8 ms·

>1. Call 2. Participate 3. Share 4. Vote This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have w

• tlarkworthy 10y ago
  Yes. Instead of another round of finger wagging, maybe the left should figure out what they can concretely offer the local population left out from the globalization boom.
  • bjourne 10y ago
    Health insurance? If all those who previously didn't have it and got it thanks to Obama had voted for Clinton, Trump wouldn't have been the president. Too many of them didn't and instead didn't vote, or voted for Trump.
    • prodigal_erik 10y ago
      Costly private health insurance is meaningless to the unemployed.
• RA_Fisher 10y ago
  The goal as MLK Jr. states here is: "You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue." - [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
• the_cat_kittles 10y ago
  very unhelpful. i think any way to signal that trump and his policies are unpopular is helpful. if everyone knows that a vast majority of people are going to vote against him next time, congress people do not have to bend to his will, and world leaders do not feel as pressured to work with him. it seems like maintaining an illusion of popularity is paramount for history's bad political regimes, i think this is why. even in places that aren't democracies, when everyone knows you aren't popular, you seem to lose power. i think things like marches and calling congress people help because of this. certainly more than soul searching.
  • woofyman 10y ago
    >it seems like maintaining an illusion of popularity is paramount for history's bad political regimes That's why he is so obsessed with crowd sizes and the lie that he would've won the popular vote if not for 5-10 million fraudulent votes.
    • curun1r 10y ago
      He's not really obsessed with those things, but it's an opportunity to run elements from the Russian propaganda playbook. First, it establishes a norm with the press. This administration will lie to them, and blatantly. That way some of them will react more positively in the future when they're given anything resembling an answer of substance on some future issue. It's the PR equivalent of the "negging" pickup practice. Second, it increases the separation between his core constituency and the rest of the country. He can't afford for any of his core constituency to abandon him, so he needs to ensure that they live in a different reality from the rest of the country and that no logic can cross that barrier. The more that the credibility of left-center-neutral news organizations is destroyed in the eyes of his Fox/Breitbart/alt-right constituents, the more legitimate news/logic can be dismissed by his supporters. Third, it can help create a feeling in the minds of middle ground voters that the truth is unknowable if every fact is contested. At that point, it becomes a battle of personalities to determine who people believe. Donald Trump, if he's good at anything, it's sounding sure of himself. These don't work if you only do it once or only do it on the important things. They work over time, based on opponent fatigue to combat every falsehood and our (humans) own natural-but-flawed ways that we determine trust. These techniques start off feeling absurd, especially to opponents, but have proven very effective to dictators around the world, including Russia.
• the8472 10y ago
  > This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. Wasn't low democrat turnout part of the problem?
  • naaaaak 10y ago
    Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?
    • ftrflyr 10y ago
      Yes. It seems liberals still haven't learned anything from this past round of finger pointing and self deprecating behavior.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • id 10y ago
      The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. Trump is undeniably more corrupt, less trustworthy and has no experience whatsoever. It shows everyday. She on the other hand was actually a decent candidate with a lot of experience and few scandals.
      • jimmywanger 10y ago
        > The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. You can say the same thing about the Democratic smear campaign against Trump. Clinton was somebody who was complacent, part of the existing political machine, and ran on a divisive platform that marginalized 25% of the electorate. Plus it didn't help that she ran the gender card into the ground and got out campaigned by political neophytes in both major parties in the biggest campaign in the world.
        • facetube 10y ago
• whack 10y ago
  I don't understand your point. Who said anything about ostracizing people with links to the opposing side? In fact, Sama said the exact opposite. Winning back key constituencies is all great, and should definitely be done, but it isn't going to do anything until the next elections 2 years away. If you're suggesting we just sit tight and let Trump do whatever he wants till then, that is simply ridiculous. It's not easy, but protests work. Calling your local congressmen and putting pressure on them works. Remember the debacle from back when Republicans tried to "reform" medicare? People spoke up overwhelmingly. They put tremendous pressure on their congressmen, who in turn put pressure on the party leadership, who then backed down. The same mechanic played itself out during every single government shutdown, where public pressure eventually cowed stubborn politicians into submission. It's not going to be easy, but some things are worth fighting for. Defeatism is seductive, but isn't going to get you anywhere.
