Six Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Donald Davis (N.C.), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Mary Peltola (Alaska), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wa.)—joined with the Republican majority to help pass the measure.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, once again noted her disapproval of a bill that places military spending over "investments in domestic priorities, from education to housing, healthcare to childcare," as she has in previous years—but the annual Pentagon funding package drew additional ire for its inclusion of amendments related to abortion rights, transgender healthcare, and other culture war battles.
"For the second year in a row, MAGA House Republicans pursued a path of extremism for the annual Pentagon authorization bill to continue waging their attacks on climate action, reproductive rights, LBGTQ+ rights, and communities of color," said Jayapal. "This bloated $833 billion Pentagon authorization bill approves $8.6 billion in additional tax dollars for an out-of-control military budget, expanding costly and unnecessary weapons systems while banning gender-affirming care, abortion travel, and diversity efforts for servicemembers."
I haven't looked them up, but I'm guessing most who voted for it are in purple districts and trying to keep their seats.
But fuck that bill. Their anti-woke war is going to cause a talent drain across the federal government. If my family was living on a base in a state without reproductive protections I'd be looking for a transfer or a new job.
Ever notice how moderates claim they have to be more conservative than they want to win elections?
But to get them to move left it takes someone dragging them publicly left while they kick and scream?
You never thought that maybe they're lying and just using republicans as an excuse to be more conservative than Dem.voters want because those moderates get donations from the same people conservatives do?
Far left to far right it's all a scam. You'll see people slam a policy and still come up with a reason to vote for that policy. Almost all raise money from the same corporate interests.
This only gets better with major election finance reform and ethics reform with teeth.
I'd love to hear what/who on the "far left" are a scam....
Because I less you're using some weird definitions, the "far left" are the only ones fighting for major election finance reform
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer. I was interested in the green party, but the more I read about their - and particularly her - positions on some issues and some of the things she claims, she's either an educated idiot or a grifter. She certainly has some good positions, but also pushes a number of pseudoscience ideas from anti-vax and anti-gmo to scares about "Wi-Fi hurting our kids" (not Internet usage but electromagnetic waves from Wi-Fi). She also pushes Russian propaganda, especially around the Russia-Ukraine war, and has met with Russian officials (including Putin himself) on a number of occasions.
So unless you're going to "No True Scotsman" the Green Party as not being leftist, then yes. There are grifters on the left as well. Further, you should avoid assumptions like "there aren't any bad actors in OUR camp" because grifters and charlatans will find a place in any community should they figure out an effective method to do so, and letting your guard down because "we're the good guys" is the fastest way to let that happen.
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer
That's what I thought they were thinking...
Calling the green party is "far left" is exactly why they get funding. So that people think moderates are actually moderate
The Green party isn't "left" they're grifters.
I agree that the Green Party is a grifting party, but they are the farthest left that has a national stage / ballot access. There are also decent leftists within the Green Party, because they want to affect change at a local level and that's the closest thing to a party that would represent their views if the DSA doesn't have a presence.
But I think it's too dismissive to simply write them off as "not left" because at a surface level, they represent several leftist viewpoints, and they're, unfortunately, a lot of people's first exposure to leftist politics (especially back in the 2000's and 2010's before the DSA started growing). Like yes, they are at this point a grift, but they weren't always that way and a lot of people aren't aware that that is the case. They're "not left" in the same Sense that the Tea Party was "not libertarian" - which is to say that they're not good-faith proponents of the ideology, but are good at attracting people who don't know better and have a corrupting effect on the movement.
but they are the farthest left
They're as "left" as Chinas government...
Like, how NK includes "democratic Republic of" in their name.
Stop just believing people off their words and not actions.
And if you're defining them as "far left" then you're doing exactly what the conservatives funding the Green Party want.
Erasing the actual rational people on the far left of the political spectrum.
You seem to understand most of that, but you can't stick the landing.
So I think we largely agree on the situation, but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology. I am referring to them as "leftist" (though I don't mean to say that they're actually "far" left) because they present themselves as such. Their grift is centered on being the group for people that care about climate change, universal healthcare, UBI (IIRC, they may not advocate for that...), Unions/labor and other policies that are broadly considered "leftist" (even if the views are largely mainstream at this point.
I could see not calling them "far" left, at least in the international sphere, but they at least present as leftist, and have many people convinced that they are as such.
