|
sleep with the vicious posted: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. I feel like that should come with the qualifier that the Dems in the House passed a bill for 1200 checks, negotiations with the White House and Republican Senate broke down over what the president would sign off on, they finally negotiated 600 that would get through immediately, and then the Wet rear end President said it should be 2000 out of the blue because he thought it would change the outcome of the election.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
It’s pretty difficult to dismiss this all as complaints from terminally online weirdos when you’ve got articles on the first page of this thread about how volunteers feel betrayed. Political messaging in general must not be very effective if the entire audience is just this subforum!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
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. Passive-aggressive bad faith, like starting an argument with, "I'm confused..." If voters won't actually be mad about 14+6 then the whole "this is going to cost us 2022!" premonition is false. If voters will actually be mad about 14+6 then it's true. Neither of those is contingent on what anyone here hopes is true. Also, whether or not they were "screwed over" is up to their interpretation, not ours. I see "$2000 check" and think "$2000 check", but I've spoken to plenty of normie Dems who adopted "yeah 14+6 is 20 so whatever who cares?" immediately and without a wrinkle forming in the smoothness of their brain. So perhaps the idea that this will cause an eruption is false even if we "hope" it causes an eruption. You don't need to convince me because I'm already a 20 = 20 guy. I'm just thinking about and asking about normie voters and other people's interactions/impressions/information in dealing with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
If you think that people should have the extra $600 then it doesn't make much sense to say "oh well they'll probably forget about it and that's fine" unless you care more about the party than the people getting the $600. People should be angry about being lied to, they should be able to force politicians to deliver what they deserve. I assume you would not take the same "eh if we just let it slide it will be fine" attitude about things the republicans do? Because, yes, if you want apathy then voters will just let a lot of things slide, we would ordinarily consider that to be a problem. The question is not whether or not it will cost them an election, the question is far simpler about the basic concept of governments being required to deliver things they promised people and that people need. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Didn't AOC call for an amendment to 2k in December? Not an extra 2k? Same with Bernie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
i think if anyone actually thought that the democrats were intending to send out $2,000 to people, they do not understand democrats. which is uh, most of their voters who still think that they're the good guys. good thing the dems arent like, on the precipice of extinction over the next four years or anything and definitely do not need the extra votes sending out money might get them
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:It’s pretty difficult to dismiss this all as complaints from terminally online weirdos when you’ve got articles on the first page of this thread about how volunteers feel betrayed. The terminally online weirdo comment was more in reference as to how the average voter is gonna perceive this two or four years down the line. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. To your other point, this was the first thing I posted about how the messaging was probably hosed from the beginning. generic one posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:Didn't AOC call for an amendment to 2k in December? Not an extra 2k? Same with Bernie? yeah, even bernie has been saying it would be in addition to the $600 they already passed
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:Didn't AOC call for an amendment to 2k in December? Not an extra 2k? Same with Bernie? Yes. In December. When Trump was still president and the GOP controlled the senate, while Trump was publicly committing to $2k, before the $600 checks went out. The problem is that they continued to explicitly tell GA voters "vote for us and our brand new president and Dem senate will give you a two thousand dollar check" weeks after the $600 had started hitting bank accounts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Yes. In December. When Trump was still president and the GOP controlled the senate, while Trump was publicly committing to $2k, before the $600 checks went out. Regardless of which side of the 1400+600 v 2000 debate we fall on, can we at least stop saying Trump was committing to anything of substance on the matter? The dude didn’t know what he wanted, wouldn’t commit to anything before the ink was pretty much dry, and his team was the reason the original proposal got brought down from 1200 to 600. 2k was only thrown out there because his Cheeto-addled mind believed it would help him reverse the election. The Dems quickly called his bluff, even though nobody knew what he’d really sign off on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
   Some correction!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
generic one posted:Regardless of which side of the 1400+600 v 2000 debate we fall on, can we at least stop saying Trump was committing to anything of substance on the matter? The dude didn’t know what he wanted, wouldn’t commit to anything before the ink was pretty much dry, and his team was the reason the original proposal got brought down from 1200 to 600. 2k was only thrown out there because his Cheeto-addled mind believed it would help him reverse the election. The Dems quickly called his bluff, even though nobody knew what he’d really sign off on. “I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 ... and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package." https://www.vox.com/2020/12/23/22197037/trump-2000-stimulus-checks I mean, like basically everything he said for the last four years, you can say he didn't really mean it, it was a calculated move, he knew it would never pass, etc. But he did commit to signing it publicly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I mean, like basically everything he said for the last four years, you can say he didn't really mean it, it was a calculated move, he knew it would never pass, etc. But he did commit to signing it publicly. Via tweet. After the bill had passed. And in the lame duck period. I don’t see how anyone could have taken that as a commitment of any kind. Maybe someone like Giuliani? He thought he was gonna get paid 20k a day for his legal services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
