oh no! how will AOC recover from this horrible gaffe?? speaking about climate change with Bernie, the horror
"Yea but it wasn't real communism".Well these things don't work in a vacuum. Wouldn't have happened if Democrat voters were less than enthusiastic among other things.
I won't deny that some people have misused it in the past, but there is still merit to the word and it is wrong to try and present it as an empty and meaningless buzzword when there is a perfectly good reason for people to be using it. As it stands, it became a go-to insult after 2016 for a very good reason!But my point is that's generally not what's happening when the phrase is thrown around. You can say that that's the way those words typically have been used in the past and people would pretty much agree, but post-2016 they've become go-to insults to anybody who doesn't fall 100% in line with the Justice Democrats or the Democratic Socialists of America or Bernie Sanders-- basically anything in that particular sphere of influence. It's, "You're not as pure as I am and therefore you're worthless"-- where pure is defined entirely by conformity to the speaker's political identity as opposed to the previously extant meaning.
Which is why I don't understand the concern trolls coming in here in droves saying "she better learn or else!!!!!!!". AOC is absolutely tame, particularly when it comes to challenging moderate Dems.
If she's got them all in a tizzy already, then they better buckle in over the next decade because there's going to be even tougher ones than her coming up the pipeline.
"stealing airtime and public consciousness" is absolutely stellar bullshit dude, props for thatWell, when a 20-something freshman comes along who wants to be seated in Congressional committees, is stealing airtime and the public consciousness, and is making demands of someone like Pelosi (which she eventually backed down from, to her credit) older hands in the party aren't going to have it. It's not necessarily that her policy opinions are that outlandish, but it's the fact that she has to take some time on the job she was just elected for and start building credibility. There is no shortcut to that.
Centrist dems have already drove the party to being coastal only, and coastal centrists certainly aren't going to bring them back. I don't think any wing of the party has an answer for that.This a minority opinion here at ERA but I believe centrists are the one who win presidential elections and flip enough seats for Dems to prevent their from being a coastal only party. And yes I'm centrist in my views so that is a ofcourse contributing to this opinion. Without centrist voters and politicians, Democratic Support would be a few point higher than the Green Party
Well these things don't work in a vacuum. Wouldn't have happened if Democrat voters were less than enthusiastic among other things.
The House member told "60 Minutes" he sat behind closed doors with party leadership, where he was told he had six months to raise $2 million.
"Your job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day. Your first responsibility is to make sure you hit $18,000 a day," he said he was told.
To do so, he said, members of Congress are given lists of names and scripts. Because members aren't allowed to fundraise on Capitol grounds, the campaign arms of the parties have setup call bank headquarters near the Capitol, where members can duck in to to spend a few hours on the phone.
Democrats should be thanking their fucking stars that people are paying attention to AOC, because who the fuck wants to watch Pelosi or Schumer or almost anyone else in the party talk their tame nonsense on TV?Well, when a 20-something freshman comes along who wants to be seated in Congressional committees, is stealing airtime and the public consciousness, and is making demands of someone like Pelosi (which she eventually backed down from, to her credit) older hands in the party aren't going to have it. It's not necessarily that her policy opinions are that outlandish, but it's the fact that she has to take some time on the job she was just elected for and start building credibility. There is no shortcut to that.
It was also centrists that thought it was more important to reach across the aisle and try and attract moderates/center right voters in red states than it was to actually shore up support in blue states that were in the process of swinging. 2016 happened for a lot of reasons that you can't pin down any one reason, but that absolutely contributed to the state of today.Centrist dems have already drove the party to being coastal only, and coastal centrists certainly aren't going to bring them back. I don't think any wing of the party has an answer for that.
Well these things don't work in a vacuum. Wouldn't have happened if Democrat voters were less than enthusiastic among other things.
I scratched my head when I read that. How is AOC "stealing airtime and the public consciousness?" She's mostly been defending herself from ridiculous attacks from the right and enthusiastically advocating for policies she ran on. Hell, half the attention she gets would be cut in half if the right didn't have derangement syndrome about AOC."stealing airtime and public consciousness" is absolutely stellar bullshit dude, props for that
from the studio that brought you "terf is a slur" and "neoliberal is a slur" comes a brand new adventure in political moderation
You taking my quote out of context and twisting it into something I didn't say is also very telling.
