politics Of course. They don't want to fix things, they just want to be the ones getting the benefits.
Put her near the top of the list to be primaried.
kamala never mentioned identity politics on the campaign
First part of article title is a bit misleading I think. She thinks "Kings" is a better term than oligarchy because it's more relatable. She has a plan to fight kings. She does seem to think wokeness is weak though.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'” wrote Wren, who reported that Slotkin was planning to deliver a series of speeches in the coming months about her plan.
Sure stop pamdering to the wealthy and make plans to support and luft the general populace in all areas and you will stop being "woke".
And guess what, the best way to pay for it is to get the fiar share of taxes back from those that are avoiding paying completely by paying laakers privately.
Wow, so easy, much fun.
Seems to be an unpopular opinion, but she is right. I think the people upset with her in the comments do not live in red areas.
As stupid as it sounds, that is all people seem to care about. The right used to have abortion as a drum to bang. Now that Roe is overturned the right needed a new social cause, and they found 'woke' which is WAY more effective than abortion since it seems to excite both religious, and non-religious.
If you go and talk with people in rural areas you will be shocked by how prominent this issue is in peoples minds, and I believe it will always beat economic issues for them.
The Democratic Party is so full of collaborationists. Just shows how democracy and capitalism are incompatible. The bourgeois class just buy the politicians.
Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing
FTFY
Fighting Oligarchy resonates greatly. But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war in favour of participating in the class war against the working class.
That is definitely something they should put waaaay more focus on. Trump is the cry for help of much of the working class, if people would believe you actually fought FOR the working people in your country, the dems would be unstoppable.
She’s sorta right. ‘Oligarchy’ is a big college word that Joe Bumblefuck doesn’t understand.
Aristocrats is a good word, but again: “duh?”
Therefore Dems just need to start harping about “rich fucking parasites”
The unfalsifiable orthodoxy. Moving to the far-right and appealing to moderate Republicans win elections. If a Democrat wins, it proves that this works, if a Democrat loses, they just hadn't moved far-right enough.
And you're the problem
THESE are the types of incumbents the DNC does not want primaried?! Holy hell.
Slotkin is a NEOCON.
"Don't let perfect the enemy of good."
The "good":
And this is why fascism is winning.
woke is what republicans use to attack whatever they dont like, if a democrat uses woke, they arnt really a DEMocrat, alot of them have a veneer of being dem or progressive but they often use buzzwords of right wingers to justify thier positions.
shes in the wrong party
Primary Democrats
American number 1 priority would be to get out this 2 party system with ranked voting or something.
If they quack like a republican and walk like a republican, they're a republican
Way to advertise what side she's really on.
I am sure this slide to the right will surely work.
Outsider opinion: There are two sides who haven’t voted for you, one side who says they’ll vote for you if you change, and another side who says they’ll never vote anything but red. There seems to be an obvious vote to go after.
And this is why we need more decent folk around the country like AOC to run for any and all offices.
The only reason the party has the woke reputation is that empty lip service is really all they had left. People like this need to get a fucking clue. If people want to vote for republicans, they will never ever ever get confused and accidentally vote for democrats just because you mirrored their policies from 12-20 years ago.
empty lip service is really all they had left
That’s all there ever was. They never did jack or shit to help LGBT people in southern states.
more like they never pushed for nationwide voter registration policy, to make sure its easier to vote. of course gop have to block these measures.
Yeah actually woke civil servants would be (and are) awesome - like those who acknowledge systemic inequalities and seek to redress.
Elissa, stop running your mouth and do it yourself if you have a better idea.
What are they going to do, ask MAGA to stop calling them "woke"? MAGA is all about bullying people, so saying "we don't like your name-calling" is only going to make it worse.
Grow a spine. Respond with "I know what woke means, so are you arguing against it from the racism angle or the ignorance angle?"
No, she can fuck off.
The oligarchy is killing us, and spinning language won’t change that. Meanwhile, ‘woke’ just means ‘social empathy’, which is ironically the solution to many of the problems the oligarchy is causing (and they’re not shy about this – Musk recently said empathy is bad).
We need more ‘woke’, not less. And being butthurt that the fascists are using ‘woke’ as a slur against us is childish and easy to ignore if you’re not too simple to get it.
Fuck this. I’m woke and proud of it. We all should be.
Woke means understanding we live in an oligarchy in my mind. MAGA calls people sheep while complaining about them being woke in the same breath. They don't even understand the language they use.
They don’t even understand the language they use.
They don't have ideas. They just use words as pretexts for bullying and oppression. They worship force.
Woke is not weakness!
It's funny, because the "Wake up, Sheeple!" line used to be what conservatives screamed at liberals for failing to understand their latest Ayn Rand inspired diatribe.
Then liberals adopted the "Wake up!" phrasing to describe structural racism, the enormous socio-economic cost of the Military Industrial Complex, and the inherent class warfare of privatization schemes. That caused "Woke" to fall out of fashion with the right.
Now it's totally lost any context. "Woke" just means being visually queer coded or insufficiently religious. Its barely more than a slur.
specifically it was used by AA people in the start, now it has been co-opted by the right wingers and perverted, much like they did with "punisher"
Fine. Then come up with a plan to educate conservatives. Because this thing where the state legislates new norms (e.g. bio men in bio women's sports) is NOT making sense to them. They are freaking out because they don't understand it. And we can't just make laws to make them accept it.
From their perspective they are losing their country. We can laugh and call them backwards, but that won't help. There HAS to be a plan that is better than, f-you wake up.
We don't need fucking conservatives to win anything in this country. I'm sick of cowards acting like they just won by 10%. They barely won this election, barely won control of the house, and the main issue in the election for independents wasn't trans people or minorities, it was the economy.
The economy sucks for ordinary people because the ultra rich have been raiding it since COVID. And everyone, even conservatives, know that's true. Americans hate these big corporations. Slotkin and her allies know that, and that's why they're trying to distract from it.
It's disgusting how ready some of you are to throw your own neighbors under the bus so you can try to win over a couple fascist votes... Who will never vote for you. You will never win them over. They aren't going to believe that you suddenly hate gay people and minorities. You will just look like a dishonest weakling to them, and they'll be right.
We will win the next election by targeting independents with an economic message. If you want to lose then go ahead and make it about "woke" like a complete coward.
"The hell is a dang oligarch?"
"Means hillary can tell you what to do"
Why the fuck is everyone pretending they're too stupid to know what an oligarch is? Just a couple years ago they said it all the time in reference to Russia
They'll pretend they're stupid so they can continue on with believing they're not horrible people, but they know
...well they are backwards, they're only about one-third of the electorate, and they will never ever vote fascist-light; meanwhile there's another unrepresented third of the electorate just waiting for anyone to offer them something worth voting FOR...
Fuck conservatives. They don't need to be educated, they need to be beaten. There are more people left of center than right, we just need to prove we're actually going to fight for them. All of them. Not 80% and then we'll start to strategize on how many "urban" voters we can lose to pick up white suburbanite conservatives.
They don’t need to be educated, they need to be beaten.
You cannot educate someone who refuses to learn, especially those who reject reason and knowledge. They support fascists because they worship force. They will continue laying waste to everything around them until their murderous shitshow is comprehensively defeated. Throwing sweet reason at them won't achieve that.
That's why I get impatient with those who suggest that the way forward is to tinker with the voting system, or to amend the Constitution some more, or to educate the populace. The fascists are at war with us right now. We need to pick our collective ass up off the ground and resist by any means necessary and stop pretending that the system is going to save us, or (like the DNC) that Trump will eventually piss off enough people that the Democrats can win another election, despite all the rigging and voter suppression.
This is an existential situation, the building's on fire, now's not the time to be talking about redecorating.
Just to drive this point home for the quiet listeners at the back of the house, I’ve had very long conversations with conservatives (I’m in a red area) who actually get more distrustful the more you relate to them. I’ve been told to my face that nobody cared that much about other people, and I was clearly only pretending to in order to make them listen to me. That it was obvious, because nobody cares that much. That empathy can only be manipulative, and is never real.
It took me years to understand this isn’t a contradiction, but that since they can’t imagine caring that much, I must be fake.
My whole outlook changed once I realised that. It’s insane, but many people literally can’t envision caring, and they think you’re fake and just want recognition for doing so.
Several of these surveys take on a different meaning once you realise there are fundamentally different perspectives like this.
e: and this is one of the biggest divides with conservatives. Simple word choice will not bridge this gap.
