4 ms·

High-aggression is a negotiating tactic with basic goals - to intimidate the other side into thinking you are implacable, and to make you seem unstoppable. It

by mmooss 2y ago

High-aggression is a negotiating tactic with basic goals - to intimidate the other side into thinking you are implacable, and to make you seem unstoppable. It's a tactic. Like everyone else, they have interests and goals and needs, and they can be deterred in the same way. The problem is, nobody really tries. The Democrats keep doing the same ineffective things - a demonstration of being cowed and intimidated. For example, the Dems have almost no ability to communicate with the public. Whatever Trump and the GOP say are effectively true because there is no counter voice (beyond some third parties). The Dems don't do anything about it; they just keep communicating in the same way. The Dems have no talking points. A few of them are organizing now around 'economic populism' - in other words, they are completely cowed and will avoid all the major threats to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, safety; the corruption, cruelty, and hate. They are going to their safe space - economic policy!

curt15 2y ago
>For example, the Dems have almost no ability to communicate with the public. This +100. Even B Clinton as a 25+yr citizen communicates better with the public than 99% of active Dem politicians.
- brightball 2y ago
  When people can see their social accounts copying and pasting the same content it does look a little…disconnected/inauthentic.
  - trhway 2y ago
    Even when it is directly connected - ie. the people will see much higher prices copy pasted everywhere due to the Trump’s import taxes while Trump will be giving to the billionaires the tax cut financed by the tariffs - and the people will still cheer up on Trump.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Because the policy is not the issue. Trump has never been consistent or carried through much on policy; he lies to everyone. It's the politics and ideology - extreme reactionary politics of destroying 'liberals' regardless of the cost.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Yeah, Bill Clinton is a very effective speaker; wow. Or compare people like JFK or Bobby Kennedy - look up their speeches. Or Ronald Reagan, to be bipartisan. It's like the Dems have forgotten that leadership involves vision, charisma, inspiration, courage, ... However, I was referring to the lack of a mechanism. Whatever the Dems say, almost nobody hears it. Name a major statement by a Democrat in the last week? In the last month?
  - curt15 2y ago
    Maybe more of them could follow Pete Buttigieg to Fox News?
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Yeah, but that's just a tertiary strategy. Think of it this way: The Dems are so pathetic, their best option is to try to use the enemy's communication mechanism. They simply need to solve their problem. That they have it is absurd and makes them look pathetic, cowed, and ineffectual victims - not something people vote for. What is more important to a political party than a means of public communication?
  - trhway 2y ago
    > Name a major statement by a Democrat Name a major Democrat. There is none. After 3 electoral cycles when party bureaucracy each time crowned the candidate instead of a candidate rising through the primaries the party has no leaders anymore - note the difference between a leader and a top bureaucrat, the Dems have no deficit of the latter.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    What makes a statement "major" is the amount of attention it is given. That is out of your control. Democrats are making many statements. If they are not "major", it is perhaps because nobody cares about statements. They care about the exercise of power, and Democrats have none. Any statement they make is easily dismissed as bluster.
    - 2y ago
PJDK 2y ago
Coming from a UK background something I've been long curious about is is there a constitutional reason for when the opposition presidential candidate is selected. It seems like the current way of doing things leaves the opposition rudderless through most of a presidential term, followed by a bitter fight where their own side rip each other apart followed by only a few months to try and establish oneself as leader in waiting. Could the democrats do their primaries now? It feels like that would 1. Distract from Trump so he doesn't get run of the news 2. Mean that all the "candidate X is a bad democrat" stories could be long forgotten by the next election. 3. Give a pedestal to the actual presidential candidate as the go to person for the media to get reactions from 4. If they turn out to be genuinely terrible there's a lot of time to find out and potentially replace them.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  the problem is that running any sort of campaign that effectively reaches the continental and population scale of the US is incredibly expensive. Bernie Sanders for example raised $228M during his primary campaign in 2016. it would be hard to see how to make that happen more frequently.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Constitutional? No, except that states run the primaries. ... but when the primaries are is encoded into state law, so it would be a challenge to change it for every state if one wanted to shift when "the primaries" as a whole concept are.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  The states have laws when you can hold a primary but nothing in the constitution.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Coming from a UK background something I've been long curious about is is there a constitutional reason for when the opposition presidential candidate is selected. That's a very interesting point. On the other hand, the GOP did have a leader through the Biden administration - Trump. Even when they don't, such as under Obama, they do have effective means (Fox, social media, etc.) and content (effective, disciplined talking points) of communication. The Dems have neither.
SJC_Hacker 2y ago
> The Dems have no talking points. A few of them are organizing now around 'economic populism' - in other words, they are completely cowed and will avoid all the major threats to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, safety; the corruption, cruelty, and hate. They are going to their safe space - economic policy! Because sadly, thats what the people respond to. When given the choice between food on the table / roof over their head / cash in the bank account and abstract values like "republican government", "rule of law" and "protecting human rights" etc. they will choose the former. Especially as long as its OTHER people's rights, and OTHER parties getting surpressed, they don't care quite so much. We've seen this play out in Russia. Granted they did not have the long history of Republican government that the US has had. The irony with Trump is they may get neither. At least some of them. Authoritarians have way of mollifying that minimum % that actually matters. Mostly people with guns and willingness to use them. In the US we're talking as low as 25% (so 75% of us are effectively screwed). And when you have billionaires controlling the information space, it would be very difficult to organize opposition. I'm now looking out to 2028. Trump and his cronies may be plotting to crash the system and "declare an emergency" so elections get suspended. Or the alternative, he just runs again and dares anyone to stop him. The blue/purple states should at the very least, bar him from appearing on the ballot there's a question of whether there will have enough backbone and could not be sufficiently threatened/bullied into backing down, or if he tries to pull a 2020 again with an "alternate electors", at the very least cause confusion so the election can be thrown to the House where GOP almost assuredly would have control over the state delegations. Lastly, the various Federal agencies, possibly even the military would be sufficiently "Trumpified" such that they will threaten, maybe even resort to force.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > When given the choice between food on the table / roof over their head / cash in the bank account and abstract values like "republican government", "rule of law" and "protecting human rights" etc. they will choose the former. That's the opposite of the truth. Republican regions have long voted against their economic interests in favor of their values. Look at all the white working class people in the South that have long voted Republican over values, even as the GOP took away or blocked their benefits, education, health care, minimum wage, labor rights, etc.
jfengel 2y ago
I can't imagine what kind of talking points one needs to offer past "uh, we aren't criminals and we're not incompetent". If the response is "yeah, we're good with those things, what else have you got?" I don't know what to say. You want bread? Maybe some circuses? The Democrats did have plenty of policies. Realistic ones. Not the most exciting. If the public wants to be excited, and aren't picky about it, then indeed they should have that. But I'm not going to be able to provide it.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > I can't imagine what kind of talking points one needs ... > The Democrats did have plenty of policies. Realistic ones. Not the most exciting. If the public wants to be excited, and aren't picky about it, then indeed they should have that. But I'm not going to be able to provide it. I think it's obvious that such an approach doesn't work; does that matter to you? You seem defiant to me (though interpreting tone from text is very uncertain); who are you defying? There's nobody to defy - you either get the results or not. It's also obvious, IMHO, that the issue isn't policies but politics and ideals - freedom or oppression, humanitarianism or cruelty, power or democratic equality, democracy or authoritarianism, etc. How many bridges to build next year doesn't measure up, and if that's what a politician talks about, they are clearly hiding from a difficult reality.
  - Craighead 2y ago
    DARVO is so incredibly effective. I wonder what comes next for the world.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Interesting, I hadn't heard that term before. It's essential to put a name on it.
- lovich 2y ago
  The American people have proven over the past few elections that they don’t care about policy or the economy even “It’s the economy, stupid” is over It is now the era of “It’s the vibes, stupid”

