Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

After being outspent 10:1. In a district that Crowley has represented since 2013 (he represented another New York district in the US House of Representatives from 1999 until then).

Ocasio-Cortez is notable for supporting the abolition of ICE, a federal jobs guarantee, medicare for all, ending private prisons, $15/hr minimum wage, a ban on fracking, and affordable housing.

Joe Crowley was notable for thinking himself possibly the next Democratic speaker of the house and having the backing of a bunch of corporations along with the rest of the Democratic establishment.

What does this say about the future of US politics?

*drops Switch controller*

WHAT?

WHAT?!

WHAAAAAAAT?!?! :o

A Justice Dem ACTUALLY managed to take down one of the major Corrupt Establishment Democrats?!

Wow, after Paula Jean lost to Joe Manchin, and after Alison lost to Feinstein I had kind of given up hope that any "big" names would be taken down this cycle. I legit had decided not to hope Alexandria Cortez would win just to avoid feeling disappointed again.

So this is hugely good news. Alright, progressives now have a beachhead in the house, and the Justice Dems finally showed that they have some teeth that CAN take out names worth a damn, heck yeah.

By no means is it a sea change, but this definitely shows that progressives and populist policies can't be simply ignored anymore. The powers that be will have to start paying attention. If not now, then real soon.

Seanchaidh:
Joe Crowley was notable for thinking himself possibly the next Democratic speaker of the house

Hah, the only house he's gonna speak in now is the DOG house.

Seanchaidh:
After being outspent 10:1. In a district that Crowley has represented since 2013 (he represented another New York district in the US House of Representatives from 1999 until then).

Ocasio-Cortez is notable for supporting the abolition of ICE, a federal jobs guarantee, medicare for all, ending private prisons, $15/hr minimum wage, a ban on fracking, and affordable housing.

Joe Crowley was notable for thinking himself possibly the next Democratic speaker of the house and having the backing of a bunch of corporations along with the rest of the Democratic establishment.

What does this say about the future of US politics?

Nothing yet. She has not even been elected, this was just the primary, however, it does not say much until we have these guys actually elected and take a majority in both houses. Dems do not even have a majority in congress little lone having a majority of progressives being elected over conservatives and centrists into their party as of yet. Do not count your chicken until they hatched. There is a reason you hear Zontar and others attempting to blame everything under the sun that is completely non related to socialists on socialists because they want to make that the next "dirty word" so that people associate negative connotation with it when it is really a positive for the vast majority of people who are not the 1%. They want to distort the meaning of the word with negative propaganda to make it more difficult for them to elect progressives such as this into office in the first place. They are directly targeting Bernie Sanders and his ilk because that is the only means they have to attack someone who has done such good works for the people is to distort reality enough to try to turn those good works into someone evil and sinister instead.

The same tactics they used in repeating lies enough times that people will believe them against Clinton will be used against " socialism" and those who do good things until people actually believe the lies over the truth. In they can take an organization with such a good rating and that has literally save hundreds of millions of lives and turn it into a fictional " shady slush fund" in the eyes of voters, they can turn anything against anyone. Reality, truth, facts are irrelevant if no one is willing to accept that as actual reality. That was how the republicans gained a majority and how they will continue to fight this, regardless of how " good" a candidate might be. It makes it very difficult for honest people to be able to survive in such an environment. Unless Democrats find a way to wake people up to reality, facts and truth that actually works, I am not seeing a hopeful future as of yet.

Seanchaidh:

What does this say about the future of US politics?

Hopefully that entryism is a viable strategy for the left-wing to gain power in the US. We will see what actually happens, but this is definitely a promising start.

Lil devils x:
He has not even been elected, this was just the primary, however, it does not say much until we have these guys actually elected and take a majority in both houses.

She*.

That aside, it says little about the overall movement. The 14th district in new york is mostly minority populated, and while I think Ocasio-Cortez's win is important for pushing a progressive agenda, Crowley wasn't exactly a blue dog. He consistently voted for liberal causes, I think his biggest misstep in the primary was skipping out on the debates with Ocasio-Cortez. That said, I'm all for the dem's becoming the party of small donations and eschewing big corporate money. Campaign finance reform will be a lot easier to legislate if we get majorities in the future and our reps don't feel beholden to corporate interests.

Seanchaidh:
What does this say about the future of US politics?

It's a good sign.

Not so much because it indicates an overall leftward shift - Ocasio-Cortez is the kind of candidate who could only win in the bluest of blue districts - but because it's likely to scare the balls out of establishment Democrats who have gotten used to safe elections in safe seats. Crowley didn't take the primary seriously; he infamously failed to show up to any of the primary debates and didn't appear to care about the actual concerns of his district, which is majority Hispanic. Ocasio-Cortez cut straight through that.

