|
Sharks Eat Bear posted: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.  We should probably sticky this somewhere.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted: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. I'd just as soon everyone in this forum dropped the nicknames for everyone, because it makes my eyes glaze over when every post is "chud chud chud." That said the easiest thing to do would be for the Democrats to push for an additional $2000 check. I haven't seen it mentioned much in the real world, but it'd be welcome anyway and would be one less thing they could be attacked for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted: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. It feels like even demonrat or democraps is less abrasive, because those at least are insults. democrat party isn't anything, except a right wing shibboleth, which posters use now because they know it's trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I'm sorry but this is some pretty thin gruel here. Agreed, but I don't think it's even necessary to litigate whether or not the Democrats "care about the working class" in this instance. Biden was mum on the aid package for much of the December proceedings until he came out in support of the compromise bill which included the $600 checks. Before we memory hole anything, it was Bernie and a small handful of Senators fighting for $2000 for the entire month, and only once Trump of all people said something did $2000 suddenly become an official attainable goal for the Democrats as a whole. In the eleventh hour they ran a $2000 check amendment through the House and gave it to the Senate to ignore. By the time Biden said anything about $2000 checks, it was because the GA runoffs were coming up - well enough after the $600 checks had been approved and began disbursement. More to my point, it seems mostly like they care significantly more about winning pointless performative battles than anything else, if I'm to believe that they're still harping on the $2000 they didn't get through back in loving December such that sometime in March they'll try to "make it whole" and that somehow it was hive-mind understood that this would always be the case and that "$2000 checks" was secretly "$1400 checks" all along. A significant portion of pushing these people "to the left" is holding them accountable for their existing communications to the people, whether or not you give them a good faith pass that it was a misunderstanding somehow. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Not quite. Though it is a D&D rule that you post in good faith, first and foremost. I mean I'm fine probating people for it, whether it's formally a set in stone rule or not because at this point it's just dumb and tired
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Glad we can all derail a thread for a full page because some wannabe backseat mod wanted to police someone for "posting in bad faith" by dropping two letters off of the name of a party like it loving matters while ignoring the rest of their post. I wish I had the leisure to give a poo poo about it. Then again, it's definitely par for the course for Democrats to focus more on the aesthetics of an argument than the material of it. This forum is insufferable. Herstory Begins Now posted:I mean I'm fine probating people for it, whether it's formally a set in stone rule or not because at this point it's just dumb and tired Maybe the IKs should be setting a proper example and not continuing a derail that was called to end like 10 posts ago. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Shere posted:Then again, it's definitely par for the course for Democrats to focus more on the aesthetics of an argument than the material of it. This forum is insufferable. No one is forcing you and your buddies to post here, right? Y'all have your own top-level forum now where you can complain about Democrats endlessly and call them whatever you want. So why keep coming here, if you think this place is insufferable? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Shere posted:Maybe the IKs should be setting a proper example and not continuing a derail that was called to end like 10 posts ago. that was my bad, i didn't see it
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Its all of the bad posters, in one awful thread (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What was 600 dollars going to do for grey market homeless sex workers? Ask one. That's a night in a hotel if you get sick, a mechanic to fix the car you sleep in so it doesn't get towed and you can stay out of a shelter with your partner and your dog (who can't go in with you), the ability to pay off a couple parking tickets and your car tabs renewed and don't get pulled over by a cop for driving on expired tags and risk being beat up or raped in the process, paying back your friend for flopping in their place and eating their food, or pay for an STD test that you otherwise can't afford. quote: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. Rental assistance, food stamps, child care and so on are all heavily means tested and that's intentionally a way to disenfranchise and withhold benefits. In my state, the rental assistance funding feeds into a lottery program that is a) paid directly to landlords, not to tenants, and b) the landlord can refuse the payments if they'd rather have an excuse to get rid of the tenant at the earliest opportunity. Devaluing un-tested cash assistance is literally devaluing the most marginalized people in our society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Wanna tell this dude he's an rear end in a top hat of the highest order? The Republicans who only offered $600? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
I feel like if people get $1400 checks they'll still be pretty happy. There will probably be some who do say "Hey what the f*ck you said 2K" but I'm sure others will be mollified by the excuse/explanation that "it was always 1400 on top of the 600 in Congress". Georgia might be different since the 2k was such a heavy campaign topic, but I don't think it will enrage as many people as it might seem. I know I won't raise a fuss if I get $4200 in the bankaccount (Family of 3), even if it could've been $6k.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
