HandsonFire
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 267
Probably wear it as he watches the broadcasts of the executions of dissenters as well.
People want Dems to stand up to Trump and Pubs
- Thread starter Carolina Fever
- Start date
- Replies: 78
- Views: 1K
- Politics
ChapelHillSooner
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 686
At this point, I think I would welcome a large left wing disinformation ecosystem.
It would make me very sad and I would seek out reliable news, but at some point you have to fight on a level field.
I feel dirty saying that.
EyeballKid
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 396
There’s no real mechanism to accomplish that, though. As I pointed it, it’s taken the righties several decades to build up that ecosystem. It’s taken several decades of them demonizing “traditional” media to instill that distrust among their audience.
So it’s not like we can just start up a few lefty propaganda podcasts and expect to make a dent in things.
ChapelHillSooner
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 686
Understand. That was more of a comment on where we are as a country.
ChapelHillSooner
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 686
On a related topic, I believe Schumer knows Trump is going to screw up the economy. If he allowed the government to shut down, that would open up a more plausible path for democrats to be blamed.
Getting in the way of Republicans owning the coming economy would be a critical mistake.
Just my opinion.
ChapelHillSooner
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 686
To add to my previous post, I actually think the game is over. We are in an autocracy and there is nothing Democrats can do to change that.
At this point one of the only outs is for Trump to make a critical mistake. We might just have to let him do it.
At this point one of the only outs is for Trump to make a critical mistake. We might just have to let him do it.
Duke Mu
Honored Member
- Messages
- 794
The country is being destroyed real time. Trump's going after those with perceived weaker special interest groups and PACs: brown people, educators, scientists, immigrants, special needs/disability.
It's not simply optics it's controlling the narrative to set the optics. If the argument is that Schumer is too weak and out of touch to control the narrative, then that's fair...but a shutdown occupies all news cycles. Frankly, I believe a clean CR would have been passed within days. Kicking the can to the summer I believe will be a disaster. Ironically, the main hope likes in Chief Justice. Roberts. Congress has abdicated Article I. Roberts would like to keep his job and Article III intact.
Regardless, Dems need new leadership. Yesterday.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,656
You should look up a video of this tune and post it on the music thread
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,656
This ^^^^ It all started soon after Ronnie Raygun did away with the fairness doctrine and right wing radio took over with Rush and his ilk - including Christian Nationalist radio shows. The Dems probably just laughed and scoffed at such nonsense and continued to listen to NPR and American Public radio and watched ABC, NBC and CBS evening news - you know, factually relevant information. They (the dems) didn't feel the need nor urge to produce equal and opposite talk radio shows, until it was too late.
CNN was NOT left-leaning back in the day, in the 1980's. O contraire... Fox labeled CNN as leftist and it stuck. CNN had shows like "Point - Counter Point" which followed the rules of the Fairness Doc. After Pat Buchanan and then NewtG... all the noise began to proliferate... Then Murdoch bought the FOX brand. Once Raygun pulled the plug, Rush and then Fox were able to start pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes.
It's really ironic that a guy like Murdoch, from Australia, and Elon Musk, from S. Africa, have been the two idiot billionaires to facilitate the demise of American Democracy. If history is to attach names to it all - it would have to be all those evil sonsobitches: Raygun, Buchanan, Rush, Newt, Rupert and Musk. There are more names of course (Bill O'Reilly, etc.) but the aforementioned are the Mount "Rush"more.
Last edited:
Actually goes back to Reason magazine in the 40s and 50s. The difference was that they were subtle, an approach largely ineffective with the general American population.
Remember that long before Reagan, McCarthy and Agnew reviled the press and Nixon cultivated the myth of liberal media bias.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,656
True enough. And if you read Dr. Heather Cox Richardson, it goes further back than even all that you’ve mentioned. I was just speaking to EyeballKid and his bit about “40-50 year commitment to expanding” the right wing propaganda reach. Of course you, and Dr. Heather are correct.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,740
Schumer isn’t meeting the moment. You and Super’s arguments about Trump looking for his Reichstag Fire make sense to me, but this isn’t the angle Schumer takes.
