- cross-posted to:
- main
- cross-posted to:
- main
You must log in or # to comment.
Cheap potshots at other leftists will surely bring the revolution any day now
Lol get the fuck out of here with your three-day old account and your disingenuous criticism. She's pushed for raising the minimum wage to $15 as hard as anyone.
Do you have a specific criticism or just generalized "she's not a fighter!" horseshit?
i mean my accounts a little older and i kinda agree with him. i don't really think account age on chapo means anything, nor do i think the claim is disingenuous. you either believe in electoralism or you don't.
If a brand new account starts slinging vague shit like "this polarizing leftist never fights for anything!" that should set off your wrecker alarm. That's like the number one wrecker tactic -- dropping in and starting some pissing match that doesn't even have any firm criticism to latch onto.
It's not an issue of believing in electoralism. If your issue is with electoral politics you can make all sorts of specific criticisms of that. There's no specific criticism here. That should be discouraged for everyone, but especially people who just showed up.
we ban a lot of people here, way less lately actually, but it wouldn't be surprising to me if someone who has a point of view i disagree with has a fresh account. regardless, their opinion seemed pretty valid to me, and calling someone a wrecker for having an opinion you disagree with is not cool.
the specific criticism to me seems to be that AOC as a 'progressive' has made a lot of decisions that haven't exactly held up to what people expected of her.
i personally think she's just ok. i'd even go as far as saying she's the best chance we have as far as a progressive politician reaching the POTUSA. that is to say slim to none, since electoralism is garbage.
the specific criticism to me seems to be that AOC as a ‘progressive’ has made a lot of decisions that haven’t exactly held up to what people expected of her.
This isn't even a specific criticism -- what decisions? what were the expectations? -- but it's still far more substantive than driving by and yelling "AOC sucks, amirite?"
calling someone a wrecker for having an opinion you disagree with is not cool
That's not cool, but that's not what I did, either.
even if he did just say "AOC sucks amirite?" to me that would still be a valid opinion to have, because i've definitely had that thought at points in my life. if you want them to explain more why AOC sucks you could say stuff like "what makes you think AOC sucks?" rather than just accusing them right off the bat of being a wrecker.
specifically the expectations of not cozying up with pelosi when whoopi fuckin goldberg says "hey you need to fall in line." and then just cowering to 'mama bear's' political hierarchy.
usually i agree with you on a lot of points and think you're one of the better more frequent posters here and would like to not have a super souring experience with you on this, but i just think that you oughta give a little bit.
We will lose if we tear ourselves apart. One easy way to tear ourselves apart is by flinging vague accusations at people who are at least trying to move things in the right direction.
Criticism is fine, but it needs to be specific to avoid vague pissing matches where everyone is fighting on shifting ground. Point out something they actually did or something they actually said. Then we can have a conversation about real things instead getting bogged down in whether someone's characterization of those things is accurate.
rather than just accusing them right off the bat of being a wrecker
See, here's an example of a specific criticism. "You said X, in Y situation." This is useful because you can go back and see if I actually said that, and you can easily find whatever surrounding context is necessary. It's way more productive than "you suck" or "you're an asshole" or the like. This is how we should criticize people pulling in the same direction.
but that specific criticism is of you doing what you did. if you accept it as a legitimate criticism, and accept it as a decent example, please acknowledge the criticism itself.
No, I did not call them a wrecker right off the bat. Scroll up and read for yourself -- my initial reply to them was:
Cheap potshots at other leftists will surely bring the revolution any day now
This is another benefit to specific criticisms: if they're mistaken or otherwise inaccurate, it's easy to go and check what was actually said or done.
Uh yes we should refuse to be critical of social fascists, that will surely help the revolution :lenin-pensive:
Calling AOC a fascist is the worst kind of terminally online leftist bullshit.
When any normal person hears that they think "lol this person doesn't have a fucking clue about anything," and they're right.
Ah yes how could I forget to consider all the normal people who are not terminally online leftists on our Chapo Dot Chat website :michael-laugh: try another one
People wander in here, people take screenshots from here, and the stuff people post on here bleeds over into what they post elsewhere or how they talk to people in person.
We can't build a pipeline to the left by calling folks like AOC fascists. It does literally nothing positive and will push the "oh this person is living in fantasy land" button for everyone who doesn't already agree with you.
When you know you lost an argument so you double down on tone policing :LIB:
Liberalism is when you care so much about being edgy that you call one of the farthest-left politicians in the country a fascist even though that very obviously is counterproductive.
