|
A $2,000 check is not a $1,4000 check. There clearly was language that was used in the Georgia run-off that made it sound like an additional $2,000 check was coming and lying is bad. A single $2,000 check isn't enough although regardless the scope of the Covid relief we're getting might be still hard to pass. Genuinely, I was talking to people during the runoffs who were under the assumption that it was +$1,400. Not that the language and the headlines weren't clear, but both are kinda true. It wasn't unknown that they weren't going to be $2,000 checks. I feel like people are saying "gently caress Biden for lying" can't really be argued with because yeah. I mean, I think you should also understand that not everyone is as pissed about a politician not fully keeping a campaign promise, but what you gonna do. I think some people are carrying that ball too far down the court with "AND THE DEMS ARE hosed IN 2022!" I mean probably not? This just isn't that big of a controversy even maybe it should be in a better world? Fister Roboto posted:General question for the thread: what do people think the point of being progressive is?
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
I will say it is at least incredibly on brand and extremely funny for the Dems to absolutely burn all political momentum and capital on lowering aid from what they ran on when that aid isn't nearly enough to actually cover anything in the first place. 2000 a month retroactively might have actually helped people stay in their homes but a one time payment of it is...pathetic. It's like they're straight up spitting in your face and saying 'survive on that'. I mean it'll help right now, but not enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:I will say it is at least incredibly on brand and extremely funny for the Dems to absolutely burn all political momentum and capital on lowering aid from what they ran on when that aid isn't nearly enough to actually cover anything in the first place. Did this happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
It really is just full on neoliberalism true believers; their ideology insists that problems aren't real. People can't actually starve, can't be homeless, can't be dying from preventable disease unless they want to. Reagan told them that. Anything other than silent smiling is just little kids whining for ponies. Obama/Clinton solved all the problems, didn't he? They don't exist anymore. They're just made up in your silly little childish leftist head. teacher_man posted:Did this happen? I dunno, did it? Is it? Will it in 2022? Or in 2024, when Donald Trump becomes President again? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
I don't know what "the Democrats burning all momentum and political capital" looks like, but it's probably not drawing the ire of people who have been mad at Democrats for years, and who proudly didn't vote for the Democratic candidate, and who never took a moment to recognize the actual steps the Democrats have taken towards aggressive relief and progressive policy. Somebody said, pages back, I'm not going to bother going back and getting the quote, something like "It seems like you care more about the party than about $600". Well, I do. I care about the Democrats because they are the avenue via which we defeat Republicans, who want us to have nothing. If some big "Democrats are liars" narrative arises out of the left and has an influence on swing voters or tentative voters, and results in them losing big in 2022 or 2024, that is, to me, much, much, much worse than not getting $600 that I was arguably promised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Which gets to the heart of the issue that "they aren't the republicans" has been the democratic platform for a very long time, and now it's 2021 and the world is the way it is. If you don't want people to hold their government to higher standards then it is difficult to see how you expect the trajectory to reverse. They're the government, it's absurd to say you shouldn't criticize them when they gently caress up lest it cause them to lose. It's even more absurd to say you can't point out their fuckups in case voters notice. As if the blame falls on the people pointing out the wrong rather than the people doing the wrong. That's not how democracy works. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Has anyone demanded they stop the direct deposits yet, since they promised checks so clearly? Gottem The Artificial Kid posted:Why is $25 a better level than $50 or $100? $50 would be better than $25, yes. You should fight for 25, and when the ruling class capitulates on $25, ask for $50. The core issue here seems to be "there is a prevalent rot in the system that must be actively repelled, and knows no party" versus "The system is imperfect but good, needs some tweaks, democrats are largely good-faith actors". If you belong to the former, it's a no-brainer that you would not be satisfied by $15, even putting aside the extreme devaluation of $15 since it was first proposed. It would not make sense to you to extol the progressivism of democrats and their Fifteen By 'Twenty-Five plan. If you belong to the latter, then it makes sense to accept what the democrats will give you; they are clearly trying their darnedest, and maybe a $15 minwage will be the minor course-correction that fixes capitalism. Pushing too hard for more might hurt the democrats (electorally or emotionally), and they deserve your respect. This applies just as well to the actual subject of the thread; the latter would rather see if $1400 Fixes Capitalism & support whatever PR blitz the party attempts to stave off the Bad Capitalism party. The former sees blood in the water over what is, at best, a deceptive campaign promise, and would like to exploit that to get the working class more & make said class ask "why aren't we getting more? What's stopping us from getting