I'm the same way, Joel Osteen and the other "prosperity gospel" are grifters and charlatans PRESENTING as Christians. But when enough "Christians" believe them and support their policies, a simple dismissal of them as "not Christian" falls into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Doing so allows you to hand wave away more and more things that others within (your group) that you disagree with. Westboro Baptist Church? No True Christian. Church has an opposite opinion as you on LGBT rights? No True Christian. (And the Christian you're talking to will have arguments on WHY they're not really a Christian).
That issue is not unique to Christians, or to right-wingers, or to other groups that you and I are likely not a part of. But we must acknowledge that OUTSIDERS will regard them as leftist whether or not you or I do. And dismissing them out of hand tends to shut down dialogue and ostracize those who may be caught up in said grift. I myself used to be interested in the Green Party until I saw enough of their bullshit to realize that they were not a group I would want to represent me (probably around 2015-ish). But there are good people with good ideals that do identify with the Green Party either because they haven't looked into enough of the problems surrounding the party or because they've been convinced of the bullshit after agreeing with good points the party has made.
They may be wolves in sheep's clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point. That's what grifters do.
but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology.
Exactly. I'm in favor of labeling groups based on what they are/do and using clear terminology.
You seem fine to call them whatever they want.
Which is why I pointed China claims to be communist and NK claims to be a democracy....
So we shouldn't just let political group use any label they want.
Words have meaning.
They may be wolves in sheep’s clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point.
Alright, big payoff time, I'm crossing my fingers this works.
If they're trying to trick people by labeling themselves "far left" and people are falling for it...
Why are you the one out here labeling them "far left" and arguing with the people clarifying they're not?
It seem like the rational path her for you would be doing what I'm doing.
All you're doing right now is helping their grift and continuing the false narrative that they're the. "far left" option.
We really do seem to agree on a lot of stuff here, I just don't know why you're helping them
You're now being hostile which is quickly souring any chance of productive conversation. You're accusing me of saying things I've not said, you're blatantly ignoring anything that's inconvenient to your point of view, and You're making attacks/accusing me of "helping the enemy" because I disagree on how to deal with them. Not only are you not making any manner of argument on how you're NOT engaging in "No True Scotsman", you're becoming actively hostile at an ally because I only agree on 99% of the topic.
I've not once called them "far left" - I've called them the "farthest left (at least at a surface level) party with national exposure." That's not exactly a high bar. It also ignores the fact that there are genuine leftists that identify with the party. They operate WITHIN the leftist sphere, and they are grifters. You can't dismiss it out of hand and say that "well they are really leftists" - yeah, no shit, that's what grifters fucking do. Fucker Carlson doesn't believe in 1/10th of the shit he spouts off, but it doesn't make home not a far right grifter.
I'm not helping them, I'm trying to make sure that allies, both to my left and to my right (I wouldn't call myself "far left" but would call myself "leftist") keep some level of guard up against grifters that operate within our spaces.
My POV is: we are not immune to grifters in our spaces, you should maintain guard. Here's one example of a grifter within our space. (FTR, I could have also pointed to ML tankies that defend the actions of Russia and China in spite of the fact that neither are remotely Communist, socialist or leftist of any form).
Your POV as it comes across SEEMS TO BE: Well, they're not REALLY far left (unclear if you only mean to exclude from "far" left or leftist in total), so no we don't have grifters on the left. If this is not your point of view, then far more time has been spent arguing about minutiae and leftist in-Fighting than explaining why you don't believe that grift is not a problem within this space.
And look, I really do not want to be hostile here, because I do Believe that we are largely allies (I don't know that we would agree on policies exactly as this is a narrow discussion, but we're so far from what either of us would likely want that it should prevent us from wanting to work together). I am however, not interested in engaging further if the discussion is just going to be hostile. I ain't got time for that shit.
Edit: Sorry, there is a point that you mentioned that I want to touch on: you mentioned that I am "just calling people what they want to be called" while you Believe in looking at their actions over their words... The thing is, we can only see that their actions are inconsistent with a leftist ideology because they have visibility and have been around long enough that we can now know that they are grifters. A decade+ ago, we did not have that information, so as far as most people could know, they were "leftist". I'm not including them to exist their actions, I'm using them as an example of our space but being immune to the grift. They may not be "true leftists", but they ARE "left-wing grifters." Because it's not about who they are, it's about who they target. There are farther-left grifters (likely including some who are state actors of foreign governments), but it's not as easy to identify who is and is not a grifter because we don't have as much info on them.