It's also another strike against the current campaign finance system, in which sucking up to wealthy donors and corporations is seen as a necessary evil in order to fund advertising campaigns and win re-election. Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 10:1 and still won, largely because of the power of a viral Youtube video, of all things. Modern technology has made political advertising a heck of a lot cheaper than it used to be - billboards and TV spots are less important than Youtube and Twitter, and throwing money at a race is no longer a guaranteed or even particularly reliable way of winning it. There's really no need for Democrats to sell their souls to the donor class anymore.

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

Jux:

Lil devils x:
He has not even been elected, this was just the primary, however, it does not say much until we have these guys actually elected and take a majority in both houses.

She*.

That aside, it says little about the overall movement. The 14th district in new york is mostly minority populated, and while I think Ocasio-Cortez's win is important for pushing a progressive agenda, Crowley wasn't exactly a blue dog. He consistently voted for liberal causes, I think his biggest misstep in the primary was skipping out on the debates with Ocasio-Cortez. That said, I'm all for the dem's becoming the party of small donations and eschewing big corporate money. Campaign finance reform will be a lot easier to legislate if we get majorities in the future and our reps don't feel beholden to corporate interests.

Thank you, I edited my post to reflect my error. I agree that it helps if our reps are not under corporate control, but I also hope that they are willing to take baby steps if that is all they can get to move forward in the meantime. Moving forward slowly is still better than not moving forward at all. I hope in this case she is willing to take what she can get in the meantime and not think it has to be all or nothing and be unwilling to vote for proposals that will take multiple parts to get each section through the gate an inch at a time. Sometimes that is exactly what it takes to make these things accomplished at all, some of those that want to push things farther forward than they are capable of right now are not as willing to "settle" for the very little they may be able to actually get. Hopefully she is capable of being able to skirt things in as well.

bastardofmelbourne:

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

God, Trump is just so insanely dumb and self-centered some times that it is honestly kind of endearing. Not actually endearing; just kind of. XD

BreakfastMan:

bastardofmelbourne:

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

God, Trump is just so insanely dumb and self-centered some times that it is honestly kind of endearing. Not actually endearing; just kind of. XD

While he is absurd, there is actually more to this than that. A newcomer coming in is going to have zero influence and a much more difficult time be able to drum up necessary support to actually be effective. The problem you wind up with when you have a bunch of newbies coming in is they do not actually know how to get things done so they are not as capable of getting things through and instead they fail miserably at every attempt due to lack of experience and connections. This was one of the things that Pelosi and many other " veterans" in congress is good at that bringing in new people very well may also mean losing their built up influence and know how to actually be able to do anything.

This does work in Trumps favor as he saw Crowley as a threat due to alliances, ability and know how and has no reason to feel threatened by "the new kid" coming in. Replacing too many seats within democrats too fast can be very bad for their ability to get things through the door. A better strategy for their effectiveness is if they overturn republican seats to democrats prior to challenging to existing seats once they have their footing in place. Too far to the left means also making it more difficult to win republican districts at all due to how the party is viewed overall. Conservative districts are not ready or willing to accept that much change, but instead we just need to make the seat less hostile to smaller changes first so they can at least continue to move forward. IF the democrats cannot win republican districts in order to gain a majority in congress, candidates like this was all for nothing and can ultimately cause more harm than good before it happens due to " association politics" played by trump and the rest of the GOP. Not unlike how they currently associate opposition with Pelosi and Clinton after painting them in a bad light as " being the same as".

The current Gop attack on socialism in combination with the replacement of candidates to progressives is shifting the battleground to make it more difficult for Democrats to flip more conservative districts, which in the end neutralizes the effectiveness of the democrats to being able to do anything at all due to not having a majority.

The single most important thing the democrats have to do right now is flip republican districts by any means possible, once they do that they can focus on moving left. Moving left too soon can cost them everything in the end. Even a few blue dog dems" are better than republicans right now, so I am concerned about the impact this will have on the elections democrats need to win the most in order to be able to accomplish anything at all. Not being in power means not being able to stop anything bad from happening in the meantime, which could mean that an election like this could wind up impacting districts where the democrats need to appear more conservative to win, causing them to lose in the districts they have to win. In that case it would have been better in the end for her not to be in office if it means costing the democrats the majority. We can only hope that doesn't happen though, but how effective republican association and repetition of lies has been, you can bet they will feed on it like piranhas on flesh.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
What does this say about the future of US politics?

It's a good sign.

Not so much because it indicates an overall leftward shift - Ocasio-Cortez is the kind of candidate who could only win in the bluest of blue districts - but because it's likely to scare the balls out of establishment Democrats who have gotten used to safe elections in safe seats. Crowley didn't take the primary seriously; he infamously failed to show up to any of the primary debates and didn't appear to care about the actual concerns of his district, which is majority Hispanic. Ocasio-Cortez cut straight through that.

