between literally gaslighting voters about the outright lying they did to win Georgia and the ridiculous bad faith straw man nonsense you've conjured up there. That I'm somehow the one that misunderstands "how political messaging works" when they were the ones shouting "$2000 checks" seems to imply that you think lying to win is simply part of the game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The Democrats adjusted their messaging to account for people complaining that "$2000 checks" rhetoric in the context of the Georgia runoffs was misleading (which it seems that it was). I'm sorry they didn't include a rider to that adjustment saying "Also, we are bad liars who poop their pants, and you might as well have voted for Republicans instead of us, vote Hawkins '24" to it, but that's not how political messaging works. Nobody gives a poo poo about this strawman you've made up. They want the full $2000 that they were promised. They can message it however they want as long as they deliver that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
I didn't vote in the poll, because I think "people weren't paying attention" isn't really a fair response, for two reasons: 1. I think that calling for "$2000 checks" after the $600 has already been not only passed by Congress but distributed to most people can fairly be characterized as "misleading", and they did that. 2. I don't think there is an obligation for people to pay enough attention to have not been confused by that misleading messaging. People shouldn't have to pay the amount of attention that was required to avoid being confused by it. But, regarding (2), I did pay enough attention and I was not confused by the messaging. I knew that all the references to $2000 checks were in reference to $1400 on top of the previous relief bill, and I never was under the impression that $2600 total stimulus, between the two bills, was ever on the table. If it had been, somebody, at some point, who is in charge of negotiating the upcoming relief bill would've said "a total of $2600" or "$2000 in addition to the $600 disbursed earlier this month", and nobody ever did that. (That would've been lying, instead of just misleading). Saying "we meant $1400 in addition to the $600" does not strike me as gaslighting, because it's the policy that I had taken their messaging to mean the entire time. It's more like if the lights flickered, the wife said she saw them flicker, the husband said "no they didn't", and then the next time the lights flickered he said "oh geez, I must've blinked last time, you're right, they're totally flickering". Which is not what people usually mean by gaslighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Saying "we meant $1400 in addition to the $600" does not strike me as gaslighting, because it's the policy that I had taken their messaging to mean the entire time. It's more like if the lights flickered, the wife said she saw them flicker, the husband said "no they didn't", and then the next time the lights flickered he said "oh geez, I must've blinked last time, you're right, they're totally flickering". Which is not what people usually mean by gaslighting. That's not what's happening though? The Democrats aren't admitting they were wrong, just continuing to insist that they meant $1400 all along (despite explicitly saying that people would get $2000 checks). Also what do you call it when the newspaper publishes an article saying that the wife is making false claims?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:That's not what's happening though? The Democrats aren't admitting they were wrong, just continuing to insist that they meant $1400 all along (despite explicitly saying that people would get $2000 checks).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
I also would like to add that I think the framing of $1400 checks as "austerity" in the thread title is completely asinine. If you are actually pursuing austerity politics, you will never find yourself in a situation of asking "should we incur $500 billion or $800 billion in deficit spending for the purpose of sending out checks to people near-universally?". Over the campaign, given his history and the history of the Obama administration, I was worried about Biden pursuing austerity once he was in office. He has indisputably not done so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
I'm not asking them to say they lied. I'm asking them to give me the loving $2000 they promised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I'm not asking them to say they lied. I'm asking them to give me the loving $2000 they promised. I wish they would issue $2k checks too, I wish that Kamala had been serious about the prospect of recurring $2k checks. But $1400 checks are still $1400 more than zero, and it's not even the most important part of the relief bill. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Sure, let's litigate whether or not it's technically gaslighting to say one thing ($2000 checks! Immediately!), then change to another thing ("The plan calls for sending another $1,400 per person to eligible recipients. This money would be in addition to the $600 payments that were approved by Congress in December and sent out earlier this month -- for a total of $2,000. "). The logic pretzel in the second quote attempting to get to $2000 is great, definitely no convoluted cognitive dissonance fueled mental gymnastics here. Given that I had to actually stop, think about if I had ever heard anyone say "$1400 more" at any point between when Congress passed the $600 and Dems won GA, and then continue to question to this very moment whether or not I was mislead or if I had simply missed or ignored the push for $1400, all while poo poo like this happens in this very thread: Sanguinia posted:2000 dollar checks would be great and should probably be done, but anybody pretending it was always going to be 2000 dollar checks and now the Democratic Party is backing off and breaking promises, especially the people who were loudly cheering for the 600 to be raised by 1400 to 2000 literally days ago, is an rear end in a top hat of the highest order. Flash as many campaign ads or quotations as you want, you KNOW what it was supposed to be and acting like you didn't and you've been tricked by the big bad LIBERALS makes you look like a jerk. I'm feeling pretty gaslit about it, yes. Mellow Seas posted:This is what I meant in my first post. They are not going to put out a statement saying "we were wrong", "we lied", "our messaging was misleading". The benefit of you feeling like you are having your head patted and Joe Biden is officially sanctioning you as the winner of an internet argument does not outweigh the cost of saying "we lied" out loud and painting yourself as dishonest with a vast swathe of voters. No political party will ever do what you are asking them to do. If that drives you crazy, you should probably disengage from governmental politics altogether and focus on direct action. They can "bump" the checks to $2000 if they don't want to eat crow and admit that they lied, that's how easy it would be. Instead they choose actual gaslighting and are given a pardon because of the political capital it would cost to admit what they actually did. Pardon me for expecting better of the party of science, logic, and "empathy". And if the reasoning for $1400 vs. $2000 is that $2000 is too much, it's an austerity move in so far as we're short changing people who need to put food on their loving tables for some sort of contrived budgetary concern. e: Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. Thanks, glad to know where you're arguing from. Also, they're loving survival checks. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. Cool, thanks for being an rear end in a top hat about this. Mocking people who need that money to survive is some real mask off poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
