Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing ‘Woke’ Reputation
Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing ‘Woke’ Reputation
"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.
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.
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
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.
These are donations from retired individuals
It's by donor profession. So things like "lawyer", "student" or in this case "retired".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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...
Maybe the democrats need to ditch pro-oligarchy anti-woke members 🤷♂️
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.
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[
Did you miss mediaite is another corporate propaganda rag to prop up the oligarchy kleptocracy?
Way to advertise what side she's really on.
The oligarchy pays me to pretend to fight for you! Wait. Cut that part.
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.
So many people will say "this is a gross oversimplification, they do lots of progressive things" while ignoring the world around them.
The fact we had to invent a political term for them is enough to tell me that we need to abandon this fascist supporting party.
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.
Her name is: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Just so you don't accidentally vote for her.
Ulg shes the one voting with repubs
Willfully or blindly ignorant, but the result is the same.
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.
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.
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.
And this is why fascism is winning.
Yep. When the 'resistance' grand plans are to adopt the fascist framing (e.g. that 'woke is weak' and should be surrendered) what's the point in having an opposition party?
They're winning because of exactly what she said. There's an issue of perception that people on the left will never fully grasp.
You all have no idea to engage online or publicly in a way that comes off as appealing.
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”
People are clued in on oligarchy even if they don’t quite know the exact definition. After Bernie and AOC started their tour, it was Wikipedia top 5 articles. Slotkin is just a right wing traitor.
Problem Class. Guillotine Fodder.
Yep, this is a branding issue.
Oligarchy => "rich fucking parasites"
Woke = equality (equity too, but stick with equality for sake of simplicity)
Yep. She's talking about changing optics and messaging to something that resonates with the larger 'I know very little about politics but I still vote' group of voters.
The headline feels like clickbait.
Elissa Slotkin can fuck off.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency…
Oh, she can really fuck off.
Edit:
“I can’t do what she does because we live in a purple state, and I’m a pragmatist,” she concluded.
This is code for not rocking the boat.
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?
In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?
I mean, it's the core of the problem.
Pass electoral reform in your state.
Gonna have to fight tooth and nail to get any other system implemented. I say this as someone that voted for RCV in San Diego county. It passed. We have had multiple elections while the lawsuits are working their way through the courts because the San Diego County Registrar of Voters has refused for multiple elections to move off of FPTP. The Mafia has been buying all our government for decades. We're just one of several counties that passed RCV at the county level. From what I understand, LA county and Sacramento county actually passed and implemented it, but I don't actually know. They're the only two counties out of something like 8 counties that voted RCV in, and then actually implemented it.
For that we need people willing to vote for electoral reform, so
Primary Democrats.
And this is why we need more decent folk around the country like AOC to run for any and all offices.
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.
"Don't let perfect the enemy of good."
The "good":
Ratchet effect at work
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!
The Democratic Party is so full of collaborationists. Just shows how democracy and capitalism are incompatible. The bourgeois class just buy the politicians.
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.
So abandon economic justice and civil rights.
Is there anything left?
The color blue, instead of red.
The democrats were never left.
I am sure this slide to the right will surely work.
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.
Now, now. They did run republican anti-trans talking points in their own ads.
Yeah actually woke civil servants would be (and are) awesome - like those who acknowledge systemic inequalities and seek to redress.
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.
Capitulation to the right hasn't worked for 20 years. The Third Way is dead and no one respects it.
It's really nice when the false progressives out themselves so openly.
Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing
FTFY
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.
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
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.
with the botox on putin, doubt he can smile.
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.
Somehow this made it worse. “goddamn Alpha energy” - who are these people. All I want is for the dems to not be rich people faking concern for the poor.
People recognize when they're being talked down to, this is a losing strategy.
God fuck this woman
Ah another closet republican, nice
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)
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war
No, republicans focus on the culture war. democrats are playing defense. Well, if you call forfeiting "playing defense."
So sad that people are still trying to fix this shitparty that is working perfectly as they intended.
But americans are incapable of change and voting for 3rd party apparently.
THESE are the types of incumbents the DNC does not want primaried?! Holy hell.
