|
Just FYI this post is the unassailable truth of the situation, so I think OP can close the thread after this. - It was originally supposed to be an incremental $1400 to top up the $600 from December - The messaging got so loose around this that Dems, including Biden, Warnock and Ossoff all were implicitly and explicitly promising actual $2000 checks, not $1400 checks - It seems that we agree that AT BEST this was misleading and sloppy messaging, and whether or not you think it's outright lying is probably a position that nobody is going to be argued out of at this point (unless new info comes to light that provides incontrovertible proof that the intent was to mislead) - While there's a lot of online outrage about this, and it's a legitimate grievance, I don't know if there's any data to indicate that the broader general public is aware of or will really care about the difference. Twitter is very much not real life, and it's not unreasonable to imagine that for the general public the happiness of getting an extra $1400 will outweigh the disappointment of not getting an extra $2000 - Even if the general public doesn't really care, it's still an unnecessary own goal. To run this metaphor into the ground, it might not be an own goal that loses the game, but it gives the opponents an opening to get back in the game. Doesn't mean that they'll be able to capitalize on it, maybe we'll still blow them out, but there's no need to give them ANY opening, especially when we know that our opponents are cheats. We need to be running up the score between now and 2022, let alone 2024, not giving up softies as soon as the puck's dropped. That's right, it's a HOCKEY metaphor - One payment isn't enough, whether it's $1400 or $2000; this needs to be a recurring stimulus
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:So you said that to a glib post making fun of a guy just literally outright lying about very recent objective reality and calling people who actually worked to elect democrats based on a lie they were told 'assholes of the highest order', but not the first dude? see the above Herstory Begins Now posted:also don't poo poo this thread up for no reason, and that applies to everyone E: Covok posted:Yeah I should have added some extra options. I don't think you can edit a poll. Didn't think of people wanting both of those. I guess just go with what you feel most strongly about. polls can be edited, let me know what you'd like me to edit in
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:There's also that whole issue of the millions of people who operate in the grey market economy and never qualified for UI in the first place. Coincidentally, many of these same people have been forced to the margins of the housing market in informal arrangements like renting a room under the table or couch surfing and are being thrown in the street because they never benefitted from the protections of the patchwork of eviction moratoriums (to the extent those even existed in practice) and/or are being forced out of their homes through threats or actual violence from their landlords who know that the cops won't lift a loving finger to protect people like sex workers and who are so dangerous to them that they'd never dare call them in the first place. What was 600 dollars going to do for grey market homeless sex workers? Don't you think the $25 billion in rental assistance or the food stamp increase or the child care funding or literally anything else in the 100 day economic plan would have more impact on them than a one time check? Would a homeless sex worker even necessarily be in the system to even get a check? It feels like the smallest and least important part of all of the things being proposed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Just FYI this post is the unassailable truth of the situation, so I think OP can close the thread after this. Personally, and this is just my opinion as a poster, this post summarizes the check poo poo as well as it can be and I don't really see why people need to keep slapfighting about this in this thread or any other, doesn't seem like there's much point other than trying to score points or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Agreed that AT BEST their campaign messaging was miscalculated and didn't convey what they actually meant. Easy fix, though. Change the 1.4k to 2k without means testing it and we are gravy. quote:It feels like the smallest and least important part of all of the things being proposed. Country's dyin, Cloud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Srice posted:Because in 2020 we got a $1200 check and then a $600 check, if the dems want their argument to make logical sense they should be proposing $200 checks instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
helsing plz get in dnd ik/mod chat, ty
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Just FYI this post is the unassailable truth of the situation, so I think OP can close the thread after this. A good post that should be repeated every time this topic comes up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't mean it. And if he gaffed, it wasn't that bad. And if it's not want you need, you don't deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Just FYI this post is the unassailable truth of the situation, so I think OP can close the thread after this. It can't simultaneously be the "unassailable truth" of the situation that it was always supposed to be an incremental $1400 while also the guy who just got inaugurated to the highest seat of power in the country was saying something else. If he somehow wasn't aware that the check should be an "increase to $2000" and he let his messaging slip, that's horrifying. His words carry authority now and he kept saying those words (Two Thousand Dollar Check) over the span of the last three weeks and no one explicitly corrected him, so please understand that there are quite a few people who are not going to be happy about that not coming to pass, and not all of them are localized to the supposedly fake people of the internet. Literally an article on the previous page with an interview that disproves your "twitter isn't real life" bit, also.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
I hope it ends up being reoccurring and it's political malpractice not to just cut the checks for 2k imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
it doesn't matter. mcconnell, sinema, manchin, and the insurrection caucus will move heaven and earth to make sure that not only will there not be another stimulus, there will be another round of tax cuts for the rich in the name of making the austerity regime complete and permanent. gotta cut that deficit somehow ya know