more?" And I would like to continue pushing that question, to anyone willing to answer: why cant we have $2000 checks? Exactly which senator or representative would be hurt by $2000 checks? Who is stopping this from happening and committing the party to incredibly mockable math-problem-as-PR tweets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Somebody said, pages back, I'm not going to bother going back and getting the quote, something like "It seems like you care more about the party than about $600". Well, I do. I care about the Democrats because they are the avenue via which we defeat Republicans, who want us to have nothing. If some big "Democrats are liars" narrative arises out of the left and has an influence on swing voters or tentative voters, and results in them losing big in 2022 or 2024, that is, to me, much, much, much worse than not getting $600 that I was arguably promised. Sounds like this is on the Democrats then for reneging on a promise, and that it doesn't matter as much to them if they lose power as it does to you. Anyway. It does sound like you care a lot about what would materially change if the GOP were re-elected.  Mellow Seas posted:Well then you should be able to buy plenty of tissues with your $1400 stimulus payment. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) the 2016 lover fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Has anyone demanded they stop the direct deposits yet, since they promised checks so clearly? If you're approaching this issue from a moral absolutist stance on the importance of technical precision in speech, then yes Biden should have started mailing physical checks out the door immediately after Democrats won without bothering with passing legislation, since that technically is what he said he would do. However, I don't think most people are coming at it from that angle, I think most people here are concerned with the material outcomes or the political implications or both. From a standpoint of material outcomes, $2000 materially helps people more than $1400, and Democrats have the power to give more (and more than that even) so they should do that rather than insisting on only doing the bare minimum that they thought they could get away with promising in order to win the election. But physical checks are not materially better than direct deposit, worse actually since they take longer, so there is no need to stop direct deposit that and actually they should not stop direct deposit regardless of what Biden said.. From a realpolitik standpoint, if people who thought they were getting a physical check get direct deposit instead they will not care or will be happier, so there is no need to stop direct deposit regardless of what Biden said. But if people who thought they were getting $2000 get $1400 instead, they will be disappointed or angry, and since making voters disappointed or angry with you when you have the power not to do it is bad politics, they should send out $2000 because why not. I hope this explication was helpful to you in understanding the conversation being had. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I don't know what "the Democrats burning all momentum and political capital" looks like, but it's probably not drawing the ire of people who have been mad at Democrats for years, and who proudly didn't vote for the Democratic candidate, and who never took a moment to recognize the actual steps the Democrats have taken towards aggressive relief and progressive policy. What about the canvassers who knocked on thousands of doors in Georgia promising people a $2000 check and now are angry that they look like liars, is drawing their ire not a big deal either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
fart simpson posted: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 Or he’s just been completely cowed and decide to join in on the lying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about the canvassers who knocked on thousands of doors in Georgia promising people a $2000 check and now are angry that they look like liars, is drawing their ire not a big deal either. Clearly they’re just morons who can’t do math.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:Did this happen? If you dont think this isnt going to weigh them down from now into the mid terms you're way too optimistic
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
What I don't get about this is: why not $2000. There's no reason not to other than "we don't want to." Democrats have a trifecta, they've already announced that if Republicans won't vote for the $1400 then it will go in the budget reconciliation bill which can pass without a single Republican vote. Therefore the only thing stopping $2000 checks, or $2000/month checks is that Democrats don't want to do it. What's interesting is that they recognize just saying "we could give you more money, but we won't" is bad politics. Good for them, this is very smart! But they seem to think that making some semantic argument about how $1400 plus $600 is $2000 and that's what we meant so that's the only thing that can happen is good politics. But how many people are actually fooled into thinking it's impossible to get more money just because Democrats didn't intend to promise more money: no one. So who is this argument even for? Especially when coupled with sneering at voters and telling them if they took the $2000 promise literally then they're stupid, who is that for? Is that going to convince those people to be happy with $1400? These arguments don't seem like they're intended to convince anyone who was counting on that money, it seems like they're intended for affluent liberals who have no stake in material outcomes and whose politics revolve around making themselves feel like they're smarter than everyone else. But those people vote for Democrats anyway because that's the smart sophisticated thing to do, so should courting them be the focus of the Democratic party, when they will never do anything other than vote Democrat and they obviously aren't a majority of the country or else Democrats would never lose elections ever? