|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 12 2021 09:58 micronesia wrote:
There seems to be growing discontent with the entire concept of reform in the U.S. in recent years. It's actually a bit concerning to me that we are going in the direction of, "if something isn't working, don't fix it, just replace it entirely." There's a time and a place for that sure, but that's not always the right thing to do.
In my opinion, there's a lack of specific and concrete goals (and to a lesser extent a lack of clear leadership) which result in no progress in any direction.
Compare the successful desegregation and feminist rights movements of the last century to the recent BLM protests. In the past, they had ideological motivations (reduce discrimination and give equal rights to historically oppressed groups) as well as actionable demands (outlaw separate but equal facilities, give women the right to vote). The demands of the BLM protest, from what I can understand, were reduce racism within the police force and defund the police. The former isn't an action to take but a problem to solve - an undefined problem with an undefined solution and an undefined end goal. I'm still not sure what the latter is after months of thinking about it other than a reactionary demand charged by high emotions and a generally bad perception of American cops. How many people were demanding the police be defunded before the protests?
Asking for demands like "eliminate systematic racism" is like asking for the economy to be fixed. You can keep demanding it but if nobody can solve the problem then it isn't going to happen.
These broad goals are how we are measuring change. Since there are no concrete actions being demanded, we just look at the current state of things and determine whether it "looks better or worse", whether the issue is about race, LGBTQ+, economic equality, or whatever is being protested.
When we do demand specific actions, they're generally only in smaller ad hoc situations. The business that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple was demanded they bake the cake. Bake the cake is a concrete demand, telling the baker to stop being homophobic isn't. These events are always in and out of fashion - all eyes on you one week then everyone is gone looking at something else. And every time a new event happens, the current state of things look worse.
When there is no metric to measure progress, the only thing left is to observe trends. Eventually everyone sees the pattern: no matter what happens, nothing gets accomplished.
I don't believe there is an effort to push for any specific asks because most people don't face specific problems in their lives (economic issues being the exception). I see the vast majority of issues in America being used as political tools to draw lines in the sand and create narratives about what the parties represent. There is a huge difference in how issues get reported - you can usually be convinced either side is right as long as you only read their side.
In my opinion, we won't see progress if we keep chasing nebulous ideological imperatives instead of making concrete and actionable demands. And if people get the feeling that there is no progress regardless of effort, they're going to start thinking burning the whole thing down is a good idea.
|
On November 12 2021 21:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:I've seen data that backs up the idea that the education level of the teacher has a negligible effect on the average grade (from examinations) of students. But a highly educated teacher isn't necessarily the same as a good teacher, and average grade from examinations isn't the only criteria for a successful education. Also - I've read that while various steps taken to improve education tend to have a negligible effect on the overall outcome, the groups that tend to see improvement the quickest are the ones with parents whose education level is the lowest. Also, fewer students per teacher is one field where studies have confirmed a positive relation, sometimes very big. Boys benefit more from this than girls do, and the worst performing students benefit more than the best performing ones. Other studies indicate that the effect is rather small (still positive - but small) - but these studies (Hattie, for one) also explain this through teachers not changing their style of teaching to accommodate the possibilities from a smaller classroom. If you're just having a lecture, then 30 vs 15 students makes little difference, but if you are working with assignments that demand aid and supervision, the difference is big. (I think the differences are most notable in subjects like math and second/third languages - ones where many students need a lot of guidance.) Honestly, school, as much as it wants to reduce sociological differences, can't really ever expect to successfully counter the effects of good or bad parenting. As a teacher, I feel there's been an almost 100% correlation between 'I found out that this child has teacher parents' and 'this child performs way above average'. The thing is though - even though children from parents with more/better education (and statistically, also ones with higher iq) are going to perform better than children with lower iqs or parents with less education, there's still a marked effect from education policy. PISA tests would give much more uniform results otherwise - but there are certainly big differences on a country to country basis - indicating that yes, educational policy and resource investment matters. However, it's also a very complex issue, one that is frequently politicized, one where the research does not provide all that many uniform results, so to the degree where we know what works, there's not been all that much political will to implement it, many teachers are rather conservative in their methods, learning new approaches takes a lot of time and determination, and there's always a resource shortage. If every pupil had 1:1 tutoring, the differences in school performance in examination results would be absolutely massive (but perhaps the socialization and cooperation element would suffer). We can't expect perfection from an underfunded educational system aiming to reach all students, we can't expect short term gains because even if we develop approaches that are 'scientifically superior' then it still takes a long time to implement and they might not be superior to the old approaches if practiced by a pedagogue with 25 years experience doing what he or she has been doing in the past and 0 years experience doing what is suggested they should do in the future. ( this is my source. It's in Norwegian, but it references multiple international studies.
