Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

PJ_Soul

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around? 

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

tempo_n_groove

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around? 

Yes, good thought Soul.

We also know that the elimination of all fossil fuels will never happen in our lifetime.  People enjoy certain types of recreation too much to just let go of gas powered engines.

It is a step in the right direction though.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

How is it silly? It's a well-known and well-tested negotiation tactic.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around? 

It could be.  It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see. 

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around? 

It could be.  It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see. 

Yes indeed we shall!

I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.  

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol

I agree, obviously if you ask for way more than your worth you will lose. 

I'd honestly like her to clarify that "unwilling to work" shit. that can't be fucking really what we all think it means. if it does, that is just preposterous. 

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.  

Im going with naive and inexperienced.  I doubt she is stupid. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around? 

It could be.  It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see. 

Yes indeed we shall!

I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.

Agreed.  That's a good thing. 

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol

I agree, obviously if you ask for way more than your worth you will lose. 

I'd honestly like her to clarify that "unwilling to work" shit. that can't be fucking really what we all think it means. if it does, that is just preposterous. 

Exactly, at first I thought “maybe that was a typo”.  The more I thought about it and how carefully edited these proposals are, though...I’m just not sure.  Sure does not help dissolve the “freeloader” or “leach” narrative.

PJ_Soul

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.  

just to address the part you added after I commented, I don't think she is dumb at all. Listen/watch any of her interviews. she is very knowledgeable. I think the term I'd use for her is "overly enthusiastic". she might be going after too much too quickly. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I think your examples fall into "unable ".  It needs to be defined for sure. 

Ledbetterman10

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?

No. Cause that’s pretty silly.

Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion) 

isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want. 

Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table.  “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha.  No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.  

Im going with naive and inexperienced.  I doubt she is stupid. 

She has a starry-eyed "I'm going to change the world!" vibe about her that definitely fits the "naïve" description. 

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I think your examples fall into "unable ".  It needs to be defined for sure. 

I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category. There are hoarders who seek no help, and shut ins, and all kinds of "off" people who could be said to refuse to work. And they do. And what of them? It's not like we can just let them drop dead and decompose just because they aren't living up to basic expectations .... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I do think she needs to clarify wtf she is talking about.  Otherwise everyone that reads it is just assuming.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I think your examples fall into "unable ".  It needs to be defined for sure. 

I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.

Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory,  where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment,  or lack of,  doesn't?  I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands.  I read this provision as connected to that theory. 

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I think your examples fall into "unable ".  It needs to be defined for sure. 

I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.

Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory,  where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment,  or lack of,  doesn't?  I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands.  I read this provision as connected to that theory. 

Are you talking about universal income? Well, we'll have to see what she meant. But universal income and welfare for fucked up people who refuse to get a job aren't the same thing. Welfare is a response to individuals' conditions that prevent them from being a part of the employment system. Universal income is a response to a system that prevents individuals from being a part of that system. I would assume AOC probably supports the theory of universal income, but I didn't assume that's what she meant in this case.