catbarf on 22/1/2021 at 03:34
Quote Posted by demagogue
Uh, people did not dislike Clinton because her cold hard facts didn't appeal to them. They hated her because she was working for the Russians (lol), or she allowed four Americans to be killed and/or so many people around her found themselves suspiciously dead (not to be lol'd, but come on!), or not being secure with her emails/data (triple lol), or that she is at the center of a cabal of satanic child harvesting pedophiles (eh, maybe lay off the mushrooms)...
She had an empty, vague platform of 'not Trump', failing to court left-wingers by rejecting even modest reform proposals (highlighted by Sanders, hence the ongoing Dolchstoßlegende-esque excuses for her loss from Clinton fans), and basically being appealing only to Democrat loyalists. She was a milquetoast, bland, status quo candidate, up against a firebrand outsider promising reform, at a time when many Americans were finding the status quo wasn't working for them.
And there were a million and one different angles of attack against her stoked by a lengthy propaganda campaign leaning on a healthy dose of sexism and bullshit conspiracy theories.
And she had no rhetorical charisma whatsoever. It isn't just one thing, and I really question if the takeaway from the last four years should be that Democrats need to amp up the rhetoric too.
I think the more fundamental requirement, something establishment Democrats have struggled with, is establishing a direction and a platform that both their base and moderates can get passionate about to start with. America isn't happy with the status quo, and a campaign promising change worked for Obama in '08, took Sanders from a nobody to a front-runner, and is what Trump campaigned on in '16. Clinton could have been the most powerful orator in the world and her platform still wouldn't have resonated with working-class Americans. Biden won this time on account of Trump's sheer unpopularity, but I think 2024 is going to heavily depend on how much change Biden accomplishes in the next four years.
Assuming we make it that far without things getting uglier. Can't be too certain.
demagogue on 22/1/2021 at 08:24
I tend to share Kolya's bias against playing to emotions, but don't have time to get into it now. I can recognize it's often a necessary part of politics. It's just playing with fire. Like I think playing to identity politics may be an issue on the Left in terms of pushing people off the rails in another decade or two, but that pales in comparison to the raging fire of white identity politics happening right now. Obviously we have to deal with the ongoing inferno now and cross any other burning bridges when we get to them.
Most all of these issues are coming back down to identity issues, what is it to be an "American" (certainly not coming from the Americas as Duckeh would have it!). It's white nationalism vs. multiculturalism (call it globalism and it may as well be Stalinism), the same old story it's always been, but there are some new catches with it. E.g., other minorities are also vying for stakes in the hierarchy; cf. Texas stayed red because masses of South Texas Latinos flipped from Dem to Rep in support of Trump, ostensibly because they're as alienated by multiculturalism & new immigrants as whites.
The point is, the US needs to have a reckoning about its identity from the ground up, what in other contexts we write up under the banner of "transitional justice" ... getting the power group to acknowledge a long history of atrocious abuses, owning it, recognizing "we're not the same people as our grandparents were", and reforging a new basis of identity and a new relationship. (This is the "forgiveness model of TJ" btw). I ought to write an article at least about it. The public discussion on this is lightyears behind where it needs to be to get to the root of the issue.
Anyway, while I'm posting, I'll just drop this here for the record, as this is still one of the issues where Trump is vulnerable.
(
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/jeffrey-epstein-and-donald-trump-epic-bromance) “He's a Lot of Fun to Be With”: Inside Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump's Epic Bromance
We can also start taking bets on what criminal charges may finally be brought against Trump.
First of all there's the matter of even listing which ones are even in the cards.
The ones that come to mind for me are:
(1) Obstruction of justice - ordering witnesses to lie, dangling pardons for lies, etc.;
(2) Bribery - taking money for presidential decisions, the same thing Blagovitch was convicted for;
(3) Incitement to insurrection - I already mentioned that I think that's a longshot because of the "intent" problem;
(4) Financial crimes, e.g., to do with the Deutsch Bank loans & dealings with the Russian oligarchs.
(5) The rape & sexual assault claims, not least with 2+ minors, Katie Johnson & Maria P.
Feel free to add to the list! :D
lowenz on 22/1/2021 at 09:59
Quote Posted by demagogue
Here's one way QAnons can deal with their reality crumbling around them.