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
Shere posted:It can't simultaneously be the "unassailable truth" of the situation that it was always supposed to be an incremental $1400 while also the guy who just got inaugurated to the highest seat of power in the country was saying something else. If he somehow wasn't aware that the check should be an "increase to $2000" and he let his messaging slip, that's horrifying. His words carry authority now and he kept saying those words (Two Thousand Dollar Check) over the span of the last three weeks and no one explicitly corrected him, so please understand that there are quite a few people who are not going to be happy about that not coming to pass, and not all of them are localized to the supposedly fake people of the internet. I was being glib about the unassailable truth, I don't actually think my post is unassailable. I should've put a  in my OPI'm not saying it was ALWAYS supposed to be $1400, just that it was ORIGINALLY supposed to be $1400. Clearly that changed as the Dems kept talking about $2000 checks even after the initial $600 checks started going out. I don't disagree that it's a bad messaging slip, and I don't think that being unhappy about it and voicing that displeasure is unreasonable at all A more nuanced way of saying "twitter isn't real life" would be something like "topics that trend on twitter aren't necessarily indicative of the concerns of the broader general public". I don't mean to suggest that ppl complaining on twitter aren't real, or that their concerns are invalid. And I don't mean to suggest that those concerns are definitely NOT shared by the broader public. Just that I haven't seen any data to suggest that they are, and I also don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that the general public will be happy to get $1400 and won't think about it much more than that. I don't think the Mediaite article disproves this, it seems like it's based on interviews with 3 voters from Georgia? I was thinking more about broader opinion polling with hundreds of respondents to get a more robust sample. Ultimately I agree that they should just make it $2000 checks, the upsides of doing so seem to vastly outweigh any potential downsides IMO
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Cheques need to be 2K. 2 parents plus 2 kids is like 5 grand if the checks are 2k. 5 grand is a lot of money. That can pay for: A 3k CC bill 1k for groceries or Home Improvements 1k for new tires, oil change, brake pads, Let's say you don't have a 3k CC bill, it pays for kids dentistry, or your own denstistrt. You can do a shitload with 5 grand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
I would have thought that you couldn't possibly have a political group or organization that could somehow make you like them less by giving you money, but, by god, the Democrats managed to pull it off. Regardless of what you think about what you can or can't find documentation of or piece together from interviews and tweets and whatever and if they meant $2000 and are walking it back or well, actually, the $600 was a down payment and etc. etc. I do not see how you can't perceive this messaging as a 360 noscope footgun at a time where they just came off a violent insurrection by the other party. Even if you're a 100% in-the-tank Dem hardliner and are totally behind Joe's economic policy and are Very Concerned about the deficit how in the world do you excuse them walking back all of their "we will give you $2000 just vote" messaging? Something that -- very obviously -- tons of people think is a real lovely move (or got "confused by", if you really are a true believer). Why in the world wouldn't you just push for another $600? What is it costing you? Political capital? lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:
My dumbass dad still waxes poetic about the $200 tax refund he got from GWB. This is such an easy victory lap for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
I hate when there's a whoopsie when I'm campaigning and the message gets loose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
As a bonus, the more pandemic checks that get sent out, the easier it is to build a case for UBI (or something like it) down the road "Remember when the government just handed out free money and nothing bad happened? What if that, but all the time?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Shere posted:It can't simultaneously be the "unassailable truth" of the situation that it was always supposed to be an incremental $1400 while also the guy who just got inaugurated to the highest seat of power in the country was saying something else. If he somehow wasn't aware that the check should be an "increase to $2000" and he let his messaging slip, that's horrifying. Yes, Biden is horrifically unable to coherently express himself in the English language without unintended innuendo or debacle. This has been well-known since '08 and it's only gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Once the $600 did go out though, they clearly made an error by not changing their terminology. Had they said something like "people got a $600 stimulus but they deserve a $2000 one" I don't think we'd be having this discussion since it takes away the mental image of a "check" as a discrete payment There are only two possibilities here - they were deliberately misleading, or they're so staggeringly incompetent that there's no real meaningful distinction between incompetence and malice. The Democrats may be dumb, but they aren't so dumb that they wouldn't realize what "you'll get $2000 checks" implies to people. Fritz the Horse posted:"Dems lied" is pretty uncharitable. If you're predisposed to assume that Dems are going to lie, trick, mislead you and are acting in bad faith then well, that's how you'll see this. Why in god's name would you be charitable towards these people? There's no real debate to be had over whether the Democratic Party genuinely cares about the well-being of the working class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Just FYI this post is the unassailable truth of the situation, so I think OP can close the thread after this. Technically I think the first point is somewhat inaccurate; it was initially pushed to the forefront of the conversation by Trump (lmfao) *before* the original $600 check bill was fully passed, so at that point it was legitimately about changing the legislation to update the $600 checks to be literal $2000 checks. This was complicated by the bill passing and the $600 checks going out, which I think contributed to your further points. The messaging was never updated, from what I could tell, from this initial stance, so it all got really muddied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Why in god's name would you be charitable towards these people? There's no real debate to be had over whether the Democratic Party genuinely cares about the well-being of the working class. Dems in general, and Biden in particular, very obviously care about the well-being of the working class. For example:
