4 ms·

I understand the need to frame arguments in an objective and clinical way. At the same time, it's frustrating because it just feels like being so distant emotio

I understand the need to frame arguments in an objective and clinical way. At the same time, it's frustrating because it just feels like being so distant emotionally doesn't drive deep enough into the way the current environment shakes so many people to their cores. It's an egregious assault on individual experiences and there's no real way to sugarcoat that. You can deport illegal immigrants without taking away their dignity and without frightening the ever living shit out of everyone. But this isn't that. The intention is fear.

itsoktocry 1y ago
The fact that you think Trump is running a scam on foolish people, while the natural state of things is an altruistic Democratic government is why you lost and will likely continue to lose. The "Democratic"/"left wing" platform is not as popular as you believe; not in the US, not in England, not in Canada, not in Germany... This all stems from backlash against those policies. You need to fix the issues, not tell people "you voted for the wrong guy".
- spwa4 1y ago
  Exactly. People forget this, and "forget" this, but democracy's power is not based on picking the best (or even merely not disastrous) rulers. Italy, Germany and more recently Russia illustrate that pretty disastrous choices have been made by democratic institutions (I don't mean the Ukraine war, I mean electing Putin in the first place). Democracy's power is almost entirely in voting out bad rulers without destroying the entire country. That's why a great deal of people's ideas of democracy are ridiculous. For example, democracy can tolerate the existence of fake news or terrible/fake science, just go read newspapers from the interwar period. Take an alternative of the islamist gulf monarchies. They'll end in destruction and fire, war or revolution, because that's the only way to replace the government, so you can pretty much guarantee that's what will (eventually) happen. The simple truth one hopes America, including democrats, can embrace is that Biden was bad, and allowing him to cling to power was horrible (if he'd made Ms. Harris president halfway through his presidency, THAT might have worked). What was done during the election ... seriously? Yes, Trump is worse (and he'll be voted out, or at least take the GOP down, like he did before), but that doesn't matter in most people's minds. Besides, taking the "least bad" option, what democrats generally advocate these days, is how Italy and Germany destroyed their democracy (Mussulini and Hitler were put in power, not elected, because any other choice would have resulted in civil war. How that worked? Easy: they instructed their supporters to fight until they were the least bad option, and the police couldn't keep control. Which is why I think countries like France are playing with fire since every extreme party in France and Germany, the various extreme left, right, green is trying the same playbook now: elect them or they sabotage the entire country. Why? Same reason Hitler did it: he only had maybe 20% of people really behind him. But 20% of the population can sabotage the entire country, easily. Of course, Hitler was the only one doing it, and these parties are not)
- JumpinJack_Cash 1y ago
  > > The "Democratic"/"left wing" platform is not as popular as you believe; not in the US, not in England, not in Canada, not in Germany... At least the Democratic platform is a platform as opposed to the other party who is being held hostage for 13 years by a single individual who cannot complete a coherent sentence without rambling and weaving (and he couldn't do it in 2015 either)
- eli_gottlieb 1y ago
  Both are true. The Democratic policy platform is unpopular, and Trump is running a scam on foolish people. I voted third-party.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  American democrats aren't what is considered left wing in Europe. They're neoliberals which classes as moderate rightwing in Europe. Left as we see it in Europe doesn't really exist in America. Except perhaps some outliers Bernie Sanders. I don't think the democrats should lower themselves to messaging like trump's though. In doing so they would give up their own worth. And copying your enemy is never a good idea because nobody can be better at it than the real thing. I don't think the democrats are great (I'm European left wing) but I do absolutely think that Trump is running a scam on foolish people. He has even said so himself in the past. The problem is also that the republicans manufacture issues. There are no issues with trans people. Most people wouldn't even know a trans person (which is also why it's such a good group to demonize, people don't often have friends in that group to dissuade them from hating). There's no issues with immigrants as such, the issue is more that some groups are very poor and turn to crime. This is not exclusive to immigrants. The actual solution is to make sure even poor people have opportunities that don't involve crime. But hey that's 'communism'. You can call it what you want but life is a lot safer here in Europe. But they're just riling people up in order to create a platform. The thing is, you can't fix issues that don't actually exist. So this is a very hard situation to solve.
daseiner1 1y ago
the intention is to normalize extrajudicial government force by starting with vulnerable people technically "outside of the law" it really is a "first they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist..."-esque program at this point
- totallykvothe 1y ago
  [flagged]
beeflet 1y ago
The intention is to express political dominance. By panicking and responding emotionally, you are feeding the trolls. It is as much an ego trip for the right to act oppressive (within the bounds of "the rules") as it is for the left wing to act oppressed. If the democratic party is going to win, they need to succinctly and stoically state a handful of memorable counterpoints to appeal to the common man. What we have had for the past decade is a ton of noise from the mainstream media explaining a million reasons why we should oppose Trump. The left wing does not equip it's supporters to argue against the right well. Trump won in 2016 rattling on about Hillary's emails. Trump didn't give a million reasons for us to oppose Hillary, he had 1. He would have a single canned response and name for each of his opponents. The point is you have to agree on a couple of memorable weak points to attack.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > Trump didn't give a million reasons for us to oppose Hillary, he had 1. Which 1? Building the wall? Draining the swamp? Locking her up? Making America great again? I may be missing more.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    Those are just slogans. But in terms of arguments, I would say he had one major negative argument "Her Emails" and two major positive arguments "Make America Great Again" "Build a Wall". The most important thing is that these are points that are so simple even an idiot can understand them. I can't even keep track of all of trump's controversies because they are so numerous and complex. But if I was a democrat I would just stick to one or two points that even moderates can resonate with like the "Epstein Files" or Palantir or the nuclear secrets or something.
    - kenjackson 1y ago
      There were really two and you missed them both: she’s a Clinton. And she’s an aggressive woman.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

itsoktocry 1y ago

The fact that you think Trump is running a scam on foolish people, while the natural state of things is an altruistic Democratic government is why you lost and will likely continue to lose. The "Democratic"/"left wing" platform is not as popular as you believe; not in the US, not in England, not in Canada, not in Germany... This all stems from backlash against those policies. You need to fix the issues, not tell people "you voted for the wrong guy".

