Do you live in 14th Congressional District of New York?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
New York Primary: Ocasio-Cortez Defeats Incumbent Joe Crowley
- Thread starter legacyzero
- Start date
Do you live in 14th Congressional District of New York?
You missed this gem.
This is someone who found the pulse of the matter. She may be wrong about the jobs guarantee -- it may be too early for Americans to accept UBI because they can't even accept how they're losing their jobs -- but boy, on fuckin' point evrwhere else that I've seen.
I sure did miss it :( She is saying stuff I really, really like.
And welcome, comrade!
On your second point, agreed.
On your first point, yeah it's an interesting concept until you think about how it's supposed to actually work. Many people want to work and create things, and imo education and safety nets/enabling of experimentation are the path to self-driven creativity and productivity, as opposed to the head-count/put-food-on-the-table mentality that drives much of the labor market.
YES! Finally some major great news! Progressives need to keep up the pressure!
This is how you put fear into the establishment
This is how you put fear into the establishment
You're the second person to "welcome" me on this forum on Cortez, but I never "joined". I think I was always here.
We may speak a lot because of Lobster Man, but I am very much a huge UBI supporter when I'm not dogpiling on that wannabee Joseph Campbell. By that nature, I have always been a comrade, I guess. ;)
Haha, no, though I am a part of Bernie's mailing list. I'm just so fucking surprised that she beat the corporate back Dem in their own game. She had a fraction of the funding, how the hell did she beat the almighty dollar. Does grassroots campaigning actually work?
That and the fact she wants to fuck over ICE.
It's a whole other topic, but your opinion on talk like this will flip in the next 10 years. The truck drivers are going to all get phased out by automation very soon. They are just going to be the first.
It's going to take some real self-reflection about what kind of challenges we face in the very near future. Read up on Universal Basic Income, and the impending jobs apocalypse that's right about to happen. And if people don't plan for this ahead of time, the misery of society is going to lead to someone 100x worse than Trump.
Jobs Guarantee is a good start on getting people to take this issue seriously and at least start to think and talk about it. People do need a job, or else they typically die homeless.
Well, it is welcome to see you. It's nice to bond over something other than the lobster man
The question was about Marshall plans and federal job guarantees. She avoids going into any substantive detail on the matter and then brings up how she has a degree in economics and other people don't. Then she just states a basic concept that growth requires investment.
I'm not here to lecture liberal communities on who to pick to represent them, just as I wouldn't want those same communities to tell me who should be representing me. Yet most of her proposals are all just pure pandering with no explanation as to how it will be done or what will have to be given up to achieve it.
What happened is that a person more representative of their community won and it was probably overdue since I'm not sure how this Crowley guy held on for so long.
For reference, a job guarantee is proposed by conservatives in European nations. It's usually framed as the anti-UBI position.
It's unfortunate for the political left in America to be advocating for such a dipshit idea, but this position has to take into account the GOP's non-position I guess.
Offer a jobs guarantee as a platform, but never the endstate of that platform. If you go federal programs (5-10 year timeline) to UBI (right after that 10 year mark) then you're good. The left is proposing this as a restoration of unions, livable lives in terms of economics, and restoration campaign of the 20th century in terms of ideals. It will fail at every level in those regards simply due to automation; even humane wages is an opposing force to this.
The "good news" here is a federal jobs program, as an idea, seems to be supported by the "establishment left" so it's not a radical DSA position when it's something Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both advocating for, now. The bad just arises when you raise your head off the surface and think what's happening in a macro-scale sense, then you see the idea is straight up fairy magic nonsense.
Haha, yes, most definitely. When I'm not dogpiling on Lobster Man, I'm worried about the growing precariat problem, and I think I've mixed the two with him and his aversion to UBI and social change, but that's another topic and on a much less interesting person than Cortez, at the moment. ;)
Eh, I'm going to hold congressional candidates to a lower standard on this front than a presidential candidate honestly. Now if she doesn't walk into the floor in 2019 with a day one plan for how she wants to proceed than I'm with you
good for Ocosia-Cortez, Good to see new blood.
sucks for Crowley , he's one of the good Democrats. But he phoned it in and though it was a shoe-in.
oh well.
too many people are jumping the gun on Crowley, he's not a bad Democrat.
sucks for Crowley , he's one of the good Democrats. But he phoned it in and though it was a shoe-in.
oh well.
too many people are jumping the gun on Crowley, he's not a bad Democrat.