It's also another strike against the current campaign finance system, in which sucking up to wealthy donors and corporations is seen as a necessary evil in order to fund advertising campaigns and win re-election. Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 10:1 and still won, largely because of the power of a viral Youtube video, of all things. Modern technology has made political advertising a heck of a lot cheaper than it used to be - billboards and TV spots are less important than Youtube and Twitter, and throwing money at a race is no longer a guaranteed or even particularly reliable way of winning it. There's really no need for Democrats to sell their souls to the donor class anymore.

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

Trump is just like, really fucking stupid, like literally stupid, like does not have a competent level of intelligence stupid. So was Bush, but he mostly lacked English skills.

Also let us not ignore the fascist undertones of this tweet.

'to HIS President', not even to 'The' President. People usually phrase leaders as his when ya know it is kings or dictators.

Or gods.

#TrumpIsAFascist

bastardofmelbourne:

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

Oh my gosh I'm just laughing my ass off. Wow. Just WOW, I don't even know why I didn't expect this. XD

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
What does this say about the future of US politics?

It's a good sign.

Not so much because it indicates an overall leftward shift - Ocasio-Cortez is the kind of candidate who could only win in the bluest of blue districts - but because it's likely to scare the balls out of establishment Democrats who have gotten used to safe elections in safe seats. Crowley didn't take the primary seriously; he infamously failed to show up to any of the primary debates and didn't appear to care about the actual concerns of his district, which is majority Hispanic. Ocasio-Cortez cut straight through that.

It's also another strike against the current campaign finance system, in which sucking up to wealthy donors and corporations is seen as a necessary evil in order to fund advertising campaigns and win re-election. Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 10:1 and still won, largely because of the power of a viral Youtube video, of all things. Modern technology has made political advertising a heck of a lot cheaper than it used to be - billboards and TV spots are less important than Youtube and Twitter, and throwing money at a race is no longer a guaranteed or even particularly reliable way of winning it. There's really no need for Democrats to sell their souls to the donor class anymore.

Trump, of course, has no idea what's going on.

Yeah, I don't think Trump understands how primaries work...

Trump is just like, really fucking stupid, like literally stupid, like does not have a competent level of intelligence stupid. So was Bush, but he mostly lacked English skills.

Also let us not ignore the fascist undertones of this tweet.

'to HIS President', not even to 'The' President. People usually phrase leaders as his when ya know it is kings or dictators.

Or gods.

#TrumpIsAFascist

Its moments like that that make me wonder if hardline conservatives have a secret fetish for being dominated by someone only of same sex and complexion.

a federal jobs guarantee

What exactly does that entail?

Meiam:

a federal jobs guarantee

What exactly does that entail?

Basically government should provide $15/hr jobs to anyone who wants a job.

Abolishing ICE seems more like a reaction than a solution. ICE probably needs some major overhaul, but getting rid of it solves nothing if not creating more problems.

ex951753:

Meiam:

a federal jobs guarantee

What exactly does that entail?

Basically government should provide $15/hr jobs to anyone who wants a job.

Abolishing ICE seems more like a reaction than a solution. ICE probably needs some major overhaul, but getting rid of it solves nothing if not creating more problems.

What problems would it create?

The National Capitalism Rifle Association had this to say:

Not seeing or hearing anything there that makes me like her any less. (Honestly, I could only wish she was proposing as much socialism as they think she is; she's really more of a Social Democrat, which is fine for now).

Lil devils x:
A newcomer coming in is going to have zero influence and a much more difficult time be able to drum up necessary support to actually be effective.

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to have trouble implementing her agenda without legislative allies. Legislative allies she probably won't find in the machine democratic party which is currently dominated by moneyed interests regardless of how long she has been in office. Because establishment Democrats aren't paid to have an agenda like hers. Let's be clear on the reason AOC's agenda might be called "politically impossible"; it's not because it 'costs too much' in the richest country on earth, nor because it is not appealing to enough voters (with majorities approving most of the items on her agenda)-- it's because it lacks the endorsement of GlaxoSmithKline et al.

I dont really see a federal job gaurantee as feasible, especially since state/local employ 10x more workers than federal. A state job guarantee could work though (state would get back a good chunk of the money they spend to pay the worker through taxes). Not to mention its easier to move around a state than to move from one side of the country to the other.

Ryotknife:
I dont really see a federal job gaurantee as feasible, especially since state/local employ 10x more workers than federal. A state job guarantee could work though (state would get back a good chunk of the money they spend to pay the worker through taxes). Not to mention its easier to move around a state than to move from one side of the country to the other.

Most proposals for a federal jobs guarantee that I've seen would work somewhat like medicaid in that they provide funds to states (or in this case, cities or other local levels of government) to actually implement the program with a degree of leeway in exactly how they do so.

Seanchaidh:

Ryotknife:
I dont really see a federal job gaurantee as feasible, especially since state/local employ 10x more workers than federal. A state job guarantee could work though (state would get back a good chunk of the money they spend to pay the worker through taxes). Not to mention its easier to move around a state than to move from one side of the country to the other.