Part of the issue with developing new teaching methods to improve student outcomes is how variable the implementation by different teachers can be. As an example, peer instruction works wonders at university level in entry level classes if there is buy-in from the students and the lecturer knows what they're doing. It can be a spectacular failure if the students don't understand what they're supposed to be doing/don't do their homework or the lecturer is just implementing it half-assedly because they've been told that they need to teach that way now dl.acm.org. In essence, if you only read the literature, peer instruction is amazing. If you talk to people trying to implement it, the results can be a rather mixed bag. My own take: what works has more to do with what the teacher is familiar with and is comfortable doing than the actual teaching method.
|
On November 12 2021 22:10 PaxViaAtomi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2021 09:58 micronesia wrote:
There seems to be growing discontent with the entire concept of reform in the U.S. in recent years. It's actually a bit concerning to me that we are going in the direction of, "if something isn't working, don't fix it, just replace it entirely." There's a time and a place for that sure, but that's not always the right thing to do. In my opinion, there's a lack of specific and concrete goals (and to a lesser extent a lack of clear leadership) which result in no progress in any direction. Compare the successful desegregation and feminist rights movements of the last century to the recent BLM protests. In the past, they had ideological motivations (reduce discrimination and give equal rights to historically oppressed groups) as well as actionable demands (outlaw separate but equal facilities, give women the right to vote). The demands of the BLM protest, from what I can understand, were reduce racism within the police force and defund the police. The former isn't an action to take but a problem to solve - an undefined problem with an undefined solution and an undefined end goal. I'm still not sure what the latter is after months of thinking about it other than a reactionary demand charged by high emotions and a generally bad perception of American cops. How many people were demanding the police be defunded before the protests? Asking for demands like "eliminate systematic racism" is like asking for the economy to be fixed. You can keep demanding it but if nobody can solve the problem then it isn't going to happen. These broad goals are how we are measuring change. Since there are no concrete actions being demanded, we just look at the current state of things and determine whether it "looks better or worse", whether the issue is about race, LGBTQ+, economic equality, or whatever is being protested. When we do demand specific actions, they're generally only in smaller ad hoc situations. The business that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple was demanded they bake the cake. Bake the cake is a concrete demand, telling the baker to stop being homophobic isn't. These events are always in and out of fashion - all eyes on you one week then everyone is gone looking at something else. And every time a new event happens, the current state of things look worse. When there is no metric to measure progress, the only thing left is to observe trends. Eventually everyone sees the pattern: no matter what happens, nothing gets accomplished. I don't believe there is an effort to push for any specific asks because most people don't face specific problems in their lives (economic issues being the exception). I see the vast majority of issues in America being used as political tools to draw lines in the sand and create narratives about what the parties represent. There is a huge difference in how issues get reported - you can usually be convinced either side is right as long as you only read their side. In my opinion, we won't see progress if we keep chasing nebulous ideological imperatives instead of making concrete and actionable demands. And if people get the feeling that there is no progress regardless of effort, they're going to start thinking burning the whole thing down is a good idea.