Lmao when AOC has the Oathkeepers throw the rest of us into the Landwehr you'll still be logging on and arguing about how she's Good, Actually
You should have been here yesterday then, I saw someone on here call AOC a leftist and jump on anyone who said she wasn't Good
Did I say the House is a leftist organization? Are we talking about all representatives here, or even all the Democrats in the House?
"They could theoretically be doing better" is a weak criticism to start, and far too many leftists run with that all the way to "they're bad, actually."
How the hell are we supposed to accomplish anything with that type of thinking?
the thing you want her to do is technically possible
It's not, though. AOC and company can't push a button and raise the minimum wage. The best they can do is push a button that gives them some small chance to raise the minimum wage in exchange for delayed stimulus checks and unemployment funding.
This is far from an obvious decision because it's so unlikely to work.
Am I a lib for just wanting the damn stimulus to go out already? That extra money would help out A LOT, less so a wage increase in 4 years. It's clear the dems aren't going to pass the min wage increase, on this bill anyway, maybe just get those checks out?
everyone needs some extra cash for sure. gotta kinda weigh it against the fact that if the squad actually used their fucking power, sure it may only last until the next election and then we're likely to lose a couple of them, but they'd have way more of an effect on actual policy.
they kinda already dropped the ball with the pelosi thing though, so none of this is expected to happen, i'm sure we'll get our means tested $1400 within the next two months, unless the vaccine works so well that they decide 'actually you don't need them.'
Pardon my ignorance, but how could the squad really change the game here? It's though to imagine enough of those dems that voted no to change
yeah they already kinda dropped the ball.
DORE WAS RIGHT lol
Listen to David Sirota explain this last night here: https://youtu.be/wSPFHLQsujE?t=2165
The proposed bill would've raised the minimum wage to $9.5 per hour immediately, which would, in a short amount of time, put more money in the pockets of those earning federal minimum than a one-time stimulus.
Didn't realize that part, which certainly adds something to this strategy. It really sucks that it comes at the expense of more immediate checks, but I guess that's the pressure they're trying to utilize to get this passed. It's just so dire, and the relative slam dunk of this bill being passed, but then not because of dems themselves, makes everyone look bad, except Trump who actually gave people money... ugh
Goddamn. If this was the best case to increase minimum wage... :sadness:
The most likely outcome of this strategy is (1) no minimum wage increase and (2) delayed checks.
i mean of course, but i'm willing to delay the checks for even that miniscule chance, cause otherwise the chance for (1) is 0.
If this gets us a 50% chance at $15, it's worth it. If it gets us a 5% chance, it isn't.
The key question is how likely this is to work. It's probably a lot closer to 5% than 50%.
agree with the second part, disagree with the first.
they could just delay legislation indefinitely if they felt like it.
Indefinitely delaying stimulus checks and unemployment funding directly hurts working people. There's a real cost here.
If we pay that cost and get at least a good shot at a $15 minimum wage, that's one thing. But if we hurt working people for some remote chance at the increase passing, that's a bad call.
The only person who gets to inherit the failure to get the stimulus passed is Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. They are the only people anybody is seriously holding responsible for getting the checks out, as theyre the ones who promised 2K and a 15/hr wages.
The only person who should have been blamed for 2016 was Hillary, but we all saw how that went.
The only person who should have been blamed for underwhelming congressional gains in 2020 was Biden, but we all saw how that went.
whats the other choice though? wait until the corporations stop lobbying congress or however many decades it takes to get a fucking progressive majority and take our check for a months worth of shit and just accept that?
The other choice is to recognize when you're in a losing situation and not make it worse.
Here, that would mean not hurting (and pissing off) people who really need stimulus checks and unemployment.
i don't think keeping people at just edit: complaisant enough to accept what's going on is the opposite of a losing situation.
Yea, it would be playing with fire to delay the bill in an effort to demand the minimum wage increase goes in. Its a game of chicken that progressives might lose, and the delay it causes hurts all the democrats.
I'm not convinced this can work as the whole squad needs to vote it down and even if they do that I'm not convinced Pelosi can't find the extra vote. It passed originally in the house 219 to 212, for it to fail you need 4 squad members to actually vote no or you need 7 to abstain. In either scenario I'm not convinced Pelosi wouldn't make some right wing concessions and just get a couple votes from somewhere else, like one of the dems who abstained in the first vote.