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about the canvassers who knocked on thousands of doors in Georgia promising people a $2000 check and now are angry that they look like liars, is drawing their ire not a big deal either. I can't find the article now, but there was an interview with a GA phonebanker who said the script provided by the GA senate campaigns instructed them to talk about new $2000 checks. Nucleic Acids posted:Clearly they’re just morons who can’t do math. This does not strike me as a good attitude to have towards your most loyal and motivated volunteers, if you like winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Even seperate from "best we can do" vs. "dont stop pushing", the pretzelwork to write a tweet like this is wild. https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1355634654255190016?s=20 If I lead the party, I'd shift towards $2000 checks just to save our interns the additional gymnastics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which gets to the heart of the issue that "they aren't the republicans" has been the democratic platform for a very long time, and now it's 2021 and the world is the way it is. If you don't want people to hold their government to higher standards then it is difficult to see how you expect the trajectory to reverse. This is absolutely the crux of it and what has me personally so flummoxed over the whole situation. I heard all through the primary that we're going to push this guy left, hold him to his promises. We happen upon a pretty simple, transparent, plainly stated promise made in the first month of his presidency and what? I get told I'm terminally online for thinking "A two thousand dollar check, immediately!" means "$2000.00". Anyone objectively looking at the situation can easily say "yeah, I see how you could come to that conclusion and they should do it". In fact, it's seeming more and more that it's literally only the terminally CNN/C-SPAN-watching type who are coming out of the woodwork to say "Well, actually, it's always been $600+$1400 = $2000 total haven't you been watching congressional proceedings closely since mid-December? They introduced a failed amendment to the December aid bill and are still so obsessed with correcting some bygone legislative L that it makes them speak in present-tense about it." No. In real world, food on the table terms, no one in their right mind is still counting $600 given to them a month (or two or three by the time this gets delivered) ago as part of the money promised to them going forward by an entirely different guy than the one who initially said anything about a $2000 payment. People don't care about if the money is a $1400 amendment to the aid bill from December or something entirely new, and if specifically that's what Democrats wanted to deliver they should not have said "two thousand dollar checks" loudly and clearly up to three weeks after the $600 payments had been delivered. If you don't think this is impactful, then almost has to be because you think people are so conditioned to receiving nothing that $1400 seems like an incredible blessing, so they should just put up with being lied to. My point by and large is simply that I expect better from the party I'm told to expect better from and instead I'm being gaslit about what I heard and read and how I'm a big ignorant dumb-dumb for not innately understanding that Democrats were still up their own rear end about some aid bill from December here in February. e: and for the record, I think fighting over $600 is a tremendous waste of time (as in, the difference to the money printer is immaterial), and I'd rather be focusing my ire on the fact that we're basically the only developed nation in the world that hasn't given some kind of recurring aid to every citizen. However, I can't even get to arguing about that when a ton of the people who I expect to support recurring aid don't even support holding their team to a plainly stated $2000 promise and instead run interference over it for some ridiculous reason. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I don't know what "the Democrats burning all momentum and political capital" looks like, but it's probably not drawing the ire of people who have been mad at Democrats for years, and who proudly didn't vote for the Democratic candidate, and who never took a moment to recognize the actual steps the Democrats have taken towards aggressive relief and progressive policy. You keep insisting republicans will give us nothing yet I've got two checks totaling $1800 with Trump's name on them. What's your plan when someone asks "why should I vote for the guy that gave us $1400 over the guy who gave us $1800?" Just gaslight them like what's happening with the $2000 now, say that never happened, ignore your lying eyes and bank account?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:You keep insisting republicans will give us nothing yet I've got two checks totaling $1800 with Trump's name on them. What's your plan when someone asks "why should I vote for the guy that gave us $1400 over the guy who gave us $1800?" Just gaslight them like what's happening with the $2000 now, say that never happened, ignore your lying eyes and bank account?