Nobody cares that if could/should be better. But raise the price of what they already have substantially? Take it away altogether? Whole different kettle of fish.
The decision that the Democrats face, it seems to me, amounts first to whether to attack on all fronts, or to pick one (or, at most two) fronts. My sense is that, while they find themselves in a target-rich environment, they will do better to pick one. The general public is not going to spend the time and effort to understand multiple issues. So focus, focus, focus.
The next question is: which issue? Obvious choices being 1) health care and the impact that Republican policy, as displayed in their budget, will have: skyrocket costs and even making it largely unavailable in places. The fact that those places are generally rural (i.e. deep red) areas is a bonus. 2) ICE and what it is doing to everything from local businesses to food prices.
What they should not do is put all there efforts into fighting Trump's threat to democracy in America and our form of government overall. Granted, it's enormously important issue. But it simply doesn't resonate with the voters (and potential voters) that Democrats need to reach. That doesn't mean ignoring the issue. By all means support those pushing it. But don't make it focus. It's satisfying harassment if you are a non-MAGA activist, but it won't influence existing Republican Representatives (except, maybe, to do dumb things) and it won't win votes next year.
One wildcard is the military. A lot of enlisted military live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. And their next paycheck, in a few days, isn't happening at the moment. Democrats are pushing a special bill to at least pay them, even if not other government employees. But since the Speaker is keeping the House in recess** that can't happen. The military is stationed in relatively compact areas. So messages targetting those locales would be worthwhile. The military leans conservative, but being unable to feed their families is something that way overwhelms that inclination. And it's something they won't forget.
To repeat: focus, focus, focus.
** The actual reason may be something else. But a plausible explanation is the newly elected Representative from Arizona. When the House comes back into session, she gets sworn in; until that she technically isn't yet a member. That matters because she would be the last signature necessary for the discharge petition which will lead to making the Epstein files public. The longer Johnson can stall, the longer he and, more to the point, Trump have to lean on the handful of Republican Representatives who have signed the petition. I have no idea what's in there, but the desperation to keep it quiet is palpable.
I think one of the great (and often overlooked) issues in this kind of discussion is: What is your definition of "elite"? Is it how much money you have (regardless of whether you earned it, inherited it, or maybe won the lottery)? Is it how much you make (whether you hang on to it or not)? Or is it how much education you have (regardless of whether you actually use anything you learned)? Or maybe something else?
Granted there is some correlation among the first three. But they are certainly far from identical. And yet anytime the term comes up in discussion, everybody seems to assume that everybody else is working from the same definition. Or should be.
And that is at the root of any suggestion that someone doesn't recognize their own membership in "the elite.". Almost certainly the other person is coming from a different definition of the term. Under their definition, they might well be correct.
That's how an Oxford professor can believe that he isn't a member of the elite -- he doesn't make enough. While someone who uses the level of education as the governing criteria will think that of course he is part of the elite. Different definitions.
P.S. It belatedly occurs to me that the converse also applies. Some people consider themselves part of the elite. While lots of others strongly disagree. (Only consider the term nouveau-riche.) Again, different definitions.
Also, if you (or you minions acting on your wishes) order an attack on a vessel in international waters, in contravention of both international law and the laws of your own country, that is going to be pretty much an automatic dis-qualification. If you routinely rant and bluster had loudly threaten in all directions, that isn't going to have a positive impact on the Peace Prize committee.
In short, it's fairly certain that, since he can't fire the committe and replace them with sycophants, he's SOL. Probably permanently.
I don’t believe – I’m not willing to believe – that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We’ve all been taken in at some time by liars: it’s our side’s job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars’ victims. [Emphasis added]
I think this is another piece of the puzzle when trying to break thru. Be up front about having been bamboozled ourselves. Just to avoid the suggestion that "we're smart enough to have seen thru it, but you re so dumb you got conned." It helps if you've got an example of where you got taken in initially. And if it's something that they can see thru, all the better. (Perhaps "when I was in school, socialism looked attractive. Took me a while to see that it wasn't workable in the real world." Even if you still do think it is workable, it can be a useful example.)
I'd say that whether something is usefully measurable depends enormously on the topic.
For engineering it's closer to critic -- "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it." For the physical (including biological) sciences it's important when testing out new theories. But useless for coming up with those theories. For the social sciences, it ought to be important, again for testing theories (but again not useful creating them.) But currently, so much of it is poorly done that it isn't. At least not yet.
For the humanities, I'd say it's totally useless. Doesn't keep fools from trying to do it anyway. But it doesn't work because it can't work.
I'm pretty sure my taste doesn't qualify as eclectic. But even YouTube doesn't provide video for something like Buddy Holly records.