• pjc50 10y ago
  > the opposing side The opposing side is people who support the arbitary and harmful ban on a huge number of people based primarily on their religion. No, the opposing side needs to learn some bipartisanship. The idea that a narrow election victory gives the right to steamroller a programme like this through is extremely dangerous. [trolling deleted]
  • Senji 10y ago
    It would be particularly hilarious watching the left twist itself into knots transitioning from an anti-gun position to pro violent overthrow.
    • jacquesm 10y ago
      There are other options: nationwide strikes, sit-ins, boycotts and so on.
      • rdtsc 10y ago
        Sadly I can't remember last time that was effective. I remember Occupy Wall Street from a few years back. So was so much excitement and energy there but what came of it? A bunch of arrests mostly. There were some anti-Trump protests. Right after election remember people blocking hospital exits, and setting cars on fire. At the inauguration, downtown DC, a lot of protestors torched trash cans in the street and blocked people getting the main event. It was very visible, for sure, but did it have the desired effect? I don't talk to Trump supporters but wonder how many saw the burning trash cans or who failed to get to the Inauguration thought "yap, this has convinced me, I am switching sides and will vote against him next time..."?
        • jacquesm 10y ago
          Vietnam, MLK, Womens voting rights, gay rights, workplace safety, end of apartheid etc. Plenty of them all over the world. Occupy Wall Street lacked one thing: a clearly defined goal. You can protest social and economic inequality but that's not the same as saying we will continue to protest until we have 'X' where X is some very clear, concrete and achievable goal.
• CalChris 10y ago
  > Ostracizing people who have links to the opposing side will positively hurt. Yes. It will positively hurt them. Consider it a price signal, a message. This idea that we somehow have to be nice about this is wrong. This idea that I somehow have to do some soul searching is also wrong.
• lefstathiou 10y ago
  For many Americans Sam Altman and Madonna are unrelatable so the messaging falls on deaf ears (or is potentially even counter productive). Nobody believes Google or YC is hiring refugees, or that Sam Altman and others are sending their kids to public schools attended by refugees, or living in low to middle income neighborhoods housing refugees and having to manage the increased violence that ensues. All well and good to bang your hands on a table from the Ivory tower that is San Francisco when millions of people in middle America believe that you are not the one bearing the cost of this "open door" policy. To be effective, I think the message needs to come from people middle America can relate to not millionaire celebs and billionaire tech CEOs.
  • edgyswingset 10y ago
    I find this so ironic. The so-called "heartland" and their complaining about "liberal elites" on the coast are so incredibly wrong. Every election in modern history is decided, ultimately, by these people who let themselves believe that they're disadvantaged and being left out. It's the reverse that's true: they get more representation proportional to their population, they get to decide what the makeup of the majority of Congress looks like, and they're the swing states that decided presidential elections. Meanwhile, in other places like the South or the West and East coast, if you vote contrary to the large majority, you may as well not even bother.
  • ivraatiems 10y ago
    Would you say Donald Trump, himself a billionaire celebrity, is someone Middle America can relate to? Why or why not?
    • lefstathiou 10y ago
      A qualified no - Trumps relatability may not matter in this context. There are two parts to this: the message and the messenger. Speaking in broad strokes here... I believe more people are relating to (i.e. are inclined to agree with) Trumps [closed border] message and therefore do not need to relate to Trump the messenger. Fewer people are relating to the open border message and thus, to help guide their analysis, people are looking to the messenger and finding them less relatable. So there isn't an equal burden of proof / relatability and that's part of the problem. The left is already perceived as being out of touch and their loudest / most visible voices may not be helping that.
• dang 10y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508050, since it's no more a reply to the top comment than it is to the OP.
• stephancoral 10y ago
  Voting and participating lost Hillary the election? The fuck are you even talking about? That makes no sense. Furthermore, millions of people voted for Clinton over Trump. Trump has the lowest approval ratings of a new president ever. It's very clear that the majority of the country is against him and his policies. >Instead of doing all this "yell out louder" crap, any serious opposition should rather do some serious soul searching to figure out how to win back key constituencies How do you do that without calling, participating, and sharing? These are all key on-the-ground actions for building a political base. I've worked in politics and organizing for 20 years. You don't know what you're talking about in the slightest. Please stop spreading bullshit.