"We suffered a major defeat in 2016 and don't know why. Anyway, let's attack the face of our 2018 resurgence."ah yes, i wonder why voters would not be enthusiastic about the democratic party.
couldnt be the party's fault
You taking my quote out of context and twisting it into something I didn't say is also very telling.
"stealing airtime and public consciousness" is absolutely stellar bullshit dude, props for that
I scratched my head when I read that. How is AOC "stealing airtime and the public consciousness?" She's mostly been defending herself from ridiculous attacks from the right and enthusiastically advocating for policies she ran on. Hell, half the attention she gets would be cut in half if the right didn't have derangement syndrome about AOC.
I was pretty clear about the specificity of the usage.As someone who agrees with your original meaning, I would cautiously advise you that you didn't really put it across that well; so it's easy to twist into something you didn't say.
I said a certain type of poster uses it as a slur, not that it inherently was a slur.It's not "ERA's", its lefties who use it as a slur against anyone to the right of "overthrow capitalism."
I was pretty clear about the specificity of the usage.
I said a certain type of poster uses it as a slur, not that it inherently was a slur.
You still aren't quite helping yourself here by dying on the hill of using the term "slur"I was pretty clear about the specificity of the usage.
I said a certain type of poster uses it as a slur, not that it inherently was a slur.
sorry i didn't know you were expecting a reply but i don't think it's worth my timeNotice you didn't bother to respond to my earlier post... I'd imagine it's because you don't have an answer.
Why would need help when there's nothing wrong with the statement?You still aren't quite helping yourself here by dying on the hill of using the term "slur"
sorry i didn't know you were expecting a reply but i don't think it's worth my time
i was just laughing at the idea that this woman who's been thrust into the spotlight and has been dealing with it with remarkable charisma and grace has "stolen" attention away from the widely hated bloodless vampires who make up most of congress
Because, if you go beyond the textbook definition of the term, "slur" as a term carries certain emotional connotations that make you look off for trying to say that somebody using centrist to describe you is a "slur"Why would need help when there's nothing wrong with the statement?
It's used as an insult, invective, etc. (whatever you want to call it) by some rather than being used as a boring neutral descriptor the way it's used everywhere else.
I am not even sure what point you're trying to make anymore.Why would need help when there's nothing wrong with the statement?
It's used as an insult, invective, etc. (whatever you want to call it) by some rather than being used as a boring neutral descriptor the way it's used everywhere else.
what i think is that convincing you is irrelevant and whatever happens on resetera matters not even slightly.So that I understand correctly: A response as to why your ridiculous worldview is childish and likely currently impossible to bring to fruition 'isn't worth your time'.
Are you just screaming at the clouds then or something?
When do we want change?? NOW!!
How are we gonna get it?? .... More details on that later!
It's childish. I'd like to actually hear how you think we can make any appreciable changes without getting more people elected to office. Even the dreaded centrists!
what i think is that convincing you is irrelevant and whatever happens on resetera matters not even slightly.
i post here to kill time when work is slow. none of this is political action and if i don't reply to you it's because i don't care. feel free to block me if that bothers you.
Because there's "centrist" in the way most people use it regarding politics, someone who's to the right of the Dem caucus or left of the GOP caucus on economic issues, and is a neutral descriptor.
is it my job to come up with the nitty gritty details on committee assignments and legalese? what the party has been doing for the last few decades hasn't worked, and what AOC is doing now seems like a better way forward. call me idealistic or stupid if you like but appealing to the utter disaster that is the political status quo has no purchase with me at all.Nah, I'm gonna press you on this.
Take as much time as you need. I'd love a well-thought response to my question. You obviously want real change... Great. I agree.
How do you get there?
"We don't have the time to wait for changes to our climate policy" isn't an actual solution. This is a forum, where people exchange ideas. Why not actually share them?
