It is massively important that at least most of us who disagree with Trump/Vance not go dark. That’s how they win: when everyone’s afraid to oppose them.
This is probably easier to swallow when you’re an emperor and command legions amd have slaves to do your bidding.
Not afraid.
Just tired.
Very tired.
Going dark will be for my survival.
People should flee overseas if they can, or at least to a blue state if they can’t. Canada and Mexico are too close.
All I can really do is hunker down in California and hope some mix of their incompetence and my status as a white male delays them from getting around to killing me before they collapse from incompetence or I die.
Go dark till you’re rested.
Come back when you can.
Indeed. But my whole point is to make folks say that specifically and compare.
Also the last emperor to rule over a unified, relatively peaceful Roman Empire. That statement is more of a harbinger signaling the collapse of order and the coming of a century of plagues, political infighting, and civil strife.
Stranger
Yes, especially those of us in comparatively privileged positions. Middle-class straight white people still have a lot of leeway to speak out against the persecution of other kinds of people.
Absolutely right, and that’s exactly what I meant in my earlier post. The best way, IMO, is to be a source of comfort and support in your community and in conversations with your friends and neighbors.
I can’t change how ass-backwards Missouri is with regards to trans issues, or immigration, but I can do whatever I can to ensure the school I volunteer in doesn’t tolerate anti-trans rhetoric or immigrant bashing. I can raise my children to be tolerant and foster their friendship with transgender and non-binary peers.
I know it feels hopeless, but consider what the world was like for transgender people even 15 years ago, or gay people 25. We have made progress, and it has to happen in our families and communities first.
This is what I’ve been thinking, or at least trying to convince myself of, today. Trump won with a combination of fear-mongering and empty promises. There’s no way the trump administration is going to deliver on a fraction of a percent of all those promises. Just the opposite in fact; the next Covid-level crisis is going to send things off the rails. Then many of those trump voters are going to get their metaphorical faces eaten. I’m not hoping for the country to fall into crisis just to teach trump voters a lesson, but I expect the trump administration, now that it has the ball back, will drop it soon, and probably in spectacular fashion.
The question though is, does it actually cause a backlash? trump’s tariffs hurt a lot of farmers during the first Reich, and they still voted for him.
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite get this “clearly the left has failed in their messaging and needs to do a better job addressing the issues of the non-left” argument. It seems to me that trumpism won due to fear-mongering and false promises. For months I watched ads shrieking that Kamala was letting hordes of hardened criminals stream across our borders, destroying our economy, forcing people to get transgender surgery, and will start World War III. Followed by promises that trump will secure the borders, ‘fix’ the economy, and grant everyone three wishes. In other words, scary lies followed by comforting lies. How does the left ‘adjust its messaging’ to fight all the lies?
This is the biggest part of the problem. Messaging now exists in silos of interest. They likely never even hear the things we want to say. They never get a different perspective.
It’s a serious problem with no solution.
I have no answer how to combat this and it will continue to get worse.
That’s a very good question.
One way to fight lies is with the truth, but that’s difficult in the current media environment (both traditional and social).
But also, one way to help fight a lie is to cop to the kernel of truth contained within. Most political lies have some basis in reality - you can’t just claim there is inflation when prices are lower than the used to be.
There were two fundamental, factual truths that the two big lies were built on: prices are significantly higher than they were in 2020 and border crossings were way up during the first three years of the Biden administration.
You can try to explain why both of those things happened, but, as they say, if you are explaining you are losing.
I think a better approach is to say, “Yes, that is bad, and here is how we will fix it” and then go overboard on solutions. I think the inflation one should have been easy - just promise whatever you need to in order to convince voters you actually agree it’s a problem.
Immigration is much harder, because the Democrats legitimately have the unpopular position. At a minimum I think Harris should have spent time at the border and given multiple “this is much worse than I thought and we have to solve it now” speeches. Promise to close the border immediately. Demand that Biden do it now if you have to. Couch it in humanitarian terms if you want. If you’re worried a harder line on immigration will hurt you with Hispanic voters, I think the results last night should make it clear that isn’t the case. I’m honestly a bit befuddled as to why the administration let it get as bad as it did unless there really are “open borders” folks in key policy positions.
But by denying the truth or trying to explain it away, you lose the argument to the person who is offering solutions (as bonkers and awful as those solutions might be).
Which would of course invite the response “Why didn’t you fix it yet?” and be accused of disloyalty to Biden (which It would be to some extent).
How bad was it, for those of us who were apparently not paying attention (meaning me for one)?
It’s hard to get great numbers because “crossings” were re categorized as “encounters” around 2020, I believe, but it’s pretty clear that 2021-2023 were much higher than the previous years.
Here is one cite: Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2023 | Statista
Again, I don’t intend to claim that this is a bad thing morally, economically, or otherwise. Just that it’s an awful thing politically. Not helped by an incendiary media that is more than happy to play up any violent crime caused by an undocumented migrant.
It’s very interesting (to me at least) from the chart that Obama kept crossings very low. He seems to have been aware of how unpopular an open-borders policy is in the US.
And maybe instead of responding with “you’re a racist fascist”, it would have been more effective to respond with:
We worked with Republicans to sponsor a Republican written bill that would have given our border patrol and immigration courts the funding that they need to deal with the crisis at our borders. By quickly, intelligently, and compassionately processing asylum seekers - and deporting an estimated 70-80% of applicants who did not qualify for asylum - we would have resolved the crisis. But Donald Trump worked with House Republicans to torpedo the bill and leave our border in crisis, to manufacture a campaign issue. If elected, Kamala Harris will sign such a bill into law and ensure that any unqualified asylum seekers can be processed and denied.
I respectfully request the postmortem on the campaign be moved to the appropriate thread. Or, at the least, connect it more specifically to my topic question.
No, they don’t. The Democrats don’t want an open border. They recognize that our asylum system is broken, is currently being heavily abused, and needs to be fixed - and even that the fix will involve many deportations.
That’s not an unpopular position. It is the position of most Americans. But the Democrats, for some unfathomable reason, refuse to own this position.
Then they’d be blamed for the resulting economic disaster and wave of racial persecution instead of the Republicans.
You’re right, that would have been more effective. If only Kamala had said something like that, maybe at the debate…
