Holding Trump accountable for his promises

I see your points Paine and I'm getting on board. I think that, if done right, there is an opportunity here to get ahead of the game. It's rebranding some of these policies with a new name (besides socialism, which will never fly) and pushing the ideas out WELL ahead of a significant election. It's all about marketing and laying the groundwork. You guys who love Jeff Jackson? Yes, he's a very good politician, because he is VERY good at marketing. He runs a social media game and people like him because they think they know him and that he's speaking to them personally with some sort of truth and transparency. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, in fact I do think he's generally got his heart in the right place, but it's marketing. In terms of policies, there have to be catchy ideas with catchy slogans that can be marketed to low information voters. Then they might actually vote in their self-interest.
 
Paine said:
It’s messaging. Democrats have been awful at it for a while. Republicans are pretty damn good at it.

Perceptions of capitalism will continue to fall. Seems like a good opportunity for Democrats to lean into this criticisms by tarring the Republican Party with being full of crony capitalists. Emphasize their business and billionaire ties. Emphasize how they aren’t working for average people.

Democrats have been fundamentally unable to do this because the party has been captured by a consultant political class that is very, very friendly to business interests.
Click to expand...
Literally Kamala's most run ad -- or certainly the one I saw the most -- was Trump is going to give tax breaks to his billionaire friends.

"Messaging" is the new magic asterisk. Sure, these ideas have zero track record of success and a long track record of failure, but you see, that's because we sucked at messaging. But now, our messaging will be good, because reasons.

This idea that the Dems have been captured by the consultant political class is the most toxic idea in politics and it has cost us elections in 2000 and 2016 and perhaps 2024. It's not at all true.

Did you know that white college-educated people are by far the most liberal sociological group in the country. That was the relevance of the article I linked a few days ago. Dem policy over the past four years has been developed by people just like you. It's people like you who have been staffing Democrats' legislative chambers, various agencies in the White House, and the think tanks and outside PACs who are part of the Dem coalition. That is just a fact.

It's not my position that the messaging has been terrible. But you're the one throwing shade when it's folks like you who have been running the messaging for quite some time. It sure as hell wasn't the corporate overlords talking about defunding the police. It sure as hell wasn't the corporate overlords who were responsible for the catastrophically bad progressive criminal justice "reforms" on the West Coast. Full disclosure: I wasn't wild about them but I generally supported them. So I was wrong. I'm trying to learn from mistakes instead of doubling down.
 
superrific said:
Literally Kamala's most run ad -- or certainly the one I saw the most -- was Trump is going to give tax breaks to his billionaire friends.

"Messaging" is the new magic asterisk. Sure, these ideas have zero track record of success and a long track record of failure, but you see, that's because we sucked at messaging. But now, our messaging will be good, because reasons.

This idea that the Dems have been captured by the consultant political class is the most toxic idea in politics and it has cost us elections in 2000 and 2016 and perhaps 2024. It's not at all true.

Did you know that white college-educated people are by far the most liberal sociological group in the country. That was the relevance of the article I linked a few days ago. Dem policy over the past four years has been developed by people just like you. It's people like you who have been staffing Democrats' legislative chambers, various agencies in the White House, and the think tanks and outside PACs who are part of the Dem coalition. That is just a fact.

It's not my position that the messaging has been terrible. But you're the one throwing shade when it's folks like you who have been running the messaging for quite some time. It sure as hell wasn't the corporate overlords talking about defunding the police. It sure as hell wasn't the corporate overlords who were responsible for the catastrophically bad progressive criminal justice "reforms" on the West Coast. Full disclosure: I wasn't wild about them but I generally supported them. So I was wrong. I'm trying to learn from mistakes instead of doubling down.
Click to expand...
Messaging is largely irrelevant when the people you need to convince have zero interest in accessing any of the media you could use to deliver your message.
 
Paine said:
I’m done responding to your arrogant ass posts.
Click to expand...
Ah, arrogance. Here we go again. Two people talking:

A. "Here's the playbook we need to run. It holds the key to the future"
B. "Um, we ran that playbook. It was a spectacular failure"
A. "That's because the messaging was bad."
B. "What's your idea about messaging?"
A. "Well, I can't say right now, but I know Democrats suck at messaging but with people like me in charge, it will be great"
B. "What is your experience?"
A. "None, but you see, I'm in touch with working people."
B. "Do you describe yourself as a socialist?"
A. "Yes, and I realize that Americans hate that term and concept but with the right messaging they will love it."
B. "What's the messaging again?"
A. "It will the best messaging we've ever seen. We will message better than Dems ever have and thus make my dream a reality"
B. "The American working class sees you as the enemy. Young college educated radical with no real world experience."
A. "That's OK. Our messaging will be great."
B. "I don't think it's going to work."
A. "You're arrogant."

