Good King Trump

[fragment]

So impeachment hearings are on

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Something, something, peaches, something.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Impeachment may be the first thing Donald Trump has ever earned

— Ben Wexler (@mrbenwexler) September 24, 2019

[SR71]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

We haven't tried.
How do you know that? I'm guessing that you just haven't witnessed any attempts, which you don't need me to tell you is not the same thing. But feel free to cite me into taking that back.


You just have to tell them what to think Frank Luntz style.
lol Yes, everything look simple seen through Dunning-Kruger glasses. Have you considered that those who suck Luntz and swallow are already well turned on by his scent before he gets his dick out?

Wait ... is Luntz not a Trump cheerleader ? I have to confess I don't really know what "Frank Luntz style" means.

Frank Luntz is a republican communications guru and he's really really good at what he does. It's our misfortune that we have no comparable counterpart. He's been an integral part of the republican hold on power for, I believe without looking it up, what must be the better part of two decades. Among other things, he holds focus groups and somehow divines just the right phrasing to drive home a message. That's basically it. He learns what words pols should use, what words to avoid. He knows how to distill a concise message with just the right words to lodge in his targets' skulls. Much as despise him I have to give him credit as a master of propaganda.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by erimir

I think a good example of when Democrats did adopt some message discipline and it worked well for them was Romney, the vulture capitalist, coming in, firing people and destroying their lives, and laughing to the bank.

Romney and Bain and not caring about working people, because his whole business was based around firing working people, was a good, Democratic frame that worked. Republicans side with rich executives and don't care about working people. Democratic framing about the Republican tax cut was good - they want to give billions upon billions to rich people and corporations, and offer you nothing, or maybe a pittance, and then next they'll say there's no money for Social Security so they need to cut that too. In fact, many people who would/did receive tax cuts (often rather small ones, mind you) didn't believe that they would/did! Of course, when you account for the fact that the middle class tax cuts will expire while the corporate tax cuts and such are permanent, and the GOP attacking budgets for programs that help ordinary Americans, that's the right attitude to take. But the problem wasn't Democratic framing, it was that Republican members of Congress really, really wanted it! We got good numbers on that, the GOP just decided it was worth it. Obviously, the framing around the Obamacare repeal worked out as well - "the GOP wants to take health insurance away from millions" worked well.

Democrats have tried things like that. It's just that I don't think Democrats should scream about "gutting the military" specifically. They should just scream about different things.

I am totally on board with the whole first paragraph. I never meant to suggest that GUTTING THE MILITARY should be the central plank of criticizing Trump. More along the lines of something to hammer on for a week or ten days, 'til it's replaced by the next chorus about the next development. Instead they just let it pass with scoring no points. The republicans would've totally made hay on the same issue. The real point is the contrast. Democrats fail to capitalize in a manner that flashes people brains. Republicans don't. Benghazi!

Democrats want illegal criminals invading the country!

What's wrong with, then...

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SKYROCKETS UNDER TRUMP!

How about SNAP? Food stamp eligibility was just reduced.

STARVING POVERTY STRICKEN AMERICAN CHILDREN!!!

The California fuel economy revocation.

TRAMPLING STATES RIGHTS!!!

So many of these things come and go without a trace on voter sentiment simply because the Democrats don't make a sound.

They let McConnell steal Obama's supreme court nominee over the course of a year and change with nary a peep. I don't know how else to put it. They suck at attack messaging. There's much room for improvement.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by SR71

What's wrong with, then...

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SKYROCKETS UNDER TRUMP!

What's wrong with that is that we/Democrats don't think that immigration enforcement is too lax and thus don't want to make it harsher. This framing leads voters to the conclusion that we need to do more to stop illegal immigration*. And who wants to do that? Republicans. So who will this make them want to vote for?

*Now, it may be that we should - specifically, we should be working harder to help improve conditions in Mexico/Central America, which will make fewer people desperate enough to immigrate here illegally. "There are too many illegals around here, and it's because we're not giving enough aid to Guatemala!" is never going to be the response of the racists who are triggered by the idea of whites no longer being the majority, so while it's a good idea, I don't think it's something worth campaigning on very hard.

How about SNAP? Food stamp eligibility was just reduced.

STARVING POVERTY STRICKEN AMERICAN CHILDREN!!!

