Good King Trump

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Don't forget Seth Rich, gay frogs, false flags and HAARP

— Silence Dogood �� (@PolitiTroll1776) April 23, 2018

[fragment]

What happened to all them FEMA camps, anyway? I'm sure ICE would be happy to have them...

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

And them abandoned Wal Marts.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

[Stephen Maturin]

Trump’s $28 Billion Bet That Rural America Will Stick With Him

Taking tariff money paid by American consumers and giving it to people who can't sell their goods because of tariffs sounds more than a little socialist, but hey, it's clearly the good kind of socialism else Trump wouldn't be doing it.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Oh Merriam-Webster.

Good morning! Today's #WordOfTheDay is 'misprision' https://t.co/kmxDY1Q1eS pic.twitter.com/BkF30gbzaj

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) September 20, 2019

[Ari]

Rudy Giuliani’s viral CNN meltdown over Trump and Ukraine, explained - Vox

“Did you ask Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden”
Giuliani, “No actually I didn’t...”

30 seconds later...

“So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?”
Giuliani, “Of course I did...”

Pulling the good ol Trumpiani style doubling down on things Giuliani later tweeted that it’s of course the presidents job to pressure the president of a corrupt country to investigate corruption in his country. If I thought Giuliani was actually smart enough for this, it sounds like a long term setup for later saying something like, ‘Russia was just doing its job forcing the president to investigate crooked Hillary, there’s nothing wrong with that.’ But I don’t.

It’s starting to look like Trump threatened to withhold military support or money to Ukraine if they didn’t investigate Joe Biden’s son. Trump has responded with a variant of “Do you really think I’m dumb enough to say things like that on a call listened in by others” and many answered, Yes!

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Trump’s $28 Billion Bet That Rural America Will Stick With Him

Taking tariff money paid by American consumers and giving it to people who can't sell their goods because of tariffs sounds more than a little socialist, but hey, it's clearly the good kind of socialism else Trump wouldn't be doing it.

They want free stuff! I bet they already have cell phones and flat screen TV's!

[SR71]

If this was a democrat the republicans would all shout GUTTING THE MILITARY in unison. The answer to every question from the press would be HE'S GUTTING THE MILITARY! What about healthcare? GUTTING THE MILITARY!

Democrats just stand around looking dumb and watching it happen. Why does my party never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? Why do they confuse the issue on their own positions? They can't even get on the same page about what the state of the investigation is, let alone sling the mud we're ass deep in to any effect.

Democrats. Working for your future by milling about in a high state of confusion.

Good glob, you doofii. Get your shit in one bag for a change. THIS IS IMPORTANT!

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Legal advice from *checks notes* Ice T

Street Game: NEVER say ANYTHING illegal on a Phone. Text, Social Media or E-Mail….. ‘EVER' You’ve been warned.

— ICE T (@FINALLEVEL) September 20, 2019

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Congratulations on rushing to the defense of the homeland of the 911 terrorists.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1W52K3

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by SR71

Democrats just stand around looking dumb and watching it happen.

Do they really? Or is that just the impression you get from watching the way thy are portrayed in the Democrat-dissing media?

It's not anacademic question. If you don;t correctly locate the source and locus of the abuse, then your anger can be deflected onto the victims of the abusers.

And you end up swelling the ranks of some smart-arsed, half-arsed, douchebag campaign not to vote for the useless Democrat candidate because "those incompetents need to be taught a lesson".

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Legal advice from *checks notes* Ice T

Street Game: NEVER say ANYTHING illegal on a Phone. Text, Social Media or E-Mail….. ‘EVER' You’ve been warned.

— ICE T (@FINALLEVEL) September 20, 2019

Ice T probably got this knowledge from noted legal scholar Stringer Bell.

Notes on a Criminal Conspiracy

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Do they really? Or is that just the impression you get from watching the way thy are portrayed in the Democrat-dissing media?

It's not anacademic question. If you don;t correctly locate the source and locus of the abuse, then your anger can be deflected onto the victims of the abusers.

And you end up swelling the ranks of some smart-arsed, half-arsed, douchebag campaign not to vote for the useless Democrat candidate because "those incompetents need to be taught a lesson".

^

One of the blogs I read has an observation referring to the behaviour of the media entitled Murc’s Law, after the commenter who coined it: “Only Democrats have agency.” That is, the media won’t behave as though the Republicans have any choice but to be the most shamelessly corrupt political party out there; as often as not, the Democrats are the ones blamed for the Republicans’ behaviour. It’s pretty much a form of gaslighting.