My position here is the same as it is with the Calla crowd. If your position is to disparage the work of thousands of really smart people over decades in favor of your own views which are charitably described as completely untested, then you're the one who is arrogant. Not me. Stop assuming you have the answers and anyone who disagrees is a sellout. Including, incidentally, Barack Obama.
 
Whoa, so the answer is to re-brand or message socialism better? Perhaps I misunderstand but pretty sure voters will see thru that.

There's a difference between making government work for people and socialism. Republicans every day are out there saying NO, NO to government fixing things. And it actually hurts the economy. Not Democrats. The fact of the matter is that Capitalism needs a reasonable level of government involvement to make the economy work. That is the proper messaging lens. Always, message it in terms of being positive for the economy.
 
I will make a prediction. With midterms in two years , Democrats won't change messaging much. Just count on Trump screw ups or bad economy to get by.

An actual message change will have to come from the nominee in four years whoever that is. Just picking someone because they have so much talent or next one up won't cut it. It will take someone of vision to win back market share in the absence of a Trump screw up. Like Reagan and in fact Trump. I am not sure I could say that Obama did that in 2008. He was helped by an economy that cratered.
 
Paine said:
Deliberately missing the point, as always.

Don’t assume you know jack shit about me, please. To say that because I’m a college educated white guy that “people like me” have been developing the Democratic message is indicative of how blind you are to a number of factors that influence how people see and interact with the world.

People like YOU have been driving and developing the message. Not me people like me.

Kamala’s messaging about Trump being tied to billionaires DOES NOT WORK WHEN SHE HERSELF IS TIED TO BILLIONAIRES.
Click to expand...
I promise you that I have not been involved with the messaging. It would look a lot different than it does. Not necessarily better.

Nobody knows or cares whether Kamala is tied to billionaires. The reason that anti-billionaire messaging doesn't work is that Americans like billionaires. Americans actually like Mark Cuban. Some of them really like Elon Musk. If you go through a list of the most popular celebrities in America, most of them are either billionaires or close to it. Taylor Swift. Jay-Z/Beyonce. Star athletes are increasingly billionaires. Lebron James is. Fuck, Saudi Arabia offered Vini Jr. $500 million a year to play soccer there. Oh yeah, and Trump.

This is what I mean when I say you're a young progressive and thus probably out of touch. I felt the same way when I was younger. I mean, it sounds like it should work, right? Why would Americans like billionaires? Do they not understand how the billionaires crush them? It turns out they do not understand that, or care really. They don't hate billionaires nearly as much as they hate gay people and minorities. Those are the villains in their lives. And educated professionals. Not billionaires.

The idea that somehow working people would suddenly identify with Kamala if only she didn't have the support of billionaires -- I mean, where to start? When conservatives run against San Francisco, they NEVER run against Silicon Valley or the billionaire class. They run against weirdos and ultra-liberals and supposed crime and debauchery. In the last two elections, they've been running against Facebook -- but not because Facebook is run by rich people but rather because they think Facebook victimizes them because it's a bunch of heathens.
 
mynameisbond said:
Don't forget: ending wars in Ukraine and Palestine.
Click to expand...
Oh,he will end the war in Ukraine. Zelensky would have to bargain at some point as they can't hold out forever. Putin has no problem sending more young to die, especially N. Koreans.

But after Trump first tells Putin, and then Zelensky that we are ending all support, Ukraine will have no bargaining power. Trump will give half or more of Ukraine to his pal and backer Putin, with a signed treaty to never join NATO.

No idea what Trump's plan is for Gaza and Hamas, Iran, Lebanon.
 
Last edited:
ChapelHillSooner said:
I'd love to know the family history of the 42% of Latinos who voted for Trump. How many of them received Amnesty from Reagan? How many of their parents or grandparents received amnesty? How many were "anchor babies" from undocumented immigrants? How many of them are from Cuba and were allowed to stay because of the wet feet / dry feet policy? I'm sure most now say they immigrated the right way by evading authorities until they reached land.

They are citizens and can vote however they choose but I think there is a whole lot of misrepresentation going on when they speak of how their families came to the US.
Click to expand...
About 59% of Hispanics in the United States are Mexican American. Another 9% are Puerto Rican. The rest are from Central America And South America with about 10% each and places like Cuba and the Dominican Republic with about 3% each. The fastest growing groups are Dominican Americans, Guatemalans and Venezuelans.

I think anyone that thinks Hispanic Americans are a unified voting block are making a mistake. Mexicans in general are not big fans of Central Americans and South Americans. They generally think they're lazy and give Hispanic Americans a bad name.

I would guess that the vast majority of the Hispanic Americans that voted for Trump were Mexican Americans who had been here for a while and are in much less danger of seeing their cousin deported. They are the most likely to be citizens. They would have been first in line hoping to have someone from Guatemala or El Salvador deported.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I am going to do my part to try to hold Trump accountable for his many promises.

1. Across the board tariffs.
2. Repeal ACA
3. Round up and deport all illegals.

I am sure there are many more. Won't hold Trump accountable for #3 because while it will harm us all, the majority of the harm is to people who are innocent.

We fucked around long enough. Time to find out. Trump promised these things so it is time conservatives (many of whom believe Trump never lies) hold him accountable.

Ready for my ex-con cousin to lose his healthcare and disability. FAFO

Ready for all of the poor people in my rural hometown to lose their school and insurance. FAFO

Ready for inflation (due to 1 and 3) to destroy the same people. FAFO

I am going to keep this thread alive until Trump makes good on his promises.
Click to expand...
Personally, I hope he is as full of shit with these promises as he was for the wall. I don't want him to fuck around and ruin anything. I hope none of those three promises are kept.
 
The problem with all the people, including several posters here, who think Trump is a bad person but voted for him because they don't think he'll actually do what he kept promising to do is that a narcissist like Trump views this electoral win as a mandate to do exactly what he promised to do.
 
lawtig02 said:
The problem with all the people, including several posters here, who think Trump is a bad person but voted for him because they don't think he'll actually do what he kept promising to do is that a narcissist like Trump views this electoral win as a mandate to do exactly what he promised to do.
Click to expand...
My speculation is that those posters don’t *actually* think Trump is a bad person at all. Oh, sure, they say they think he’s bad and that he’s a jerk and that he sucks as a person and all of that lip service. But they don’t actually believe it.
 
superrific said:
I promise you that I have not been involved with the messaging. It would look a lot different than it does. Not necessarily better.

Nobody knows or cares whether Kamala is tied to billionaires. The reason that anti-billionaire messaging doesn't work is that Americans like billionaires. Americans actually like Mark Cuban. Some of them really like Elon Musk. If you go through a list of the most popular celebrities in America, most of them are either billionaires or close to it. Taylor Swift. Jay-Z/Beyonce. Star athletes are increasingly billionaires. Lebron James is. Fuck, Saudi Arabia offered Vini Jr. $500 million a year to play soccer there. Oh yeah, and Trump.

This is what I mean when I say you're a young progressive and thus probably out of touch. I felt the same way when I was younger. I mean, it sounds like it should work, right? Why would Americans like billionaires? Do they not understand how the billionaires crush them? It turns out they do not understand that, or care really. They don't hate billionaires nearly as much as they hate gay people and minorities. Those are the villains in their lives. And educated professionals. Not billionaires.

The idea that somehow working people would suddenly identify with Kamala if only she didn't have the support of billionaires -- I mean, where to start? When conservatives run against San Francisco, they NEVER run against Silicon Valley or the billionaire class. They run against weirdos and ultra-liberals and supposed crime and debauchery. In the last two elections, they've been running against Facebook -- but not because Facebook is run by rich people but rather because they think Facebook victimizes them because it's a bunch of heathens.
Click to expand...
Many Americans liked Taylor, Jigga, Lebron, and Beyonce, long before they were super rich. Going through the list of most popular celebrities, most of them were very popular before they were mega-rich. In fact, their popularity led to their riches, not the other way round as you are implying.
 
mynameisbond said:
Giving him the [undeserved] benefit of the doubt, he probably meant within 24 hours of taking office. Being [truthful or] clear and accurate is not his strong suit.
Click to expand...
Actually, don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt. He stated exactly that way many times. And given past history, as I recall last time he won he was claiming credit for the stock market rise days after his election.
 
stankeylegjones said:
Many Americans liked Taylor, Jigga, Lebron, and Beyonce, long before they were super rich. Going through the list of most popular celebrities, most of them were very popular before they were mega-rich. In fact, their popularity led to their riches, not the other way round as you are implying.
Click to expand...
I know how Taylor Swift got rich. How would I even go about arguing or implying or contending in any way that Taylor Swift was rich and for that reason became popular.

The point is, though, that Americans do not dislike billionaires. Being a billionaire is not the way to win a popularity contest, but it's not nearly as harmful as some folks on the left want to think. I'd like to think that. I'm not sure I agree that every billionaire is a policy failure, but the mega billionaires -- yeah, that's a policy failure. But that's just not how Americans see it.

We just watched a hedge fund billionaire win a Senate election in Pennsylvania. The probable Senate majority leader is a billionaire who made his money defrauding the United States. Trump brags about being a billionaire, and he barnstormed around the country with the biggest billionaire of them all.

Class politics in America doesn't work the way that leftists think it should.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I would guess that the vast majority of the Hispanic Americans that voted for Trump were Mexican Americans who had been here for a while and are in much less danger of seeing their cousin deported. They are the most likely to be citizens. They would have been first in line hoping to have someone from Guatemala or El Salvador deported.
Click to expand...
You think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top