"I can't believe the country doesn't get this!? The Republicans won and they hate this stuff so we just need to be Republicans and then we can win!"
.... /wrist
Of course. They don't want to fix things, they just want to be the ones getting the benefits.
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.
Slotkin is a NEOCON.
And you're the problem
Whelp.
Guess Slotkin is getting a “collaborator” postcard from me.
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.
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.
bye felicia
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.
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.
American number 1 priority would be to get out this 2 party system with ranked voting or something.
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?"
Let's get back to our controlled opposition roots.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It's obvious most did not.
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.
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
Exactly.
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 oligarch"?
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".
take your upvote for reading the source and making me do the same.
Or you know, we could focus on the problem, which is oligarchy..
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.
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.
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?
sinema was poison from the very moment she was elected.
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.
Nope, Elissa fails to realize US income distribution is a huge problem in the USA and the oligarchs are controlling it.
*fails to admit
If they quack like a republican and walk like a republican, they're a republican
Sounds like a moron who needs to be primaried.
Well, I'm just going to go extra woke, now. Go woke or go broke.
Lmao fuck that and fuck you, Slotkin.
I know how she can test her theory.
Run a primary opponent against her who feels differently. Let the market decide.
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.
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
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.
kamala never mentioned identity politics on the campaign
"Dem senator is a compromised lackey"
Yeah, no shit. That's the problem.
Fuck that! I want my progressive cadidates woke AF!
Just another clueless asshole.
“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.
Hooray another sack of shit politician attempting to derail from real issues
Controlled opposition
I have no regrets leaving
Put her near the top of the list to be primaried.
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!
Get her out, outdated mindset.
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.
Fuckkk off 9th American oblast.
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).
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.
My favorite part was focusing on Trump taking away democracy. Putting Kamala forward, a candidate no one wanted, voted for, or liked. Protecting DuMOcRAsy!
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.
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.
Sure stop pandering to the wealthy and make plans to support and lift 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 fair share of taxes back from those that are avoiding paying completely by paying lawmakers privately.
Wow, so easy, much fun.
Fuck that noise. Geronocrats and Turdpublicans brought us here. Both need to be removed from any meaningful position in society.
Lol wow..
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 their minds, and I believe it will always beat economic issues for them.
It’s prominent in people’s minds because it has been spoon-fed to them by propaganda machines masquerading as actual media controlled by… drumroll oligarchs!
Source: I live in a deep red area in TX. It’s scary the shit people believe because they saw it on Fox News, OAN, or a myriad of bullshit online outlets.
100%. When having this debate I always bring up that the actual "woke" legislation being passed is at best minimal and pandering, and has 0 effect on most people lives. It is a fictional boogie meant to fill the void of abortion as an issue.
But right wing media has been extremely successful and making it seem like this is all the left thinks about. In that sense it is true that the AOC/Sanders tour is a great way to reclaim the conversation, but it is also true that the left needs to fight the narrative that they are the woke party if they want to stop America's rightward drift.
Democrats win by turning out people who otherwise don't vote. If they aren't already turned on by republicans talking like this, will those people see this as anything other than Democrats talking down to them?
The problem is the electoral system. In a system that allows for voting for smaller parties without wasting your vote, the US would probably have 4-5 parties at least. Red state moderates would not be lumped together with progressives, and main street Republicans with the evangelical wing with MAGA
If the Democrats become their opposition, then what reason is there to vote for them?
I'm not sure how you fix this, but abandoning your values ain't it. Then it's just a mono-party system.
Politicians are the worst people. No other way to get the job.
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
Yikes
I would encourage everyone to watch the video of her speech. The title of this post is incredibly misleading. And takes points out of context.
Thats the ratcheting effect
No! The problem is Wednesdays!
Fuck you. Die.
Most dems are Nazis too. Tell us something we don’t know.
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”
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?
Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that's heresy around here.
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
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 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.
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.
Calling it now. newsom's VP pick.
Among the shittiest hot dogs on the market. It's Nathan's or Hebrew National, everything else is garbage.
Nathan's make me extremely sick because they are sweetened with sorbitol.
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.