Once you hear this observation, you start seeing it everywhere. I’m not even going to attempt to summarise Ken Vogel’s utter shameless bullshit over the past few days, but it’s a very telling moment in Murc’s Law.

[Ari]

Indeed, conservatives seem to pull from the same playbook for everything, the abusive controlling playbook. “Why are you making me hit you” is the go too for controlling assholes as it not only justifies their abuse, it allows them to claim compassion while hurting someone. “I don’t want to be hitting you, but you make me do it!” The victim will then later be praised when they immediately take responsibility for a situation to diffuse the bomb, being called responsible or well mannered.

Similarly the media pushes the narrative of the responsible, mannered democrat as the one who should be willing to bend, while republicans are called ‘strong willed’ and their insane reactions to the tiniest things just what they do.

But frankly I’m pretty sure every woman who’s had to flee a controlling abusive relationship watched something like the Kavanaugh hearings and upped their assumption he would one day die in a murder suicide with his wife or mistress.

—-
With the dems I think it’s a bit of both. The media portrays them poorly and many of the rich dems still want to stay rich and in the good life, like conservatives-lite, they are totally for the corpocracy but not the complete fleecing of the country. So they are very slow to do anything that will disrupt too much.

It’s a bit like republicans and illegal immigration, it’s a great rallying call but few really want to stop the cheap labor they abuse, so there’s a lot of dragging their feet or dumping money into useless projects.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Do they really? Or is that just the impression you get from watching the way thy are portrayed in the Democrat-dissing media?

It's not anacademic question. If you don;t correctly locate the source and locus of the abuse, then your anger can be deflected onto the victims of the abusers.

And you end up swelling the ranks of some smart-arsed, half-arsed, douchebag campaign not to vote for the useless Democrat candidate because "those incompetents need to be taught a lesson".

No, blaming the media for portraying them as a chaotic gaggle is to ignore that they really are conducting themselves in the manner of a chaotic gaggle. They can't even reach a unified position on whether to impeach or not. It is a fact that the leadership could not even give a common description of what the current stage of the investigation is, let alone what, specifically, they are investigating. The media isn't making that shit up, it's something that is really happening.

They really could learn something about message discipline from the republicans. You know, pass around a talking points memo or something. Crude but effective. With a year to go they still haven't congealed a message about why we need to elect them, something they can jack hammer by repetition and jingoism into the skulls of voters who'll get their info by accident while flipping back and forth between sports channels.

Overthinking things and evaluating shades of grey isn't the way to communicate with the people we need to reach. Frankly, you have to be pretty crass.

[JoeP]

From several thousand miles away, and a corresponding level of disinterest, it seems to me that Obama managed the media much better - and his social media machine was part of his electoral success. It does seem like the current Dems are just not getting it right.

And I do mean managing: media are media, not voters or responsible citizens or anything remotely like that. The Repubs manage (parts of) the media the way the Night King managed wights; the Dems seem to manage media the way an unarmed farmer manages 30-50 feral hogs.

[erimir]

But regardless of that, is it useful for Democrats to scream about GUTTING THE MILITARY?

It furthers the conception that the military needs more funding, when frankly, it doesn't. Democrats ought to want to "gut" the military.

The problem isn't that Trump is GUTTING THE MILITARY, it's that he's taking money that Congress designated for other things and he's taking away from projects that would help military families (like money for schools for soldiers' children) rather than just taking a little bit from everywhere.

Now, if they wanted to pick one one thing - taking money away from military kids - and drill that over and over, that might work. But I would recommend against using a GOP argument, because promoting the idea that the military needs a lot more funding might not benefit us in the end.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by SR71

Democrats just stand around looking dumb and watching it happen.

Originally Posted by SR71

... blaming the media for portraying them as a chaotic gaggle is to ignore that they really are conducting themselves in the manner of a chaotic gaggle.

You mean some of them are saying and doing one thing and others are saying and doing another, and yet some others are saying and doing a third, a fourth, a fifth thing? Well, maybe that's true, and it may even be that it would be better if they could coordinate and simplify their messages, but ...