by mmooss 2y ago

curt15 2y ago

>For example, the Dems have almost no ability to communicate with the public. This +100. Even B Clinton as a 25+yr citizen communicates better with the public than 99% of active Dem politicians.

brightball 2y ago
When people can see their social accounts copying and pasting the same content it does look a little…disconnected/inauthentic.
- trhway 2y ago
  Even when it is directly connected - ie. the people will see much higher prices copy pasted everywhere due to the Trump’s import taxes while Trump will be giving to the billionaires the tax cut financed by the tariffs - and the people will still cheer up on Trump.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Because the policy is not the issue. Trump has never been consistent or carried through much on policy; he lies to everyone. It's the politics and ideology - extreme reactionary politics of destroying 'liberals' regardless of the cost.
mmooss 2y ago
Yeah, Bill Clinton is a very effective speaker; wow. Or compare people like JFK or Bobby Kennedy - look up their speeches. Or Ronald Reagan, to be bipartisan. It's like the Dems have forgotten that leadership involves vision, charisma, inspiration, courage, ... However, I was referring to the lack of a mechanism. Whatever the Dems say, almost nobody hears it. Name a major statement by a Democrat in the last week? In the last month?
- curt15 2y ago
  Maybe more of them could follow Pete Buttigieg to Fox News?
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Yeah, but that's just a tertiary strategy. Think of it this way: The Dems are so pathetic, their best option is to try to use the enemy's communication mechanism. They simply need to solve their problem. That they have it is absurd and makes them look pathetic, cowed, and ineffectual victims - not something people vote for. What is more important to a political party than a means of public communication?
- trhway 2y ago
  > Name a major statement by a Democrat Name a major Democrat. There is none. After 3 electoral cycles when party bureaucracy each time crowned the candidate instead of a candidate rising through the primaries the party has no leaders anymore - note the difference between a leader and a top bureaucrat, the Dems have no deficit of the latter.
- jfengel 2y ago
  What makes a statement "major" is the amount of attention it is given. That is out of your control. Democrats are making many statements. If they are not "major", it is perhaps because nobody cares about statements. They care about the exercise of power, and Democrats have none. Any statement they make is easily dismissed as bluster.
  - 2y ago

