Horrible decision to means test that.
3 Likes
Does he? I was talking to this guy and telling him playing poker for a living and he immediately brought up Dan. I think most people are under the impression he makes his money from poker.
1 Like
Yeah itâs odd they went for that as both rarely ever try to means test. Maybe theyâre hopeful that by doing this if might pass lol
yes, very odd
1 Like
I wish them the best on passing it, and also think itâs a bad idea to means test.
1 Like
I dunno what the random public thinks about him, point is he doesnât give a shit. I knew him in college and played poker with him back then, he readily admitted that he was an asshole and that he was loaded, it was basically his whole shtick. We all basically assumed that he got his money from his dad somehow, but he never said for obvious reasons.
Thank you for your consistency.
I didnât post about this the other day, but may as well now. Jacobin. Fuckinâ sellouts:
https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1383223818206932996?s=20
(I am making the same pointâŚI wonder if anyone will understand what it is)
Is the point that once politicians are in office theyâll have to play politics aka negotiate and trade favors to secure votes in order to pass legislation? If so, granted.
2 Likes
Partially. Also that apparently, people running for president are supposed to over-promise and then do this, rather than just be realistic from the start.
Also, the hypocrisy of Jacobin and other online people/outlets who excoriated anyone who wasnât Bernie for the same proposals. Of course, they are fine now that their approved politicians are saying it.
In the case of the Jacobin tweetâŚexpansion was originally a Hillary plan in 2016. But fuck her, right? itâs only ok if Bernie proposes it.
Itâs infuriating. Itâs also why I appreciate your consistency.
1 Like
Youâre consistent too. I donât read or follow jacobin as closely as you do, so I canât comment on their positions and hypocrisy.
I feel like presidential candidates, or at least ones that Iâd support with some level of enthusiasm rather than complacency, should be shooting for big goals, and trying to run on policies that are good for people. If they are in a primary already taking dumps on policies that are good for people, or pushing for a compromise position before theyâve even been nominated, wonât they end up at an even worse compromise once in office?
7 Likes
I suppose it depends on what you consider to be a mandate.
Personally, I think that politics is more nuanced than a transaction at an outdoor market. There is no reason to think that these âcompromise positionsâ being put forth by Bernie, et al are actually that, and no reason to think that telling the truth during election time would lead to worse positions later.
One can be pragmatic and still be progressive. In fact, I would argue that the pragmatic approach is MORE progressive than all-or-nothing idealism. But I have been saying this for two years now, and while Iâm in a minority here and on twitter, I still maintain that progressivism is better served by being evolutionary in tone and proposal rather than revolutionary.
1 Like
Because progressive as a label is amorphous, it may be that considering oneâs own positions or policy goals to be pragmatic/reasonable/realistic are the most consistent traits among those people who self identify as such. Itâs related to the difference between having a reformist or an abolitionist framing or approach. In that sense, I agree with you that it can be more progressive.
ETA: Iâm not quite getting my wording right. Kinda clunky
Come on. Pete was using right wing talking points saying how are we going to pay for Medicare for all. You canât compare that with Bernie and company compromising now that theyâre in office
3 Likes
In regards to the college means testing:
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1200261361391017984?s=20
soâŚwho is using Republican talking points now? This is what Iâm talking about. âFine for me but not for theeâ
I love memes, and want to understand the Pete one that you shared. What would be an example of a quote of his that made it through that cycle as shown in the meme?
Eh, I didnât make it. I would have said âpointâ or âpolicyâ rather than quote. You have two examples in this thread. Iâve been feeling a lot of âwe told you soâsâ in the past few months in regards to Pete, so Iâm a little salty.
Related to stimabuserâs point above, do you feel there is a difference between attacking progressive policies with RW talking points in the primary and having to negotiate once in office? What benefit is gained by Pete saying what he said back then?
1 Like
I also remember Pete went much harder on the need for SCOTUS reform much earlier than any major candidate in the 2020 primary season.
The idea obviously took on additional momentum after RBG passed, but Pete was talking about court packing way before it was cool.
1 Like
Honesty?
Maybe youâre right, maybe promising the moon is the way to go, but a fuck ton of people seemed to appreciate his practical, honest approach from the start.
As a personal note, some of my saltiness at these recent developments is deeply seated in my memories of being told repeatedly that I obviously wanted poor people to die because I felt a more practical approach was needed on universal health care.
Does Jacobin now want poor people to die?
Itâs as ridiculous a statement now as it was then.
Iâll push back on Peteâs use of RW talking points as being honest. And grant that if you truly do perceive M4A as promising the moon, that you could consider it dishonest to run on it. Do you feel that M4A or UHC is promising the moon?
2 Likes