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:You keep insisting republicans will give us nothing yet I've got two checks totaling $1800 with Trump's name on them. What's your plan when someone asks "why should I vote for the guy that gave us $1400 over the guy who gave us $1800?" Just gaslight them like what's happening with the $2000 now, say that never happened, ignore your lying eyes and bank account? The argument goes that Democrats should get credit for those other checks because they voted for them too, therefore Republicans wanted you to have $1800 total and Democrats want you to have $3200 total so the Democrats are better. I am not optimistic that this will work, given that at the same time Democrats are complaining that voters are all morons who don't pay enough attention to politics to understand the nuances of who is doing and saying what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Honestly, I really do agree we should be doing more and the $2,000 stuff was misleading. But I think you're all creating this alternate reality where this is a huge controversy even now. It's not, and the idea it will be two years from now is a stretch. Like what is this Republican argument, "My opponent fought for $1,400 checks when they said $2,000, instead of doing the honorable thing and just providing $1,000 checks that I fought for as a compromise after fighting for only $600 as a compromise from $1,2000 which was already a compromise from the opposing party." Like you're right. Even if Biden had just said, "You'll get your full $2,000" would have been better from an honesty standpoint, but yeah we need to do more and Joe Manchin existing doesn't make that not true. You're right, but you don't need to die on this hill of creating this alternate universe. Shere is right, poo poo sucks and it's clearcut. People might look at it at different ways because obviously it wasn't some deep secret of what they really meant, but whatever still bad. But it's silly to then show off your political fan fiction that is based on nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:"My opponent fought for $1,400 checks when they said $2,000, instead of doing the honorable thing and just providing $1,000 checks that I fought for as a compromise after fighting for only $600 as a compromise from $1,2000 which was already a compromise from the opposing party." No, the Republican argument is "you can't trust Democrats to do what they say, remember when they promised you $2000 and then didn't give it to you", it's not about a superior message, it's about reminding people not to trust the Democrats in order to suppress the Democratic vote. A strategy that was very effective in critical 2016 battlegrounds, I might add, when Democrats nominated the most distrusted person in politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Honestly, I really do agree we should be doing more and the $2,000 stuff was misleading. But I think you're all creating this alternate reality where this is a huge controversy even now. It's not, and the idea it will be two years from now is a stretch. Like what is this Republican argument, "My opponent fought for $1,400 checks when they said $2,000, instead of doing the honorable thing and just providing $1,000 checks that I fought for as a compromise after fighting for only $600 as a compromise from $1,2000 which was already a compromise from the opposing party." Its not that voters will believe the Republicans in some poo poo throwing fest against the Democratic Party. Its that would be democratic party voters will disengage entirely leaving the races to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
This is a great point. People have to stop trying to argue "what are they going to do?! vote for the republicans who will only give them $0.00?!". No, they're going to stay home and not give a poo poo. Timeless Appeal posted:Honestly, I really do agree we should be doing more and the $2,000 stuff was misleading. But I think you're all creating this alternate reality where this is a huge controversy even now. It's not, and the idea it will be two years from now is a stretch. Like what is this Republican argument, "My opponent fought for $1,400 checks when they said $2,000, instead of doing the honorable thing and just providing $1,000 checks that I fought for as a compromise after fighting for only $600 as a compromise from $1,2000 which was already a compromise from the opposing party." How many of these fuckups can the democrats afford to make and still have a shot at 2022? Trump is gone -- loving gone -- just completely out of the picture now, so not only do they not have him to campaign off off, even the residual heat from his presidency and 1/6 is quickly dissipating. The impeachment will happen too early in the cycle for any sort of pro-democrat fervor to carry into 2022. Biden's EOs, while some are pretty good, are largely the sort of wonkish fiddling-at-the-edges stuff that really only resonates with political junkies. Campaigning on, then delivering $2000 checks would have been a legitimate, unambiguous win. Now its become an argument that is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who isn't 100% totally in the tank blue-no-matter-who. This is considering we get the $1400. If they let it get shaved down even more it's going to be a disaster. Without Trump, Biden isn't very popular, and what popularity he does have is mostly thanks to Obama and unrelated to the man himself as a politician. Harris is inestimably worse. They need clear messages, kept promises, and (probably most importantly) need to be perceived as actually doing something useful if they're even going to be able to limp to 2024. And it should be easy now, they're in control. It's not that a critical mass of otherwise-Democratic voters will think about this specific event and decide to stay home or vote R/third party (though some will, probably especially in GA) but that this is a clear fumble at a time they can't afford to make them. Maybe they've got some really amazing things in store that will really energize their base in the next few years but given the political history of Biden and his wing of the party, I very much doubt they've got anything up their sleeves except more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yes, I'm the one gaslighting, not the guy who's still trying to push "they're