It's not really a question of whether it will enrage everyone or even most people, the fundamental issue politically is whether it's smart to enrage anyone at all when it is 100% within your power to not enrage anyone at all I know dunking on people with subtraction worksheets and strawmanning them as being too dumb to math is hella fun, but um isn't winning votes the name of the game? Even if you're only in it to own cultural enemies, isn't it more fun to own Republicans after you win the midterms than to own your own voters before getting clobbered by chuds at the polls? Like I know there's plenty of Democrats who didn't go to a good school, and far be it from me to say owning people for their upbringing and social class is off limits if they vote for your guy, but what's the end goal here
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:I feel like if people get $1400 checks they'll still be pretty happy. There will probably be some who do say "Hey what the f*ck you said 2K" but I'm sure others will be mollified by the excuse/explanation that "it was always 1400 on top of the 600 in Congress". That difference is a month's rent for a national-median 2 bedroom apartment. Fifteen million people or so are multiple months behind on rent with no hope of ever catching up on their own, the rental assistance subsidies are joke level compared to the scale of the need, and (holding aside the fact that a hell of a lot of people are already getting evicted, moratorium or no) you can't kick that can forever. Obviously the Republican answer is to dump them all into the incinerator, but I'm curious what the dems' end game is here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Whether the Democrats intended to lie or not (and I personally think it requires quite a bit of credulity to think they didn't), campaigning on "$2,000 checks" after the money already went out is not a problem that can be laid at the feet of voters. Most people don't read legislation to find out exactly what's in there, or even really pay much attention to politics until they start getting ads shoved in their faces. The Democrats know this. So, running ads that say "$2,000 checks" or show pictures of checks in the denomination of $2,000 with the knowledge that that's all most people are going to see is, at best, political malpractice. It doesn't matter that people "weren't paying attention" or whatever. The people designing and running the campaigns knew that was the case and, just as with any campaign where they come up with cutesy sound bites, was exactly what they were counting on to get their message across. It's not like they were unaware that the $600 checks were passed and had started going out. If anything, they should have been keenly aware of that fact. After that happened, their messaging stopped being a simple misunderstanding, and started being either egregious incompetence or a flat-out lie (and, when the end result is the same, it doesn't quite matter so much the intent). I'm not sure this will actually matter in the end. The GOP will probably try to use it to score points in the midterms and in 2024, but whether it actually sticks with anybody who doesn't typically follow this stuff, I don't know. Regardless of what they meant in their messaging, though, now that the issue's out there, the smart thing would be to just go with the promised $2,000 and not $1,400. An extra $600 isn't going to bother anybody who wasn't already going to be pretending to care about the deficit for the next four years, and it wins more goodwill from everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
I am extremely conservative when it comes to economic terms so with that said I cannot believe how little support has been given so far with the pandemic. People went from having stable work to being absolutely crushed. I am surprised there hasn't been more civil strife about this because the numbers on paper are shocking. At the end of the day, no one is at fault for this pandemic and every country has been hurt by it, even the ones that have weathered it fairly decently. Mark Blyth from Brown does a good job about talking about austerity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2bVGi0ReE It just doesn't work. You are going to shrink the economy by cutting back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I am extremely conservative when it comes to economic terms so with that said I cannot believe how little support has been given so far with the pandemic. People went from having stable work to being absolutely crushed. I am surprised there hasn't been more civil strife about this because the numbers on paper are shocking. Why do you think the frequency of protests and riots about blm, cop violence in general, and evictions has increased from "occasionally as a treat" to "literally every day" since March and has not stopped to this day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I am extremely conservative when it comes to economic terms so with that said I cannot believe how little support has been given so far with the pandemic. People went from having stable work to being absolutely crushed. I am surprised there hasn't been more civil strife about this because the numbers on paper are shocking. You can say you're extremely conservative in economic terms, but plainly you are not -- and that's cool and good! You are correct that greater support for people is the correct option here, in terms of maintaining the economy, saving lives, preventing unrest, etc. I do invite you to examine why you consider "hosed over by COVID" to be meaningfully different from "hosed over by other circumstances" in terms of whether financial support is deserved or appropriate, but this is a great first step.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I am extremely conservative when it comes to economic terms so with that said I cannot believe how little support has been given so far with the pandemic. People went from having stable work to being absolutely crushed. I am surprised there hasn't been more civil strife about this because the numbers on paper are shocking. and therefore, realizing this in relation to the last 30 years of crushing transfer of wealth means that you are no longer conservative....?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
