Democrats Move to Ensure No More AOCs

Ziggurat said:
Legally speaking? He's not her employer. He didn't hire her, he cannot fire her, he makes no employment decisions about her. He is no no way, shape, or form her employer, and their interaction is not governed by such workplace laws.

And I'm only talking about legally. Not every bad thing is illegal, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

Is it a bad thing for the President to tell congresswomen to go back to where they came from?
 
jond said:
Really? I’ve never seen a single post in which you stated anything remotely resembling that.
Click to expand...
Aside from the one you're replying to. If you've never seen it before, at least you've seen it now.

Presumably you will use this new information to reevaluate your assessment of Zig's past arguments, and inform your assessment of Zig's future arguments. Right?

Right?
 
theprestige said:
Aside from the one you're replying to. If you've never seen it before, at least you've seen it now.

Presumably you will use this new information to reevaluate your assessment of Zig's past arguments, and inform your assessment of Zig's future arguments. Right?

Right?
Click to expand...

If I see anything indicating that Trump has done something bad here, aside from this one time, i’ll happily reconsider my assessment of Zig’s arguments. But thus far i’ve seen a lot of dodging and weaving, and no “yeah, that’s a bad thing for Trump to say.”
 
jond said:
If I see anything indicating that Trump has done something bad here, aside from this one time, i’ll happily reconsider my assessment of Zig’s arguments. But thus far i’ve seen a lot of dodging and weaving, and no “yeah, that’s a bad thing for Trump to say.”
Click to expand...

You just quoted a post in which Ziggurat says literally that.
 
theprestige said:
You just quoted a post in which Ziggurat says literally that.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that. The point of my post was that prior to his post I’d seen nothing like it. Which is obvious from my post. But you knew that.
 
jond said:
I am well aware of that. The point of my post was that prior to his post I’d seen nothing like it. Which is obvious from my post. But you knew that.
Click to expand...
And I'm talking about after your post. Prior, you had no reason to reassess.

After, you have every reason to reassess. But somehow you still managed to say you were waiting on Ziggurat to post the thing that would prompt reassessment.
 
Brainster said:
This. I like to say that the liberals who compare conservatives to Nazis are not intentionally understating the Nazis' evil, or overstating the supposed evil of the conservatives. They are puffing themselves up as the moral equivalent of the White Rose group in Nazi Germany. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...


This.......3000
 
theprestige said:
And I'm talking about after your post. Prior, you had no reason to reassess.

After, you have every reason to reassess. But somehow you still managed to say you were waiting on Ziggurat to post the thing that would prompt reassessment.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, the point that he claimed to have made it clear before, which came as a surprise to me as i’d seen nothing of the sort. But whatever, enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
theprestige said:
Cutting to the chase:

You were going to regard me as a racist anyway.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you say instead. I mean, probably, because I can't imagine you backing down without also not backing down at the same time so you can later spin it to fit whichever narrative you've got going. But stop excusing racism and I'll stop calling it racist. Fair enough?
 
jond said:
You are, of course, the point that he claimed to have made it clear before, which came as a surprise to me as i’d seen nothing of the sort. But whatever, enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

Sometimes trolls take a ridiculous stand, argue for pages about something only remotely related, and then they say they had the 'not ridiculous' position all along. They try to make it look like the person they are debating was a jerk for falsely accusing the troll, or stupid because they didn't read some obscure post of the trolls somewhere.

More than one person in this forum does it.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah but again that's partisanship, not racism. It's not even a defense of racism, as that at least requires acknowledging the racism to begin with.
Click to expand...
I can't decide which it is, to be honest, but I lean towards blind support of the Drumpfenführer. Had it been Hillary who said it the trumpkins would have been up in arms and condemned the statement wholesale, just because they could.
 
Ziggurat said:
They were racist, sure.

Here's the problem, though. "Racist" is a deflated currency. It's the cultural equivalent of the Venezuelan bolivar. You printed too much of it, and now it's worthless.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....then it's awfully strange that you would put so much effort into convincing others that they were not racist. For example:

Ziggurat said:
We're in agreement.



I think you're reading too much into his motives. Trump is nasty to all his critics, regardless of race. He's a pretty equal-opportunity hater.


Nope. I think that's bad. Just like it was bad when Sen. Nadler essentially threatened to get Sebastian Gorka deported.



Absent some actual deportable offense such as immigration fraud (as in the case of Rasmea Odeh, I was all in favor of deporting that terrorist), I'm against deporting any US citizen, regardless of skin color.
Click to expand...


Protip: First, decide what your position is, then support and defend it. That generally works better than just being unsure what you even believe.

LOL!
 
johnny karate said:
They're claiming that the obvious racism everyone can see is not actually racism.

That is literally defending racism.
Click to expand...

When I claim that God doesn't exist despite the "obvious" evidence that theists see, am I literally defending god? since when is denying the existence of something defending that thing?

And you guys really need to learn what "literally" means.

If a someone comes out in defense of rape, it's not much of a leap to conclude that they are a fan of rape.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. How about you address what I actually wrote?

If people don't want to be associated with repugnant things, they should stop defending repugnant things.
Click to expand...

Except that, again, you twisting words to make one thing into another does not change reality. I made clear in my examples that they were not defending those things and yet you can't resist pretending that they are.
 
AOC defends her decision to not donate to the D triple C because of their anti-primary policy.

"I give quite a bit to fellow Dems - we’ve fundraised over $300,000 for others (more than my 'dues'), w/ over 50% going to swing seats," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Friday.

