Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.