I hope your weekend turns around before it's over...
But nothing productive is going to happen here, and I dont expect it ever will between us.
That or military districts. It doesn't matter though, the Republicans had enough votes to pass it on their own. These Dems are, exactly as you say, just playing it safe at home.
I haven't looked them up, but I'm guessing most who voted for it are in purple districts and trying to keep their seats.
But fuck that bill. Their anti-woke war is going to cause a talent drain across the federal government. If my family was living on a base in a state without reproductive protections I'd be looking for a transfer or a new job.
Ever notice how moderates claim they have to be more conservative than they want to win elections?
But to get them to move left it takes someone dragging them publicly left while they kick and scream?
You never thought that maybe they're lying and just using republicans as an excuse to be more conservative than Dem.voters want because those moderates get donations from the same people conservatives do?
Far left to far right it's all a scam. You'll see people slam a policy and still come up with a reason to vote for that policy. Almost all raise money from the same corporate interests.
This only gets better with major election finance reform and ethics reform with teeth.
I'd love to hear what/who on the "far left" are a scam....
Because I less you're using some weird definitions, the "far left" are the only ones fighting for major election finance reform
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer. I was interested in the green party, but the more I read about their - and particularly her - positions on some issues and some of the things she claims, she's either an educated idiot or a grifter. She certainly has some good positions, but also pushes a number of pseudoscience ideas from anti-vax and anti-gmo to scares about "Wi-Fi hurting our kids" (not Internet usage but electromagnetic waves from Wi-Fi). She also pushes Russian propaganda, especially around the Russia-Ukraine war, and has met with Russian officials (including Putin himself) on a number of occasions.
So unless you're going to "No True Scotsman" the Green Party as not being leftist, then yes. There are grifters on the left as well. Further, you should avoid assumptions like "there aren't any bad actors in OUR camp" because grifters and charlatans will find a place in any community should they figure out an effective method to do so, and letting your guard down because "we're the good guys" is the fastest way to let that happen.
That's what I thought they were thinking...
Calling the green party is "far left" is exactly why they get funding. So that people think moderates are actually moderate
The Green party isn't "left" they're grifters.
I agree that the Green Party is a grifting party, but they are the farthest left that has a national stage / ballot access. There are also decent leftists within the Green Party, because they want to affect change at a local level and that's the closest thing to a party that would represent their views if the DSA doesn't have a presence.
But I think it's too dismissive to simply write them off as "not left" because at a surface level, they represent several leftist viewpoints, and they're, unfortunately, a lot of people's first exposure to leftist politics (especially back in the 2000's and 2010's before the DSA started growing). Like yes, they are at this point a grift, but they weren't always that way and a lot of people aren't aware that that is the case. They're "not left" in the same Sense that the Tea Party was "not libertarian" - which is to say that they're not good-faith proponents of the ideology, but are good at attracting people who don't know better and have a corrupting effect on the movement.
They're as "left" as Chinas government...
Like, how NK includes "democratic Republic of" in their name.
Stop just believing people off their words and not actions.
And if you're defining them as "far left" then you're doing exactly what the conservatives funding the Green Party want.
Erasing the actual rational people on the far left of the political spectrum.
You seem to understand most of that, but you can't stick the landing.
So I think we largely agree on the situation, but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology. I am referring to them as "leftist" (though I don't mean to say that they're actually "far" left) because they present themselves as such. Their grift is centered on being the group for people that care about climate change, universal healthcare, UBI (IIRC, they may not advocate for that...), Unions/labor and other policies that are broadly considered "leftist" (even if the views are largely mainstream at this point.
I could see not calling them "far" left, at least in the international sphere, but they at least present as leftist, and have many people convinced that they are as such.
I'm the same way, Joel Osteen and the other "prosperity gospel" are grifters and charlatans PRESENTING as Christians. But when enough "Christians" believe them and support their policies, a simple dismissal of them as "not Christian" falls into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Doing so allows you to hand wave away more and more things that others within (your group) that you disagree with. Westboro Baptist Church? No True Christian. Church has an opposite opinion as you on LGBT rights? No True Christian. (And the Christian you're talking to will have arguments on WHY they're not really a Christian).