That’s a big problem that switching from ‘oligarch’ to ‘king’ won’t solve. Using different words is a very simplistic answer, when what we’re fighting here is not a language barrier but a wide cultural one.
The real issue is complex and multifaceted: conservatives have been highly propagandised through increasingly insulated media bubbles to the point that now there’s very little that can penetrate them, and switching up a few words will not get them to listen. They’ve been taught to be distrustful of facts and reality, and to believe that compassion is weakness.
I don’t know how to fix this, but watering down our language will not help. That’s been tried many times, and it always backfires.
There has to be a relentless flow of propaganda to keep them spun up. We need to shut that down.
And from personal experience, even if you find common ground and get them to recognize something is bad, they'll sit back down in front of Fox News and revert to the norm before any of it matters. I had a "law and order, national security" type conservative acquaintance who right after the Trump classified documents story broke said Trump should go to prison for it (he also had to add that Hillary Clinton should go too). I'm certain he voted for Trump this time around. And he's had nary a peep about the multiple war plans chats. They aren't gettable if you just find the right issue or use the right words. If they're going to change it's going to happen on their own and over a long time.
I'm not sure about this. People with money spent a lot to tell everyone that these things are problems. If we spent the same amount of money to say the opposite, opinions would differ.
Ratchet effect at work
At least she's honest about throwing in with fascism.
The rest of the Democratic party is pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.
Hey stupid you're doing it wrong. Going even more to the right isn't going to change jack shit. Listen to the people who are already willing to vote for Democrat if only the Democrat wasn't an idiot.
Fuckkk off 9th American oblast.
She ate the onion, I have never seen the word "Woke" used in a conversation without it being extremist politics or a comedy routine.
its only used by right wingers, and people who pretend to be on the "left"(who are just right wingers that are afraid of being called out for thier hypocrisy)
Slotkin says she wants to take the focus off of Oligarchy and Putin's smile just gets a few inches wider.
Yeah if she wasn't CIA I'd perhaps understand her perspective of wanting to focus on just attacking Trump as the King
But.. this issue is so beyond Trump that focusing it on him will just make people go back to normal when he's gone - which is not okay
with the botox on putin, doubt he can smile.
Funny that she's used the word "oligarchs" plenty for Putin's bunch, but now thinks it's too "coastal" when applied to American oligarchs. She's never been concerned about people getting it before, but the moment it might describe America she's very concerned. Not that they'll misunderstand it, but that they will.
Yeah, at some part the conversation starts being about class conflict, and Slotkin will never go there.
Was looking for this. One of the many many many problems the US has is spineless cowards terrified of trying to fix the underlying problem because every single election they ever have is always "the most important election in history", that if they can just keep the bad guy out this once they can fix the systemic problems in their democracy later. And yet, the Democrats won in 2008, 2012, and 2020, with a congressional majority accompanying four of those years, and y'all did nothing during that time to fix matters.
Fuck that noise. Geronocrats and Turdpublicans brought us here. Both need to be removed from any meaningful position in society.
Who gives a shit about some stupid label the MAGAt morons have come up with??? Fascism needs to go! That should be the resounding message here!
Her name is: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Just so you don't accidentally vote for her.
Ulg shes the one voting with repubs
Controlled opposition
I have no regrets leaving
Makes me wonder how many more senators in the democratic party have similar opinions. my estimate is at least %70
in the senate there is around 10 more DINOs that havnt revealed themselves, thats why they used manchin and sinema as lightning rods. theres probably alot more in the house.
Fucking nailed it. Also need to get the assholes who think everything is solved with protests to sit the fuck down
"Not resonating with voters"
Bernie and AOC's "Fighting Oligarchy" campaign is pulling in more people to their rallies than attended Obama's in 08.
Don't peddle that horseshit you Liberal traitor.
She's so full of shit. The number 1 issue in every 2024 poll of swing voters was the economy and inflation. That's why Trump won. When people think the economy sucks, the incumbent party almost always loses.
All this bullshit about "woke" is just another attempt by the ultra wealthy to distract from economic issues, because they know the solutions for them hurt their bottom line. She and her GOP allies will do anything to stop us from improving labor rights and economic conditions for ordinary people.
She's a lying weakling backstabber.
No CIA member is ever liberal.
Neoliberal
OK but that's not what they said, is it?
Elissa Slotkin IS the oligarchy. She is the Hot Dog Princess. Her grandpa owned BallPark Franks—subsidiary of the Tyson Foods megacorp. Every time someone eats a hot dog, Elissa gets more passive income than most folks earn from a year’s labor.
She also is only in office because she kept district hopping to avoid getting primaried until she was up for a senate seat, whereupon the Democratic Party pushed out or made concessions to all the other better candidates so they would drop. She’s widely reviled.
She sucks, I voted for Harper in the primaries but the Dems are full of neo-libs like her. It's hard to see that party go more liberal even with Sander's and AOC's help
They actively work against Sanders and AOC. Both are the enemy to the average corporate-whore Dem.
I didn't realize hot dogs got so expensive!
Except at Costco.
RIP the Costco Polish dog.
Among the shittiest hot dogs on the market. It's Nathan's or Hebrew National, everything else is garbage.
Hebrew national > Aren't sausages mostly pork?
Hot Dogs can be pork, chicken or beef, or even a combination. Hebrew National is all beef. I prefer all beef wieners myself.
Nathan's make me extremely sick because they are sweetened with sorbitol.
Huh, thanks for this. I have family that swears by them, but they also make me sick. I didn't realize they had sorbitol. I had wondered why their brand was so disagreeable to me.
There are places in the USA where you can find smaller, more local hot dog makers.
The best I’ve had are Hippey’s Franks from Denver, Pennsylvania.
Ream's in Elburn IL. Superb
Better than Hebrew Nat?
ETA subsidiary of ConAgra
So much better than Hebrew National, Ballpark, Nathan’s or any national brand. Bigger, more and better flavor.
Well I just need to road trip a couple thousand miles and get a good dog. It's been YEARS.
I don’t think it’s just a US east coast thing. See if there are any local butchers near you and check out what they sell. Or, look for local, independent meat companies.
We don't have indie butchers or meat companies near, anymore, but I'm going out of town in a couple of weeks so I'll see if where I'm going does. They probably do.
Nope, Elissa fails to realize US income distribution is a huge problem in the USA and the oligarchs are controlling it.
*fails to admit
Willfully or blindly ignorant, but the result is the same.
For those of you that can't be bothered to read more than a headline:
Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing ‘Woke’ Reputation
AP Photo/Paul Sancya, Pool
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
During an interview with Politico national politics correspondent Adam Wren, Slotkin spoke about her “war plan” to “contain and defeat” President Donald Trump.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'” wrote Wren, who reported that Slotkin was planning to deliver a series of speeches in the coming months about her plan.
Slotkin told the news outlet, “Trump is doing a whole bunch of things that I think are a threat to our economy and a threat to our Democracy and I have a responsibility on behalf of my state to point that out and try to do something about that.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) – the most likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2028, according to analyst Nate Silver – recently commenced a “Fight Oligarchy” tour with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) across the United States.
Last month, after Slotkin was asked by a constituent how she would “step up for us now” like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, Slotkin threw shade at her progressive colleagues.
“Everyone you mentioned has a lot of words, but what have they actually done to change the situation with Donald Trump and the cuts and the attacks on our judiciary and the attacks on our Constitution?” asked Slotkin, who claimed her responsibilities fighting Trump’s government cuts forced her “to be more than just an AOC.”
“I can’t do what she does because we live in a purple state, and I’m a pragmatist,” she concluded.
Yeah, talking about "alpha energy" definitely doesn't make the speaker look sad and weak. /s
Even if pandering to the manosphere wasn't itself incredibly cringe, she's years out of date on their terminology. Truly this is a demonstration of how she's got her finger on the pulse of the people.
And "kings" is very much not a synonym for "oligarchy" and she's definitely purposefully choosing that rather than something that would continue to offend the uber-wealthy.
a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions
The crowds at the AOC rallies prove her wrong. It does resonate with people, just not for the pro-business, zionist, reach across the aisle industry-whore constituents Slotkin represents.
"Everyone you mentioned has a lot of words, but what have they actually done to change the situation with Donald Trump "
The anti oligarchy tour drew huge crowds and energized an angry base thats rapidly abandoning the democratic party. What has Slotkin done, besides uselessly infight with progressives, push lobbyist interests, and normalize a bunch of language the republicans use? Here she is denigrating "coastal institutions" as out of touch, and in her state of the union rebuttal she said Ronald reagan would be rolling over in his grave. Why is she talking about Ronald Reagan? i'd hope Reagan's coffin is 1000% full of democrats piss, so I'd be happy if he rotated in that piss all day every day. She sure talks like a republican.