That isn't what "stand around looking dumb and watching it happen" means ... not even close. Do you see the problem you are creating for your own cognitive processes, let alone for all those who are inclined to trust your judgement, take you seriously and follow your lead? It's like you just dropped a dead cow in the water of political discourse.

Originally Posted by JoeP

Obama managed the media much better - and his social media machine was part of his electoral success. It does seem like the current Dems are just not getting it right.

And that seems to me to blur the important distinction between the mainstream media and the new social media in a way which obfuscates the issue. Did Obama demonstrate how the Dems should do mainstream media better or didn't he? Are the Dems really not using their social media machine effectively. How can we even tell that (apart from pointing at polling figures and assuming that's what's going wrong)?

Originally Posted by erimir

But regardless of that, is it useful for Democrats to scream about GUTTING THE MILITARY?

It furthers the conception that the military needs more funding, when frankly, it doesn't. Democrats ought to want to "gut" the military.

Quite!

I get a bit cross with amateur strategists on the Left castigating the choices of the professionals and even casting doubt on the Democrats' integrity from their Dunning-Kruger vantage point.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by erimir

But regardless of that, is it useful for Democrats to scream about GUTTING THE MILITARY?

It furthers the conception that the military needs more funding, when frankly, it doesn't. Democrats ought to want to "gut" the military.

The problem isn't that Trump is GUTTING THE MILITARY, it's that he's taking money that Congress designated for other things and he's taking away from projects that would help military families (like money for schools for soldiers' children) rather than just taking a little bit from everywhere.

Now, if they wanted to pick one one thing - taking money away from military kids - and drill that over and over, that might work. But I would recommend against using a GOP argument, because promoting the idea that the military needs a lot more funding might not benefit us in the end.

Democrats are KILLING BABIES! THEY'LL TAKE YOUR GUNS! THEY SPEND LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS! SOCIALISM WILL RUIN THE ECONOMY! NANNY STATE! THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOUR LIVES! DEEP STATE! RAISE YOUR TAXES!

What have we got that reaches the target audience for those little gems, and it's just a partial list? I'm drawing a blank.

I'm not kidding, I just saw a republican senator talk about how the current whistleblower scenario is an attack from a bureaucrat of the deep state. Who do you think he's aiming at with that ridiculous bullshit?

I'm well aware the military isn't underfunded, and it doesn't really matter, message wise. Is any of that bullshit above legit? No, yet it gets traction and motivates voters. When they go low, we go high? Weak! They might as well have sung Too Legit to Quit and done the Hammer dance, it probably would have been more effective. Just give enough of the story to illustrate he's using funds budgeted for the military to pay for a tiny piece of wall he said the Mexican gov't would fund. Don't get down in the weeds. GUTTING THE MILITARY!

Then we need a whole succession of similar jingoes that are broadcast and rebroadcast at intervals by every democratic talking head from sea to shining sea, until the next jingo. Watch the republicans. Watch and learn.

We should have a thread on sucker punch messaging. Lord knows there's plenty of raw material, real shit that really happened. We just need to learn how to package it, Frank Luntz style. The fact is, we suck at it.

It would be nice to win on a positive message about good policies that may or may not ever become legislation, but that didn't win the day last election. We really need to learn attack messaging. There's a segment of the electorate that is immune to nuance, and we are perpetually blind to their existence. We cede that slice. The republicans are happy to cater to them.

[Ari]

Indeed, and the Dems don’t even need to sink to the republicans level, just a bit of fight would be great. Especially since they could easily win on even footing but their response to republicans constantly handicapping them is “That’s unfair but I guess I’ll have to manage.”

Like the republicans Gerrymander the shit out of areas and the dems get mad and take them to a republican stacked court to complain instead of the full fight and attack mode. I want to see dems start every sentence with some variant of “Republicans have stolen elections from the people and stacked the deck, we’re the underdog even in heavily democratic areas thanks to their immoral cheating!” And just drive home the point that the republicans are only winning because they keep rigging the game. Go even further and start addressing republicans as rigged election winners or winners on easy mode.

Given all the open corruption that’s constantly putting into question whether our constitution means anything at all anymore, I would really like to see a bit more panic and urgency.

[erimir]

My point is that Democrats should pick popular Democratic/liberal frames to pound. More message discipline would probably be beneficial, but it should be on issues where the public generally agrees with us or lead to the conclusion that the liberal policy solution is correct.

