|
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 July 19 2018 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee. I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example).
Are you talking about assassination, or jail?
Either way I find it amusing when people think getting rid of Trump will solve anything at all. Trump is an expression of a problem, not the problem.
|
On July 19 2018 15:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted.
Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee. I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example). Are you talking about assassination, or jail? Either way I find it amusing when people think getting rid of Trump will solve anything at all. Trump is an expression of a problem, not the problem.
Just mean he doesn't leave of his own volition, and doesn't get resolved by congress. Could be a variety of ways that happens.
Of course I'm the last person around here (save IgnE) where the "thinking getting rid of Trump will solve anything" critique applies so surely that wasn't directed at me.
|
On July 19 2018 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 15:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 19 2018 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive.
You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee. I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example). Are you talking about assassination, or jail? Either way I find it amusing when people think getting rid of Trump will solve anything at all. Trump is an expression of a problem, not the problem. Just mean he doesn't leave of his own volition, and doesn't get resolved by congress. Could be a variety of ways that happens. Of course I'm the last person around here (save IgnE) where the "thinking getting rid of Trump will solve anything" critique applies so surely that wasn't directed at me.
No, it was directed at a number of people in the thread who aren't you :p
|
Incase people forgot, Trump's egomaniacal parade is still a go for Nov 10 or 11 (seen reports saying both dates).
There is no way this happens, right? DC mayor has said his city isn't paying for it. And from what I've seen veterans and active duty military are OVERWHELMINGLY against this. Even the majority of conservative views I've seen think it's a waste of money/could be better used elsewhere.
I guess despots are going to despot. I'm ok with this as long as he wears a military uniform covered in medals.
|
On July 19 2018 15:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted.
Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee. I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example). Are you talking about assassination, or jail? Either way I find it amusing when people think getting rid of Trump will solve anything at all. Trump is an expression of a problem, not the problem.
There is something to be said for putting one's hands over a gaping wound in the neck, though. It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least gives the patient a chance.
Look where we are after one and a half years of a Trump Presidency. How do you think the USA will be doing after eight years of this unrelenting horseshit?
|
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency.
|
On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency.
Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes.
Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well.
|
On July 19 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency. Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes. Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well.
If you believe in the Trump is a genius acting stupid theory you might even think this is exactly what he wants. Liberals making noise but unable to actually stop him doing anything.
'Liberals' have made more progress fighting against 'the left' than they have against Trump during his presidency.
|
On July 19 2018 19:41 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency. Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes. Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well. If you believe in the Trump is a genius acting stupid theory you might even think this is exactly what he wants. Liberals making noise but unable to actually stop him doing anything. 'Liberals' have made more progress fighting against 'the left' than they have against Trump during his presidency.
Yeah, but the people who believe that are fucking stupid.
Liberals have always been crap at working together. They disagree with each other too much to coordinate.
|
On July 19 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency. Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes. Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well.
It is difficult to mount effective opposition when you don’t control any branch of government, but I think Dems have been sometimes capable of organizing as a party and voting as a bloc. But I will agree that they are not very effective opposition. However, I was more thinking about the general public and the media, in terms of local efforts and demonstrations and such. Trump is still useful there as an organizing principle to draw in people who are otherwise not politically engaged.
Maybe. I haven’t followed it that closely.
To be honest, during the campaign I was thinking to myself: hopefully the stress gets to Trump and he drops out; but in retrospect I think I overrated his and Bannon’s intelligence. I didn’t know he was this stupid.
|
On July 19 2018 20:01 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency. Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes. Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well. It is difficult to mount effective opposition when you don’t control any branch of government, but I think Dems have been sometimes capable of organizing as a party and voting as a bloc. But I will agree that they are not very effective opposition. However, I was more thinking about the general public and the media, in terms of local efforts and demonstrations and such.
It's pretty hard for Democrats to be effective even with big majorities. It took everything they had to barely pass the ACA. That was WITH the support of insurance corporations.
|
On July 19 2018 20:01 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 17:29 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think ending Trump's presidency in violent fashion would really accomplish anything, since the right is still in power and it would probably strengthen them, since liberals would feel confused, disoriented and will be prone to infighting about whether violence is good or bad. Say what you want about Trump, but he is so awful that liberals have been better at opposing him than they would have been with a Romney presidency. Have they? As GreenHorizons is over-eager to point out, every single thing Trump has accomplished he has accomplished with Democrat votes. Liberals are making a lot of noise, but aside from the ICE situation they've accomplished very little. And the Republicans turned on the ICE thing as well. It is difficult to mount effective opposition when you don’t control any branch of government, but I think Dems have been sometimes capable of organizing as a party and voting as a bloc. But I will agree that they are not very effective opposition. However, I was more thinking about the general public and the media, in terms of local efforts and demonstrations and such. Trump is still useful there as an organizing principle to draw in people who are otherwise not politically engaged. Maybe. I haven’t followed it that closely. To be honest, during the campaign I was thinking to myself: hopefully the stress gets to Trump and he drops out; but in retrospect I think I overrated his and Bannon’s intelligence. I didn’t know he was this stupid.
All the media seems to have done is annihilate its credibility. Nobody trusts any media anymore. The echo chambers are ironclad and nobody listens to anything that doesn't push the narrative they want.
The demonstrations have been drops in a teacup. One day events. What leader can't suck that up? It's token resistance.
|
Yeah, but how does any of that improve if you replace Trump with Pence?
|
On July 19 2018 20:18 Grumbels wrote:
Yeah, but how does any of that improve if you replace Trump with Pence?