Slotkin is a shining example of everything thats wrong about the DNC and the current democratic party.
I mean I can kinda see the point of using kings instead of oligarchy. But using oligarchy is a bigger stab at the billionaires in the room as well so I still think it captures a bigger part of the problem.
Otherwise I think I‘m down for her saying that she wants to get stuff done but I mean is she? I‘m totally uninformed but being highly ignorant it reads a bit like a whatever statement. Like you mentioning it is also just a performative act so yeah shrug
I do think the Dems have a problem in establishing words and totally losing the plot or narrative control over their words. Woke totally slipped into an insult and I don‘t think that was an unavoidable thing. I think if Dems would go for more public social policies they would get a lot of the votes back they have been shedding but I think their oligarchic interests are in their way. Like Harris could’ve just campaigned on getting SOME change done and I think more people could’ve warmed up to her but that particular ship has sailed.
Thanks for linking the article and centring the discussion.
For context, it was part of a speech to party volunteers , so it follows that it would be more "method" than "content". She also said that we should start picking the 2028 candidates and having that conversation now rather than waiting until 2027 since it will plainly be a very contested primary.
That part wasn't able to be construed in an unflattering way though, so it didn't make it into the headline or conversation.
I see yes. Thanks for giving more context.
I do think they should actively start talking about candidates for sure yes. So I very much agree with her on this.
Hooray another sack of shit politician attempting to derail from real issues
Man I figured this was paraphrased because I can't trust a headline nowadays even if it used quotes but nope. Used those exact terms in that way. Says to retake flag energy. Fuck that nationalist shit. Definately need to redefine patriotism around the constitution and civil rights but sure as shit not around the flag. The flag is a symbol of the ideals that should be respected not a thing itself to respect.
Patriotism is bad don't redefine it abolish it.
I think patriotism is fine if your espousing a good functioning system. Patriotism for patriotisms sake is the issue to me. Its like every time I see a god bless america sign I want to get a sign that says americans be deserving of gods blessing. Your country is not good because of the name of your country but if your country is good if its actually free and equitable.
National pride can be a powerful motivator towards doing good. The belief in a nation as a group of people working towards a common goal is fundamental to collectivism.
When patriotism turns into nationalism, that's where it becomes toxic.
National pride absent something like a colonizing force always has an out group and always abstracts the interests of real people to the interests of the elite of the abstract "nation".
What if the out group is fascists and kings?
Spoiler alert.
It won’t be.
A king is kind of in group by definition
You don't need "nationhood" to be anti-fascist and anti-monarchy.
First, if patriotic imagery works when it comes to campaigning why shouldn’t they do it? Why not adopt winning tactics?
Second “ She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'” wrote Wren, who reported that Slotkin was planning to deliver a series of speeches in the coming months about her plan.”
that sounds a lot more like suggesting we don’t talk over the heads of the voters than suggesting we shouldn’t confront the problem. Do you take issue with this?
I think after decades of the term “oligarch” being used in popular culture and nationwide news coverage, people in the “forgotten middle” know what oligarchy is. She’s doing the exact thing “liberal elites” get accused of doing all the time which is insulting her constituents’ intelligence.
just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
This is incredibly dangerous
It argues that a pseudo King like Trump is the problem. That is a lie. It is the oligarchs who prop up dictators like Trump who are the problem
This is an issue of systems, not of individuals. She's intentionally trying to individualize a systemic issue. This is because she serves those oligarchs and is protecting them by attempting to scapegoat Trump.
We must reject this
Kings are single actors. Oligarchy is a group which includes corporations. She is part of a pro business caucus and she is one of the worst zionists in the party. Can you stop trying to whitewash her? She is a monster who needs to be removed, not understood.
You think kings are singular actors? Have you ever studied any real life monarchy closely? That’s an inaccurate claim.
Im not trying to whitewash her I am addressing the errors in your comment.
Stop trying to claim moral high ground we are not arguing here. You made an extremely ignorant comment that was completely incorrect and all I am doing is pointing that out. You shouldn't be this proudly incorrect
its just chasing the ignorance and redefining. They have assigned me to woke that is all about trans and such as opposed to realizing we don't have a free and fair and functioning system. Maybe they can get other times of voters but talking to dumbed down will alienate my kind.
We don't need more "pro-israel centrists"
The reason Dem turnout in generals is depressed, is our choices are CIA war criminals like Slotking or a republican.
She is the problem, not the 99.9% who don't want an oligarchy
I completely agree, but it’s also likely a reasonable representation of her Michigan constituents. It’s not a terribly diverse state.
I mean Michigan was the epicenter and main stronghold of the Uncommitted Movement; there's obviously a good amount of support for progressive Palestine policy there.
Michigan has the second highest population of people from the mideast in absolute numbers, and the highest proportionally.
While racial background doesn't determine support for a cause, it's not surprising that people would turn out in higher numbers to advocate for the lives of people more closely related to them.
You're pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support? The campaign designed to create a wedge issue in the 2024 election by simultaneously driving disinformation down politicians' throats while stoking anti-Israel sentiment among progressive communities?
I'm not saying it's a bad take because obviously I can't prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the "Uncommitted Movement" and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Disclaimer for the incoming troll replies: I'm not pro-genocide, I'm simply in favor of choosing the best of possible outcomes, of which Harris was clearly a better outcome for Palestine. Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
Good to know there are still Americans who haven't learned a goddamn thing from November. This situation is directly the result of Democrat-voting Americans crying about the lesser evil while shutting down all attempts to make it not evil.
You're pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support?
God not everything you don't like is a foreign disinformation campaign.
I'm not saying it's a bad take because obviously I can't prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the "Uncommitted Movement" and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Uncommitted wasn't about giving Trump the White House, but about getting Harris and the DNC to stop supporting the genocide and then win in November. That obviously didn't work out because rather than support them or even stay silent people like you kept shutting them down and dismissing their concerns about both the election and their loved ones being brutally murdered by goddamn modern Nazis.
Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
No, but I also couldn't imagine her winning, which is exactly the problem here.
But demanding opposition to genocide and neoliberal policies is purity testing!
Why can't the left just accept liberal capitalism instead of purity testing human rights?
Surely the problem is with leftist individuals who hate liberalism so much they must secretly support Trump.
It couldn't be any systemic or material issues that have compounded over decades, leading to populist sentiment and opposition to the status quo, as people demand solutions to the cost of living crisis that they've seen only ever get worse. It was surely not a mistake to not run of overwhelmingly popular democratic socialist policies that would've directly addressed those issues, or run on no weapons embargo despite it's overwhelming support. The DNC did nothing wrong, it's all the voters fault, especially those anti-genocide ones. Who cares if they had loved ones killed by Israel, they should have known better, it's a simple trolley problem.
/s (this kind of sentiment is so annoying)
Stalin, I hate engaging with commies, but I can't resist a good pun.
The left doesn't have a cohesive platform, nor any political power. Your indignation is not righteous, and your sentiment does not inspire. US politicians are generally idiots, yes, but I disagree that calling for a more moderate path in the face of a populist criminal was a bad take. We are seeing it play out in real time, and we're all in the same boat so I hope you're enjoying the ride.
That 'more moderate path' has been an abject failure, as evident by the election.
Neoliberalism ideology is what has paved the way to rampant fascism in American politics. Neoliberalism, and even liberalism for that matter, will never be a successful opposition to fascism. Being beholden to corporate interests, at the expense of the voters interest nonetheless, will and has only ever normalized if not accelerated fascist policies.
The only way to have a genuine opposition to right-wing populism is by running on a platform of left-wing populism. Ignoring the material harms people are experiencing and aware of is a losing strategy.
Left-wing populist positions are overwhelmingly popular, they are even popular with independent and Republican voters. Those positions directly benefit everyone in the working class. The only issue for the neoliberal administration in charge of the DNC is that those policies come at the expense of billionaires and massive corporations, the people who fund their convention and races to secure their interests over the general population.
Human rights is nonnegotiable. If anyone is willing to throw a group of people under the bus for any reason, they are no ally.