You mean a concrete demand like a 15 dollar minimum wage?
|
On November 12 2021 22:24 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2021 22:10 PaxViaAtomi wrote:On November 12 2021 09:58 micronesia wrote:
There seems to be growing discontent with the entire concept of reform in the U.S. in recent years. It's actually a bit concerning to me that we are going in the direction of, "if something isn't working, don't fix it, just replace it entirely." There's a time and a place for that sure, but that's not always the right thing to do. In my opinion, there's a lack of specific and concrete goals (and to a lesser extent a lack of clear leadership) which result in no progress in any direction. Compare the successful desegregation and feminist rights movements of the last century to the recent BLM protests. In the past, they had ideological motivations (reduce discrimination and give equal rights to historically oppressed groups) as well as actionable demands (outlaw separate but equal facilities, give women the right to vote). The demands of the BLM protest, from what I can understand, were reduce racism within the police force and defund the police. The former isn't an action to take but a problem to solve - an undefined problem with an undefined solution and an undefined end goal. I'm still not sure what the latter is after months of thinking about it other than a reactionary demand charged by high emotions and a generally bad perception of American cops. How many people were demanding the police be defunded before the protests? Asking for demands like "eliminate systematic racism" is like asking for the economy to be fixed. You can keep demanding it but if nobody can solve the problem then it isn't going to happen. These broad goals are how we are measuring change. Since there are no concrete actions being demanded, we just look at the current state of things and determine whether it "looks better or worse", whether the issue is about race, LGBTQ+, economic equality, or whatever is being protested. When we do demand specific actions, they're generally only in smaller ad hoc situations. The business that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple was demanded they bake the cake. Bake the cake is a concrete demand, telling the baker to stop being homophobic isn't. These events are always in and out of fashion - all eyes on you one week then everyone is gone looking at something else. And every time a new event happens, the current state of things look worse. When there is no metric to measure progress, the only thing left is to observe trends. Eventually everyone sees the pattern: no matter what happens, nothing gets accomplished. I don't believe there is an effort to push for any specific asks because most people don't face specific problems in their lives (economic issues being the exception). I see the vast majority of issues in America being used as political tools to draw lines in the sand and create narratives about what the parties represent. There is a huge difference in how issues get reported - you can usually be convinced either side is right as long as you only read their side. In my opinion, we won't see progress if we keep chasing nebulous ideological imperatives instead of making concrete and actionable demands. And if people get the feeling that there is no progress regardless of effort, they're going to start thinking burning the whole thing down is a good idea. You mean a concrete demand like a 15 dollar minimum wage?
Yes. I don't see much attention given to these movements outside of election campaigning though. If we are considering the average person, I think social issues dominate the conscientiousness and get people fired up enough to protest on streets. If there were riots on the level of BLM for a $15 minimum wage, at the very least the proposal would be the largest talking point of Congress.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your post and you're referring to $15 minimum wage laws passed in some places.
|
I'm referring to the calls for a 15 dollar minimum wage, the adoption of that into Biden's platform, and then the not doing it.
The reason things don't happen isn't because there aren't concrete demands, its because politicians and their donors don't want things to change.
