So trumps message to the republicans is " is kneel and kiss my ass or else? "

Politics & Elections
61

You are in some ways correct, with all of the promise of reform and change, very little has changed in regard to the heavy handed way that they deal with minorities. That’s why promises of reform and change are really not enough anymore, and something more drastic is being demanded by a small segment of those protesting against police brutality.

OTOH, in 1950, they didn’t have armored vehicles to break down your walls, the war on drugs didn’t result in violent home invasions where people are shot, or handcuffed naked in their own homes.

We also have cameras everywhere now. It used to be that when some minority was mistreated, we took the word of the cop that they did something to merit it. Now that we have cameras, we see that the cop was lying, and they assaulted a citizen for no reason whatsoever.

How much longer do you think that we could just keep promising reform, while things are actually getting worse, both objectively and optically, before people got frustrated and wanted the whole thing shut down?

The creation of this very phrase was not directed on high. Terrorizing and traumatizing minorities and other marginalized groups to the point where they react to that terror in a way that “justifies” heaping further abuse upon them, however, has been a standing policy as long as we’ve had law enforcement, and may as well be directed from on high.

It gives an excuse to someone who wanted an excuse to be against minorities or to be very pro-police. If they spend just a few seconds actually considering the situation objectively, they will see that there is a small handful of desperate people who have been terrorized and traumatized by the system that is supposed to promote law and order that said these words, and that they were not actually picked up by any lawmakers or even activists of any real influence. Were it not for right wing media magnifying and repeating these images, very few people would even be aware of these words. It is truly nutpicking at its finest.

Anyone who is convinced by these words to side with the police either wanted an excuse, or isn’t paying any attention to the actual issues and is just consuming the media that tells them what they want to hear.

Only a “debate” that the debater has no interest in having in good faith. If you debate me, and you say, “well they said, ‘defund the police’.” And I say, “Well, I have not said those words”, then that should be the end of framing the debate in those terms. If they want to tie me to those words, then I assume that they want to be tied to every utterance of every nutjob on their side.

In this case, are you saying that this was framed in this way by a very small number of people who were reacting to the terror and trauma inflicted on their neighborhoods, their families, and themselves? Or are you saying that it is being framed this way by those who want to use those words in bad faith as a bludgeon to keep law enforcement as an enemy of those marginalized by them?

Like I said, when someone resorts to nutpicking, then they are not debating in good faith.

62

In a world where a small number of swing voters control major outcomes, and in which a good or bad campaign slogan has been proven by objective studies to have an influence on such people, your analysis is completely unrealistic.

I understand where you are coming from but the simple fact is, when elections are won and lost by percentage points, using a slogan that may influence a lazy, low information voter to make a decision against you is shooting yourself in the foot.

And the more so when you consider that there are any other number of alternate slogans that would have worked but could not be so badly misinterpreted.

63

I have been on and off SD for years, but finally joined and decide to make a post or one. After reading some of these “Trump, and his effects” type posts, it lead me into a strange area, and I found myself reading about that “blue whale suicide” thing, and the psychology involved. Ultimately, the premise was to eliminate the subject’s fear, in favor of some horrible outcome, supposedly to “win” the challenge. It was broken down into parts-- induction, habituation, preparation, which were eerily similar to how these Jan 6 people are behaving.

64

It makes one wonder if there is in fact too much at stake in these elections. The nation lurches awkwardly in one direction or another based on the outcome. Perhaps the concept of the singular executive is due for reconsideration.

65

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Stuffed if I know what to do.

66

I am an American who has relocated to Europe. Democracy here works a lot better than it did back in the States. I can provide a laundry list of improvements based on my experience and direct observation, but they would all require Constitutional reform, so it would be a waste of time. Americans are infected with a peculiar psychosis that makes them resistant to the genuine corrective reflection, the recognition that maybe they don’t have the greatest country and the greatest government, which is a necessary prerequisite for tearing up tradition and starting over. Seriously, the more time I spend outside the U.S., the more it looks like a cult.

67

Even from inside the US politics looks like a cult.

68

And yet of course the US constitution has been amended - famously - several times.

The problem these days is that one party has determined that intransigent and reflexive opposition to everything the other party proposes is an effective political strategy.

The only way any amendment to the US constitution is likely to pass is if both parties supported the change and that ain’t going to happen. One party is now openly anti-democratic so it is never going to support any reform that improves the functioning of democracy. And vice versa.

69

I’m not sure what analysis of mine that you refer to, but the analysis that Democrats should not use that slogan is pointless, as Democrats did not use that slogan.

What is unrealistic is to say that a small group of protestors represent the rest of the party. It is unrealistic to expect some sort of policing on the messaging of individuals.