If the DNC prioritized running on those popular policies and actually attempted to earn as many votes as they possibly could by offering concessions to as much people as they could, they would have won. Trump would not be president. We wouldn't be funding one genocide while ramping up concentration camps for 'enemies within'. But the DNC has proven themselves to priorities their corporate backers over the people. Only a small few like Bernie, AOC, and The Squad are genuinely interested in opposing the fascism of the Republican party. If they gain control of the DNC, we may have a chance out of this through legislation and reform. If the DNC continues to prop up corporate interests over progressives, then the way out will become much much bloodier.
Fascism does not compromise. Appeasement is the problem. Opposition is necessary.
Edit: after seeing your other comment, I'll provide polls that support my point, on the large support of both on the weapons embargo and on left-wing populist policies.
::: spoiler Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
:::
I'm not God, I'm just a regular person.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I'll repeat that I'm not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn't influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that's on you.
I believe your understanding of how voting works is flawed. A vote only matters if it is cast. Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn't work.
As you've clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States. Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don't like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that's your choice and I wouldn't fault you for standing on your principles if you weren't simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs. I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
I think some part of you knows that, but I totally understand being irrationally angry with the world, random internet commenters, whatever. Shit is getting crazy out here, and tbh we all need each other more than ever. Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I'm saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements. You don't have to align with that view, but your passion certainly would be welcomed.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I'll repeat that I'm not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
I know, but also don't care.
f you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn't influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that's on you.
Of course it is, but that's neither here nor there. The implication that outrage at Biden's support for Israel is mostly a result of that influence is, however, fucking ridiculous. Why do you believe that people can't exercise their right to hold their elected politicians accountable without it being a Russian or Israeli plot?
Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn't work.
Threatening to withhold votes certainly does, because those politicians are at least ostensibly trying to get elected. That's why Democratic politicians throw breadcrumbs for their constituents and have a milquetoast-but-better-than-nothing stance on civil rights, and it's what Uncommitted tried to do.
As you've clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
I'm trying really hard not to break rule 3 right now. What kind of pressure campaign would have satisfied your rational sensibilities?
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States.
Then how do they?
Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don't like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that's your choice and I wouldn't fault you for standing on your principles if you weren't simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
This isn't the outcome of anti-genocide principles; it's the result of decades of lesser evil politics, which America is clearly done with. This downfall of American democracy did not start in 2024. Ever heard of the gambler's ruin? Well welcome to the centrist's ruin, where you keep betting your democracy until the far right eats it all.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs.
Again, what better strategy would you have promoted that would have led to change?
I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
What less horrific end? Genocide with rainbows? And in the first place do you seriously think a government that ran on dismissing genocide would be anything but an appetizer to fascism? If they don't care about brown people on the other side of the world, they don't care about you.
Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I'm saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements.
Has anyone ever told you you're patronizing? And in the first place what improvements? Your program of compromise and incremental change has led to, or at least failed to prevent, capital F Fascism in the United States. Maybe try something else next time, if there is a next time.
PS: Now is probably a good time to mention that I'm not American.
I'm bored with you so best of luck in our shared future hellscape. I definitely LOL'd when I saw you weren't American.
I was more referring to her point about distancing themselves from advocating for diversity. It’s probably not their biggest priority when 73% of the state is white and 61% are Christians. That’s more disproportionate than Tennessee.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/michigan
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/state/michigan/
It's a 50/50 state and the Republican party is overwhelmingly white. 73% white likely means Democratic voters are 50%+ minority. We have to stop pretending we need to appeal to anti-woke Republicans. Even in less diverse states, it's still a diverse party.
I was only saying it’s possible that’s the message she’s getting from her constituents, which is any resident of Michigan. It was educated speculation, not fact, nor is it my personal opinion of these issues. I’d like to see Democrats become an opposition party, as far from the Republicans as possible, just the same as you.
No CIA member is a good representative of their state.
Maybe they should encourage some more aggressive left wing people to compete against them to broaden horizons of the dabates, like bringing a 'communist' along with 'socailist' to debate a republican
Just another clueless asshole.
I can’t do what [AOC] does because we live in a purple state, and I’m a pragmatist
"It's pragmatic for me to avoid making my Republican donors upset." What an idiot.
If you think your salvation is in the neoliberals that enabled their opposition into getting us here for 50 years, you're almost as deluded as Trump's legion of useful idiots.
The DNC would rather lose to the Fascists than move to the left. The former keeps their shared bribe gravy train running which is the point, fighting their bribers would not.
The DNC either needs to be stolen by a populist leftist as Trump did with the RNC, or get comfortable because if the choice is fascist or neoliberal as it has been for half a century, we will continue to find new depths to descend to until total system collapse.
Fascism is the union of business and state to accelerate metastasis at any cost, let's say we even have another free election, and best case scenario we elect another neoliberal, I can't respect your opinion or consider it informed if you truly believe the Neoliberals will once back in power do a thing to meaningfully reign in the capitalist's governmental capture or redistribute their Ill gotten wealth.
If the Neoliberals somehow get back into power in 4 years, they'll leave the table set for the fascists to march again in another 4. Affirmation ribbons are leaps and bounds better than scapegoats, but you can't eat affirmation ribbons, nor can you live in them. Our mass homeless population, our murder for profit confidence scheme we call American Healthcare, our education system at every level in utter ruin, these are not partisan issues because they would cost big corpo exploited profits to fix, and so both parties protect the status quo from us, the people that suffer and die under them. Fascists point and laugh at you, but neoliberals just shrug and go "market forces, amirite 🤷?"
Oligarchy is why we have Trump. There probably isn't hope, but if you refuse understand big corpo is the enemy of the people and the cause of all this stemming from the Reagan Revolution, then not only will you burn in the fires of fascism, you'll burn ignorant as to why and how to boot.
Grrr that hard left who wants to feed the hungry and house the homeless, and pay for it by taking money from people who won't even feel it, wow so radical.
Maybe the democrats need to ditch pro-oligarchy anti-woke members 🤷♂️
“ She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'” wrote Wren, who reported that Slotkin was planning to deliver a series of speeches in the coming months about her plan.”
Did you miss this part?
Ah , see, that take is rationalizing. She’s a former CIA torturer who worked under Bush. Within Michigan she once moved into a lobbyists house to avoid getting primaried after redistricting. (The lobbyist’s house was in a safe democrat area that the Democrat party did not field a local candidate for.) Her ascension to state senator was equally questionable - all the other candidates dropped out after meeting with party officials.
It’s clear she’s the Democrats new Joe Manchin, put there to avoid progress and force concessions if they ever win a plurality. All the Michiganders I know vehemently hate her.
Ah , see, that take is rationalizing. She’s a former CIA torturer who worked under Bush.
First she was in the DA not DO at the CIA so she factually was not a torturer as analysts weren’t doing torture rather the spies were. Secondly every single person in the executive branch works for whomever is POTUS so it is not a surprising claim to say she worked under POTUS at the CIA.
Edit: The directorate of analysis is where she worked. If the CIA directly hired torturers that worked for the CIA they would be in the directorate of operations. That being said the CIA contracts out torture through foreign intelligence, criminal groups, military/paramilitaries, or police when they have been found to do so. This is not an endorsement of torture but rather an explanation of how the CIA is divided and which side hires torturers, assassins and criminals.
First she was in the DA not DO at the CIA so she factually was not a torturer as analysts weren’t doing torture rather the spies were.
Your defense of her is that she chose to work for torturers? Why would anyone work for torturers?
Im not defending her Im correcting your error. A simple look at her background would make it clear your claim was wrong.
1- I'm not who made the claim
2- How is this distinction a material difference? If she worked for torturers then she is unsupportable
Im sorry for my error and my hypocrisy.
Right now anyone who is anti-fascist needs to be on the same team. Anyone saying we should reject anyone who is anti-fascist because they do not cling to a specific ideology are a larger part of any problem we are facing than she is.
Its great that you're into solid research. I admire that. Maybe you could take a moment to read Slotkins wikipedia then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elissa_Slotkin
And google her caucus memberships. They tell you who she is, and its not great. And she's another "Endorsed by Liz Cheney" Dem which is the coveted endorsement for liberals.
Let me help get you started from that wikipedia page:
Caucus memberships
New Democrat Coalition
Problem Solvers Caucus[
I know who she is. I believe you are incorrect in your take on her and Im not sure you understand how our system works at all which is a frequent problem for leftists.
I know who she is. I believe you are incorrect in your take on her
Great, explain her caucus memberships and being a top AIPAC recipient then. Go ahead, I'll wait. Do you need me to google the mission of those caucuses for you? Even the stated mission would do it, we dont even need to look at the awful things they actually support or the various ways they have shafted members of the democratic party for decades.