Most proposals for a federal jobs guarantee that I've seen would work somewhat like medicaid in that they provide funds to states (or in this case, cities or other local levels of government) to actually implement the program with a degree of leeway in exactly how they do so.

That would be a logical way to do it, but i have to admit the idea makes me....leery. Not the gaurantee government job part, but federal funds making up that significant of an amount of any state/local agencies budget. I feel it would give too much power to federal government, especially the executive branch.

Some quick napkin math:
20,000,000 state/local employees
6,000,000 unemployed

so with federal job program that would be ~26 million state/local workers, an increase of 30%. How much the respective state/local agencies budgets will increase, that is a bit harder to predict (wages, overhead, benefits, administrative, new facilities), but it looks significant enough that if someone like say Trump decided he didnt like X state and pulled funding for this job gaurantee program, it would be catastrophic for that state.

Now, to be fair, there are a LOT of government agencies, both federal and state, that could really use that manpower (Defense has more than bloody enough though), especially on the worker/laborer end of the spectrum (have more than enough managers/administration).

Majestic Manatee:
Its moments like that that make me wonder if hardline conservatives have a secret fetish for being dominated by someone only of same sex and complexion.

This is actually a theory I've been mulling over since Trump was elected.

I always heard tales of the hard-fighting, Pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps, last bastion of individualist of the Republican. In just two years of Trump's election, I've seen people bow their heads and revere this man like their literal messiah.

I don't know if it's actually going to the level of same sex and complexion. There are few republican households that I know of that Dad wasn't in charge of everything. That even questioning him would earn wrath and ire because Dad maintains the universe in some of these households' eyes. I think A good deal of republicans grow up with that 'Dad knows everything' mentality, get emotionally conflicted because they are supposed to be on the same standing with daddy when they become an adult, and look for the next authority figure to continue the cycle of telling them what to think and how to behave. The President is the logical next step.

And of course, this is more for Policy, ultra conservative Republicans than Fiscal Republicans or Limited Government Republicans.

ex951753:

Meiam:

a federal jobs guarantee

What exactly does that entail?

Basically government should provide $15/hr jobs to anyone who wants a job.

Was afraid so, I'd need to see the actual details but this is a recipe for disaster on so many front it would legitimately make me think consider voting republican.

There's a limited amount of work that needs to be done, you can't have them do anything technical because everyone who actually has the required qualification would be able to find a job by themselves. So you're stuck with people with potentially not even high school and you need to find something for them to do, and a lots of them. Many would probably be old too so even mildly physically demanding job wouldn't necessarily work. And what do you do when there terrible at there job, can you fire them? Won't they just re apply right away? This would just ends up with them filling DMV with un trained people who are just going to do nothing all day. A lot of middle east country work this, like Saudi, where people are just given job for no reason and they have terribly inefficient service.

Plus it's hard for the private sector to compete, people know they can just apply to have a job where they can do nothing all day and get pay, so the private sector need to compensate by paying even more, but there's plenty of job that just make no sense economically speaking (say going from cleaning your store twice a day to once a day lose you 2 customer per day, maybe that make sense at 10$ an hour but not at 20$).

Instead pay them to get training so they learn skill necessary to find job in the first place (make them repeat high school if needed). Honestly I'd be far more okay with universal income than guaranteed job. It still cost a tons of money, but at least you don't have to manage the peoples. And this is only going to get more ridiculous with time, automation is going to remove more and more jobs, what do you have the people do?

Meiam:

There's a limited amount of work that needs to be done, you can't have them do anything technical because everyone who actually has the required qualification would be able to find a job by themselves.

There are certain issues with a federal jobs guarantee (or perhaps obstacles to overcome), but this is definitely not one of them. Getting a job requires a great deal more than the necessary qualification or expertise to do it: it requires a vacancy, it requires geographic closeness, it requires a successful interview (which often is unrelated to whether or not the candidate is able to do the job). Plenty of people who have valuable technical skills are unemployed, not because the skill cannot be put to good use, but because all these other variables are not aligned.

Meiam:

So you're stuck with people with potentially not even high school and you need to find something for them to do, and a lots of them. Many would probably be old too so even mildly physically demanding job wouldn't necessarily work. And what do you do when there terrible at there job, can you fire them? Won't they just re apply right away?

Why are you imagining that under a federal jobs guarantee, specific institutions would have no choice but to hire somebody? You're making a rather dramatic assumption about how it would work, in order to lead you to the conclusion that it won't work.

Meiam:

Plus it's hard for the private sector to compete, people know they can just apply to have a job where they can do nothing all day and get pay, so the private sector need to compensate by paying even more, but there's plenty of job that just make no sense economically speaking (say going from cleaning your store twice a day to once a day lose you 2 customer per day, maybe that make sense at 10$ an hour but not at 20$).

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, obviously nothing about a federal jobs guarantee means that people will just be paid to do nothing. It's the opposite of that-- people would still be subject to workplace rules, regulations, targets.