I've seen videos for other artists' work from similarly far back, where it's obviously added on recently. But some of the "original cast" classics are audio only.
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.
I'd be interested to see the corruption index. My sense is that Russia, for example, is at a whole different level from China.
I think it's possible to have a growing economy dispite widespread corruption. But much harder than without that corruption. Also, I'd argue that there is a point where corruption gets so bad that economic growth becomes impossible. Clearly China isn't there. But I'm not sure how close they might be to the limit.
Although, for those who have issues, white on black uses a lot less battery. My phone, at least, swaps to that automatically when the battery gets low.
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Nobody cares that if could/should be better. But raise the price of what they already have substantially? Take it away altogether? Whole different kettle of fish.
"
The decision that the Democrats face, it seems to me, amounts first to whether to attack on all fronts, or to pick one (or, at most two) fronts. My sense is that, while they find themselves in a target-rich environment, they will do better to pick one. The general public is not going to spend the time and effort to understand multiple issues. So focus, focus, focus.
The next question is: which issue? Obvious choices being 1) health care and the impact that Republican policy, as displayed in their budget, will have: skyrocket costs and even making it largely unavailable in places. The fact that those places are generally rural (i.e. deep red) areas is a bonus. 2) ICE and what it is doing to everything from local businesses to food prices.
What they should not do is put all there efforts into fighting Trump's threat to democracy in America and our form of government overall. Granted, it's enormously important issue. But it simply doesn't resonate with the voters (and potential voters) that Democrats need to reach. That doesn't mean ignoring the issue. By all means support those pushing it. But don't make it focus. It's satisfying harassment if you are a non-MAGA activist, but it won't influence existing Republican Representatives (except, maybe, to do dumb things) and it won't win votes next year.
One wildcard is the military. A lot of enlisted military live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. And their next paycheck, in a few days, isn't happening at the moment. Democrats are pushing a special bill to at least pay them, even if not other government employees. But since the Speaker is keeping the House in recess** that can't happen. The military is stationed in relatively compact areas. So messages targetting those locales would be worthwhile. The military leans conservative, but being unable to feed their families is something that way overwhelms that inclination. And it's something they won't forget.
To repeat: focus, focus, focus.
** The actual reason may be something else. But a plausible explanation is the newly elected Representative from Arizona. When the House comes back into session, she gets sworn in; until that she technically isn't yet a member. That matters because she would be the last signature necessary for the discharge petition which will lead to making the Epstein files public. The longer Johnson can stall, the longer he and, more to the point, Trump have to lean on the handful of Republican Representatives who have signed the petition. I have no idea what's in there, but the desperation to keep it quiet is palpable.
On “Brought to you by your latest captain of industry”
I think one of the great (and often overlooked) issues in this kind of discussion is: What is your definition of "elite"? Is it how much money you have (regardless of whether you earned it, inherited it, or maybe won the lottery)? Is it how much you make (whether you hang on to it or not)? Or is it how much education you have (regardless of whether you actually use anything you learned)? Or maybe something else?
Granted there is some correlation among the first three. But they are certainly far from identical. And yet anytime the term comes up in discussion, everybody seems to assume that everybody else is working from the same definition. Or should be.
And that is at the root of any suggestion that someone doesn't recognize their own membership in "the elite.". Almost certainly the other person is coming from a different definition of the term. Under their definition, they might well be correct.
That's how an Oxford professor can believe that he isn't a member of the elite -- he doesn't make enough. While someone who uses the level of education as the governing criteria will think that of course he is part of the elite. Different definitions.
P.S. It belatedly occurs to me that the converse also applies. Some people consider themselves part of the elite. While lots of others strongly disagree. (Only consider the term nouveau-riche.) Again, different definitions.
On “Bathtub Bug is Dead”
wonkie, you can't just leave it there! What kind of crustacean?
On “…..”
Charles, that's an impressive imitation of the Onion. Well done! (It's really hard to parody him)
"
Also, if you (or you minions acting on your wishes) order an attack on a vessel in international waters, in contravention of both international law and the laws of your own country, that is going to be pretty much an automatic dis-qualification. If you routinely rant and bluster had loudly threaten in all directions, that isn't going to have a positive impact on the Peace Prize committee.
In short, it's fairly certain that, since he can't fire the committe and replace them with sycophants, he's SOL. Probably permanently.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I don’t believe – I’m not willing to believe – that half the voters are evil. We need to talk to them respectfully and sympathetically. We’ve all been taken in at some time by liars: it’s our side’s job to point out the lies, not to judge the liars’ victims. [Emphasis added]
I think this is another piece of the puzzle when trying to break thru. Be up front about having been bamboozled ourselves. Just to avoid the suggestion that "we're smart enough to have seen thru it, but you re so dumb you got conned." It helps if you've got an example of where you got taken in initially. And if it's something that they can see thru, all the better. (Perhaps "when I was in school, socialism looked attractive. Took me a while to see that it wasn't workable in the real world." Even if you still do think it is workable, it can be a useful example.)