Project Shadowprez. :joke:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/kRq8qtI.jpgIf I demand psychiatric hospitalization for the fools who buy this am I "oppressive" or "communist" ? :p
Gryzemuis on 22/1/2021 at 10:15
Remember, TTLG is not the only one that makes jokes. This is obviously a joke. To make fun of QAnon people. Even QAnon people will not believe this. They could. That's why we make fun of them. But they won't.
demagogue on 22/1/2021 at 11:18
I was about to say ... This is their religion for a lot of them. It's not even about politics anymore.
Starker on 22/1/2021 at 12:26
Quote Posted by demagogue
I tend to share Kolya's bias against playing to emotions, but don't have time to get into it now. I can recognize it's often a necessary part of politics. It's just playing with fire.
Is there a particular part of Amanda Gorman's poem you object to or is it just the general idea of having an idealistic vision about the purpose of your country that rubs you the wrong way?
Quote Posted by demagogue
We can also start taking bets on what criminal charges may finally be brought against Trump.
First of all there's the matter of even listing which ones are even in the cards.
The ones that come to mind for me are:
(1) Obstruction of justice - ordering witnesses to lie, dangling pardons for lies, etc.;
(2) Bribery - taking money for presidential decisions, the same thing Blagovitch was convicted for;
(3) Incitement to insurrection - I already mentioned that I think that's a longshot because of the "intent" problem;
(4) Financial crimes, e.g., to do with the Deutsch Bank loans & dealings with the Russian oligarchs.
(5) The rape & sexual assault claims, not least with 2+ minors, Katie Johnson & Maria P.
Feel free to add to the list! :D
Campaign finance violations (hush money), real-estate fraud (inflating the value of his property, etc), insurance fraud, tax fraud (exorbitant consulting fees to his children, etc), profiting from his office (emoluments clauses), cheating Mary Trump out of her inheritance, not paying his lawyers when all is said and done.
lowenz on 22/1/2021 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Starker
Is there a particular part of Amanda Gorman's poem you object to or is it just the general idea of having an idealistic vision about the purpose of your country that rubs you the wrong way?
Campaign finance violations (hush money), real-estate fraud (inflating the value of his property, etc), insurance fraud, tax fraud (exorbitant consulting fees to his children, etc), profiting from his office (emoluments clauses), cheating Mary Trump out of her inheritance, not paying his lawyers when all is said and done.
A real antistate hero!
Oh wait, no, a criminal jerk.
demagogue on 22/1/2021 at 12:55
Quote Posted by Starker
Is there a particular part of Amanda Gorman's poem you object to or is it just the general idea of having an idealistic vision about the purpose of your country that rubs you the wrong way?
1. I was posting that out of context. I was just talking about appeals to emotion generally because the convo was going in that direction & it's an old saw for me. Nothing to do with that poem. (Also I was talking about riling people up to the degree they go off the rails, which is the opposite of what that poem was trying to do.)
2. As a matter of cold political calculation, which is what I was just saying is often when emotion can have a positive use, I favored the poem because it's going to help galvanize young people and make them feel part of & engaged in this political moment, as part of a long term strategy keeping them engaged in the right way.
3. I literally just gave a long diatribe on an idealistic vision about the purpose of my country that's arguably in the direction of that poem (well I was going with identity, but potatoes potatoes), so it can't be that.
4. I wrote a longish post in some FB comment about that poem. To boil it down, I thought it was a fine poem but it didn't fit this moment in history. Her whole aura shouted morning in America, which is great and all, but if you look, e.g., at the colors people were wearing, she was bright yellow, but the other major women were dark purples, burgundies, and blues.
I thought that the poem that would have fit this moment better would have been more world-weary, though not cynical, coming from someone who's lived what the poem speaks of, who has the emotional scars of battle long fought, who can express the infinite relief that we've made it this far, but we still have so far to go, that brings a gravitas to this time & place.
And I was thinking specifically of the poem Maya Angelou read at the 1993 inauguration. The new one didn't speak to me at all and IMO seemed unobservant of the times we're in. But I recognize why my opinion doesn't matter so much to what this poem was meant to serve here, and I can even agree with that part. Edit: I mean in the sense that if I were on the Biden team I would have also voted for that poem even not liking it myself. Politics is also about mythology and calculated myopia.
faetal on 22/1/2021 at 13:25
I think you guys are talking past each other.
Yes, it's better to deliver just the dry logic and have everything be based off of that (like, obviously), but people's emotions aren't going away, so it's obtuse to just pretend they aren't part of the landscape and to not engage with that.