Did you miss mediaite is another corporate propaganda rag to prop up the ~~oligarchy~~ kleptocracy?
Slotkin just made herself part of the problem.
seems like she was always the problem, shes probably being prodded by said oligarches, probably russia too to make noise.
Here's who her donors are, if that's of interest to anybody
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/elissa-slotkin/summary?cid=N00041357
What does "Retired" mean for top donor?
That's broken down by profession of individual donor.
It shows that her biggest group of individual donors is boomers, who aren't exactly known for being progressive.
It's by donor profession. So things like "lawyer", "student" or in this case "retired".
These are donations from retired individuals
The oligarchy pays me to pretend to fight for you! Wait. Cut that part.
I'm an independent but mostly lefty guy and this lady has never sat well with me. She's a corporate dem through and through.
Dumbass' term ends this year, hopefully the DNC outright replaces her because her genius strategy of attracting Republican voters is about to backfire spectacularly and hand a seat to the enemy.
her genius strategy of attracting Republican voters
That's been the dnc strategy for how many years???
Plus world be unlikely after they had her do the response to the state of the union
Read the fucking article before you comment. It's obvious most did not.
I disagree. How exactly is that obvious?
You're just sore that we all think she's DNC trash.
Do you know what the word "most" means? Do you also see that the article misrepresents her position which is basically "use an easier word than ologarch"?
Take a breath; if you did read the article, you apparently didn't read my comment. It doesn't say "if you disagree it's obvious you didn't read it".
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.
Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.
e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.
What's more "alpha" than backing down from a bully and adhering to their chosen framing of an issue?
You know what would actually be "alpha" (ugh)? Not trying to figure out the ideal terminology for whatever state she thinks the populace is inclined to right now and actually driving the conversation to bring people to our viewpoint. Like having a national tour highlighting wealth inequality and corruption by literal mustache twirling villains. Because if you say it enough and talk about the problem that's right there fucking everything up right now and LEAD, they'll adopt whatever goddamned term you feel like.
Yes they mean something different. If you go ask 5 random people what an oligarch is, at least one is likely not to know what it means.
The "woke" reputation stuff is also a little weird, but there again, the people using it as an insult probably don't have a good working definition.
It's easy to say "words have meaning" but lots of people, even left leaning ones, don't always know what those meanings are.
I’m not saying ‘words have meaning.’
I’m saying we create meaning and we should not just give in to the fascists’ definitions.
They do not define us.
Our country was also founded on saying fuck off to a king. It's part of the foundational mythology of the country. To a lot of people the word oligarchy means precisely nothing.
Rule by powerful elites isn't unamarican. It's actually kinda the opposite, given the caveats on our democratic system and it's history.
A king however is actually one of the few unambiguously unamerican things out there.
This is not to disagree with your point, but more to say that it's not without room for debate.
As for the "weak and woke" bit, I'm gonna disagree. That one read to me as a need to address public perception, not criticism from the right. Backing down from a bully is different from trying to change public perception. I didn't see it as a statement of needing to be less woke, but of needing to be perceived as being effective and concerned about things other than the most pejorative senses of the term woke.
That political parties need to be viewed in a positive light by the public to be effective is inescapable.
Most of your peers don’t have that reaction. They should~ but they don’t. Ask them to name a king not from a Disney movie and report back. *edit: ask them to name the king independence was fought over. I’ll bet many can’t, and I’ll bet none can give you the actual reasons (other than vague concepts like ‘freedon’ or ‘taxation’).
I’m with you. Let’s stop fighting each other and figure this out.
I can definitively tell you that anyone I know who I could ask that question of would be able to say Richard, George or Luis with a random number afterwards, at least knows king George due to musical theater, and would be able to give a more detailed breakdown of the factors behind the revolution than the vaguely conceptual, although I'm not sure what level of granularity you need for it to be the "real" reasons. (You'd get taxation without representation, quartering troops, Boston massacre, and probably some that i can't recall and a "the rich white ruling class resented being governed and seized an opportunity for justifiable rebellion and the cause was just pretext")
My brother in law would be the most uncertain. He almost certainly doesn't know what an oligarch is, but he has enough 'murika to him to be resentful of royalty. From the kids most royalty he could name would be animated I think. Probably hand wave the essentials of the revolution without getting names right, and I have a sneaking suspicion he'd call the Boston tea party a cause.
There's a lot of variety in what you find in people.
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she'd suggest 'billionaire' instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
I'm sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.
"King" isn't even related to capitalism.
People really like first not admitting they didn't read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
"People shouldn't be able to have that much money when everyone else is struggling"
You're right, that is completely unrelatable, who would ever think like that
People really like first not admitting they didn't read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
You speaking for yourself there?
I think we're both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn't imply capitalism, either.
The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn't parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren't clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.
Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.
Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn't really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow "earned it more" than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn't irrational, either.
While I'm fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
The.... cognitive meaning? Wtf is a 'cognitive' meaning?
There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck?? I think you're intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well - that the 'elite' are able to stack the deck in their favor because they have obscene wealth. Elon bought his way into trump's circle and fucked with Wisconsin's election using his immense fortune and influence. That isn't a mystery, not even to diehard conservatives.
The other issue with 'kings' is that in a MONarchy, there is only one monarch, one King. Even the people you're claiming to speak for know that the problem extends well beyond Trump, and thinking of Elon and Bezos and Zuck and Gates all as Kings of their own kingdom unnecessarily complicates what is otherwise a clear quid-pro-quo relationship between them and a government they are supposed to be subservient to. Oligarchs may be 'officially' less than the governing structure they're a part of, but they are the defining feature of a government by the name of oligarchy.
I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
I have family in those states, and even though we have differing voting habits, they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence. It is often one of the few things we have in common politically, and I think democrats just don't want it to be true.
I don't see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as "kings" as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I think it would have been better if she had used a "yes, and", recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the "kings" language on top of it.
I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I disagree, I don't think people would resonate with that language as applied to other, 'good'/quiet billionaires like Gates, Buffet, or Page - in fact I think that's exactly the point of swapping terms because it sounds more specific to how those billionaires utilize their wealth and influence instead of the fact that they have it to begin with.
while your point is benign enough-- so no shade on you, I do think context matters, focused language matters, and watering down language-- like Slotkin is trying to do-- is a cheap rhetorical trick to control the narrative. Her proposition is at best pointless and at worst manipulative to sabotage progressive messaging with nonsense. Its a classic zionist move too.
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.
but their names aren’t on the ballot.
Theres a lot more to fighting the oligarchy than voting.
Sure, but I would say it’s a good thing to focus on for a minority political party.
It’s the guy who is trying to play king
yea.... except he's just the end result of a far broader problem
This is exactly the concern with hand-wringing over semantics- the democrats aren't losing because they aren't being vocal enough about their opposition to Trump, they're losing because they're actively avoiding the root problem.
Pick another word for oligarchs if you want, so long as the attention is being drawn to the root problem of wealth inequality and the billionare class. Don't just abandon the issue because you're afraid it looks like you might be critiquing our economic model when that's absolutely what we're doing
Exactly.
take your upvote for reading the source and making me do the same.
It's really nice when the false progressives out themselves so openly.
You. Cannot. Build. A. System. Of. Social. Justice. In. A. System. Of. Political/Economic. Injustice.
There's a reason why we got so much shit done in the 60-70s, socially, and why nobody really feels like we've progressed much since then.
Sorry what?
Are you implying that the 1960s and 1970s were more politically or economically just than today?
In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?
The bully is calling me names. I must be bad.
Yes. Internalize the shame! How dare we focus on the root cause of political instability? Let’s just change ourselves so they will stop hitting us. It has worked so well in our past abusive relationships!
No! The problem is Wednesdays!
The problem with people with no moral or intellectual compass is that they just look around them for what's 'working' and attempt to copy that.
Picking a cause that doesn't resonate and polarizes a full third of the country
vs
following the data
Woke has no plan but is overstocked with blind righteousness.
People can tell you're a phony if you just do what advisors tell you. We're living in a world where a poorly put together commercial does better than something with high production value because people see it as more authentic.
Get with the times
Sounds like a moron who needs to be primaried.
If anybody wanted to read the article (ha! yeah, I know) she's not saying we should lose 'woke' ideology or stop attacking 'oligarchy'. She says the opposite of those things, which was phrased by mediaite this way for clickbait reasons.