That issue is not unique to Christians, or to right-wingers, or to other groups that you and I are likely not a part of. But we must acknowledge that OUTSIDERS will regard them as leftist whether or not you or I do. And dismissing them out of hand tends to shut down dialogue and ostracize those who may be caught up in said grift. I myself used to be interested in the Green Party until I saw enough of their bullshit to realize that they were not a group I would want to represent me (probably around 2015-ish). But there are good people with good ideals that do identify with the Green Party either because they haven't looked into enough of the problems surrounding the party or because they've been convinced of the bullshit after agreeing with good points the party has made.
They may be wolves in sheep's clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point. That's what grifters do.
Exactly. I'm in favor of labeling groups based on what they are/do and using clear terminology.
You seem fine to call them whatever they want.
Which is why I pointed China claims to be communist and NK claims to be a democracy....
So we shouldn't just let political group use any label they want.
Words have meaning.
Alright, big payoff time, I'm crossing my fingers this works.
If they're trying to trick people by labeling themselves "far left" and people are falling for it...
Why are you the one out here labeling them "far left" and arguing with the people clarifying they're not?
It seem like the rational path her for you would be doing what I'm doing.
All you're doing right now is helping their grift and continuing the false narrative that they're the. "far left" option.
We really do seem to agree on a lot of stuff here, I just don't know why you're helping them
You're now being hostile which is quickly souring any chance of productive conversation. You're accusing me of saying things I've not said, you're blatantly ignoring anything that's inconvenient to your point of view, and You're making attacks/accusing me of "helping the enemy" because I disagree on how to deal with them. Not only are you not making any manner of argument on how you're NOT engaging in "No True Scotsman", you're becoming actively hostile at an ally because I only agree on 99% of the topic.
I've not once called them "far left" - I've called them the "farthest left (at least at a surface level) party with national exposure." That's not exactly a high bar. It also ignores the fact that there are genuine leftists that identify with the party. They operate WITHIN the leftist sphere, and they are grifters. You can't dismiss it out of hand and say that "well they are really leftists" - yeah, no shit, that's what grifters fucking do. Fucker Carlson doesn't believe in 1/10th of the shit he spouts off, but it doesn't make home not a far right grifter.
I'm not helping them, I'm trying to make sure that allies, both to my left and to my right (I wouldn't call myself "far left" but would call myself "leftist") keep some level of guard up against grifters that operate within our spaces.
My POV is: we are not immune to grifters in our spaces, you should maintain guard. Here's one example of a grifter within our space. (FTR, I could have also pointed to ML tankies that defend the actions of Russia and China in spite of the fact that neither are remotely Communist, socialist or leftist of any form). Your POV as it comes across SEEMS TO BE: Well, they're not REALLY far left (unclear if you only mean to exclude from "far" left or leftist in total), so no we don't have grifters on the left. If this is not your point of view, then far more time has been spent arguing about minutiae and leftist in-Fighting than explaining why you don't believe that grift is not a problem within this space.
And look, I really do not want to be hostile here, because I do Believe that we are largely allies (I don't know that we would agree on policies exactly as this is a narrow discussion, but we're so far from what either of us would likely want that it should prevent us from wanting to work together). I am however, not interested in engaging further if the discussion is just going to be hostile. I ain't got time for that shit.
Edit: Sorry, there is a point that you mentioned that I want to touch on: you mentioned that I am "just calling people what they want to be called" while you Believe in looking at their actions over their words... The thing is, we can only see that their actions are inconsistent with a leftist ideology because they have visibility and have been around long enough that we can now know that they are grifters. A decade+ ago, we did not have that information, so as far as most people could know, they were "leftist". I'm not including them to exist their actions, I'm using them as an example of our space but being immune to the grift. They may not be "true leftists", but they ARE "left-wing grifters." Because it's not about who they are, it's about who they target. There are farther-left grifters (likely including some who are state actors of foreign governments), but it's not as easy to identify who is and is not a grifter because we don't have as much info on them.
I hope your weekend turns around before it's over...
But nothing productive is going to happen here, and I dont expect it ever will between us.
That or military districts. It doesn't matter though, the Republicans had enough votes to pass it on their own. These Dems are, exactly as you say, just playing it safe at home.