Secondly, the private sector has never in its existence had difficulty competing. The private sector is an incredibly crowded market, with many more companies than need to exist... existing and getting along just fine. There is more wealth, more stimulus, more employment in the private sector than anywhere else. It is not threatened in the slightest by a relatively small number of additional employees in the public sector (as opposed to being unemployed).

This is a complete non-issue.

Silvanus:

There are certain issues with a federal jobs guarantee (or perhaps obstacles to overcome), but this is definitely not one of them. Getting a job requires a great deal more than the necessary qualification or expertise to do it: it requires a vacancy, it requires geographic closeness, it requires a successful interview (which often is unrelated to whether or not the candidate is able to do the job). Plenty of people who have valuable technical skills are unemployed, not because the skill cannot be put to good use, but because all these other variables are not aligned.

Well all of those problem will still exist with a guaranteed job, there will still need to be a vacancy, still need to be geographically close and while someone can do the job, they might not be appropriate for the workplace, which is what the interview is there for (don't care how good someone is at being an accountant, if they're an absolute dick in the workplace no one will want to work in the same office as them). So what do you do then? You either create a job for there specific skill in there specific area for no other reason than its guarantee or you have them work in an unrelated field, which comes back to the same as hiring an unskilled person (alternatively you could force them to move to get the job, but of they were already willing/able to move they'd have done so themselves).

Silvanus:

Meiam:

So you're stuck with people with potentially not even high school and you need to find something for them to do, and a lots of them. Many would probably be old too so even mildly physically demanding job wouldn't necessarily work. And what do you do when there terrible at there job, can you fire them? Won't they just re apply right away?

Why are you imagining that under a federal jobs guarantee, specific institutions would have no choice but to hire somebody? You're making a rather dramatic assumption about how it would work, in order to lead you to the conclusion that it won't work.

Well how else would it work? You need them to work somewhere, if it's something worth doing it would already be done and there would already be a department that would handle it. Otherwise you need to create the "ministry of useless job that don't need to be done but we gotta hire all these peoples for political reason so there you go".

Silvanus:

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, obviously nothing about a federal jobs guarantee means that people will just be paid to do nothing. It's the opposite of that-- people would still be subject to workplace rules, regulations, targets.

Secondly, the private sector has never in its existence had difficulty competing. The private sector is an incredibly crowded market, with many more companies than need to exist... existing and getting along just fine. There is more wealth, more stimulus, more employment in the private sector than anywhere else. It is not threatened in the slightest by a relatively small number of additional employees in the public sector (as opposed to being unemployed).

So if they're still subject to regulation, does that mean they can be fired? Then what? They become unemployable for life? They have a grace period?

And I'm not saying that the private sector will be destroyed, I'm saying that this will cause many jobs in the private sector to stop existing because people wouldn't work them since they would always have the choice of taking the guaranteed federal job. Why would someone take a 15$ job in the private sector, when they could have the 15$ job in the federal version with better healthcare coverage and such? To compete the private sector would have to pay a lot more for even very mundane job, which would just cost them money, so they won't. So the system would destroy real valuable job to create fake useless one, I can't think of many worse economic policy.

Seanchaidh:
The National Capitalism Rifle Association had this to say:

Not seeing or hearing anything there that makes me like her any less. (Honestly, I could only wish she was proposing as much socialism as they think she is; she's really more of a Social Democrat, which is fine for now).

Lil devils x:
A newcomer coming in is going to have zero influence and a much more difficult time be able to drum up necessary support to actually be effective.

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to have trouble implementing her agenda without legislative allies. Legislative allies she probably won't find in the machine democratic party which is currently dominated by moneyed interests regardless of how long she has been in office. Because establishment Democrats aren't paid to have an agenda like hers. Let's be clear on the reason AOC's agenda might be called "politically impossible"; it's not because it 'costs too much' in the richest country on earth, nor because it is not appealing to enough voters (with majorities approving most of the items on her agenda)-- it's because it lacks the endorsement of GlaxoSmithKline et al.

You are preaching to the choir here. I know full well what they are up against to get things done. That is my worry with the early push to go left when they have not even managed to gain a majority yet. In my ideal they are all farther left than most can imagine, but in reality I understand we have to try and stop the bleeding first right now before we can even hope to rebuild the foundation and start taking baby steps again. It is great that they can elect candidates like this, as long as it does not cost them everything to do so. Meaning if they fail to win republican districts due to her election, they just screwed everyone over to get nothing done.

I can only hope that does not happen, but I am not holding my breath, I know how these guys operate. The attack on socialism right now is widespread at this point. Why do you think every other word out of Zontar's mouth as of late is " socialism!!"? if they repeat lies enough times, people will believe it. They are playing the word association game.

I want to see things start to improve faster, but that is not going to happen without flipping republican seats.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
The National Capitalism Rifle Association had this to say:

Not seeing or hearing anything there that makes me like her any less. (Honestly, I could only wish she was proposing as much socialism as they think she is; she's really more of a Social Democrat, which is fine for now).