outflanking us from the left!" 9-10 months after that notion became transparently ridiculous. You said we need to vote for democrats because the republicans gave us nothing when in fact they have given us $1800, which is $1800 more than the democrats have given us currently and $400 more then they plan to give, which sounds like gaslighting to me! And I'm not talking about "outflanking from the left", I'm talking about pure transactional politics: One party gave $1800, the other promised more then did the old switcharooski and offered less. Why would someone who is an irregular voter, who maybe voted for the 1st time this election out of a sense that Trump was bad but doesn't have a commitment to either party, vote for the 2nd of those options now that Trump is gone? The democrats are going out of their way to not retain voters and anyone arguing they shouldn't up what they are offering to at least above what the republicans have already given us are willing participants in republicans taking back both chambers of congress come 2022.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
"Vote for us in GA and $2000 checks go out the door immediately" vs the fact that it's a month since the election and the only check I've gotten has Donald Trump's name on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:"Vote for us in GA and $2000 checks go out the door immediately" vs the fact that it's a month since the election and the only check I've gotten has Donald Trump's name on it. He meant immediately after capitulating to McConnell on the filibuster followed by the lengthy budget reconciliation process, punctuated by a pointless impeachment trial and some theatrical bipartisan negotiations, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Why is $25 a better level than $50 or $100? VitalSigns posted:It isn't, if you want to push for $50 or $100 you have my full support this is some econ 101 poo poo right here. In a economy like ours a minimum wage too high can have a adverse effect on employment, the very first implementations of minimum wage in the US were examples of this (unemployment skyrocketed when min wage was made .25 cents i think in like 1938) if I recall the minimum wage is calculated at 60% of a states median income (or was supposed to be at least, it has obviously lagged). Since states have economies of various sizes, these numbers can vary a lot. 15 dollars is the lowest of those numbers, 25 is the highest of those numbers. This means that 15 dollars is the amount that minimum wage can be "safely" increased without having an adverse unemployment impact. After that it would be ideal for all states to have their own "modifiers" to min wage to raise it based on that states economy, because a true minimum wage in Washington will be like 25 dollars, where as bumfuck Oklahoma will likely have 15 dollars as a true minimum wage. WE could theoretically push for 25 dollar min wage but the probability it hurts certain areas in the US is high. 15 Dollars is really the best start right now, and the very best option is a 15 dollar federal "floor" with per state modifiers increasing the wage appropriately for that state. Too high of a minimum wage would jack up unemployment and cause more harm than good because business will end up redistributing the workload amongst fewer workers, laying off a ton of people and giving a lovely life to those still employed. Mr.Citrus fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, the Republican argument is "you can't trust Democrats to do what they say, remember when they promised you $2000 and then didn't give it to you", it's not about a superior message, it's about reminding people not to trust the Democrats in order to suppress the Democratic vote. A strategy that was very effective in critical 2016 battlegrounds, I might add, when Democrats nominated the most distrusted person in politics. Pentecoastal Elites posted:How many of these fuckups can the democrats afford to make and still have a shot at 2022?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
It's also just such a loving own goal. Pushing it to 2k, while not actually enough to help cover what the average American has needed the past year, would at least like....not have you look like liars and/incomepetants and would cost them nothing. It's insane that they would even consider doing what they've done. Theres no reason for it other than to just try and get away with doing as little as possible. It's an error entirely of their own making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I get the logical reasoning, I just don't think it vibes with what we're actually seeing. I don't want to call it a nothing-burger because it's not. It's at best bad delivery, and that's charitable. I can imagine this being a bigger deal, but it just doesn't seem to be. I think a comparison is when Chuds create narratives about police strikes totally destroying the Left and making wealthy liberals crawl back to the police. Like I understand WHY they would believe that would happen, but it never does even when police literally grease the wheels to purposefully annoy people. I get the difference is that you guys want people to have money which is good, but just because you can extrapolate the possible fallout of something doesn't mean it's true. I guess but I also remember hearing this a lot in 2016: "well how many people are really going to care about my Goldman Sachs speeches", "well how many people are really going to care that I fought against a $15 wage before reluctantly agreeing to it", "well how many people are really going to care that I had BLM activists arrested", "well how many people are really going to care that I told a young black woman who criticized my Tough On Crime policies to go run for office herself if she thinks she's better than me", "well how many people are really going to care if I don't campaign in Michigan or