spwa4 1y ago
Exactly. People forget this, and "forget" this, but democracy's power is not based on picking the best (or even merely not disastrous) rulers. Italy, Germany and more recently Russia illustrate that pretty disastrous choices have been made by democratic institutions (I don't mean the Ukraine war, I mean electing Putin in the first place). Democracy's power is almost entirely in voting out bad rulers without destroying the entire country. That's why a great deal of people's ideas of democracy are ridiculous. For example, democracy can tolerate the existence of fake news or terrible/fake science, just go read newspapers from the interwar period. Take an alternative of the islamist gulf monarchies. They'll end in destruction and fire, war or revolution, because that's the only way to replace the government, so you can pretty much guarantee that's what will (eventually) happen. The simple truth one hopes America, including democrats, can embrace is that Biden was bad, and allowing him to cling to power was horrible (if he'd made Ms. Harris president halfway through his presidency, THAT might have worked). What was done during the election ... seriously? Yes, Trump is worse (and he'll be voted out, or at least take the GOP down, like he did before), but that doesn't matter in most people's minds. Besides, taking the "least bad" option, what democrats generally advocate these days, is how Italy and Germany destroyed their democracy (Mussulini and Hitler were put in power, not elected, because any other choice would have resulted in civil war. How that worked? Easy: they instructed their supporters to fight until they were the least bad option, and the police couldn't keep control. Which is why I think countries like France are playing with fire since every extreme party in France and Germany, the various extreme left, right, green is trying the same playbook now: elect them or they sabotage the entire country. Why? Same reason Hitler did it: he only had maybe 20% of people really behind him. But 20% of the population can sabotage the entire country, easily. Of course, Hitler was the only one doing it, and these parties are not)
JumpinJack_Cash 1y ago
> > The "Democratic"/"left wing" platform is not as popular as you believe; not in the US, not in England, not in Canada, not in Germany... At least the Democratic platform is a platform as opposed to the other party who is being held hostage for 13 years by a single individual who cannot complete a coherent sentence without rambling and weaving (and he couldn't do it in 2015 either)
eli_gottlieb 1y ago
Both are true. The Democratic policy platform is unpopular, and Trump is running a scam on foolish people. I voted third-party.
wkat4242 1y ago
American democrats aren't what is considered left wing in Europe. They're neoliberals which classes as moderate rightwing in Europe. Left as we see it in Europe doesn't really exist in America. Except perhaps some outliers Bernie Sanders. I don't think the democrats should lower themselves to messaging like trump's though. In doing so they would give up their own worth. And copying your enemy is never a good idea because nobody can be better at it than the real thing. I don't think the democrats are great (I'm European left wing) but I do absolutely think that Trump is running a scam on foolish people. He has even said so himself in the past. The problem is also that the republicans manufacture issues. There are no issues with trans people. Most people wouldn't even know a trans person (which is also why it's such a good group to demonize, people don't often have friends in that group to dissuade them from hating). There's no issues with immigrants as such, the issue is more that some groups are very poor and turn to crime. This is not exclusive to immigrants. The actual solution is to make sure even poor people have opportunities that don't involve crime. But hey that's 'communism'. You can call it what you want but life is a lot safer here in Europe. But they're just riling people up in order to create a platform. The thing is, you can't fix issues that don't actually exist. So this is a very hard situation to solve.

daseiner1 1y ago

the intention is to normalize extrajudicial government force by starting with vulnerable people technically "outside of the law" it really is a "first they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist..."-esque program at this point

totallykvothe 1y ago
[flagged]

beeflet 1y ago

The intention is to express political dominance. By panicking and responding emotionally, you are feeding the trolls. It is as much an ego trip for the right to act oppressive (within the bounds of "the rules") as it is for the left wing to act oppressed. If the democratic party is going to win, they need to succinctly and stoically state a handful of memorable counterpoints to appeal to the common man. What we have had for the past decade is a ton of noise from the mainstream media explaining a million reasons why we should oppose Trump. The left wing does not equip it's supporters to argue against the right well. Trump won in 2016 rattling on about Hillary's emails. Trump didn't give a million reasons for us to oppose Hillary, he had 1. He would have a single canned response and name for each of his opponents. The point is you have to agree on a couple of memorable weak points to attack.

overfeed 1y ago
> Trump didn't give a million reasons for us to oppose Hillary, he had 1. Which 1? Building the wall? Draining the swamp? Locking her up? Making America great again? I may be missing more.
- beeflet 1y ago
  Those are just slogans. But in terms of arguments, I would say he had one major negative argument "Her Emails" and two major positive arguments "Make America Great Again" "Build a Wall". The most important thing is that these are points that are so simple even an idiot can understand them. I can't even keep track of all of trump's controversies because they are so numerous and complex. But if I was a democrat I would just stick to one or two points that even moderates can resonate with like the "Epstein Files" or Palantir or the nuclear secrets or something.
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    There were really two and you missed them both: she’s a Clinton. And she’s an aggressive woman.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]