Lil devils x:
A newcomer coming in is going to have zero influence and a much more difficult time be able to drum up necessary support to actually be effective.

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to have trouble implementing her agenda without legislative allies. Legislative allies she probably won't find in the machine democratic party which is currently dominated by moneyed interests regardless of how long she has been in office. Because establishment Democrats aren't paid to have an agenda like hers. Let's be clear on the reason AOC's agenda might be called "politically impossible"; it's not because it 'costs too much' in the richest country on earth, nor because it is not appealing to enough voters (with majorities approving most of the items on her agenda)-- it's because it lacks the endorsement of GlaxoSmithKline et al.

You are preaching to the choir here. I know full well what they are up against to get things done. That is my worry with the early push to go left when they have not even managed to gain a majority yet. In my ideal they are all farther left than most can imagine, but in reality I understand we have to try and stop the bleeding first right now before we can even hope to rebuild the foundation and start taking baby steps again. It is great that they can elect candidates like this, as long as it does not cost them everything to do so. Meaning if they fail to win republican districts due to her election, they just screwed everyone over to get nothing done.

I can only hope that does not happen, but I am not holding my breath, I know how these guys operate. The attack on socialism right now is widespread at this point. Why do you think every other word out of Zontar's mouth as of late is " socialism!!"? if they repeat lies enough times, people will believe it. They are playing the word association game.

'Those dirty socialists calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi!'

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
The National Capitalism Rifle Association had this to say:

Not seeing or hearing anything there that makes me like her any less. (Honestly, I could only wish she was proposing as much socialism as they think she is; she's really more of a Social Democrat, which is fine for now).

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to have trouble implementing her agenda without legislative allies. Legislative allies she probably won't find in the machine democratic party which is currently dominated by moneyed interests regardless of how long she has been in office. Because establishment Democrats aren't paid to have an agenda like hers. Let's be clear on the reason AOC's agenda might be called "politically impossible"; it's not because it 'costs too much' in the richest country on earth, nor because it is not appealing to enough voters (with majorities approving most of the items on her agenda)-- it's because it lacks the endorsement of GlaxoSmithKline et al.

You are preaching to the choir here. I know full well what they are up against to get things done. That is my worry with the early push to go left when they have not even managed to gain a majority yet. In my ideal they are all farther left than most can imagine, but in reality I understand we have to try and stop the bleeding first right now before we can even hope to rebuild the foundation and start taking baby steps again. It is great that they can elect candidates like this, as long as it does not cost them everything to do so. Meaning if they fail to win republican districts due to her election, they just screwed everyone over to get nothing done.

I can only hope that does not happen, but I am not holding my breath, I know how these guys operate. The attack on socialism right now is widespread at this point. Why do you think every other word out of Zontar's mouth as of late is " socialism!!"? if they repeat lies enough times, people will believe it. They are playing the word association game.

'Those dirty socialists calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi!'

Yup... socialists are the new " blame Obama" everyone here locally is openly blaming socialists now in public for anything and everything like they did Obama. Same song they just altered the lyrics a little bit. The problem is this method has been effective for them in the past, so of course they are continuing to use it. Democrats have yet to find a means to counter their disinformation blitz, until they do, I am not sure how they are going to gain enough seats to do much of anything.

I want this damage being done to stop and things to turn around as quickly as possible and if that means we suffer a few blue dog dems to give dems back majority control to do so, I think that price is worth it to pay if it means we can start to stabilize and move forward albeit slowly, it is still better than plummeting backwards as we currently are.

As much as I would love a whole congress full of Bernie Sanders, I am realistic in understanding it is going to take much much more for us to actually get to that point and I do not want everything and everyone destroyed while waiting for that to happen. There is time to improve the quality of democrats we have available AFTER they secure the necessary seats to make what they do even matter at all.

Lil devils x:

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

You are preaching to the choir here. I know full well what they are up against to get things done. That is my worry with the early push to go left when they have not even managed to gain a majority yet. In my ideal they are all farther left than most can imagine, but in reality I understand we have to try and stop the bleeding first right now before we can even hope to rebuild the foundation and start taking baby steps again. It is great that they can elect candidates like this, as long as it does not cost them everything to do so. Meaning if they fail to win republican districts due to her election, they just screwed everyone over to get nothing done.

I can only hope that does not happen, but I am not holding my breath, I know how these guys operate. The attack on socialism right now is widespread at this point. Why do you think every other word out of Zontar's mouth as of late is " socialism!!"? if they repeat lies enough times, people will believe it. They are playing the word association game.

'Those dirty socialists calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi!'

Yup... socialists are the new " blame Obama" everyone here locally is openly blaming socialists now in public for anything and everything like they did Obama. Same song they just altered the lyrics a little bit. The problem is this method has been effective for them in the past, so of course they are continuing to use it. Democrats have yet to find a means to counter their disinformation blitz, until they do, I am not sure how they are going to gain enough seats to do much of anything.