Wisconsin", "well how many black people are really going to care that I called them superpredators", "well how many people are really going to care that I bought out the DNC to win the primary", "well how many people are really going to care if DNC staffers were emailing each other their plans to make antisemitic attacks on Bernie in the South", and on and on and on, and it turns out when you say that about enough things it adds up! I'm less concerned about one single issue wrecking the midterms as I am about a pattern of scorning and dismissing "insignificant" sections of the electorate that add up to be more significant than anyone thought. Already starting this right out the gate isn't a good sign imo. This goes doubly after a disastrous performance that saw Democrats keep control of the House by a tiny margin, and triply after taking control of the Senate by a gnat's asshair, and doubleplustriply when one of those Senators who won Georgia on the back of this promise is up for reelection in the 2022 midterms VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Somebody said, pages back, I'm not going to bother going back and getting the quote, something like "It seems like you care more about the party than about $600". Well, I do. I care about the Democrats because they are the avenue via which we defeat Republicans, who want us to have nothing. If some big "Democrats are liars" narrative arises out of the left and has an influence on swing voters or tentative voters, and results in them losing big in 2022 or 2024, that is, to me, much, much, much worse than not getting $600 that I was arguably promised. We should organize rallies to thank the Democrats for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week lest the perfidious Republicans try take advantage of the situation. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I guess but I also remember hearing this a lot in 2016: Like the actual story is that the Democrats made a promise that they're kinda sorta but not really keeping, but are giving more money than even their stated goal a few months ago on top of the $600 that was negotiated out. Should we be satisfied with that, nope. I believe in wealth redistribution and some form of UBI and this doesn't meet the goal. And it's lovely politics and I think it's fair to say that Democrats need to wise up that mistrust in government hurts them more than Republicans. But I dunno, I don't think on it's own this is particularly a scandal and doesn't seem like it's this damning original sin of the Biden Administration. That'll be something almost definitely worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I get that, but I think we need to be careful with that thinking because it can be used to justify any concern no matter how outlandish. I feel like actual issues and scandals that try to get spun into nothing, you can usually see the signs of it. It was always there. I just don't really see the anger for this. Not trying to invalidate the folks, especially those on the ground who are mad. But it all seems pretty minor, Why do we need to be careful with this thinking. You're saying that the Democrats would be smart to give more money, that people are right not to be satisfied with $1400, and that the people who feel misled have a point...but also that those people aren't numerous enough to matter so it's a minor issue and we shouldn't give a poo poo.  But if it's minor and no one really cares, why do I need to "be careful" with this thinking, if I'm wrong and no one really cares then there's no downside to my being concerned, but if I'm right it's a huge problem and the people dismissing the complaints are making a critical mistake...so maybe it is you who should be careful with your line of thinking? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why do we need to be careful with this thinking. I don't know what the "People aren't numerous enough to matter" thing is coming from. I'm just saying that the Democrats probably aren't going to lose 2022 because of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I don't know what the "People aren't numerous enough to matter" thing is coming from. I'm just saying that the Democrats probably aren't going to lose 2022 because of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I don't know what the "People aren't numerous enough to matter" thing is coming from. I'm just saying that the Democrats probably aren't going to lose 2022 because of this. Probably because those mean the same thing, if you don't think this will matter in any elections then you don't think there are enough people who care to matter in elections. Idk man, Democrats got wiped in every single swing state in the 2016 senate elections by the narrowest of margins, and now that class is up again plus a seat in Georgia that Dems won by the narrowest of margins. Seems like a bad time to start going "pffft we probably aren't going to lose because of this one thing", especially because more things will probably come up and if we're starting with "pffft it's one thing" as the go-to response I hope it doesn't become a pattern (again)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
Just a question, because I'm curious. What countries have given out cash handouts to the population as part of their covid response, and how much have they given out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
The UK covered a whole bunch of salaries while people couldn't work for months. https://www.acas.org.uk/coronavirus/furlough-scheme-pay £2500 a month or 80% of your salary, whichever is lower. Still far from enough but miles better than the US is doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Probably because those mean the same thing, if you don't think this will matter in any elections then you don't think there are enough people who care to matter in elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 21:42
|
|