Yes, you are right. The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. But again, this is known and you're not even saying anything meaningful at all. If you take offense to people being labeled as centrist I don't really know what to tell you.Because there's "centrist" in the way most people use it regarding politics, someone who's to the right of the Dem caucus or left of the GOP caucus on economic issues, and is a neutral descriptor.
And then there's "centrist" in the way a subset of far-lefties use it, which is to refer to anyone on the left half of the axis who isn't all the way to "capitalism needs to be replaced", and is often used as a perjorative.
And understanding that there's two wildly different definitions at play is critical to understand why people are talking past each other when the term gets used.
is it my job to come up with the nitty gritty details on committee assignments and legalese? what the party has been doing for the last few decades hasn't worked, and what AOC is doing now seems like a better way forward. call me idealistic or stupid if you like but appealing to the utter disaster that is the political status quo has no purchase with me at all.
"constantly giving the Republicans everything they want, letting them go further and further right and following them there, not fighting for the electorate, etc etc etc" = "having ways to do things""having ways to do things hasn't worked" is a galaxy brain take if i've ever seen it
Nah, I'm gonna press you on this.
Take as much time as you need. I'd love a well-thought response to my question. You obviously want real change... Great. I agree.
How do you get there?
"We don't have the time to wait for changes to our climate policy" isn't an actual solution. This is a forum, where people exchange ideas. Why not actually share them?
is it my job to come up with the nitty gritty details on committee assignments and legalese? what the party has been doing for the last few decades hasn't worked, and what AOC is doing now seems like a better way forward. call me idealistic or stupid if you like but appealing to the utter disaster that is the political status quo has no purchase with me at all.
You know he's lambasting you over specifically the "stealing airtime" line right? Because it is a stupid line because half the reason she's on the air so much is because the Republicans are desperate to find mud to sling at her.
And center left means a lot of different things, from the labor protectionist rust belt to the leftist libertarian southwest to the corporatist technocrats of the mid atlantic. But it's always the corporate technocrats that get to present as the nation's center.It was also centrists that thought it was more important to reach across the aisle and try and attract moderates/center right voters in red states than it was to actually shore up support in blue states that were in the process of swinging. 2016 happened for a lot of reasons that you can't pin down any one reason, but that absolutely contributed to the state of today.
That said, even if no wing of the party has an answer for that, nurturing people like AOC is certainly going to be critical in finding that answer and in solving the party's other problem of figuring out the next generation of leaders.
well personally i think the long-term solutions involve grassroots organization and direct action way more than they do the low-rent game of thrones we have in DC and i'm mostly into AOC because she seems to understand and feed into thatThat's fair. The status quo has not been working.
But at some point we're gonna have to come to some kind of solution or, as a country, we will get further and further away from the country you want to see.
So until that solution requires something other than stacking the odds of success on the side of the party that mostly agrees with your principles, I don't see another solution. If you have one, I would very much like to hear it. You need the Joe Manchins as much as you need the Ocasio-Cortezes of the party to move forward, as far as I can see it.
well personally i think the long-term solutions involve grassroots organization and direct action way more than they do the low-rent game of thrones we have in DC and i'm mostly into AOC because she seems to understand and feed into that
The problem is that this kind of pragmatism was commonly talked about in 2016, and it ultimately didn't work. At some point, you just have to recognize when you need to be focusing your efforts elsewhere.That's fair. The status quo has not been working.
But at some point we're gonna have to come to some kind of solution or, as a country, we will get further and further away from the country you want to see.
So until that solution requires something other than stacking the odds of success on the side of the party that mostly agrees with your principles, I don't see another solution. If you have one, I would very much like to hear it. You need the Joe Manchins as much as you need the Ocasio-Cortezes of the party to move forward, as far as I can see it.
well personally i think the long-term solutions involve grassroots organization and direct action way more than they do the low-rent game of thrones we have in DC and i'm mostly into AOC because she seems to understand and feed into that
The problem is that this kind of pragmatism was commonly talked about in 2016, and it ultimately didn't work. At some point, you just have to recognize when you need to be focusing your efforts elsewhere.
We need to focus on more people like AOC and less on people like Manchin in the long run. One is the future of the party, while one is a regrettable holding pattern from a much worse era.