What she's saying is to use the word "kings" instead of "oligarchy". Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
As for the 'woke' part, she said:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
She's mad as fuck and doesn't want to explain why people need to be treated with respect - it should be a given and we don't need to explain it.
So there's sixty comments on here so far, most of them railing against her but I don't see it. I think she's been misinterpreted, deliberately, in the case of the mediaite headline writer.
Nah, this headline gets it right by ignoring Slotkin's transparent spin
Slotkin voted for the Laken Reilly act and hasn't ever said shit about the CIA being held accountable for torturing people, so she doesn't want to "fucking retake the flag" in any way that isn't just a new reign of terror for brown people
The negging about the word "oligarchy" (which she was happy to use against wealthy Russian assholes who support Putin up until very recently) is continuing a very long tradition of her being against whatever AOC is doing at the moment. She can't come right out and say "I don't like her policies" because those are popular and that would be political suicide, so she's just focusing on AOC's rhetoric and playing to Republican talking points about progressives being the out of touch ones.
Slotkin is a toxic divisive piece of shit who's bad on policy, bad on politics, and drags the whole Democratic party's image down whenever she wants to advance her own career.
I'm not seeing that from this article, but you seem to know a lot about her - what are some other things she's done?
Off the top of my head - she said she's more than "just an AOC," said Rashida Tlaib was supporting terrorism when Tlaib asked the Biden administration to stop funding Israel, said multiple times in interviews that the Green New Deal could never pass because it had controversial ideas like universal healthcare, said multiple times in interviews in 2020 during the height of the George Floyd protests that she would never ever support defunding the police, and on and on. She constantly signal boosts Republican talking points about progressive lawmakers and progressive policy ideas to tear them down and only then turns around and says "Hey Michigan, if you don't want to deal with a Republican party that went completely insane around 2020* I guess you're stuck with me!"
*I forget the exact details, but MAGAts purged their party's leadership for some "say the quiet parts through megaphones" types and then there was some sort of scandal with their finances, so MIGOP has been a barely functional shell of itself for a few years now
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
Still don't agree with that. Oligarchy is a very specific thing that we are currently living in. We don't have a king, not even by the most new-speak of definitions.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Also hard pass. The CIA should be shuttered they will never be able to provide solution to the problems of capitalism, because their number one goal is to secure "US Interests Abroad" meaning, prop up the oligarchy.
Well you can argue the words or the pronunciation thereof but I don't think you're on the right side of that one. Language is central to reality and you're talking about a wide swath of people's reality where oligarch has little meaning but king has a lot.
As for CIA-bad, no argument there but CIA-bad-therefore-anyone-who-worked-there-bad I'd also disagree with. We gotta have someone to run and if she's progressive and firey, I'll take it. If the left wants to primary her for someone else, fine - so long as they can win. But in most cases they don't have anyone.
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
It does not make sense and is not the same argument. She's part of a New Democrat Coalition campaign to absolve corporate interests from any responsibility for their lobbying of congressman for whatever filthy outcome they want. She doesnt care about doing the right things, she wants boycotts stopped, and to keep the public busy attacking figureheads.
Do you consider yourself an informed person when it comes to how the system works?
Look how desperate you are to derail anything about Slotkins odious caucus memberships with an ad hom attack.
New Democrats coalition, buddy. Explain why Slotkin is a member of that caucus (AKA the blue dogs) and how the work of that caucus is good for voters. After that we can talk about her other caucus memberships and votes.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
Have you read the article? You should it pretty short, and the Headline absolutely gets it right.
There are a lot of people here who pat themselves on the back for their lack of education and understanding.
This from the guy who insta-pivots to ad hom attacks on anyone who tries to dig into Slotkins caucus membership and voting record, and then runs away.
So we're all stupid huh? Your boos mean nothing to us, rowrowyourbot, we've all seen what makes you cheer.
Trolls are so tiresome.
I for one, greatly appreciate all the comments on this thread that arent pro Slotkin trolls. You give me some hope that the voters of the dem party (or what the dem party should be anyway) have some hope of getting this country back on some sort of track, and flushing the filthy slotkins and republican fascists down the tubes bak into the shameful silent background where they always belonged.
"Dem senator is a compromised lackey"
Yeah, no shit. That's the problem.
More woke, less selling out your citizens to the wealthy. Thats what I want.
I understand where people are coming from when they say "identity politics" are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular, but I understand where it comes from.
But if she also thinks we shouldn't be talking about class either, what the fuck does she want to do?
Cash donor checks and subjugate all poor people equally regardless of their race religion gender sexuality or ability status
I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular
The thing is, the things that help everyone helps everyone...
The people suffering from identity politics politicizing their existence as well
But when shit sucks, people lash out. If we were taking care of everyone, they wouldn't need a Boogeyman to blame to distract them from the real problem.
Fixing the class issue makes it easier to fix societal issues.
You're literally arguing to put the cart before the horse, to do things in the least effective manner to achieve all goals.
That's why the wealthy use it to distract people, even though you think you understand it. You're still missing the point and falling for it. It's an effective strategy and loads of people keep falling for it. It exploits natural logic, because it should be easier to handle "identity politics" because it's way less people.
Humans aren't wired to think of more than like 220 people, and that fact is exploited by the wealthy constantly
Maybe before you say that the issues that you care about are obviously the first priority you should be asking why minority voters would ever trust white liberals (or leftists) to get to the things that are critical issues for their communities once the stuff whites prioritize gets done.
Your argument of "give the racists more money so they won't be as racist" isn't going to inspire solidarity from the people you're supposed to view as allies. Prove you're there for them before you start worrying about how you can convert Republicans. It's still a dumb fucking plan when it's from the left rather than from the middle. The left is never going to win by figuring out which part of the coalition can be pushed to the back of the line to attract those sweet sweet Republican converts. The situation doesn't change if you swap out neocons for anti-woke tradesmen.
This class-first argument is almost solely promoted by white male leftists and FFS you guys should wonder why.
If we want to take care of everyone, then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone. We have to stand up against persecution and injustice. We have to proactively offer a hand up to those who need it most right now. When people are being oppressed, silence is complicity.
If you want to sweep issues under the rug when they feel politically inconvenient, then you can't also say you're taking care of everyone.
then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone.
Literally what I'm saying...
We're not, we should be, and that should be priority 1 because everything else is easy.
You're so close to understanding this.
Does taking care of everyone mean saying "sorry you can't get HRT, it just doesn't poll well enough"?
I take back what I said:
You’re so close to understanding this.
I'm sorry I can't put this very simple topic in a way you can understand. Hopefully someone else has better luck
If you read the article, she's saying the word oligarchy doesn't resonate with voters and it should be replaced with the word "kings". The woke part was about changing perception, not platform. She wants the party to take a more aggressive tone in opposition to trump and work to lose the reputation of being "weak and woke" as was reported by focus groups.
It's an intentionally misleading headline
It's almost like she is insulting her fellow citizens.
The implication that I see (based on her statement) is that other people in her country lack the capability to comprehend the notion of oligarchy or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruption reform.
or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruotion reform.
Maybe. Or maybe they just shove the honest out of sight, or ridicule them with heavy projections.
You might be surprised how many people have little to no understanding of political philosophy.
See, I don't you need know anything about political philosophy to understand how oligarchs function and to well, identify oligarchs.
I think you need it to be able to identify oligarchy and why it is an issue.
Agreed, but do you really need knowledge of political philosophy to do that?
The impression I got from living in the US is that it's not so much a problem with identification, but more like a desire to avoid rather uncomfortable topics.
I don't know, maybe I just don't get it. I will admit that I could be wrong, I am just thinking out loud based on my experiences. 😀
It's not even an uncomfortable topic among the people. You can go into a bar of any political persuasion anywhere and loudly complain about those goddamned rich assholes running everything into the ground and screwing over regular folk and all you'll get is hearty agreement. It's only an uncomfortable topic among the wealthy and their political lapdogs.
Ah another closet republican, nice
Can you tell us you have been purchased by the oligarchy without telling us?
End "woke"? So let Republicans shred all DEI? That's not just trans/gay, it's anti racial discrimination, it is help and protection for the disabled ... hell, it is the very laws that make ramps and elevators required for the disabled.
Yes, I might be talked into agreeing that democrats have to tone down "the message" so Republicans cannot use it as a hate rallying cry ... but the goals are still there. The evil fascist stuff this admin has done must be reversed, and these people all need to be in jail for insider trading by ping-ponging the economy.
Try actually reading the article.