I support a "jobs guarantee for whomever wants one" instead of making people sit idle getting pity money from the well-off, which is what a UBI would currently be. There's plenty of work that can be done in America that may not be "profitable," but that still needs to be done.
This is literally the as to why automation won't lead to structural unemployment. That there is plenty of work to be done that isn't currently "profitable" but would be if less labour was needed to do what it is currently doing.
Assuming she stays in the House for a lengthy tenure, she's not going to have any major role for years. You start on some of the less important committees generally.
I see it as a win. Progressives feel energized and won't be surprised to see other primaries swing toward the left more.
I've seen zero Crowley material in my neighborhood in the past few weeks. At least nothing immediately recognizable. AOC's stuff has been everywhere and eye-catching, like this:
On my walk from the train to the school to vote this evening I must have ran into 8 enthusiastic AOC canvassers. Saw 2 bored looking Crowley people outside the school.
Who says a jobs program would emphasize that not "profitable" work? Because we're talking about jobs, which itself is a compartmentalized "canonical" view of what "real work is", that stuff is being ignored for the very obvious reason it's considered something that isn't a job.
So how would a jobs program actually fix this? Is it going to have to pull a "make-work" card? That gets us into what David Graeber calls "bullshit jobs" on one end, or into a sort of authoritative doubling down on what the erroneous nature of what a job even is, or an odd middle ground to what "proper work" is ala China's social credit concept. It keeps us with one of the worst ideas we've ever had to human survival without even examining it in a truly honest way.
We're in a world with more work to do than ever, but less jobs than ever to live in. A jobs program, no matter the kind, does nothing to destroy the dualistic arrangement we've made, and surely doesn't do as much of a good job as a UBI would to allow work to take precedence over a job.
That makes me like her even more. I don't know if that's going to have the desired effect for them.
of course they're scared, she is a woman. That automatically makes them froth at the mouth.
Because who can get enthusiastic about a corporate moderate that just wants everything to stay the same?
Hmm, sounds familiar for some reason.
Automation is going to continue to chisel away at the margins as it has been for decades now. We are not close to automating truck driving, contrary to those hyping self-driving cars and deep learning and whatever the new buzzwords are. Service and medical industry jobs are massive parts of the economy and we are certainly not on the threshold of automating those. And if we did experience such a massive burst in technological progress that we were able to automate most currently existing jobs, then productivity growth would likely also be so large that UBI would be easily affordable.
This is besides the point anyway, as UBI is a much more reasonable goal than guaranteed jobs. I would not be complaining if that were her platform. Hopefully as others have suggested guaranteed jobs is being pushed as a trojan horse for UBI that doesn't set off "moderates" who haven't thought about it very hard.
I feel like you should be required to have academic or professional experience in economics before being eligible to make economic laws
But that makes a lot of sense. So I see the problem
Yup. This is overlooked by most people against UBI. They just want to remain comfortable by not changing anything.
Yup. Her presence on the ground overwhelms his, at least in Jackson heights, where there is a massive Latino population.
She's in the streets, he's in my mailbox, where everyone remotely young either ignores or loathes.
Don't recall his records, but fwiw lots of people here hate him, and his brother.
Our generation has some really fuckin' energized political campaigners, if only there were more of us. We're young and hungry for change and difference.
Also yeah, her fucking logo work is on point. Her campaign went to fuckin' school. The exclamation points, the color contrast, her picture! It really does draw you in.
It's very soviet propaganda poster. Which is a good thing because those designs were on point.
It's a fucking fantastic logo.
That said, I bet there'll be at least one idiot who thinks her name is iOcasio based on that logo.
It can, but the particulars of this district made it more likely.
The current representative is an old white guy who hasn't been primaried in a decade, in a district that has since skewed majority minority, immigrant, with a large percentage of younger citizens. She's simply a better representative for the current electorate in that area.