So yeah, declaring that Dems don't care about the working class because the upcoming checks will be $1400 as opposed to $2000 is loving idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 07:43
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Dems in general, and Biden in particular, very obviously care about the well-being of the working class. For example: Are we allowed to bring up their legislative histories or is that sowing division and helping Russia win in 2022? The democrat party has the optics of being an ally, but if you go by their actual legislative histories it's all just bullshit rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Finally the warzone thread that everyone was requesting! I chose "people weren't paying attention". From the beginning, it was +1400 to get to $2,000 not +2000 That said, the Dems finally control the Executive Branch and the Legislative. It's time to push them left. Regardless of what was said earlier, we should advocating for much more money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
In December the fight for that particular aid package in the eleventh hour was to bring the survival checks from $600 up to $2000. If the entire January campaign was to go back and ammend that check still, then they never once communicated that through any public channel and were, in fact, maliciously misleading people with their messaging simply because $2000 looks, sounds, and sells better than $1400. There is no "people weren't paying attention" or "people can't do math" or "people are just looking for something to dig at liberals with". The man who just got inaugurated was saying "$2000 checks" full weeks after the previous aid package had already been distributed to tens of millions of people. It is also now coming out that they likely won't even get to this until March at the earliest, which is what I expected and why I was expecting that the next round of survival checks would finally be a full $2000. Little did I know that Democrats would be more obsessed with correcting a legislative L they took than with helping people to a bare minimum acceptable standard. I actively resent the notion that somehow this is a simple misunderstanding and was somehow the fault of the public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Are we allowed to bring up their legislative histories or is that sowing division and helping Russia win in 2022? You can bring up whatever you want, but if you want to show people you're arguing in good faith and not trying to be inflammatory, you may want to stop doing the bolded part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You can bring up whatever you want, but if you want to show people you're arguing in good faith and not trying to be inflammatory, you may want to stop doing the bolded part. No thank you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Is it an official D&D rule that you must call blue team "the Democratic party" at all times, now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Is it an official D&D rule that you must call blue team "the Democratic party" at all times, now? It's an official D&D rule you shouldn't be a fuckin dipshit (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Dems in general, and Biden in particular, very obviously care about the well-being of the working class. For example: I'm sorry but this is some pretty thin gruel here. If you're trying to convince me that the democrats "very obviously care about the well-being of the working class." you're going to have to show me something other than the absolutely minimum they can get away with. Two of the items on your list are immigration issues, not really broad working class issues, two are just some guys who used to be involved with unions, and your top item here is a "pushing for". If we're allowed to examine, say, the last fifty years of American politics I find it very, very, very hard to imagine that any of this will break in the way they're claiming it will. Sure, fine, better than nothing and there is a faction within the Democrats that I do think actually cares about the working class, but if I cared about the well-being of my dog in the same way the Democrats, on the whole, care about the working class I'd be pilloried for animal cruelty. But at any rate it's not "loving idiotic" that trying to walk back $600 is a massive slap in the face to the people they were begging on bended knee to Vote! as soon as the exact nanosecond they won their races. Maybe you're comfortable enough not to care but $600 can be a critical amount of money for a lot of poor and working class people in, if you haven't noticed, the middle of a pandemic. Look around the democrats hard enough and you yourself might notice that there are people who claim to care about the working class and there are people who have a history of actually fighting for the working class and the latter have been screaming about more money and constant money for a while now. Not "ah well see here, jack, that was just uhhh an uhhhhh a down payment yeah that's it"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Is it an official D&D rule that you must call blue team "the Democratic party" at all times, now? Weirdly you are allowed and encouraged to say it on sites like thedonald.win and breitbart. Wonder why that would be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Is it an official D&D rule that you must call blue team "the Democratic party" at all times, now? Not quite. Though it is a D&D rule that you post in good faith, first and foremost. You can call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" if you really want to, but doing so usually indicates that you're not posting in good faith and being a shithead to boot. So really, it's a roll of the die each time you do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Not quite. Though it is a D&D rule that you post in good faith, first and foremost. So cutesy and/or insulting names for politicians indicates the poster is arguing in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Not quite. Though it is a D&D rule that you post in good faith, first and foremost. Is it okay to express and earnest and good-faith contempt for the Democratic Party to the extent that you honestly and openly feel that the party is named as it is as a sort of sick joke and "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" denotes that they're only in it for themselves? Or will that get me probated? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Weirdly you are allowed and encouraged to say it on sites like thedonald.win and breitbart. Wonder why that would be. Is Owlofcreamcheese operating in good faith here, I wonder? Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jan 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So cutesy and/or insulting names for politicians indicates the poster is arguing in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So cutesy and/or insulting names for politicians indicates the poster is arguing in bad faith? Again, the problem here isn't using cutesy or insulting names for politicians/groups, it's that doing so in some cases is a clear indicator that the poster isn't posting in good faith. The "Democrat Party" schtick has been litigated back and forth for months in USPOL with IKs/Mods ultimately asking people to refrain from doing it. So when people continue to do it and then put on the "aww shucks, what's the problem here?" act when they're called out on it, it gets old. Pentecoastal Elites posted:Is it okay to express and earnest and good-faith contempt for the Democratic Party to the extent that you honestly and openly feel that the party is named as it is as a sort of sick joke and "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" denotes that they're only in it for themselves? Or will that get me probated? Multiple people in this thread have posted their contempt and dislike of the Democratic Party in regards to the stimulus question without any issue. It's only when you're posting to specifically rile people up or in bad faith that we start to have problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So cutesy and/or insulting names for politicians indicates the poster is arguing in bad faith? Yeah, seems like an untenable practice unless you declare that calling a party or politician anything but their formal names is a sign of bad faith. I'd really hope that posters aren't so inflamed by insanely minor stuff like that that it causes some sort of breakdown. Some folks are unhappy with criticism of the Democrats, full stop. Does posting nasty stuff about the party also count as riling them up? Pentecoastal Elites posted:Is it okay to express and earnest and good-faith contempt for the Democratic Party to the extent that you honestly and openly feel that the party is named as it is as a sort of sick joke and "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" denotes that they're only in it for themselves? Or will that get me probated? Of course they're not, but I'm not thin skinned enough to care. Insanite fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jan 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I'd really hope that posters aren't so inflamed by insanely minor stuff like that that it causes some sort of breakdown. And I'd really hope that posters aren't so inflamed by insanely minor stuff like "Hey please refrain from using the childish "Democrat Party" line, thanks". It's not a huge ask. Gonna ask everyone to move on from this as this as the derail has gone on long enough and this isn't the thread to relitigate the "Democrat vs Democratic" debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Is it okay to express and earnest and good-faith contempt for the Democratic Party to the extent that you honestly and openly feel that the party is named as it is as a sort of sick joke and "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" denotes that they're only in it for themselves? Or will that get me probated? You are free to express such opinions, and when you do so, they will be open to debate, as we have seen in this very thread. Using disparaging terms such as "Democrat Party", however, serves no other purpose than inflammatory rhetoric. It's no different than "demonrats" or "democraps"; it's not used by anyone who is actually debating in good faith because debating in good faith requires civility, a willingness to hear out the other side and be open to convincing. Epinephrine posted:You can call me demonrat as a pet name, but only after we get past second base.  Close thread and goldmine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:So cutesy and/or insulting names for politicians indicates the poster is arguing in bad faith? I know sports:politics analogies are fraught, but I do think it's similar to the SAS norm (which I think is an official rule) that using juvenile insult nicknames for opposing teams/players is not allowed. I'm a hockey fan and my team is the Pittsburgh Penguins, who have a star player named Sidney Crosby. If you read other hockey forums outside SAS, you'll hear people incessantly refer to him as Sindy Crysby, which is at best is mildly funny the first time you hear it (like back in 2006), but gets old fast. I suspect there's probably a similar dynamic with gaming/console wars but I haven't really been into that for a while. IMO it's not even as much about arguing in bad faith per se, it's just tedious, unfunny and represents the lame ethos of the rest of the internet that SA generally tries to distinguish itself from. And it's not just about protecting "my" team, I don't want to read the lame insults about the New York Rangers or Connor McDavid either. Bringing it back to politics, I don't really want to read a bunch of posts about the Republic Party or the Republican't Party or whatever, not because I have ANY interest in defending the GOP's honor, but because it just reads like a lame rear end comments section on an article from a local news site. I think if someone started posting a bunch about Toxic Berniebros in response to any leftists posts, or calling Bernie a Loony Lefty, etc., we'd probably all agree that this is dumb as poo poo; the fact that "we" like Bernie isn't the reason it's dumb though. I'm just some poster with no authority on the matter, but that's my $0.02 Pentecoastal Elites posted:I'm sorry but this is some pretty thin gruel here. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:12
|
|