Slotkin is the kind of Democrat who will be literally seig heiling at the DNC convention in ten years if the party continues to pursue the policies of capitulation that she is advocating for here. Four decades of this approach by this party has enabled the rise of US fascism we are dealing with now.
Whelp.
Guess Slotkin is getting a “collaborator” postcard from me.
“Everyone you mentioned has a lot of words, but what have they actually done to change the situation with Donald Trump and the cuts and the attacks on our judiciary and the attacks on our Constitution?” asked Slotkin, who claimed her responsibilities fighting Trump’s government cuts forced her “to be more than just an AOC.”
Fair.
“I can’t do what she does because we live in a purple state, and I’m a pragmatist,” she concluded.
🙄
who claimed her responsibilities fighting Trump’s government cuts forced her “to be more than just an AOC.”
Alright, why are you less than an AOC then?
I understand all of the "we can't just be activists, we have to be effective and use our power" arguments if (a) you have power -- which they're split-minded about, sometimes it's "well, you know we are the minority party" and sometimes it's bullshit like this -- and (b) you use it to do something more than an activist does. The minority party in the Senate has done less than be activists. They caved and gave Trump the continuing resolution he needed to continue dismantling the government and wiping his ass with the Constitution. Slotkin isn't even doing as much as Corey Booker.
They had leverage and they refused to use it, because despite all of the rhetoric, deep down they still believe this is the time for politics as usual.
We're well along the path where we could be post-political in a real sense, where political enemies are sent to the gulag in CECOT or "suicided" by shooting themselves in the back of the head. As a former CIA person ought to know, changes in rhetoric aren't going to save you from that.
It's time to realize the only ones who are to save us from ourselves is us.
Literally, the opposite of what they should be doing. And saying Americans are too stupid to understand a word like "oligarchy" isn't a good look, either.
Or you know, we could focus on the problem, which is oligarchy..
bye felicia
I know how she can test her theory.
Run a primary opponent against her who feels differently. Let the market decide.
Fuck that! I want my progressive cadidates woke AF!
My favorite part was focusing on Trump taking away democracy. Putting Kamala forward, a candidate no one wanted, voted for, or liked. Protecting DuMOcRAsy!
This is the DINO that went on after HitlerPig's SOTU and tried to sell the absurd concept that millions of people voted straight Democratic tickets, except for HitlerPig at the top.
Sure, there were probably some dummies rhat did that, but they're as rare as white squirrels. She's just the water carrier for the same old weak, spineless weenie Dems who are perfectly happy being smug about their "peaceful transfer of power" to Nazis who obviously rigged the election.
Well, I'm just going to go extra woke, now. Go woke or go broke.
Slotkin is the new Sinema and can GFY, but there is a component to this that does deserve some discussion.
If you look back on the past 10 years of the Democrats climbing hills for issues, I think it's out of sync with the majority of people. The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that. Maybe there was a time when this was what their constituents wanted, but no longer.
Now they need to be really fucking strong on fighting the billionaires, pushing back against the front to vast majority of the country that has no wealth, and finding ways to make that flip around so that the wealthy who are imposing the enshitification of the lower and middle class are held accountable for doing so.
Forget the current struggles we're forced to dread living through, and give people a clear plan and the hope that you'll actually be attacking these things when elected. Seems pretty simple.
sinema was poison from the very moment she was elected.
The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that.
They're paid a lot of money specifically so they don't understand that...
The entire reason for the culture war is to distract people from the fact that the wealthiest are fighting a class war.
You think she can't understand because she's not able to. It's a willful ignorance, and require lots of money for that cognitive dissonance
Who do you think are the voices who are really strong against billionaires? And who are the voices who are the strongest in support of this "identity politics" bogeyman? Because it's pretty much the same people. This idea that the Democrats running interference for the rich are using wokeness to do it is just bullshit. The same people saying stop wokeness are the ones who also don't want to talk about wealth inequality.
There's no secret plot to distract with identity politics, just rich centrists chasing the golden age of Clintonism and white people thinking the only policies that should really matter are the ones that affect them.
more like, people like her is chasing the same money the gop are chasing, which megadonor moneys.
Sanders and Cortez are literally doing a tour right now AGAINST the Oligarchy bullshit.
Crockett, Porter, Durbin, Duckworth, Warnock, Kaine, Gillinrand (shocker) have all pushed bills to raise the ceiling on taxable income for Social Security, and higher tiered taxes exponentially for wealthy earners.
What in the hell are you talking about?
And would you consider either of them to represent the anti-woke strain of the Democratic party?
Anti-oligarchy and "identity politics" are not two camps in the Democratic party. The same people who are against focus on the oligarchy are the ones who are against focusing on "identity politics".
class war vs culture war. she doesnt want that.
There is no "anti-woke", because the only dipshits who believe there is "woke" in the first place are Fox News enthusiasts.
Stop buying into all this drama, my God.
and people pretending to be on the "left" but often use woke.
You're the one who just made an argument to listen to the centrists and stop doing "identity politics". You're the drama!
Never said anything like that, but it's obvious where your mind with it 🤣
Did you actually read what she said? It's a lot closer in message to what you just said than I think you might have expected.
I did. Her target is all wrong. She's focused on some culture bullshit, and ignoring the real issue which is a full out fucking class war. She literally is trying to divert people's attention away from the billionaires who own her ass. Fuck that.
Except she's saying a different word polls better, not that we need to focus less on them.
I don't see how saying a different word is more effective is the same as drawing attention away from the topic, or how saying Dems need to do better about avoiding being seen as ineffectual is an issue.
She claimed the word oligarchy doesnt resonate and it absolutely does. You are just buying into Slotkins pro business, pro aipac, manipulative narrative.
You're being duped, ricecake. Snap out of it.
I'm really not.
I get that you prefer the word oligarchy. That's fine. I'm not sure I feel strongly that we call them oligarchs or if we compare them to monarchs in our messaging how they're bad.
I'm just not seeing how a disagreement on verbiage without a difference in content makes someone as awful as people seem to be reacting.
Its about who she is.
You keep trying to frame this narrowly and we all need to keep an eye on who people are with their actions, what their record is, and who is paying them.
Slotkin is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and a member of the New Democrats Coalition. She's also far right as zionist supporter as they come, and she's already chair on a committee on terrorism and intelligence-- as a jr senator elected 2 months ago.
The new democrat coalition is what the blue dog dems became, and inherited the members of that group. They are extremely pro business and anti immigration, and deficit focused (aka, republicans)
Remember the blue dogs? Their brand became so toxic they had to rebrand as new democrats. But its the same well funded group that is always for tax cuts for the rich, but shuts down anything for the people based on a vague deficit/fiscal austerity argument. They consistently block any advancements on health care, citing cost even though the CBO says it would save money and propel the economy-- but limit the complete market control of health insurance companies. (new democrats work for them, never us)
https://theweek.com/articles/713180/why-blue-dogs-destroy-democratic-party-again
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/blue-dog-democrats-arent-making-sense-on-health-care-reform/
I'd urge you to actually read up on the new demcrts coalition and the problem solvers caucus and tell me how either one are good for the democratic party. Those are the only two caucuses Slotkin identifies with.
I'm not trying to frame it narrowly. The headline is misleading click bait. Everything you say could be 100% true and it wouldn't change that she didn't say what you're saying she said.
I really don't care if you want to make it about segments of the democratic party. You're going to be hard pressed to convince me that suggesting a different word for criticism inverts the criticism, even if they are already on an intelligence and terrorism committee (which I have no idea how that relevant to anything).
Argue she's awful if you want, I honestly don't care, but that doesn't make her statements in this case pro business, pro oligarchy, or anything particularly interesting.
And yes, I've looked at her voting records and donors. I don't like everything I see, but it's mostly fine, and definitively better than the other candidates.
Lmao fuck that and fuck you, Slotkin.
You will not win running on a Republican platform,but half baked. That's what we have been shown. I will support the lesser evil, but no one else will. Harris never really attacked the rich. Who are you going to elect? "Immigrants are the problem but hey guys let's not be too hasty" or "IMMIGRANTS ARR The PROBLEM! KILLKILLKILL". I don't like either, but you both identify the same people (wrongly) as the main problem in society, and then they offer a (mosterous but still concrete) solution, while you offer nothing.
Support working class people and idealism. THAT Is what the dems need to do, win over the middle\right folks that can't stand the MAGA shit and want their real country back, not some perverted fucked up version the GOP would like to create.
this. defend public education and improve it. get universal healthcare. social safety nets to provide support as people are falling rather than after they hit the ground.