They did not have a focus group. They didn’t run it by party leaders. They saw people in their neighborhoods, their friends and their family, being terrorized by the police, and went out and protested against that treatment.

But once again, who used this slogan? Was it politicians? No. Was it even activists of any real influence? No.

It was a handful of people who were fed up with the mistreatment that they were receiving at the hands of law enforcement.

You may as well say that Republicans shouldn’t use the slogan “Jews will not replace us.” as that is as relevant to their party as “Defund the police” was to the Democrats.

And those are the slogans that were used by Democratic politicians and activists.

As I said, tying “Defund the police” to the Democrats is simply an example of nutpicking, and only gets traction because right wing media spread the lie that it had any more reach than a handful of protestors on the ground.

It is entirely a distraction, and attempt to dismiss a movement based on how they protest, not based on what they are protesting. It is bad faith, it is reprehensible, and Democrats should not have to pay for words that they did not say.

We only legitimize these bad faith right wing tactics when we take their side and complain about something that almost no one has actually said.

70

Your post is a strawman from one end to the other.

I never said a word about Democrats.

Whoever used this slogan was being counterproductive to their own cause. Even if the slogan was only being used by one guy from Nowheresville he was misguided because he was hurting his own interests.

71

I would actually go beyond just politicians and day-to-day politics. This is well outside the context of the thread and I’m not trying to start a hijack, so if anyone wants to follow up on this, we can take it elsewhere. But my perception is that the American identity itself is sort of cult-adjacent, cult-influenced, what have you. Even among the reactionary left, the ones who are more prone to level criticism and point out their country’s problems, it still comes with an aroma of exceptionalism, like, we’re America, we should be better than this, we’re the example for the world. And after years abroad, that just feels like delusional nonsense. Every country is alongside every other country in terms of conducting itself to advance its self-interested agenda, and to set the U.S. apart from that as some sort of moral beacon, flawed or otherwise, is a navel-gazing fantasy.

But like I said. A hijack.

72

ISTM “we are America, we should be better than this” is at least a constructive and high minded view even if unduly self-congratulatory.

ISTM that as you have earlier identified it’s the view that says “we are America so we are by definition great and can’t possibly need to change“ that is damaging.

73

Fair point.

74

I do not see how. You were complaining about this being used as a campaign slogan.

If you are not saying that this was a campaign slogan that should be tied to the Democrats, then what was your point in bringing up campaign slogans?

Bump was saying that this was framed as “a choice between law and order with our current police on one hand, and defunding the police (to use the phrase as-is) on the other”, which is what I was responding to, when you jumped in. Democrats were already a part of the context, so you didn’t have to say Democrats in order to be referring to them. Maybe you just missed the entire context of the conversation?

I was saying that that framing was only done by people who were not interested in debating policy in good faith, and would rather keep law enforcement as an enemy of those marginalized, and you said that that analysis is completely unrealistic.

What point were you trying to make here, or were you just making straw yourself?

Fair, and I did not say anything otherwise. Just as people marching in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” should be considered misguided as it is hurting their own interests as well.

What I said was that this was being used by a handful of people, and it was being tied to Democrats as a whole by bad faith actors in the media, politics, and social media.

You said that my “analysis” was unrealistic, when all I have said is that this shouldn’t be tied to anyone who doesn’t endorse it. Claiming that I made any analysis whatsoever is more than a bit of straw in and of itself on your part.

What is unrealistic is to expect some sort of draconian policing in messaging, so that when people find themselves tired of being terrorized in their own homes, they first run their slogans by a focus group and get permission from party leaders to make sure that they won’t upset any pearl clutchers.

75

Pretty much all large cities are deep blue.

In fact of the ten largest cities in the USA, none have a GOP Mayor.

Large urban areas are nearly always Democratic. And homelessness and demonstrations happen in large cities.

76

Quite a bit of homelessness happens in rural areas too. It’s just that it’s much harder to get the statistics on it. And of course the absolute numbers are much smaller, because the vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, so naturally the vast majority of homeless Americans live there too.

77

Certainly, no doubt, but as the cite shows, the problem is harder to see out there.

78

You can have a campaign - with a slogan - for selling butter or stopping child abuse or a party in an election. Doesn’t have to be the latter.

79

John Boozman, senator from here in Arkansans, posted on Facebook today that he has received the endorsement of President Donald Trump. I thought perhaps it was an old post from back when Trump was still president but it was dated today. Trump even signed his endorsement as president. Is that unusual? Did Obama endorse Biden as President Obama?

80

For many uses, the honorific title “President” attaches for life. Which is different from the job title of “President”. Unsurprising we see Trump to try to trade on it though for both confusion and profit.