Education. Seriously, Democrats should just run campaign ads that are basically history lessons and explaining what all these terms are. Trump would not to so well if most people were not so dang stupid.

I swear I often have to look up some new 'ism' every argument with a right-winger.

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

Saelune:
'Those dirty socialists calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi!'

Yup... socialists are the new " blame Obama" everyone here locally is openly blaming socialists now in public for anything and everything like they did Obama. Same song they just altered the lyrics a little bit. The problem is this method has been effective for them in the past, so of course they are continuing to use it. Democrats have yet to find a means to counter their disinformation blitz, until they do, I am not sure how they are going to gain enough seats to do much of anything.

Education. Seriously, Democrats should just run campaign ads that are basically history lessons and explaining what all these terms are. Trump would not to so well if most people were not so dang stupid.

I swear I often have to look up some new 'ism' every argument with a right-winger.

Why do you think republicans constantly cut education in their states? They constantly encourage them to "remove their children from schools and home school them " as well. They do not want the people to understand what is happening. The more ignorant people are the easier they are to manipulate. If they had too many people capable of understanding the chain of events that have been taking place, they could not get republicans elected at all.
image

Lil devils x:

Saelune:

Lil devils x:
Yup... socialists are the new " blame Obama" everyone here locally is openly blaming socialists now in public for anything and everything like they did Obama. Same song they just altered the lyrics a little bit. The problem is this method has been effective for them in the past, so of course they are continuing to use it. Democrats have yet to find a means to counter their disinformation blitz, until they do, I am not sure how they are going to gain enough seats to do much of anything.

Education. Seriously, Democrats should just run campaign ads that are basically history lessons and explaining what all these terms are. Trump would not to so well if most people were not so dang stupid.

I swear I often have to look up some new 'ism' every argument with a right-winger.

Why do you think republicans constantly cut education in their states? They constantly encourage them to "remove their children from schools and home school them " as well. They do not want the people to understand what is happening. The more ignorant people are the easier they are to manipulate. If they had too many people capable of understanding the chain of events that have been taking place, they could not get republicans elected at all.
image

Which is the scariest part. Sure, Trump is a wanabee despot, and the obvious avatar of American fascism, but he's merely the next step in a long-term plan that the GOP has been unfolding for decades. Somewhere along the way they decided that to accumulate power they needed to push everyone else down, and the best way to do that is make sure enough people are ignorant enough to overlook what they are doing. Cutting education is a core facet of the plan to turn the country into an authoritarian right-wing paradise. And it wasn't Trump's idea. I doubt he has ideas. It was people like Mitch McConnell who hate that democracy holds them back from total control, and have been setting up a slow erosion of the system into a pseudo-theocratic kleptocracy.

Meiam:
Well all of those problem will still exist with a guaranteed job, there will still need to be a vacancy, still need to be geographically close and while someone can do the job, they might not be appropriate for the workplace, which is what the interview is there for (don't care how good someone is at being an accountant, if they're an absolute dick in the workplace no one will want to work in the same office as them). So what do you do then?

A lot of things that are volunteer work now could become paid employment funded by the government. Not everything, naturally. But a lot. Things that make a place more pleasant to live in; things that might not necessarily earn some asshole a big profit.

Lil devils x:

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

You are preaching to the choir here. I know full well what they are up against to get things done. That is my worry with the early push to go left when they have not even managed to gain a majority yet. In my ideal they are all farther left than most can imagine, but in reality I understand we have to try and stop the bleeding first right now before we can even hope to rebuild the foundation and start taking baby steps again. It is great that they can elect candidates like this, as long as it does not cost them everything to do so. Meaning if they fail to win republican districts due to her election, they just screwed everyone over to get nothing done.

I can only hope that does not happen, but I am not holding my breath, I know how these guys operate. The attack on socialism right now is widespread at this point. Why do you think every other word out of Zontar's mouth as of late is " socialism!!"? if they repeat lies enough times, people will believe it. They are playing the word association game.

'Those dirty socialists calling everyone they disagree with a Nazi!'

Yup... socialists are the new " blame Obama" everyone here locally is openly blaming socialists now in public for anything and everything like they did Obama. Same song they just altered the lyrics a little bit. The problem is this method has been effective for them in the past, so of course they are continuing to use it. Democrats have yet to find a means to counter their disinformation blitz, until they do, I am not sure how they are going to gain enough seats to do much of anything.

I want this damage being done to stop and things to turn around as quickly as possible and if that means we suffer a few blue dog dems to give dems back majority control to do so, I think that price is worth it to pay if it means we can start to stabilize and move forward albeit slowly, it is still better than plummeting backwards as we currently are.

As much as I would love a whole congress full of Bernie Sanders, I am realistic in understanding it is going to take much much more for us to actually get to that point and I do not want everything and everyone destroyed while waiting for that to happen. There is time to improve the quality of democrats we have available AFTER they secure the necessary seats to make what they do even matter at all.