|
Norway28630 Posts
On November 12 2021 22:22 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2021 21:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:I've seen data that backs up the idea that the education level of the teacher has a negligible effect on the average grade (from examinations) of students. But a highly educated teacher isn't necessarily the same as a good teacher, and average grade from examinations isn't the only criteria for a successful education. Also - I've read that while various steps taken to improve education tend to have a negligible effect on the overall outcome, the groups that tend to see improvement the quickest are the ones with parents whose education level is the lowest. Also, fewer students per teacher is one field where studies have confirmed a positive relation, sometimes very big. Boys benefit more from this than girls do, and the worst performing students benefit more than the best performing ones. Other studies indicate that the effect is rather small (still positive - but small) - but these studies (Hattie, for one) also explain this through teachers not changing their style of teaching to accommodate the possibilities from a smaller classroom. If you're just having a lecture, then 30 vs 15 students makes little difference, but if you are working with assignments that demand aid and supervision, the difference is big. (I think the differences are most notable in subjects like math and second/third languages - ones where many students need a lot of guidance.) Honestly, school, as much as it wants to reduce sociological differences, can't really ever expect to successfully counter the effects of good or bad parenting. As a teacher, I feel there's been an almost 100% correlation between 'I found out that this child has teacher parents' and 'this child performs way above average'. The thing is though - even though children from parents with more/better education (and statistically, also ones with higher iq) are going to perform better than children with lower iqs or parents with less education, there's still a marked effect from education policy. PISA tests would give much more uniform results otherwise - but there are certainly big differences on a country to country basis - indicating that yes, educational policy and resource investment matters. However, it's also a very complex issue, one that is frequently politicized, one where the research does not provide all that many uniform results, so to the degree where we know what works, there's not been all that much political will to implement it, many teachers are rather conservative in their methods, learning new approaches takes a lot of time and determination, and there's always a resource shortage. If every pupil had 1:1 tutoring, the differences in school performance in examination results would be absolutely massive (but perhaps the socialization and cooperation element would suffer). We can't expect perfection from an underfunded educational system aiming to reach all students, we can't expect short term gains because even if we develop approaches that are 'scientifically superior' then it still takes a long time to implement and they might not be superior to the old approaches if practiced by a pedagogue with 25 years experience doing what he or she has been doing in the past and 0 years experience doing what is suggested they should do in the future. ( this is my source. It's in Norwegian, but it references multiple international studies. Part of the issue with developing new teaching methods to improve student outcomes is how variable the implementation by different teachers can be. As an example, peer instruction works wonders at university level in entry level classes if there is buy-in from the students and the lecturer knows what they're doing. It can be a spectacular failure if the students don't understand what they're supposed to be doing/don't do their homework or the lecturer is just implementing it half-assedly because they've been told that they need to teach that way now dl.acm.org. In essence, if you only read the literature, peer instruction is amazing. If you talk to people trying to implement it, the results can be a rather mixed bag. My own take: what works has more to do with what the teacher is familiar with and is comfortable doing than the actual teaching method.
Yeah, for sure. And this is part of why it's very difficult to get conclusive results and also why there's a kind of inherent inertia in educational practices. Many teachers will try something new and upon realizing it doesn't work as well as their old teaching habits, revert back to their old teaching habits, while the reason might just be that they're much more familiar with them, not that the old habits are better.
One of my colleagues once phrased it rather succinctly - when confronted with a new change to the national curriculum - 'there's no lesson plan that can't be adjusted to my style of teaching'. 
|
On November 12 2021 22:54 Zambrah wrote:
I'm referring to the calls for a 15 dollar minimum wage, the adoption of that into Biden's platform, and then the not doing it.
The reason things don't happen isn't because there aren't concrete demands, its because politicians and their donors don't want things to change.
Yeah this seems to be more-so the case economically. Regarding the original post about reform, I was speaking largely with social issues in mind, mostly regarding what changed after the BLM protests. "Abolish the police" was a fairly common phrase I heard where I live.
|
Canada13389 Posts
It might be about being beholden to some amount of political investment, but frankly, if there was true appetite it would happen.
USD isn't Canadian dollars, but many provinces are increasing their minimum wages - including Ontario headed by one of the most conservative premiers we've had in a long time. The man outright says giving money to the government is bad as the head of our province, and he's still reinstating the 15 min wage (it was supposed to kick in 2 years ago, its kicking in now instead).
Though interestingly there's a shift in conservative politics more generally coming out of the UK and europe to try and appeal more to labour movements in general.
I think much of what we're going to see post pandemic is a resurgence in labour more generally as is historically the case after major world events like pandemics and wars. The US though has a strange bubble wherein the Republican party is basically two factions of conservatives (by international standards) and the democrats also have a more conservative faction and frankly the middle where you're at would be the right almost anywhere else.