The government is at least going to be run competently and you'll stop isolating your country from the rest of planet earth?
You think all the international relations damage Trump is doing will be fixed easily? That's the stuff that will haunt America for generations. The end of that will be an unqualified benefit.
|
On July 19 2018 20:18 Grumbels wrote:
Yeah, but how does any of that improve if you replace Trump with Pence?
Pence has awful beliefs and knows how to play with the system to set the US back on social issues for decades. Originally I believed him to be much worse than Trump too.
But while Trump may not have those hardcore convictions, he simply does the same shit just to spite "the other side". And while he is not playing inside the system, he is just exploiting it as hard by going ways nobody ever did before him and the Republicans are unwilling and unable to stop him.
So in the end the result for domestic policies is the same, but Trump also manages to shit on any order, any stability and any alliances in domestic and foreign affairs. The damage done to institutions and discourse is just his added bonus.
|
I'm confused unless I'm mistaken the only thing about this motto is Pelosi, last year, promising if they had a majority was to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour. Not Universal healthcare, or Education. Or a stance on Corporate fundraising. But like Democrats they are already preparing for defeat.
House Democrats have finalized their campaign slogan heading into the last months before the midterm election: “For the People.”
The new motto, which Democratic leaders unveiled in a private meeting with members Wednesday morning, is meant to put a finer point on the broad economic-based messaging Democrats have been pushing with mixed success since last summer. That initial message — a “Better Deal” — has largely failed to break through with voters and has been openly mocked by some Democratic lawmakers.
House Democrats plan to begin working “For the People” into their statements and press conferences, with a focus on three key areas: addressing health care and prescription drug costs; increasing wages through infrastructure and public works projects; and highlighting Republican corruption in Washington.
“We have 110 days from right now until Election Day and we will be spending the month of August in our home districts and we wanted to make sure we are singing from the same song sheet on the three top issues,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), co-chair of House Democrats’ messaging arm, said in an interview.
Bustos and her co-chairmen, Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), met with the various House Democratic caucuses multiple times in recent months to solicit input on how Democrats should package their campaign themes in the final weeks before the midterms.
Democrats have struggled to chart a course since the 2016 election, with centrists and liberals fighting for the party’s identity and leadership frequently frustrated in their attempts to cut through the daily noise generated by President Donald Trump.
“I don’t think any of us are claiming this is poetic or this is the end-all-be-all of messaging,” Bustos said. “It’s just a way, in a quick way, to put together the answer to what we stand for.”
Bustos emphasized the simplicity of the message and said focusing on a trio of specific policy areas that Trump has failed to deliver on would allow Democrats to present a clear contrast with the president while also offering voters forward-looking ideas — something they believe they failed to do in 2016.
“Those are three promises that this president made to the American people that he has not kept. Sometimes you have to clearly and simply point out how we’re different,” Bustos said. “With discipline and not being distracted by the outrage of the day, that’s how people can start hearing us.”
Democrats openly blame themselves for failing to reach the working-class voters who helped put Trump in the White House and have promised to do better than just “run against Trump” in this year’s election.
But privately Democrats say it’s unlikely either party’s message will sway the outcome of the election.
Democrats are in their best position in nearly a decade to regain control of the House largely because of an energized anti-Trump base seeking a check on the president. Midterms also historically favor the party not in control of the White House.
Still, Democratic sources who attended Wednesday’s meeting said the presentation went over well with members in the room — a contrast to the eye rolling by some lawmakers after last year's messaging reveal.
And unlike the splashy rollout that accompanied “Better Deal,” which Democratic leaders from both chambers unveiled in a battleground House district in rural Virginia last July, their latest shift will be more low key. They aren’t expected to hold a press conference or make an official announcement on it.
The pivot to “For the People” could also help House Democrats put some daylight between them and the GOP. House Republicans have been running on their own “better”-based campaign slogans in the last two election cycles — “A Better Way” in 2016 and the GOP’s recently unveiled 2018 slogan, “Better Off Now.”
“We basically put it all on paper to say here are our top issues — they’re simple, they’re easy to understand,” Bustos said. “That’s how you break through this tweet machine coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Source
|
This is like hearing David Kim talk about improving the game by tweaking some things to be more fun. It is all very bloodless and sorta fails to distinguish them from the GOP. Compare the Labour slogan from the UK: for the many, not the few. They could have just used that slogan, since it is more poetic and since it identifies both an enemy and creates a mission statement.
|
On July 19 2018 20:41 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 20:18 Grumbels wrote:
Yeah, but how does any of that improve if you replace Trump with Pence? Pence has awful beliefs and knows how to play with the system to set the US back on social issues for decades. Originally I believed him to be much worse than Trump too. But while Trump may not have those hardcore convictions, he simply does the same shit just to spite "the other side". And while he is not playing inside the system, he is just exploiting it as hard by going ways nobody ever did before him and the Republicans are unwilling and unable to stop him. So in the end the result for domestic policies is the same, but Trump also manages to shit on any order, any stability and any alliances in domestic and foreign affairs. The damage done to institutions and discourse is just his added bonus.
Trump’s ineptitude is a two-way street though. The reason he creates instability and disorder is the same reason he has difficulties controlling the message. I will admit you might be right, but we can’t see into the future.
|
Of course they won't, because they're too beholden to the few. The Democratic party would rather feel good about itself and lose.
|
On July 19 2018 15:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted.
Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee. I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example). Are you talking about assassination, or jail? Either way I find it amusing when people think getting rid of Trump will solve anything at all. Trump is an expression of a problem, not the problem.
trump is both. he's both an expression of deeper underlying problems, AND a significant problem on his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