If you wanna fix that issue, just bring them to visit a country like Portugal some time. One of our technically-not-a-coalition parties is the Communist Party. Pretty sure they'd have a stroke seeing the Hammer and Sickle being flown down the street and nobody batting an eye.

Meiam:

Well all of those problem will still exist with a guaranteed job, there will still need to be a vacancy, still need to be geographically close and while someone can do the job, they might not be appropriate for the workplace, which is what the interview is there for (don't care how good someone is at being an accountant, if they're an absolute dick in the workplace no one will want to work in the same office as them). So what do you do then? You either create a job for there specific skill in there specific area for no other reason than its guarantee or you have them work in an unrelated field, which comes back to the same as hiring an unskilled person (alternatively you could force them to move to get the job, but of they were already willing/able to move they'd have done so themselves).

The entire point of the program is to alleviate the issues of vacancy and geography; it's quite clear to see how the program addresses those obstacles directly. It's the very purpose.

Meiam:

Well how else would it work? You need them to work somewhere, if it's something worth doing it would already be done and there would already be a department that would handle it. Otherwise you need to create the "ministry of useless job that don't need to be done but we gotta hire all these peoples for political reason so there you go".

Wait, stop, no-- "if it's something worth doing it would already be done" is not self-evident, and is not true in the slightest. An enormous number of things worth doing are not done.

I could go into more specific detail on this point, but I think the issue is a bit more fundamental: you seem to automatically assume that if something is a certain way, then that is the right way for it to be.

You've made that leap twice already that I can see: First, the assumption that if somebody has the right qualification, then they must be able to get a job without help; and second, the assumption that if something needs to be done, then it would already be done. These assumptions simply do not follow. you seem to have merely placed your faith in some kind of natural "order" in the marketplace, ensuring that the reasonable and rational course of events is followed.

Such an order does not exist. The economy does not have a "mind" to ensure that rationality comes about; the economy is a writhing mess of competing forces, some of which even act in a destructive manner, and very few of which are motivated by order (or even reason). Things need to be done, but do not get done; people with qualifications do not get hired. There are a thousand million variables which get in the way of a nice, rational set of rules ensuring everybody gets a job and all the work gets done. That's not how an economy functions.

Meiam:

So if they're still subject to regulation, does that mean they can be fired? Then what? They become unemployable for life? They have a grace period?

Of course they can be fired. Why on earth would it be otherwise? They're supposed to be guaranteed a job; they still need to perform the job within reason in order to keep it. The federal jobs guarantee usually stipulates that a job be available for somebody who wants it; part of that, obviously, is that individual's willingness to carry it out.

If they are fired, they can still make applications, just like anybody else who's fired. I don't really understand why you're assuming that the jobs they have would work in such a dramatically different way that all these elements would be different. They're just jobs.

Meiam:
And I'm not saying that the private sector will be destroyed, I'm saying that this will cause many jobs in the private sector to stop existing because people wouldn't work them since they would always have the choice of taking the guaranteed federal job. Why would someone take a 15$ job in the private sector, when they could have the 15$ job in the federal version with better healthcare coverage and such? To compete the private sector would have to pay a lot more for even very mundane job, which would just cost them money, so they won't. So the system would destroy real valuable job to create fake useless one, I can't think of many worse economic policy.

So you're worried that the private sector simply won't shell out to provide healthcare or a decent wage?

Uhrm, well, frankly, boo-hoo. The private sector has the fucking money for it. If a company wants to retain employees, it needs to actually provide decent support.

To argue that workers shouldn't be offered a (relatively low) wage of 15 dollars and healthcare, simply so that those workers have no choice but to work for the private sector which can't be bothered to offer that... is frankly ludicrous. A private sector company is not entitled to have workers who have no choice but to accept the shoddy conditions they offer.

Silvanus:
snip

Alright we're clearly talking about different things here. What you seem to describe seems no different than the current system where anyone can apply to a governmental job... which is completely different than guaranteed federal job.

Does she actually have a document where she explain what her definition of guaranteed federal job is? Like a real technical document rather than a vague promise at a rally.

Meiam:

Silvanus:
snip

Alright we're clearly talking about different things here. What you seem to describe seems no different than the current system where anyone can apply to a governmental job... which is completely different than guaranteed federal job.

It's not that complicated a concept; anyone can have a job doing (some list of things). That is not currently how it works. How it currently works is that the federal government hires people for a limited number of positions as needed, not an unlimited number of positions doing generally useful but not strictly necessary labor. If the people deciding what to do run out of ideas, sure, they could just pay people to do nothing. And that's fine. The working classes not feeling compelled to be exploited by a capitalist should not be a horror scenario to anyone but the owner class. It shouldn't really be a horror scenario for them, either, but steps toward equality feel like oppression to the oppressor as they say.

This is actually really heartening. I still think Americans just suck but this gives a glimmer of hope.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here