I hope the Democratic party doesn't keep trying to rig the election like they are already trying to. People have optimism when they see people saying stuff that affects their lives, and people actually advocating for them. People sure had a ton of optimism in 2008 also. We need more than optimism here.
i see the smear campaign has already begun and he seems to have good policies and charisma but
as a leftist, i'm just not really sure what the strategy is for some. what evidence is there that the democratic party is capable of being reformed into a socialist party? kick all of the capititalist/imperialist apologists out? so, basically get rid of everyone?
or take the 'wide church' strategy? how? 'we need to be a capitalist party' and 'we need to be a socialist party' aren't compatible positions. they are contradictory. how do those two things exist within the same party? unless you're one of those people who believe that every time the government does something, it's socialism, rather than seeing socialism as a replacement of the capitalist mode of production by one organized by and structured for worker's interests and collective ownership.
is having one congressman who believes in it really going to help end ICE's reign of terror when the 'mainstream' of the party is so cowardly on the issue and unwilling to discuss big ideas like free movement? i don't know. how many different fundamentally contradictory positions can be held by one political party?
as a leftist, i'm just not really sure what the strategy is for some. what evidence is there that the democratic party is capable of being reformed into a socialist party? kick all of the capititalist/imperialist apologists out? so, basically get rid of everyone?
or take the 'wide church' strategy? how? 'we need to be a capitalist party' and 'we need to be a socialist party' aren't compatible positions. they are contradictory. how do those two things exist within the same party? unless you're one of those people who believe that every time the government does something, it's socialism, rather than seeing socialism as a replacement of the capitalist mode of production by one organized by and structured for worker's interests and collective ownership.
is having one congressman who believes in it really going to help end ICE's reign of terror when the 'mainstream' of the party is so cowardly on the issue and unwilling to discuss big ideas like free movement? i don't know. how many different fundamentally contradictory positions can be held by one political party?
Socialism and Capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. You seem to be confusing Socialism with Communism (which is idiotic).
Don't rig the election. Don't have a party leadership that massively favors one side and pushes every scale behind the scenes to the side they want.
Then all you have to do is run primaries. The voters will tell you who the better candidate is. It's not that complicated. No one has to get kicked out. They get voted out if someone is better. Then when you have a stronger, vetted candidate, they are stronger in the general too.
And don't take corporate money. And try and campaign for everyone, all 50 states.
It's certainly made Twitter a little more mentally healthy to browse tonight for me
Haha, that's the thing about grassroots. They'll shake the roots, but the leaves will be too busy to notice their tree being moved. Crowley underestimated his opponent, that his side thought they were clear cut winners from the start. Sounds familiar..
in what way are "worker or collective ownership of the means of the production" (the definition of socialism) and "ownership of the means of production by private owners for profit" (the definition of capitalism) not mutually exclusive? literally one calls for private ownership by capitalists and one calls for public ownership by workers. both of those things can't be true. unless you're one of those people that believes highways are an example of socialism
well, that's easier said than done. and would essentially mean a complete purge of the party.
You're confusing socialism with social democracy.
Social democracy is regulated capitalism with some nationalized industries.
Socialism is worker control of the means of production to produce for human need rather than profit. In other words, the abolition of private property and the market system - the very bedrock of capitalism.
Communism is a stateless society where technology has advanced to such a degree that nobody has to work anymore and the fruits of production can be equitably distributed.
It breathed new life into some people, but it now worries the people that were happy with the status quo and don't want to rock the boat for fear of a backlash or repeat of 2016. Personally, I'm hopeful this is a sign of the swing to come nationwide. Yes, it's NYC, but it's a swing further left than anyone expected. Maybe everywhere else will nudge in the same direction even if it's not to this extreme.
I don't want to be that guy... but I'm going to have to strongly disagree.
You're right, my mistake. I think that's what most people are currently implying with the term Socialism. To Tulpa's point, I don't think it's impossible to convert the current Democratic party into one that focuses on social democracy more so than just being the lesser of two corporatist parties.
The Clinton neo-liberal wing purged the whole party in the 90s already. They just did it through money. That purge happened across the whole country. Whoever had the most money won. Finally that is starting to slightly change because people are fed up enough with the current state of things.
it's pretty amazing how certain liberals are suddenly claiming to be fine with leftist primary challenges, as though as of 24 or 48 hours ago, they weren't totally full of rage and/or contempt for anyone associated with anyone who criticized Democrats from the left. change is real