I think it's bad politics when the first act of your nascent administration is to tell states that just handed you the presidency and the senate by razor thin margins that you'll be shorting them $600, regardless of whether or not this was "always" the plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Cool, thanks for being an rear end in a top hat about this. Mocking people who need that money to survive is some real mask off poo poo. Sorry, I'm not a patient person.  I'm actually experiencing a weird cognitive dissonance with the "dems bad" caucus. Like, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to act like $1400 checks are a slap in the face. At the same time, I can imagine a situation where the Democrats cave to that pressure and bump the checks up to $2000. (Psaki said today the potential concern with the 1.9T package is that it's too small, not too large.) So, if people engage in what is to me very obnoxious whining, but it results in $2k checks (which is a better policy, IMO), then the obnoxious whining was actually a valuable service, despite it being annoying to me personally. So while I think cries of "gaslighting!" are more than a little overblown, keep doing what you're doing, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Likewise feeling a lot of dissonance with the "push him left" folks obstinately refusing to even hold Biden to his most outspoken, transparent, barely-adqeuate promises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I think it's bad politics when the first act of your nascent administration is to tell states that just handed you the presidency and the senate by razor thin margins that you'll be shorting them $600, regardless of whether or not this was "always" the plan. It's this, even if this is the case and you genuinely did a fucky-wucky with your communications...you should still just give people the 'extra' 600 bucks because you're the loving federal government and you print the money who gives a poo poo! It's way worse politics to spend your first month going 'actually you're idiots who can't do math'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Sorry, I'm not a patient person. Do you think people need, or even deserve, the $600 difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Do you think people need, or even deserve, the $600 difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Mostly I just think it is important to establish that. Because it seems odd to me to bother engaging in apologetics for the witholding of the $600 if you think the $600 would be a significant help to people, and that helping people is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mostly I just think it is important to establish that. Because it seems odd to me to bother engaging in apologetics for the witholding of the $600 if you think the $600 would be a significant help to people, and that helping people is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Well yes it is parsimony, which really only exacerbates the issue of being told "no you can't have it" because it's incredibly petty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. Why the comparison to zero when $1800 has already been distributed by the republicans? The democrats are the ones sitting at zero here and will be for months into the future, and if they finally pass a bill what is their pitch going to be? "You people who voted for us didn't understand the simple math of 2000=1400, we're giving you 25% less than than republicans, PS don't vote republican." Doesn't seem like a winning campaign strategy to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
I don't even see what the downside is to just giving people $2000, why are people fighting so hard against it? edit: Fister Roboto posted:https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1355881104117526531 lol they deleted it
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Booourns posted:I don't even see what the downside is to just giving people $2000, why are people fighting so hard against it? Archive.org has it. https://web.archive.org/web/20210201011914/https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1355881104117526531 "Joe Biden critics falsely claim President "lied" about $2,000 stimulus checks"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-critics-president-lied-2000-stimulus-checks-1565633 The article is still up, though they seem to have removed the "falsely" from the headline. Text in case they end up deleting it too: quote:Critics of President Joe Biden are claiming he "lied" about the size and promptness of stimulus checks promised while campaigning in the Georgia runoffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Is Newsweek doing original reporting again? I remember hearing a year or two ago that they'd effectively shut down anything resembling journalism and pivoted to being a content aggregator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Shocked that "people weren't paying attention" has so many votes. And by shocked, I mean not at all surprised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:(Psaki said today the potential concern with the 1.9T package is that it's too small, not too large.) This doesn't mean we're getting 2k. It means someone needs a bailout somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I also would like to add that I think the framing of $1400 checks as "austerity" in the thread title is completely asinine. If you are actually pursuing austerity politics, you will never find yourself in a situation of asking "should we incur $500 billion or $800 billion in deficit spending for the purpose of sending out checks to people near-universally?". Over the campaign, given his history and the history of the Obama administration, I was worried about Biden pursuing austerity once he was in office. He has indisputably not done so. It is quite literally austerity politics. The definition of austerity