Punt her.
Yikes
Look, I get what she's going for: simplify the messaging, make the GOP respond to Dem labels instead of the other way around.
Here's the thing: She can just do that. We don't need someone navel gazing in the public square. This is the kind of thing you work out in think tanks or private rooms, and then execute the plan. Why discuss strategy in public? It's self-defeating.
Come on, she doesn't have the funds to- Oh, what's that? She's an ultra-wealthy heiress?
Hmm...
And one of most ardent zionists. She's take 656k from AIPAC. she's one of their top recipients.
https://www.trackaipac.com/congress
And last cycle 51 million from the "Mitten PAC". which doesnt disclose where funds are donated from.
Get her out, outdated mindset.
What the actual fuck are they thinking?
I think I used to know what "woke" meant, and I thought it was a good thing to be "woke" but the word seems to be used in different ways by different people. Closest thing I've seen to actual "doublespeak" yet. To be clear, I thought woke meant "to be aware" or "to know you need to learn more about certain issues". Education and learning is good for the society (not so good for an authoritarian leader though).
Politicians are the worst people. No other way to get the job.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans
Everyone believes that their politics are the politics of MOST Americans, but reality is more complicated than that. I'm not sure that anyone can say what most of the roughly 260 million voting age Americans think, about much of anything, really. Yes, polling can give us some insights, but polls are inherently flawed.
The fact is, the American people are complex. They believe many things, and some of the things they believe contradict other things they believe; and just because an American thinks a certain way today, that doesn't mean they'll think that way tomorrow. Plus, we just have such a large and diverse populace, spread out across fifty states. It's difficult, if not impossible, to point to any one American and say, "that person represents most Americans."
If I had to guess, I'd say that most Americans don't give a rats ass about oligarchy or kings. If they could live their lives the way they wanted under an oligarchy or a king, they'd be fine with it. Kings, oligarchs, emperors, despots, who gives a shit, as long as the price of eggs doesn't go up too much. I think what matters to most Americans isn't semantic, philosophical or ideological, but material. I think most Americans would be perfectly content to live under a king, if under that king they were able to live a decent, middle class life.
But, that's just my guess. Again, it's hard for anyone to say what most Americans want or think or believe.
Most dems are Nazis too. Tell us something we don’t know.
Fuck you. Die.
If you didn't RTFA like me, the follow comment is to stop using oligarchy INSTEAD use the word kings.
And if this article is the first you're hearing Slotkin's name (like apparently a lot of people in here who are defending this piece of shit for some reason), you should know she's a massive piece of shit whose whole brand is whining about whatever progressives are doing or saying. If AOC had gone on a "No Kings" tour Slotkin would be saying that she's alienating people who think the British royal family are cute or whatever.
Not defending her, just pointing out the full comment. Is the first I'm hearing of her, good to know the which ones are snakes in the grass
I feel like the headline conveys a different message than even what the article does:
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/24/slotkin-has-a-war-plan-to-beat-trump-dont-be-weak-and-woke-00308176
She's literally saying the word oligarchy sounds pretentious and an opposition to kings resonates better, and that people think the party is weak and they need to present themselves more aggressively.
Click bait is click bait.
An Oligarch & a King are not the same fucking thing.
Sorry if people use big, scary words that mean things.
EDIT: What's actually pretentious is talking down to people b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is or learn if they don't. She's talking down to the Democratic Party for not talking down to their constituents. Pretty fucking pretentious if you ask me.
LMAO I'm well aware far-left lemmy will downvote me for saying this, but the fact that you're copping an attitude with that person is funny because lefties are absolutely TERRIBLE at messaging. Democrats and lefties suck so badly at communicating with voters that a guy who rambled incoherently about immigrants eating pets was able to beat them.
Sadly, no, most Americans don't know what the hell an 'oligarch' is because that's what happens when you have decades of Republicans de-funding education. Pointing this out isn't 'pretentious', because it's sadly true.
b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is
They're not? Have you looked around?
... Saying a word resonates better isn't the same as saying someone is too stupid to understand it.
She wasn't talking about who to push back against, but about messaging. "Stand up to oligarchs" doesn't have the same impact as "stand up to would-be kings". We sort of have a national history of opposition to kings, so it touches on some more foundational themes that mesh well with a push for constitutional order.
It's not an academic paper. Your speech doesn't get points deducted for using the wrong word for a domineering political ruler.
Have you just decided to be angry, and if you have to pivot from anger that "she's pro-oligarchy" to anger that "she's falsely implying that the oligarchy believes they rule by divine right", so be it?
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
Doesn't resonate beyond the coastal institutions such as.... Iowa? and Montana? Where Bernie and AOC did giant rallies?
This milquetoast Republican-lite act doesn't really resonate anywhere including coastal institutions. Look at the results of the last election cycle. The difference is that on the coasts there are enough people with money that'll vote to keep the status quo going. Life is good enough here that the people here can still -- and just barely -- imagine a future.
In the middle of the country where everyone's broke and things are thoroughly hopeless, they see little difference between keeping the status quo going and burning it all to the ground.
That's exactly where and why Trump's "take the country back" rhetoric works. The country is screwed up and pretty obviously not going to be made dramatically better by silly little neoliberal plans such as a tax break for opening a new small business or whatever.
So, I'm honestly asking: how is this republican lite? The headline conveys that she's saying to tone down attacks on the oligarchy, but then her words in the article make it clear she's advocating for a change of wording, not message.
Agree or disagree on the wording change, I don't see how "we need to stop trump and the oligarchs" is progressive, and "we need to stop trump and the wannabe kings" is milquetoast republican-lite.
As for the other parts, would your definition of the middle of the country striken with economic issues happen to include Michigan? The state that just elected her? Maybe when she's talking about things people in focus groups shared she might be talking about people from the state she represents?
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite?
Sure:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
So, we need to wave flags, stop being "weak and woke", and be alphas.
This shit is something you'd hear at a fucking Trump rally.
Edit: BTW, notice how we're not talking about any actual issue here, just optics and messaging. That's because the policy agenda is still the same weak sauce, tried and failed neoliberal policy playbook that has taken the country far enough off of the rails to make the people easily lured in by right-wing populism, demagoguery, and fascism.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
Do you disagree that the perception of the Democrats as weak hurts them? Do you think it's wrong to frame opposition to trump as supporting the country?
I don't think you're saying that only Republicans can say they care about the country, have an assertive plan, or be proactive and energetic.
I think letting the Republicans own national pride and define what a "real American" is has been a major loss, and finding a way to say to voters that you have a patriotic duty to resist fascists is correct.
That your response to someone saying we need to use "caring about the country" to try to get people to stop fascists from tearing it apart is "This shit is something you'd hear at a fucking Trump rally" is exactly the problem.
This is seriously just looking for a reason to be mad at the Democrats. You're clearly upset at them for their failures, but you're also seemingly upset at those amongst them saying they should work on their failings that helped create those failures?
Even if meaningful policy changes could be enacted anytime in the next decade, do you think it has a chance of happening if the people in front of it are seen as meek, deferential, and not caring about the country?
And yeah, it's a set of remarks pertaining to part of a speech, one of the topics of which is a change in messaging strategy. I don't think every set of remarks made by a politician needs to be entirely focused on policy. It's a speech that was given to party volunteers about the need to change strategy because what they've been doing hasn't been working.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
That's because she's more worried about messaging and optics than doing the actual work required to stand up to Trump. It's not about perception. It's not about messaging. They look weak and are perceived as weak because they are weak, and act weakly in opposition. She thinks (as you seem to) that it's primarily (or entirely) a perception problem. It isn't.
Clearly you think it's a perception problem, since all you're doing is talking about perception. Why haven't you been talking about policy this entire time?
Isn't that a silly statement?
Making a statement about messaging isn't the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
I think that there is a perception problem, but that doesn't mean I think that there's nothing else. And weirdly, I can talk about the one without denying the other exists.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Um because that's what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
Again:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
It's not just a statement... it's the "plan". A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They're perceived as all talk because that's all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I'd rather them get caught trying to do something...basically anything at all at this point.
That's why I'm pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I'm concerned.
There's some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don't even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
I'm not sure I can remember a single time a progressive politician put out a navel-gazing messaging statement into the media. It's almost exclusively done by the centrists who want to pretend they're just helping out while using it to try to derail progressive campaigns that are gaining attention. And it's the last thing you should do publicly if one of the aesthetics you're chasing is "being alpha".
Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that's heresy around here.