generic one posted:I don’t see how anyone could have taken that as a commitment of any kind. House Dems certainly took him seriously; they put forward the CASH act almost immediately afterward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:it's not even the most important part of the relief bill. That may well be, but Democrats decided to make the checks the centerpiece of their senate campaign, so it seems like a poor deflection now to complain that people are focusing on the thing Democrats explicitly told them to focus on when they went to the polls.  They obviously determined it was such a powerful message that they ran on "$2000 checks out the door immediately", so being stingy with it now is just politically insane, regardless of how seriously you take all the "well tech-nic-al-ly"circumlocutions to get around their intent vs their words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:House Dems certainly took him seriously; they put forward the CASH act almost immediately afterward. We’re probably verging on arguing over perceived intent here, but I saw that as them capitalizing on an opportunity to go beyond what they initially pushed for (1200, which got watered down to 600 by Senate Republicans and Trump’s own advisors), as opposed to them taking him seriously. Maybe you’re right, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
In my opinion, I think the Democratic Party lied to win the Senate and that voters who voted for those Senators will probably remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. I wouldn't advertise my contempt for people who need money this loudly. To me, it is the most important part of the bill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
i, for one, am going to be pleasantly surprised if we get $200 to bring the grand total survival payment to $2000 all totaled up and be told 'promises made, promises kept.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I wouldn't advertise my contempt for people who need money this loudly. To me, it is the most important part of the bill. It's a pretty mask-off moment for people that ultimately buy into the neoliberal austerity mindset and think 'You should have read the fine print' is something you can say to the angry mob. Or the abusive parents again: 'Shut up about how hungry you are, you're making me look bad.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here suggesting 1400 is ok or saying there are other important parts if the bill is showing contempt to anyone needing support from this bill. Saying otherwise is pretty disingenuous. This entire issue has shown me how small and generally annoying the progressive / socialist internet is. This is exactly like when 15 dollar min wage push was announced and progressives/socialists shat on Biden and responded with "should be 25". This is despite the fact that they supported Bernie pushing for 15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:27
|
|
|
I just want everyone to pause for a moment and consider if Schumer or Pelosi or Biden had reacted to this (and don't say "only the terminally online care about this" because the messaging pivot has been pushed hard by official democratic social media and talking heads) by going on TV and saying, "You know what, the legislation did say it was going to be a $1400 check but we realize we said $2000 about a million times in ads and on TV, and you turned out for us, and the times are hard and an extra $600 for people will do more good than ill and besides which in our first week in power perhaps we should respect the people who just put us into office, keep the faith with them, and not smugly assert that they should have read the fine print or that they're lucky the other guy didn't win, so we're putting a new $2000 payment into the bill. " I can't really see it happening it either but I think it's a helpful visualization exercise to imagine what a political party that doesn't treat its voters with utter loving contempt at every opportunity might be like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:32
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:I don't think anyone here suggesting 1400 is ok or saying there are other important parts if the bill is showing contempt to anyone needing support from this bill. Saying otherwise is pretty disingenuous. agreed. if even bernie is saying it’s in addition to the $600, you’re crazy to say biden is lying. there’s no way anyone actually thinks this
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
They were pitching ads promising $2000 checks well after the $600 went out. I really dont care what Sanders said, in fact I'm still waiting for the OMB vote to see if he has any fight left in him period, or if he's just going to be a useful "Even Sanders supports thing!" tool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:I don't think anyone here suggesting 1400 is ok or saying there are other important parts if the bill is showing contempt to anyone needing support from this bill. Saying otherwise is pretty disingenuous. Ghost Leviathan posted:'Shut up about how hungry you are, you're making me look bad.' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
I think it's telling that in your scenario here you've posed yourself as a child, because what you are suggesting makes you sure seem like your acting like one. EDIT: in the last page, it has been suggested that people ok with a 1400 stimulus hate the poor, have been likened to abusive parents, and its been floated that Bernie isn't a real progressive if he thinks that way. loving CRINGE (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Mr.Citrus fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