So I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of moderation occurs wherein labour becomes bigger and certain things like the 15 min wage to become more palatable more generally. After all corporate interests would prefer a higher minimum wage to broader unionization in general. The latter would result in much higher operating costs than the former after all.
More important than the scapegoat of corporatism however is the fact that economic arguments in the US are and always have been about as much of a free market approach in general and this has little to no relation to corporate funding of political interests IMO so much as it has to do with a broader more central zeitgeist related to the protestant work ethic and stronger concepts of individualism than many other countries have.
Sure corporatism is an issue, it certainly is. But even without that and even if election funding was more regulated again and it was only personal donations etc, you'd still have the same uphill battle in terms of economic leanings based on deeply rooted cultural thinking. Even your more left approaches to things still involve a greater degree of focusing on individualism.
You need a very serious generational shift and hollowing out of the republican party to make significant moves towards broader social safety nets as the polarization politically is extreme and the republican side is moving much more quickly to an entrenched defiant position than anything else, so even incrementalism for all its ills isn't even a possibility any more. The best thing that could happen in the short term is that center of politics deciding to effectively splinter off of the entrenched poles (mostly a republican issue) somehow so that even if conservative economic policy remains the sticking point, there would be room for negotiation. And similarly the democrats would need to drop the ideologically entrenched democrats who might as well be moderate republicans so that on thin margins they could actually legitimately have more weight to bargain with for change.
Biden is also probably not the best president for moving things in an actually progressive direction, but at this point, the US is better off with someone who can kind of status quo and remove the worst of the Trump administrations errors by improving relations with partners, not throwing tariffs at everything, and actually respecting the boundaries of federalism to push for stability in the midst of a pandemic that is maybe beginning to taper off in the western world but that this winter (if history serves) will be a final kind of shit show (lessened by vaccines thankfully) before we enter the post pandemic recovery in north america. I might be wrong but these things tend to run 2 years for the worst of it, and vaccines definitely helped but didn't exactly stop the thing.
The real important and pivotal election is the next one for you guys and imo likewise here in Canada. Our recent election gave us status quo and showed people weren't ready to rock any boats because we're still sailing on rough seas.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On November 12 2021 23:15 PaxViaAtomi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2021 22:54 Zambrah wrote:
I'm referring to the calls for a 15 dollar minimum wage, the adoption of that into Biden's platform, and then the not doing it.
The reason things don't happen isn't because there aren't concrete demands, its because politicians and their donors don't want things to change. Yeah this seems to be more-so the case economically. Regarding the original post about reform, I was speaking largely with social issues in mind, mostly regarding what changed after the BLM protests. "Abolish the police" was a fairly common phrase I heard where I live.
It’s an evocative slogan, hence the repetition behind it.
I wouldn’t claim there is a uniform developed set of policy prescriptions shared across everyone who utters, or posts the slogan.
But there absolutely is some pretty consistent set of tangible reforms across that cohort.
Opponents of said reforms focus on the slogan and go full Jerry Seinfeld ‘isn’t it crazy that’ on the slogan and, essentially ignore that there are nuts and bolts to it as well.
This isn’t to say I am uncritical of the effectiveness of messaging either
|
On November 13 2021 00:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2021 23:15 PaxViaAtomi wrote:On November 12 2021 22:54 Zambrah wrote:
I'm referring to the calls for a 15 dollar minimum wage, the adoption of that into Biden's platform, and then the not doing it.