politics isn't "the government never gives poor people a single thing and if it does it's not austerity" -- no matter how you look at it, and especially within the context of almost any other first-world country, we've been given next to nothing for nearly a full year of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic and they're now trying their best to give us less. That we're now arguing about if it's $2000 checks or if it's $1,400 checks because the guy we "hate" that we've been telling you is Fascism Reborn who we're in the process of impeaching again already gave you $600 so we're counting that instead of, just for example, $2,000 a month backdated to the beginning of the pandemic up to the time where we're at herd immunity. It's a drawing down of both what we'll get and our political horizons as to what we can ask for, and that's exactly what we're seeing here. How little can we give out, and how quickly can we draw that down, without mass riots? This is absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, austerity politics. Moreover, I know you are fully convinced this is the right move because you're a good boy who reads all of the fine print, but surely you have to be aware that the dem messaging of "It was always $1400 + $600 you rube. You moron. You braindead idiot who couldn't add numbers to save his life" is specifically configured for, and only works on, people like you, and pisses off literally everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
If this was a contract dispute or something like that, then I would say that adding $1400 to arrive at a sum of $2000 is the most obvious interpretation of what was going on. But it's not a contract dispute; it's about the politics of getting the government to give people what they deserve, which is far greater than a one time check of $2000. I have no opinion on whether debating about the definition of $2000 a good way to win that fight, but I personally get far less annoyed when the debate is over the sufficiency of $2000 than what politicians meant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:If this was a contract dispute or something like that, then I would say that adding $1400 to arrive at a sum of $2000 is the most obvious interpretation of what was going on. But it's not a contract dispute; it's about the politics of getting the government to give people what they deserve, which is far greater than a one time check of $2000. I have no opinion on whether debating about the definition of $2000 a good way to win that fight, but I personally get far less annoyed when the debate is over the sufficiency of $2000 than what politicians meant. Yeah, this is pretty much where I sit. I think the messaging was hosed from the beginning, and how much discussion this has generated is a pretty good indication that’s what happened here. This whole thing was instigated by Trump’s reversal on what he’d be willing to sign off on versus what the Republican controlled Senate was willing to pass. Dems saw an opportunity to win two senate seats on messaging and didn’t coordinate on whether their stated goal should be 1400+600=2000 or just a straight up 2000. Not the first time a political party couldn’t get it together on messaging, and it won’t be the last. Now, that all said, I do feel like they should just make it 2000, especially if they’re gonna have to do this through reconciliation. Folks are gonna need the cash anyway. The only reason not to do it is if Manchin or Sinema are balking at the idea, and if that’s the case, just pass the 1400 and try for more later. generic one fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:If this was a contract dispute or something like that, then I would say that adding $1400 to arrive at a sum of $2000 is the most obvious interpretation of what was going on. But it's not a contract dispute; it's about the politics of getting the government to give people what they deserve, which is far greater than a one time check of $2000. I have no opinion on whether debating about the definition of $2000 a good way to win that fight, but I personally get far less annoyed when the debate is over the sufficiency of $2000 than what politicians meant. Here's the thing, though... who is even talking about this distinction right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:Here's the thing, though... who is even talking about this distinction right now? If you go back to the posts from just yesterday and start there, almost all of them are about that distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
generic one posted:If you go back to the posts from just yesterday and start there, almost all of them are about that distinction. I was unclear and I'm sorry for that, I mean who out in the world that isn't in these narrow online worlds. Just curious whether or not everyday Dems out there doing all the Dem stuff even really care a lot about the 14+6 vs 20 debate. It honestly doesn't seem like too hard of a sell for voters if we don't immolate over it
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:I was unclear and I'm sorry for that, I mean who out in the world that isn't in these narrow online worlds. Ah, gotcha. No worries. And yeah, I agree. We’re all terminally online here, and are generally way more engaged on nuance/minutiae than the average voter. Just because something was trending on Twitter doesn’t really mean anything, it just reinforces our existing biases about how we think something is gonna play out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
I'm not necessarily sure it's good to hope voters are uninformed just because the people loving them over are your preferred guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
The Democrat party didn't even want to give 2k checks, it was former president (I won't say his name) who forced the issue and brought it up in public. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not necessarily sure it's good to hope voters are uninformed just because the people loving them over are your preferred guys. 1) Not sure where you got the impression I’m hoping voters are uninformed. That’s just how poo poo is everywhere, regardless of city, state, province, country, etc. 2) Not sure where you got the impression they’re my preferred guys. 3) If you check my reply a few posts up, I think I made it clear I believe unified messaging was haphazardly deployed in order to pick up two Senate seats, and regardless of which of the two messages one could have picked up on, they should still just give folks the full 2000 instead of 1400 because they need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
honestly i don’t think most of you were paying attention. it always seemed clear they were adding on to the $600 that the dems already gave us in december. it’s ridiculous! the republicans never would have sent out even $1
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:41
|
|