As a non-American, I am clearly the most qualified to speak on behalf of the American voter, who only hears the campaign soundbites. When campaigning in Georgia, the Democrats clearly lied, repeating the promise of a $2000 check after the a $600 check had already been sent out. Checks are discrete things, you can't simply bunch them together and claim they're now one check. If you accept that kind of twisting the meaning of words, I feel like you're well on your way to arguing that a promise of "During the rest of 2021, we'll give you a monthly $1100 check" would be fulfilled by a $100 check every month because obviously it's monthly installments! Anyway, the compromise solution, which is a must under the leadership of the Democrats, is to give Georgians a $2000 check since they were actually promised that, while everyone else gets a $1400 check. Enigma89 posted:At the end of the day, no one is at fault for this pandemic and every country has been hurt by it, even the ones that have weathered it fairly decently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Something I feel is pretty noteworthy WRT this discussion is that there's not really any voices on why the checks shouldn't be $2000, it's all damage control and justification at best, which says to me "1400 is a really stupid idea". Will it lose voters? Who knows, probably not, but it's a completely unforced messaging error, happening from the same establishment group that has spent months taking a fat poo poo on Defund The Police for being 'bad messaging'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
They have (maybe had) a real opportunity to expand the base after so many people came out for the general, and have a real need to considering how some groups of minority voters are starting to break, and I have to imagine that for a first time D voter, or someone coming back to vote D for the first time in a while, coming right off the election with this is going to leave a very bad taste in your mouth. I've maintained 2022 is going to be disastrous but if the dems continue on like this it's going to be a bloodbath.Enigma89 posted:I am extremely conservative when it comes to economic terms so with that said I cannot believe how little support has been given so far with the pandemic. If you apply this (very solid) logic to say, other medical issues, or structural racism, or education access and/or debt, or crumbling infrastructure in poor and minority communities, or, or, or, you might find you're not nearly as economically conservative as you might have thought. Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Something I feel is pretty noteworthy WRT this discussion is that there's not really any voices on why the checks shouldn't be $2000, it's all damage control and justification at best, which says to me "1400 is a really stupid idea". Oh christ, yes. Anyone trying to bring up 1400 should never be allowed to talk about Defund The Police ever again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1355881104117526531 I know the term gaslighting gets misused a lot these days, but this is absolutely gaslighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 09:12
|
|
|
The #BidenLied tag now is disturbing. Abusive parent levels of 'shut up and smile you ungrateful brats'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
I hope he gets impeached and removed for bribing voters when the rest of the party fails by midterms to send out the $200 that makes up the rest of the $2,000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
it's pretty obvious the dems lied here. it's also pretty obvious why they lied, and how they could've come to the conclusion it was ok to lie. they started off campaigning for 2k checks while trump's covid relief bill was in the works. after it passed with only $600, they wanted to stick to the $2k messaging so as to not muddle things. the problem is that they wanted a short and snappy thing to say, and "you'll get a 2k check" is pretty short and snappy compared to "you'll get a 1.4k check to get you the 2k you deserved". unfortunately, they were not intending to deliver on the snappy message they were selling voters on if the dems valued truthfulness over branding, they would have run on 1.4k checks. it's still a big number, "you'll get a 1.4k check" is still over double what a repub dominated government gave them, etc. But it means they have to start from scratch on their messaging instead of building off the 2k messaging they had before. they also could've said "you'll get a 2k check" and actually meant they'll send out an additional 2k to people. dems chose neither of these options, instead choosing to push one message heavily, and another, different message much quieter. they're now stuck in a position where people are rightfully calling them liars, cause the dems said two conflicting things at the same time. personally, I think the dems thought this lie would be ok because to them the difference between 1.4k and 2k is insignificant (and they figured people would still be happy they were getting additional money). To them, hearing they're getting a 1.4k check instead of a 2k check would not be very disappointing, because to them the sums are not so different. this is a huge mistake though, and an incredible misunderstanding of people the dems need to be a strong base for them. for a large portion of this country, $600 is a pretty big amount, and the loss of that is a major disappointment. to people who paid attention to the loud "$2k checks!" message and missed out on the quieter "it's actually a $1.4k check to up the $600 to a $2k stimulus", this will be a fairly huge disappointment. no one likes being told they won't receive money they were