PJDK 2y ago

Coming from a UK background something I've been long curious about is is there a constitutional reason for when the opposition presidential candidate is selected. It seems like the current way of doing things leaves the opposition rudderless through most of a presidential term, followed by a bitter fight where their own side rip each other apart followed by only a few months to try and establish oneself as leader in waiting. Could the democrats do their primaries now? It feels like that would 1. Distract from Trump so he doesn't get run of the news 2. Mean that all the "candidate X is a bad democrat" stories could be long forgotten by the next election. 3. Give a pedestal to the actual presidential candidate as the go to person for the media to get reactions from 4. If they turn out to be genuinely terrible there's a lot of time to find out and potentially replace them.

bobthepanda 2y ago
the problem is that running any sort of campaign that effectively reaches the continental and population scale of the US is incredibly expensive. Bernie Sanders for example raised $228M during his primary campaign in 2016. it would be hard to see how to make that happen more frequently.
shadowgovt 2y ago
Constitutional? No, except that states run the primaries. ... but when the primaries are is encoded into state law, so it would be a challenge to change it for every state if one wanted to shift when "the primaries" as a whole concept are.
ipaddr 2y ago
The states have laws when you can hold a primary but nothing in the constitution.
mmooss 2y ago
> Coming from a UK background something I've been long curious about is is there a constitutional reason for when the opposition presidential candidate is selected. That's a very interesting point. On the other hand, the GOP did have a leader through the Biden administration - Trump. Even when they don't, such as under Obama, they do have effective means (Fox, social media, etc.) and content (effective, disciplined talking points) of communication. The Dems have neither.

SJC_Hacker 2y ago

> The Dems have no talking points. A few of them are organizing now around 'economic populism' - in other words, they are completely cowed and will avoid all the major threats to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, safety; the corruption, cruelty, and hate. They are going to their safe space - economic policy! Because sadly, thats what the people respond to. When given the choice between food on the table / roof over their head / cash in the bank account and abstract values like "republican government", "rule of law" and "protecting human rights" etc. they will choose the former. Especially as long as its OTHER people's rights, and OTHER parties getting surpressed, they don't care quite so much. We've seen this play out in Russia. Granted they did not have the long history of Republican government that the US has had. The irony with Trump is they may get neither. At least some of them. Authoritarians have way of mollifying that minimum % that actually matters. Mostly people with guns and willingness to use them. In the US we're talking as low as 25% (so 75% of us are effectively screwed). And when you have billionaires controlling the information space, it would be very difficult to organize opposition. I'm now looking out to 2028. Trump and his cronies may be plotting to crash the system and "declare an emergency" so elections get suspended. Or the alternative, he just runs again and dares anyone to stop him. The blue/purple states should at the very least, bar him from appearing on the ballot there's a question of whether there will have enough backbone and could not be sufficiently threatened/bullied into backing down, or if he tries to pull a 2020 again with an "alternate electors", at the very least cause confusion so the election can be thrown to the House where GOP almost assuredly would have control over the state delegations. Lastly, the various Federal agencies, possibly even the military would be sufficiently "Trumpified" such that they will threaten, maybe even resort to force.

mmooss 2y ago
> When given the choice between food on the table / roof over their head / cash in the bank account and abstract values like "republican government", "rule of law" and "protecting human rights" etc. they will choose the former. That's the opposite of the truth. Republican regions have long voted against their economic interests in favor of their values. Look at all the white working class people in the South that have long voted Republican over values, even as the GOP took away or blocked their benefits, education, health care, minimum wage, labor rights, etc.

jfengel 2y ago

I can't imagine what kind of talking points one needs to offer past "uh, we aren't criminals and we're not incompetent". If the response is "yeah, we're good with those things, what else have you got?" I don't know what to say. You want bread? Maybe some circuses? The Democrats did have plenty of policies. Realistic ones. Not the most exciting. If the public wants to be excited, and aren't picky about it, then indeed they should have that. But I'm not going to be able to provide it.

mmooss 2y ago
> I can't imagine what kind of talking points one needs ... > The Democrats did have plenty of policies. Realistic ones. Not the most exciting. If the public wants to be excited, and aren't picky about it, then indeed they should have that. But I'm not going to be able to provide it. I think it's obvious that such an approach doesn't work; does that matter to you? You seem defiant to me (though interpreting tone from text is very uncertain); who are you defying? There's nobody to defy - you either get the results or not. It's also obvious, IMHO, that the issue isn't policies but politics and ideals - freedom or oppression, humanitarianism or cruelty, power or democratic equality, democracy or authoritarianism, etc. How many bridges to build next year doesn't measure up, and if that's what a politician talks about, they are clearly hiding from a difficult reality.
- Craighead 2y ago
  DARVO is so incredibly effective. I wonder what comes next for the world.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't heard that term before. It's essential to put a name on it.
lovich 2y ago
The American people have proven over the past few elections that they don’t care about policy or the economy even “It’s the economy, stupid” is over It is now the era of “It’s the vibes, stupid”