stop being obnoxious assholes
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:I don't think anyone here suggesting 1400 is ok or saying there are other important parts if the bill is showing contempt to anyone needing support from this bill. Saying otherwise is pretty disingenuous. I really don't understand this attitude of not even attempting to argue that 15 is a better number than 25, but just ignoring the whole issue of good governance in favor of scolding people for supporting better policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:stop being obnoxious assholes it's cool that you found Ghost Leviathan to be assholes and not the post that was literally "lmao, cry more" Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. Homora Gaykemi fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
General question for the thread: what do people think the point of being progressive is? Do you think it's to always keep pushing for a better world? Or do you think it's to reach a certain arbitrary point (like $15 minimum wage or $1400 survival checks) and then say "that's good enough, time to shut up about it"? Based on what folks are saying here and in other places, it really seems like there are a lot of supposed progressives who believe the latter. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with demanding more. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The unreasonable man changes the world. It's discouraging to see so many people who are supposedly on the left treat these demands as if it were a spoiled child crying for a new toy. So that I'm not jumping to conclusions about this, I'd genuinely like to hear from people about this. Do you think there's something wrong with demanding a $25 minimum wage? Do you think there's something wrong with expecting $2000 survival checks? If so, why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But it should be 25. 15 was too low when Bernie ran on it and it's even lower now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
It isn't, and abolition of the wage system is an even better option, but $25 is likely to be more achievable immediately than $50 or $100 and would make a bigger difference than $15. However much like $1400 checks the reason you're not getting $25 and the reason you're only getting $1400 is because the supposedly good guys you just elected on the $2000 check platform have decided they don't want you to have $2000 anymore and they certainly don't want you to have $25 minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:General question for the thread: what do people think the point of being progressive is? Do you think it's to always keep pushing for a better world? Or do you think it's to reach a certain arbitrary point (like $15 minimum wage or $1400 survival checks) and then say "that's good enough, time to shut up about it"? Based on what folks are saying here and in other places, it really seems like there are a lot of supposed progressives who believe the latter. There's nothing wrong with demanding more. We should demand more. But rhetoric, the way our arguments are phrased, matters. Person A: "The Dems lied. They promised +2000. People should get +2000." Person B: "Look Dems, you promised +1400, but people obviously need more. Now that you have control of the executive and legislative, give people +2000" Person A and Person B both want the same thing, but, in my view, Person A's argument is inaccurate, obnoxious, and ineffective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
Ither posted:Person A's argument is inaccurate, obnoxious, and ineffective. "a $2000 check" is not "a $1400 check" And neither of those arguments are exclusive either, people should have at least $2000 because $2000 was promised and people need as much as they can get. The idea that you need to come cap in hand to politicians you elected and beg for scraps respectfully is absurd. They are not your masters or your betters, they are supposed to be subject to you, not the other way around. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
Has anyone demanded they stop the direct deposits yet, since they promised checks so clearly? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Has anyone demanded they stop the direct deposits yet, since they promised checks so clearly? For someone who gets pissy about people posting in bad faith when it disagrees with you you're remarkably adept at it yourself. You are entirely capable of understanding the difference between $2000 and $1400 and why that difference is not the same as the difference in means of delivering it. Grow the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"a $2000 check" is not "a $1400 check" And neither of those arguments are exclusive either, people should have at least $2000 because $2000 was promised and people need as much as they can get. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:AOC, Rashida Tialib, Sanders, Schumer, Kamala, and Biden all were saying $1,400 to $2,000 total in December. A full 3 weeks before that. The bill they introduced said and did that. They specifically campaigned on passing this bill and said Republicans were holding it up. Making effective and accurate arguments is not begging for scraps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It isn't, and abolition of the wage system is an even better option, but $25 is likely to be more achievable immediately than $50 or $100 and would make a bigger difference than $15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Ither posted:Making effective and accurate arguments is not begging for scraps. The clip reel literally shows them saying $2000 checks in January after the $600 had already gone out, so whatever Ocasio-Cortez says in December is irrelevant, if you mean $1400 then don't say $2000. The Artificial Kid posted:Right, and $15 is better than $7.50, and is more achievable than $25. As has been pointed out, however, $15 is not enough. $25 would be much better for giving people an income they can live off of. $15 is only "more achievable" because the democrats don't want to give anyone $25.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Why is $25 a better level than $50 or $100? It isn't, if you want to push for $50 or $100 you have my full support
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:19
|
|