Schumer says a shutdown would’ve been more harmful because of the cuts Trump and Musk would be able to make during one. This disregards that the cuts are already being made and that the CR he voted to end debate on was not clean. He thinks we aren’t yet in a constitutional crisis as Trump is actively ignoring the courts.
If we get to the point when Trump ignores a SCOTUS ruling, it’s too late. Schumer gave up the only real point of leverage that Congressional Dems have for nothing. He thinks Dems will have more leverage later this year because Trump will be more unpopular and Rep Senators will want to distance themselves from him. This completely ignores the dynamic of Musk spending unlimited amounts of money to support a primary challenge against Reps who don’t go along.
Schumer is out of touch because he still thinks the Republican fever will break. He thinks he can get past this through the good faith of Republican senators. He doesn’t understand where the Democratic base is on this.
- Messages
- 1,562
Can't disagree with the much of the above, though I'm interested to know the origin of "doesn't understand where the Democratic base is on this". I'm unfamiliar with polling suggesting the base wants a shutdown, nor do I have any confidence folks are weighing the potential consequences. The US isn't a particularly civically knowledgeable society. I will continue to quibble with the claim that Schumer is uniquely out-of-touch, which should not be mistaken with a claim he's a man of the people.
IMO, out-of-touch involves an obvious disconnect with the realities of a circumstance. I don't hear that from Schumer, and merely hear a man focusing on a very real cost benefit analysis. I suspect he's overweighting near-term damage at the cost of future democratic implosion, but that doesn't strike me as out-of-touch, more not accurately identifying the stage of authoritarianism we've entered. Chuck doesn't disagree with principles of Hayes' pushback, rather the timing and nature of the moment. Chuck's lack of charisma is a big liability, as well, and a similar statement delivered by a more gifted communicator, with more left-wing credibility, would've landed quite differently, IMO.
Dems appear to be slow playing in expectation trump defies the staunchly right-wing Supreme Court, and/or the Supreme Court overtly rubber stamps a kingship (in addition to tariffs, economy, war). If the former, trump likely loses a significant number of centrist types, if the latter, the hope would be a ground-swell of center/left of center fervor.
I think Chuck is years past his expiration as head of the Senate Dems. I also think he's operating with far more information and inputs from smart people than we understand. The Dems are absolutely failing the moment, but a strategy of "let trump burn himself down" isn't out-of-touch, even if sanguine, IMO.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,740
Everything you say here is fair. Still, Schumer’s lack of charisma and communication skills in this day and age should be the end for him alone. That’s mostly what I meant by out of touch.
It does seem that the most engaged portions of the Democratic base preferred a shutdown over capitulation on the dirty CR. I’m just basing this on the grassroots anger being directed at Dems though.
- Messages
- 990
Yeah, the biggest issue with left-leaning policy in the US is that there is no base. Many of those that think they are the base are just as far removed from many other factions as they are from the Republicans themselves.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,885
I still fail to see what leverage Schumer actually had. This reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones & Last Crusade, when Indiana has one of those red-hatted dudes in a boat headed toward a propeller, and the red-hatted guys said, "my soul is prepared for the afterlife. Is yours?" and of course Indiana has to let him go.
I will say this. One of Trump's social media companies or crypto or whatever was called Fight Fight Fight LLC. That's what the MAGAs see when they look at Trump -- someone who will fight for them. The "for them" part is highly questionable, but Trump is a fighter and that's one of the secrets to his "success." The fights are of course counter-productive and divisive, but they are fights.
I'm getting the sense that the Dem base wants to fight. Some of the Dem base seems to want a throwdown right now. I can understand that sentiment -- but it's just not temperamentally how the party is structured. For many reasons. First, liberals aren't congenitally pugilistic like the GOP (this is a personality trait that helps sort people into their boxes). Second, we have a big party tent, so fighting has never been to our advantage -- our message for 30 years has been "unity between all Americans, regardless of skin color, gender, sexuality, etc." Maybe that's not a message that meets the moment, but it's how the party has operated for 30 years.
