Just because the MAGAs make a claim, it doesnt mean we should pay any attention to it. They lie.
Yep
Police and the DAs always have set up things so as to use limited resources best.
That is how it should be done.
Seems to me one thing that the Democrats don’t do a great job of is identifying an issue (or ginning one up from whole cloth) and then holding the Republican feet to the fire on it, like the Republicans constantly do to them.
I mean, if trans issues are only a thing because the Republican party is making it so, where are the negative Republican issues that are only issues because the Democrats are making them so?
The Democrats seem to have lost the initiative, to use a military/historical term, and are reacting rather than driving the debate about the issues, or even about what the issues are.
That’s why I’ve been saying that they basically shouldn’t engage on the more divisive of those issues, not because I don’t think they aren’t important or valid. When they’re dominating the conversation and dictating what and how something is discussed, the right play is not to engage, not to try and argue your way out of it, because you’re never going to win.
That is a MAGA tactic. Nor does the Democratic party use the “Big Lie”, etc. (That isnt saying every word is the truth, many Dem politicians are masters of the half-truth). We (the Democrats) have plenty of real issues with the current administration, we dont need to make any up.
Good point.
Agree. Republicans are WAY better at messaging and power politics. Granted, part of their super power is a complete lack of ethics. But (to echo an oftmentioned wish) the Dems had better learn that playing by the long-established rules of decorum while your opponent has no such restriction ain’t a winning strategy. When they go low, we go high…yeah, bullshit.
This does not mean we abandon our principles or decide lying is the way to go. But some flamethrowing messages are in order. Clucking the tongue ain’t doing it.
I’m not advocating lying or anything of the sort. What I’m saying is that Democrats seem to lack the, for lack of a better phrase, “killer instinct” that they really need.
Somehow it seems like when they have opportunities to actually damage the Republicans or otherwise do them wrong, they don’t take it, almost as if they’re saying “We see this opportunity, but we’re not taking it because we have to work with you in the future.” .
That era has passed. When those opportunities arise, you take them and you make the other side look as bad as they possibly can. Anything else plays into their rhetoric of Democratic weakness. Again, they’ve got the initiative and are controlling the narrative.
I agree completely (and I didn’t infer that you advocated lying)…
I agree. The Democrats have the advantage that they don’t need to lie to make the Republicans look malignant and irrational, they have the facts on their side. “Reality has a liberal bias”. But they have consistently refused to leverage that fact; recall the criticism from their own side towards Hillary call them “deplorables” and Walsh calling them “weird”. Relatively mild rhetoric that got condemned not for being wrong, but because it wasn’t “polite”, it lacked “decorum” and so forth.
Which played right into the hands of the Republicans and helped Trump get elected, both times. They are deplorable and weird, and refusing to call them that requires that the Democrats slant their rhetoric in favor of the Republicans, rather than against them; an obvious losing strategy. All they need to do to demonize the Republicans is speak honestly of them, but “demonizing people is bad” so they feel obliged to lie in favor of the Republicans instead.
This comment may help the Democrats-
‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,’ says Trump amid Iran talks
With US inflation at a three-year high, US president insisted he’s not focused on economic hardship sparked by the conflict
Donald Trump has said the growing financial pressure inflicted on Americans by the war on Iran is “not even a little bit” motivating him to make a peace deal with Tehran.
With US inflation at a three-year high, and fuel costs still climbing after a sharp rise in oil prices, the US president said on Tuesday that he is not focused on the economic hardship sparked by the conflict.
I think that people need reminding that “rights” are unitary. That is, to say, that the attacks on the rights of any group makes it easier to attack the next group on their hit list and that, sooner or later, they’ll get to a group that includes you. We’re seeing that now with voting. Turning the issue on it’s head and making it about the person you’re talking to and appealing to their sense of self-interest makes more sense than trying to engender sympathy for a group that they find, well, to use a word already employed here, weird.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Pastor Martin Niemöller.
I think that they need someone like Jasmine Crockett, but not black, and not a woman. As PC as that is, and as worthy of a candidate as she may be, POCs and women aren’t going to be what gets the people who are undecided into the fold.
I’m not a fan of letting one’s ideology get in the way of getting elected. I was aghast some years back when the Texas Democratic party ran a frumpy looking Hispanic lesbian for governor. As if that was ever going to get any traction whatsoever. It felt almost like an admission that they wouldn’t win, so they were just going to virtue signal to their base. Which is a bad choice, IMO. Your base may like it, but there are a lot of people out there who are going to look at Lupe Valdez and wonder why they even bothered, and if they can’t even offer up a decent candidate against Greg Abbott, what other half-baked decisions would their party make if elected/in power?
As someone who comes from a once-Republican background, but more of a moderate Colin Powell/GHW Bush one, the Democrats have always seemed more concerned with showing how nice they are, even to their own detriment, and even when it’s not good sense to be nice.
It has the potential to, in another world. Not this one.
The Texas Democratic party ran the person who won the primary. Lupe Valdez won the primary hands down. She did get 46% of the vote in the General election. She beat out several GOP candidates when running for Sherriff of Dallas County by large margins.
She was a decent candidate. Abbot was gonna win no matter who won the Dem primary.
We have pointed this out before- the Democratic party rarely picks the candidate- the voters do.
Let’s not pretend they don’t have any influence over who runs for what office.
It just feels like they aren’t trying some of the time, or if they are, that they can’t get out of their own way or quit tripping over their own feet.
What influence? How do they get folks that do not want to run to run?
What other jobs should be denied to people because of their ethnicity, orientation, or fashion sense?
The voters are always going to have an aggregate preference for whatever groups are socially prestigious, and a bias against women, minorities, and frumpy-looking people. The frumps and friends are perfectly well aware of this, and generally work pretty hard to compensate for it. Deciding right out the gate that only a white male can win isn’t necessarily as straightforward as you are suggesting, and also anathema to what we ought to stand for as a people.
I fear that’s correct. Democrats SHOULD use the clip of Donald saying “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.” But he’s made similar ‘I don’t care about you’ comments in the past, and they haven’t hurt him with his base. His base just chuckles and says ‘oh, that’s just Trump being Trump, and we love him for it.’
Yes, the comment might bother some independents, and so should be widely broadcast by Democrats. But it’s not going to change the numbers much, I suspect.
Fail. Your use of double quotes is illegitimate (and would be disallowed as deceptive in anyone but a moderator). I didn’t type the things you claim that I did.
Who is arguing against that?
Your entire post appears to be an exercise in being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. I don’t believe you made even one point that advanced the discussion.
No, it wouldn’t. Using double quotes to paraphrase another poster’s argument is allowed, for mods and non-mods alike. What’s not allowed is using the quote function to paraphrase another poster.
And I stand by my paraphrase of your posts.
Pointing out that another poster is unable to maintain a cosistent position from one post to another is, I think, a germane observation in any debate.
Or to quote a version I’ve seen on Facebook;
First they came for transgender people
And I spoke up right away
Because I know how the rest of this poem goes
When swing voters hear that a big reason Democrats nominated a white male Christian instead of Warnock or AOC will have been because Democrats think swing voters are bigots, said swing voters will be rightly insulted.
I wonder if it could go the other way. Maybe some Democrats tempted by the Greens would vote for a woman and/or person of color even if they sounded a bit like Barney Frank. Do I more than wonder? No, because how candidate identity helps or hurts is utterly impossible to know.