On “Chinese corruption”
I'd say that whether something is usefully measurable depends enormously on the topic.
For engineering it's closer to critic -- "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it." For the physical (including biological) sciences it's important when testing out new theories. But useless for coming up with those theories. For the social sciences, it ought to be important, again for testing theories (but again not useful creating them.) But currently, so much of it is poorly done that it isn't. At least not yet.
For the humanities, I'd say it's totally useless. Doesn't keep fools from trying to do it anyway. But it doesn't work because it can't work.
On “Weekend music thread #1”
I'm pretty sure my taste doesn't qualify as eclectic. But even YouTube doesn't provide video for something like Buddy Holly records.
I've seen videos for other artists' work from similarly far back, where it's obviously added on recently. But some of the "original cast" classics are audio only.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I wonder if a useful approach might be to ask, not why they are afraid, but why they are concerned.
For a lot of people, admitting to being afraid is shameful. (And, for some men, an attack on their manhood.). But there's nothing wrong with being concerned. It might be a way to get the conversation to the place you want it to go. Without getting the reflexive rejection of the whole thing.
Just a thought.
On “…..”
"Anything that black guy can do, I can do better! Just watch!!"
Anything that black guy WHO LAUGHED AT ME can do, I can do better! Just watch!!
Fixed that for you, including what was really the most infuriating for him.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I don’t think it really matters that much if Trump is around to be the Dear Leader of MAGA or not. When he is gone, there will still be a whole Republican party that enabled him to the max and the hate/fear propaganda bubble will still be poisoning our political discourse.
I think it will matter. Here's why.
My distinct impression is that the vast majority of MAGAs are made, not born. For those that are born, they can get their dopamine hit from lots of places. They did pre-Trump and they will again when he's gone.
As for those who are made, Trump matters because he is, par excellence, a con man; a salesman for the radical right. Nobody else that they've got can hold a candle to him. When he's gone, there isn't anyone with a real chance of picking up the baton. (Lots who are convinced they can. But none who anybody else thinks can pull it off.)
The thing about the enablers is that they are, at heart, followers. No doubt they would like to keep the whole fear/hate coalition going. But I don't think they can pull it off. The folks around Trump are actually four or five groups with very different agendas, united only by their recognition that they can use Trump to move those agendas forward. And their increasing desperation as MAGAland fragments will only make it fragment faster.
The thing to remember about those groups is that their various agendas are seriously unpopular. Even with the other groups. Without Trump as a useful umbrella to (sort of) unite them, they will crumble.
The problem for those who want to roll on after Trump is the same one that has historically faced autocrats: how to guarantee the succession. The traditional approach, from monarchs throughout history to Kim Il Sung, is to go with the founder's children -- genetics as legitimacy. But Trump's children are jokes. And Trump's ego won't tolerate anybody else stealing his limelight to build a post-Trump coalition ahead of time. And there's really nobody else who can effectively unite them.
As for the question of how to jar the "made" ones back to reality, a few may jump ship as reality (economy tanking, etc.) starts to hit home. But for the rest, I think that, unfortunately, the best that can be done is to prepare the ground for the day when he passes from the scene. Then, but probably only then, can they be brought to see their objections to those who would follow after.
All of which is not to csay that the Democrats couldn't use a charismatic leader (or several) of their own. But so far, nobody has risen significantly above the throng.
On “…..”
From what little I've seen, it appears that this is an achievement of the President of Egypt. Certainly far more his than Trump's.
If Trump deserves any credit at all, it is for being so utterly inconsistent, even on a day to day basis, that Bibi got nervous.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Comments about Trump Derangement Syndrome put me in mind of this old saw:
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Similarly, its not TDS to say that he's deranged. Not to mention demented and amoral and childish and vindictive and....
On “Chinese corruption”
I'd be interested to see the corruption index. My sense is that Russia, for example, is at a whole different level from China.
I think it's possible to have a growing economy dispite widespread corruption. But much harder than without that corruption. Also, I'd argue that there is a point where corruption gets so bad that economic growth becomes impossible. Clearly China isn't there. But I'm not sure how close they might be to the limit.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
Although, for those who have issues, white on black uses a lot less battery. My phone, at least, swaps to that automatically when the battery gets low.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
"
Stephen Miller. He’s a bad person, full stop.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
"
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
On “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk”
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
On “Where are the 5 words?”
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
On “What do you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?”
For the benefit of the non-Americans, you might want to add a footnote explaining the quote that is the title. Just a thought
"
Always great to see people standing up.
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.