But as we all know, discretion is the better part of valor. Rushing into a fight that you can't win is stupid. And that's one of the things that a leader is supposed to do -- build enthusiasm and pick the fights carefully. You can't have one without the other. Now it's fair to say that Schumer isn't doing great on the first front, but the second front is also important and I just haven't seen much explanation from anyone as to what we could gain from this fight. There was no plan beyond voting no. Josh Marshall says it's because the Dems haven't laid the groundwork to explain what they are fighting for; I'm not sure I buy that. Would it really make any difference, if the base simply wants to fight for the sake of fighting?
I would be much more onboard with the Schumer criticism -- and I get that criticism, I do, as I share some of the same frustration -- if I thought there was a plan. Until then, the Russian strategy (ironically) of retreating until the enemy overreaches and exhausts itself is not such a bad option. Maybe rope-a-dope would be a better analogy. Either way, sometimes you have to cover yourself up while looking for an opening.
When Trump blows everything up, and people are really pissed off, that's when the Dems can come back and say, "we're better for everyone, because we are responsible." I was talking to my mom yesterday, who is maybe not the die hardest of GOPers but she votes GOP most of the time. She has a friend who is Canadian (well, had -- I learned that she had died) and I asked her what it was like to be around that person. My mom just lit up and started yelling about how stupid the attacks on Canada are. I've never seen her this pissed off about politics ever. And she said she won't ever vote for another GOP candidate until they boot Trump and all his stupidity. Not sure she won't change her mind, but the anger is there.
I will say this. One of Trump's social media companies or crypto or whatever was called Fight Fight Fight LLC. That's what the MAGAs see when they look at Trump -- someone who will fight for them. The "for them" part is highly questionable, but Trump is a fighter and that's one of the secrets to his "success." The fights are of course counter-productive and divisive, but they are fights.
I'm getting the sense that the Dem base wants to fight. Some of the Dem base seems to want a throwdown right now. I can understand that sentiment -- but it's just not temperamentally how the party is structured. For many reasons. First, liberals aren't congenitally pugilistic like the GOP (this is a personality trait that helps sort people into their boxes). Second, we have a big party tent, so fighting has never been to our advantage -- our message for 30 years has been "unity between all Americans, regardless of skin color, gender, sexuality, etc." Maybe that's not a message that meets the moment, but it's how the party has operated for 30 years.
But as we all know, discretion is the better part of valor. Rushing into a fight that you can't win is stupid. And that's one of the things that a leader is supposed to do -- build enthusiasm and pick the fights carefully. You can't have one without the other. Now it's fair to say that Schumer isn't doing great on the first front, but the second front is also important and I just haven't seen much explanation from anyone as to what we could gain from this fight. There was no plan beyond voting no. Josh Marshall says it's because the Dems haven't laid the groundwork to explain what they are fighting for; I'm not sure I buy that. Would it really make any difference, if the base simply wants to fight for the sake of fighting?
I would be much more onboard with the Schumer criticism -- and I get that criticism, I do, as I share some of the same frustration -- if I thought there was a plan. Until then, the Russian strategy (ironically) of retreating until the enemy overreaches and exhausts itself is not such a bad option. Maybe rope-a-dope would be a better analogy. Either way, sometimes you have to cover yourself up while looking for an opening.
When Trump blows everything up, and people are really pissed off, that's when the Dems can come back and say, "we're better for everyone, because we are responsible." I was talking to my mom yesterday, who is maybe not the die hardest of GOPers but she votes GOP most of the time. She has a friend who is Canadian (well, had -- I learned that she had died) and I asked her what it was like to be around that person. My mom just lit up and started yelling about how stupid the attacks on Canada are. I've never seen her this pissed off about politics ever. And she said she won't ever vote for another GOP candidate until they boot Trump and all his stupidity. Not sure she won't change her mind, but the anger is there.
bridgetender
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 109
Please stop talking in general platitudes and be specific. What was appealing about someone as chaotic as Trump? Kamala was specific about the policies she would push that specifically helped middle to lower class Americans. Trump campaigned on lies about children changing genders at school and how gangs are running city government.
Two questions for you:
1. Have you ever voted for a Democrat for national office?
2. What part of Trump's campaign appealed to you the most?
tarheelbillie
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 182
RNC and the current administration does not care about straight white Christian nationalists anymore that they do about green extra-terrestrials with antennas on their heads. Their ONE-ITEM agenda is to make the wealthy more wealthy at the expense of everyone else on the face of earth.