The reason things don't happen isn't because there aren't concrete demands, its because politicians and their donors don't want things to change. Yeah this seems to be more-so the case economically. Regarding the original post about reform, I was speaking largely with social issues in mind, mostly regarding what changed after the BLM protests. "Abolish the police" was a fairly common phrase I heard where I live. It’s an evocative slogan, hence the repetition behind it. I wouldn’t claim there is a uniform developed set of policy prescriptions shared across everyone who utters, or posts the slogan. But there absolutely is some pretty consistent set of tangible reforms across that cohort. Opponents of said reforms focus on the slogan and go full Jerry Seinfeld ‘isn’t it crazy that’ on the slogan and, essentially ignore that there are nuts and bolts to it as well. This isn’t to say I am uncritical of the effectiveness of messaging either
Defund the police probably the only movement in recent memory less successful than BLM
|
Democrats are years behind in messaging smarts. Here is a recent Facebook post by Biden:
"Congress has a tool at its disposal to lower costs for families right away: The Build Back Better Act.
All we’ve got to do is pass it."
Here's what Trump would be saying:
"The Senate, do nothing losers, are betraying the American People by not fighting for working families. I am trying to put money in your pockets and clean out corruption in washington, but they won't let us move forward. They are a disaster. We MUST Pass This Bill!"
Biden is basically just leaning back in his chair and saying "ah gosh folks, when ya gonna just pass that bill? Golly"
It is so embarrassing. It is so weird how hard democrats are trying to be boring, do-nothing losers. Why so reserved? Why not more outspoken? How is this such a casual endeavor? People don't want a librarian, they want a fighter. This whole situation is so stupid.
|
United States24660 Posts
I'm not totally clear on what you are asking for... you want Biden to inflate his facebook post with hyperbole and immature pejorative truthiness in order to appear less reserved? Perhaps you could share what you think Biden's facebook post should have said?
|
I want him to be someone who people can actually connect with and I want him to legitimately get people fired up. Biden needs to get more people more angry. There are a lot of things to be angry about. Anger brings change.
Here's president Mohdoo's Facebook post:
The senate is a logistical and moral failure. Every senator who is choosing not to vote for this world changing, life saving bill has blood on their hands. People are dying, schools are failing and parents are struggling while rich, entitled, disconnected senators wonder if you really deserve relief from the oppressive class warfare of billionaires. The senate is choosing billionaires over each and every one of you. There is ZERO moral reason to oppose this bill.
People will get mad if you help them get mad. Trump built a movement through anger. Biden tries to calm people down and prevent anyone from getting emotional. There are things WORTH getting emotional about. This sipping tea perspective is wildly inappropriate.
He should use TONS of immature hyperbole because it MOVES things along. It is *necessary* in order to move the country forward.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On November 13 2021 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:
Democrats are years behind in messaging smarts. Here is a recent Facebook post by Biden:
"Congress has a tool at its disposal to lower costs for families right away: The Build Back Better Act.
All we’ve got to do is pass it."
Here's what Trump would be saying:
"The Senate, do nothing losers, are betraying the American People by not fighting for working families. I am trying to put money in your pockets and clean out corruption in washington, but they won't let us move forward. They are a disaster. We MUST Pass This Bill!"
Biden is basically just leaning back in his chair and saying "ah gosh folks, when ya gonna just pass that bill? Golly"
It is so embarrassing. It is so weird how hard democrats are trying to be boring, do-nothing losers. Why so reserved? Why not more outspoken? How is this such a casual endeavor? People don't want a librarian, they want a fighter. This whole situation is so stupid.
You seem caught between two stools here, BLM if nothing else is full of evocative, forceful messaging, as is a fair bit that you get from the left of the Democrats, and I feel your characterisation of Biden is accurate here.
Ultimately I think it goes beyond messaging, by degrees.
Not everything, but certain aspects of the platform I don’t think one can even package in that populist rhetoric a la Trump,
|
On November 13 2021 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:
I want him to be someone who people can actually connect with and I want him to legitimately get people fired up. Biden needs to get more people more angry. There are a lot of things to be angry about. Anger brings change.