"DCCC made clear that they will blacklist any org that helps progressive candidates like me," she said. "I can choose not to fund that kind of exclusion."
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
When I claim that God doesn't exist despite the "obvious" evidence that theists see, am I literally defending god? since when is denying the existence of something defending that thing?

And you guys really need to learn what "literally" means.



That's not what I said. How about you address what I actually wrote?



Except that, again, you twisting words to make one thing into another does not change reality. I made clear in my examples that they were not defending those things and yet you can't resist pretending that they are.
Click to expand...

Apparently the meaning of the words "tacit approval" are lost on you.

Silent assent via lack of opposition is arguably worse than active support.
 
AOC is safe in 2020, but in 2022? New York is going to lose one congressional seat, and I'm betting that the Democrats (who run the state) will put her in a more marginal district.
 
theprestige said:
I read the other day that instead of contributing her funds to the party war chest, AOC is using them to primary other Democrats.
Click to expand...

To poke a bit more at this, it's worth looking at her defense.

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defended her decision not to donate money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in protest of a policy to "blacklist" organizations that back Democratic candidates running against incumbents.

"I give quite a bit to fellow Dems - we’ve fundraised over $300,000 for others (more than my 'dues'), w/ over 50% going to swing seats," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Friday.

"DCCC made clear that they will blacklist any org that helps progressive candidates like me," she said. "I can choose not to fund that kind of exclusion."

The New York congresswoman was reacting to an article by Fox News, which reported that some fellow House Democrats were upset with her decision not to pay the $250,000 dues. It also noted that there were 97 Democrats who hadn't paid as of records from October, but that more may have paid up before the end of the year.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
This. I like to say that the liberals who compare conservatives to Nazis are not intentionally understating the Nazis' evil, or overstating the supposed evil of the conservatives. They are puffing themselves up as the moral equivalent of the White Rose group in Nazi Germany. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

No, what is pathetic is making excuses as to why GOP fascism isn't really fasicsm when Trump and the GOP meet every one of the 14 descriptive points of fascism.
 
theprestige said:
I read the other day that instead of contributing her funds to the party war chest, AOC is using them to primary other Democrats.
Click to expand...

Look at the title of the thread.

Given the DCCC posture and the clashes with leadership the "squad" had throughout the session, she has at least some cause to feel she doesn't owe the party apparatus anything (and it's at least probable that things got ugly in her original primary against a high-level party figure).

It's been decades of slow creep, but tied at the hip with the general rise in "dark money" that the carrots and sticks aren't what they used to be. The big money doesn't all go through the party's control anymore. Everyone says "my campaign takes no corporate money" well duh, that's an illegal contribution. But nearly everyone has a "leadership PAC" for that, so they are technically not lying. DCCC money is now more of a reserve supply to augment the tough fights. AOC is tied quite closely to an uber-progressive money faucet, so she has the option of acting more like a free agent.

The general orientation of what the party views as "rewards" in terms of committee seats is out of step with what a reform-minded member is looking for, so that doesn't work either. About all that leaves is the legislative calendar which is dependent mostly on personal relationships with the speaker (or minority leader), which again in this instance that has been quite stormy.

The party doesn't have the "daddy warbucks" card to play any more and that means the less a member wants to just play the career game, the less reasons they have to make gestures of patronage. Feel how you like about the right or wrong of it, but that's the landscape today.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Did I? I sometimes lose track when I've been gone for a while.

My point remains valid, regardless.
Click to expand...

That's the kicker: you're wrong, too.

When you inflate something, you make it bigger. When you deflate something, you make it smaller. "Inflation", in regards to currency, refers to prices inflating. Prices go up, it requires more currency to buy things. But that also means that the value of currency goes down. So the value of currency deflates. The price of goods and the value of currency are inversely proportional to each other. They don't both inflate or deflate, they move in opposite directions.

I was referring specifically to the value of a "currency", not the price of "goods" with which it is bought. Describing it as deflated (not "deflation") is correct.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's the kicker: you're wrong, too.

When you inflate something, you make it bigger. When you deflate something, you make it smaller. "Inflation", in regards to currency, refers to prices inflating. Prices go up, it requires more currency to buy things. But that also means that the value of currency goes down. So the value of currency deflates. The price of goods and the value of currency are inversely proportional to each other. They don't both inflate or deflate, they move in opposite directions.

I was referring specifically to the value of a "currency", not the price of "goods" with which it is bought. Describing it as deflated (not "deflation") is correct.
Click to expand...

I believe the word you are searching for is devalued, not deflated.
 
Looks like there's been a bit of relevant news to this thread.

Ocasio-Cortez hits House Democratic campaign arm after Pelosi endorses Kennedy

To poke at a couple notable quotes from it -

Omar defeated her primary challenger, Antone Melton-Meaux, earlier this month. But her challenger had locked down several notable endorsements and had raised $3.2 million.

“Ilhan’s multimillion challenge was bankrolled by DC lobbyists & dark money groups,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “He blatantly admitted to using shell corporations to get around the DCCC blacklist, which all but means his vendors work w/ the Democratic Party. Yet DCCC hasn’t enforced policy. I wonder why”
Click to expand...

And...

“This move reeks of hypocrisy: the party is setting one standard for progressives and one entirely different standard for the establishment,” Justice Democrats Executive Director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
Guys like those aren't exactly received enthusiastically by anybody:

The Daily Social Distancing Show (Aug. 20, 2020):
Joe Biden: Acceptable Under The Circumstances - A DNC Biopic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom