Holding Trump accountable for his promises

HeelingAg said:
That alone isn't enough. Policy standard bearers (at least those I think should be) need to completely divorce themselves from the perception of it, e.g. Bernie and his acolytes.

Also, I didn't claim you advocated for a name change - possibly a miscommunication in the individual vs collective use of "you".
Click to expand...
What does that even mean though? Why should policy standard bearers in the Democratic Party completely divorce themselves from one of the most popular politicians in the country?
 
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.
 
BlueSmoke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did misunderstand. Your second paragraph outlines part of what I think Democrats need to do.
 
Paine said:
What does that even mean though? Why should policy standard bearers in the Democratic Party completely divorce themselves from one of the most popular politicians in the country?
Click to expand...
Well, wrt federal elections, Bernie is too old and too committed to, and associated with, the socialist label. My hope is those in his ideological pipeline see the terrible optics associated with socialism, and make the choice to rebrand and reframe vs convincing themselves further education is the answer. Move incrementally towards a Scandinavian system without the Scandinavian labels, nor the expectation it all happens within a generation.
 
HeelingAg said:
Well, wrt federal elections, Bernie is too old and too committed to, and associated with, the socialist label. My hope is those in his ideological pipeline see the terrible optics associated with socialism, and make the choice to rebrand and reframe vs convincing themselves further education is the answer. Move incrementally towards a Scandinavian system without the Scandinavian labels, nor the expectation it all happens within a generation.
Click to expand...
I mean, I agree with that. Bernie held onto the Democratic Socialist label because of his age, like you said. As far as the people in his ideological pipeline go, I think the vast majority of people who were inspired to run by Bernie aren’t ideologically committed socialists.

Even a lot of progressive members of Congress who align with Bernie don’t call themselves socialists. Isn’t it just AOC? Maybe Omar and Tlaib? I don’t hear any of them talking about it much anymore, I think the lesson has been learned.

I don’t think there needs to be a deliberate repudiation of Sanders by the party. They’ve largely already done that and it hasn’t helped them. It only drives people away who were inspired by Bernie’s runs in 2016 and 2020. Especially the grassroots organizers that we need to win going forward.
 
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...
I think most of those folks know he'll do what he's promised, and at minimum they view it as collateral damage. I made a post a few days back outlining several ttump 2015/16 promises and how they aligned with his actual governing. Presidential candidates tend to do what they fucking say they're going 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