Here's president Mohdoo's Facebook post:
The senate is a logistical and moral failure. Every senator who is choosing not to vote for this world changing, life saving bill has blood on their hands. People are dying, schools are failing and parents are struggling while rich, entitled, disconnected senators wonder if you really deserve relief from the oppressive class warfare of billionaires. The senate is choosing billionaires over each and every one of you. There is ZERO moral reason to oppose this bill.
People will get mad if you help them get mad. Trump built a movement through anger. Biden tries to calm people down and prevent anyone from getting emotional. There are things WORTH getting emotional about. This sipping tea perspective is wildly inappropriate.
He should use TONS of immature hyperbole because it MOVES things along. It is *necessary* in order to move the country forward.
You want the Democrats to attack Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema?
I think thats against the conventional wisdom of Democrats at large.
|
|
|
On November 13 2021 04:06 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2021 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:
I want him to be someone who people can actually connect with and I want him to legitimately get people fired up. Biden needs to get more people more angry. There are a lot of things to be angry about. Anger brings change.
Here's president Mohdoo's Facebook post:
The senate is a logistical and moral failure. Every senator who is choosing not to vote for this world changing, life saving bill has blood on their hands. People are dying, schools are failing and parents are struggling while rich, entitled, disconnected senators wonder if you really deserve relief from the oppressive class warfare of billionaires. The senate is choosing billionaires over each and every one of you. There is ZERO moral reason to oppose this bill.
People will get mad if you help them get mad. Trump built a movement through anger. Biden tries to calm people down and prevent anyone from getting emotional. There are things WORTH getting emotional about. This sipping tea perspective is wildly inappropriate.
He should use TONS of immature hyperbole because it MOVES things along. It is *necessary* in order to move the country forward. You want the Democrats to attack Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema? I think thats against the conventional wisdom of Democrats at large.
No, I want Biden to directly attack every senator against it, which includes republicans. We can’t just pretend we don’t have differences.
|
On November 13 2021 04:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2021 04:06 Zambrah wrote:On November 13 2021 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:
I want him to be someone who people can actually connect with and I want him to legitimately get people fired up. Biden needs to get more people more angry. There are a lot of things to be angry about. Anger brings change.
Here's president Mohdoo's Facebook post:
The senate is a logistical and moral failure. Every senator who is choosing not to vote for this world changing, life saving bill has blood on their hands. People are dying, schools are failing and parents are struggling while rich, entitled, disconnected senators wonder if you really deserve relief from the oppressive class warfare of billionaires. The senate is choosing billionaires over each and every one of you. There is ZERO moral reason to oppose this bill.
People will get mad if you help them get mad. Trump built a movement through anger. Biden tries to calm people down and prevent anyone from getting emotional. There are things WORTH getting emotional about. This sipping tea perspective is wildly inappropriate.
He should use TONS of immature hyperbole because it MOVES things along. It is *necessary* in order to move the country forward. You want the Democrats to attack Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema? I think thats against the conventional wisdom of Democrats at large. No, I want Biden to directly attack every senator against it, which includes republicans. We can’t just pretend we don’t have differences.
I'm pissed that Republicans are getting a free pass from the media on voting against proposals that upwards of 80% of Americans support
|
Norway28630 Posts
My understanding is - and my wife's PhD is specifically on this very subject - anger isn't really that good of a populist tool for social media engagement. Enthusiasm is. I agree that Biden's message lacks the enthusiasm you want to evoke, but anger isn't one of the emotions that really creates engagement. It can push people away from the others - but it doesn't bring the people to you.
|
On November 13 2021 05:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My understanding is - and my wife's PhD is specifically on this very subject - anger isn't really that good of a populist tool for social media engagement. Enthusiasm is. I agree that Biden's message lacks the enthusiasm you want to evoke, but anger isn't one of the emotions that really creates engagement. It can push people away from the others - but it doesn't bring the people to you.
However we want to label it, Trump is extremely good at something that Biden and democrats as a whole would benefit enormously from. They need to be doing whatever that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