$15 minimum wage needs to be its own bill so they can add a bunch of loopholes like it's not for teenagers or produce pickers and also it increases the military budget and lowers taxes for billionaires.
This might be worth a shot, but the odds are heavily stacked against it. Here's what would happen if the squad tried this:
- Succeeding would mean getting 8 Democratic senators to switch their votes. Many of those senators aren't up for reelection in 2022, so this whole saga might not even register when there's an opportunity to hold them accountable. Pretty sure there's more money spent on Senate races than on House races, so it's harder to primary them than it is to primary a member of the squad.
- Succeeding would also mean getting Democrats to overrule or fire the parliamentarian -- they just showed us they're willing to use that as an excuse for not passing this.
- If the squad announced they were sticking to their guns, mainstream media would attack them 24/7 on the parliamentarian thing. The line would be "we can't even pass this if all 8 senators get on board -- these unrealistic socialists have no idea what they're doing and are needlessly holding up your stimulus check, unemployment funding, etc."
That said, this might be worthwhile. Unlike the Force the Vote deal, there's actually something material to gain here (a win would mean raising the minimum wage; a win on the prior FTV deal would have meant seeing Medicare for All get voted down). But I'd say there's a single-digit percentage chance of it working, and it could easily be used to direct all sorts of public anger at the left.
Either way, the odds of success are so low we shouldn't be getting pissy at each other over this. That was the real takeaway of the FTV thing -- that we have to learn the difference between a situation where we have a real chance and it's worth going to the mat over vs. a situation where we're picking different flavors of losing and we shouldn't poison the well over it.
"We're fighting for the promise Joe Biden was elected on, even if Joe isn't willing to. In this pandemic working people deserve a living wage. Let's treat them like Heroes by treating them like people first."
You can always make a counter argument, but that's not going to get 24/7 airtime like "these unrealistic socialists are holding up your stimulus check" will.
Airtime doesn't matter if they get $15/hr passed. Which they would, because they'd have Biden by the balls.
they’d have Biden by the balls.
That's unrealistic. You'd just hear "we can't pass this anyway, the parliamentarian said so" nonstop. And most Democrats would buy it, like they bought the parliamentarian bullshit when it first was floated, and like they bought the $1400+$600=$2000 garbage.
There's a slight chance delaying the bill would lead to talking points like that falling apart, but this isn't anything close to a "press this button and win" scenario.
If the Squad were to stand their ground here, they would be foolish to not point out that the parliamentarian is not elected and has no actual power over this, their opinion only advisory at every moment they're on TV.
Their slogan should become "Kamala Harris does not want to give you a $15 minimum wage." until it causes a ringing in people's ears.
Who's going to get more media exposure: the folks calling bullshit on the parliamentarian, or the folks who've already sold the line that the parliamentarian said we can't go forward with this?
Do rank-and-file Democrats, who were fine voting for Biden, really give a shit about the minimum wage?
In the best case scenario this is nowhere close to a guaranteed win. I'm not even sure there's a 50% chance at this succeeding.
Presumably these networks would like to have AOC on to berate her, which is when she would say these things that make it obvious who has the power to do what.
It's actually 100% a guaranteed win, because they can't pass anything without it. And Biden desperately needs to pass this. But like all things the left has won in US history, it takes being willing to withstand pain in the moment.
The media is smart enough to know that blacking out a leftist position is more effective than arguing against it. We just saw that with Bernie.
It’s actually 100% a guaranteed win
This is totally out of touch with reality.
Go read about Women's Suffrage or the pressure the Communist party put on FDR before you account for what is reality.
Biden has no choice here, it's pass this stimulus or see the entire economy collapse and people blaming him. A real Left coalition would use this to secure the $15 minimum wage he ran and was elected on.
Women’s Suffrage or the pressure the Communist party put on FDR
Things that are highly relevant in 2021
Biden has no choice here, it’s pass this stimulus or see the entire economy collapse and people blaming him
The squad would obviously be blamed for this, not Biden.
And lol at Biden voters giving a shit about some insincere promise he had on his website. They voted for "nothing will fundamentally change."
Briahna and Virgil just had her (Kshama Sawant) on to talk about this, she's great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSPFHLQsujE
David Sirota goes into detail on how exactly the Dem Socialists in Congress could refuse to vote on the stimulus if it doesn't include $15/hr and Biden would have to fold. (He's on at 35:00)