promised, and the poorer you are, the more significantly disappointed you'll be by the "$600 loss". it seems pretty obvious that dems are stuck in a lie no matter what they do (putting out two conflicting messages tends to do that), and they now have the choice of how they lied. They can: 1. lie about bringing the stimulus to $2000 and instead send out $2k checks bringing the stimulus to $2600 2. lie about sending out $2k checks by sending out $1.4k checks and bumping the stimulus up to $2k personally, it seems to me that #1 is the way to go. a lot of people in D&D lament how uninformed voters are. considering they're who the dems want voting for them, they should know their audience and lie about bringing the stimulus to $2000 because that will be a much less obvious lie to most people. republicans trying to attack them on such a lie would not have as much ammo, and would just have to stick to "tax-and-spend democrats giving people too much money!!". #2 gives republicans very nasty ammo "they promised you this! they campaigned on $2k checks! and then they gave you less!!" and voters will fall for it cause dems crying about "actually our legislation was meant to..." won't resonate. the voters dems want to vote for them don't read dem legislation, or follow political news much at all. they're not invested, and they're much less likely to become invested in the dems if they perceive they were lied to. edit: as a side note, republicans will still attack dems as "tax-and-spend liberals" if dems hand out $1.4k checks. they're doing that right now in fact. they'll just dump "they lied to you!" on top of that if the dems foolishly continue with this "$1.4k check" plan Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
Honestly the dems hosed up the messaging. They probably always *meant* getting the other $1400 and calling it $2000 and got a little fast and loose for ads. Especially for Georgia; everyone was riding a "holy poo poo trump is gome and we have a chance to actually do some good" high. At this point, it won't piss off many people, but it will piss some people off and considering the margins the democrats have, they really can't risk pissing anyone off. They should bump it to 2k and if the moderates complain, lower the threshold a bit and start the rampdown at $50k from 2020 returns. People who have a job get a little stimulus and people who need it get more. Everyone's happy except the Republicans but they can eat poo poo. But since it's the democrats, they cant pass this without loving *something* up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Meatball posted:Honestly the dems hosed up the messaging. They probably always *meant* getting the other $1400 and calling it $2000 and got a little fast and loose for ads. Especially for Georgia; everyone was riding a "holy poo poo trump is gome and we have a chance to actually do some good" high. why did they say, long after the $600 passed, '$2000 checks' if that's what they meant, then? This isn't 'hosed up messaging' that's just called a lie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Meatball posted:Honestly the dems hosed up the messaging. They probably always *meant* getting the other $1400 and calling it $2000 and got a little fast and loose for ads. Especially for Georgia; everyone was riding a "holy poo poo trump is gome and we have a chance to actually do some good" high. that's called lying. they loving lied because they're liars and they don't give a poo poo about anyone. it's not a surprise, but the sheer number of people willing to defend this really obvious loving lying is depressing
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
The situation is very simple: - Dems promise x and barely maybe deliver x-y by the skin of their teeth and insist this is the best they can do. - Republicans promise 0 and always deliver 0. This is not a new phenomenon and I'm not sure why any of it is surprising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The situation is very simple: In terms of direct payments as of right now republicans have delivered $1800 and democrats $0.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
What I want to know is why so many people feel the need to defend the Democrats on this. Their unwillingness to admit that their team hosed up just reminds me of Republicans under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What I want to know is why so many people feel the need to defend the Democrats on this. Their unwillingness to admit that their team hosed up just reminds me of Republicans under Trump. Because if Democrats lied, it means they voted for a bunch of dipshits who hosed up handing out free money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
I think for a lot of people the feeling of being right matters a lot more than the actual material outcome, which is why libs get so pissed at lefties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/demswatch/status/1356282041889861632
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What I want to know is why so many people feel the need to defend the Democrats on this. Their unwillingness to admit that their team hosed up just reminds me of Republicans under Trump. Libs care more about unity between Democrats and Republicans than human lives
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
This needs to be one of those ten hour loop videos
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
IK Notice Just a reminder, this isn't CSPAM lite and if you want to post in here about the check issue, go nuts. But either put some effort into your posts or don't bother posting. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
We should stop fighting about $2000 vs $1400 when there's more than enough time for Biden to compromise and support this new proposal for an even more heavily means-tested $1000 made by some very fine colleagues from across the aisle quote:President Joe Biden on Monday plans to meet with a group of Republican senators in a bid to secure bipartisan backing for his COVID-19 relief bill. Or is that $400?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:11
|
|