"America doesn't spend enough on its military!" is not such a frame. Promoting jingoism and militarism can have knock on effects elsewhere, because Trump's border wall funding raids are not the only issue affected by that framing. Activating right-wing frames is something Democrats should generally avoid, even if Republicans are being hypocritical or we're actually better on that issue (to the extent it is a real issue), because right-wing framing will push people towards the right-wing.

"Trump is taking money away from American children - the children of US servicemembers no less! - so he can fund his wasteful and racist wall! A wall that he said Mexico would pay for is being paid for by American schoolchildren! Would you rather spend money on schools for American kids, or for a wall in the middle of a desert that can be scaled in less than a minute anyway?"

That seems better than furthering the idea that our military is weak because of a minor (by percentage of overall US military spending) cut, when it's actually bloated. You might think the reaction would be "yeah, Trump is bad and is weakening our military!" but it could also be "Well then Congress should approve EVEN MORE MILITARY SPENDING! Trump says he wants that anyway!"

I've also read something about studies suggesting that there can be perverse/non-intuitive consequences for some of the things people want Democrats to scream about. Complaining about how the elections are rigged by Republicans, even though it is true, might not be as motivating as you hope. Depending on how you talk about it, it might instead result in intermittent voters deciding that voting doesn't matter and not turning out. And so an attempt to punish GOP voter suppression might instead enhance it.

Another perverse one I heard about is that at least certain types of discussion of how the criminal justice system is biased against black people can actually make people more inclined (at least, for the duration of the study/survey) to support right-wing law-and-order politics, because it simply activates the association between black people and criminality in white people's minds.

This is also why (centrist) Democrats shouldn't go out of their way to accept the premise that immigration is a serious concern to demonstrate we don't want open borders. A caravan of a couple thousand people isn't a threat to America nor is it a crisis in the national scheme of things. Promoting the idea that it is just activates that insecurity about changing demographics that is part of how Trump flipped a lot of Obama voters.

What I would hope is that Democratic strategists are up on the research on such things and make sure to frame things in ways that aren't counterproductive.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by SR71

There's a segment of the electorate that is immune to nuance, and we are perpetually blind to their existence.

Yes, they are the stupid white racists.

We cede that slice.
We do indeed. What kind of message do you believe they could be fed that would to get them to vote Democrat?


Because I suggest that is a futile, footling, fool's errand.

[SR71]

I don't know that it is futile at all. We haven't tried. The slice I'm talking about is a slice that is seen on the news at town hall meetings regurgitating talking points word for word. You just have to tell them what to think Frank Luntz style. I don't think we're even in those markets. They get their prop from AM radio in a lot of cases. There is no left wing talk on AM radio. It's all sports, fundy and right wing a palooza.

[mickthinks]

We haven't tried.
How do you know that? I'm guessing that you just haven't witnessed any attempts, which you don't need me to tell you is not the same thing. But feel free to cite me into taking that back.


You just have to tell them what to think Frank Luntz style.
lol Yes, everything look simple seen through Dunning-Kruger glasses. Have you considered that those who suck Luntz and swallow are already well turned on by his scent before he gets his dick out?

Wait ... is Luntz not a Trump cheerleader ? I have to confess I don't really know what "Frank Luntz style" means.

[erimir]

I think a good example of when Democrats did adopt some message discipline and it worked well for them was Romney, the vulture capitalist, coming in, firing people and destroying their lives, and laughing to the bank.

Romney and Bain and not caring about working people, because his whole business was based around firing working people, was a good, Democratic frame that worked. Republicans side with rich executives and don't care about working people. Democratic framing about the Republican tax cut was good - they want to give billions upon billions to rich people and corporations, and offer you nothing, or maybe a pittance, and then next they'll say there's no money for Social Security so they need to cut that too. In fact, many people who would/did receive tax cuts (often rather small ones, mind you) didn't believe that they would/did! Of course, when you account for the fact that the middle class tax cuts will expire while the corporate tax cuts and such are permanent, and the GOP attacking budgets for programs that help ordinary Americans, that's the right attitude to take. But the problem wasn't Democratic framing, it was that Republican members of Congress really, really wanted it! We got good numbers on that, the GOP just decided it was worth it. Obviously, the framing around the Obamacare repeal worked out as well - "the GOP wants to take health insurance away from millions" worked well.

Democrats have tried things like that. It's just that I don't think Democrats should scream about "gutting the military" specifically. They should just scream about different things.