Now this is a better idea. Innocent children going hungry is something Democrats care about, and where public opinion aligns more with Democrats.

The California fuel economy revocation.

TRAMPLING STATES RIGHTS!!!

"States' rights" is a bullshit slogan that nobody really cares about. It's mostly just code for "let us discriminate against who we want to even if the majority of the country doesn't like it" and Trump certainly isn't violating that form of states' rights.

There is a small group of people who really do value strictly following the constitution and laws and think federalism is inherently valuable, etc. Those people care about states' rights, sure. But someone sincerely like that already wouldn't like the lawless GOP and Trump (and has a decent chance of being a Libertarian Party supporter).

Republicans take power away from municipalities all the time when they do things like: raise their minimum wage, try to create municipal broadband, pass LGBT anti-discrimination laws, try to invest in public transportation, and so on. They didn't get punished for that hypocrisy in NC. They're only at risk of losing their legislative majorities here because of 1. Trump and 2. some serendipitous changes in the NC Supreme Court, which mean their gerrymanders have been struck down.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

There's a whole thread there but whatever. It's Guiliani.

LOL! Rudy Giuliani made a guest appearance later during Ingraham's show and immediately started calling a co-panelist "an idiot" and yelling at him to "shut up." pic.twitter.com/Mh2LbJXuaT

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 25, 2019

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by SR71

It's our misfortune that we have no comparable counterpart [to Frank Luntz].

Are you sure we don't? I'm not.

... just the right phrasing to drive home a message.

Like "Yes We Can!"?

[SR71]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Are you sure we don't? I'm not.

... just the right phrasing to drive home a message.

Like "Yes We Can!"?

A drop in a bucket compared to a perpetual floodgate.

[mickthinks]

lol "a drop" that won the 2008 election!

How are you measuring the quantity of success and failure here?

[SR71]

Originally Posted by erimir

What's wrong with that is that we/Democrats don't think that immigration enforcement is too lax and thus don't want to make it harsher. This framing leads voters to the conclusion that we need to do more to stop illegal immigration*. And who wants to do that? Republicans. So who will this make them want to vote for?

*Now, it may be that we should - specifically, we should be working harder to help improve conditions in Mexico/Central America, which will make fewer people desperate enough to immigrate here illegally. "There are too many illegals around here, and it's because we're not giving enough aid to Guatemala!" is never going to be the response of the racists who are triggered by the idea of whites no longer being the majority, so while it's a good idea, I don't think it's something worth campaigning on very hard.

Now this is a better idea. Innocent children going hungry is something Democrats care about, and where public opinion aligns more with Democrats.

"States' rights" is a bullshit slogan that nobody really cares about. It's mostly just code for "let us discriminate against who we want to even if the majority of the country doesn't like it" and Trump certainly isn't violating that form of states' rights.

There is a small group of people who really do value strictly following the constitution and laws and think federalism is inherently valuable, etc. Those people care about states' rights, sure. But someone sincerely like that already wouldn't like the lawless GOP and Trump (and has a decent chance of being a Libertarian Party supporter).

Republicans take power away from municipalities all the time when they do things like: raise their minimum wage, try to create municipal broadband, pass LGBT anti-discrimination laws, try to invest in public transportation, and so on. They didn't get punished for that hypocrisy in NC. They're only at risk of losing their legislative majorities here because of 1. Trump and 2. some serendipitous changes in the NC Supreme Court, which mean their gerrymanders have been struck down.

Much I agree with, but you have a myopic view of what democrats believe in connection with immigration enforcement. Low income, low opportunity workers, many of whom are minority, directly compete for their livelihoods with illegals. When a worker is on a legitimate payroll, 7% from the worker and 7% from the employer go to payroll taxes. When it's under the table, 0% goes to payroll tax. The same goes for non-college whites. Construction workers, all types of low skill, physical labor, segments of manufacturing and production workers are subject to directly compete with illegal immigrants. There are democrats and republicans with legitimate reasons to want tighter control on illegal immigration. They need to eat and have a roof over their heads, for starters.

I also don't know what you mean when you say no one cares about states rights? I care. I want my state to legislate tighter than federal regs in connection with the environment, gun control, etc. I'd like to see it buck the federal gov't on marijuana decriminilization, for instance.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

lol "a drop" that won the 2008 election!

How are you measuring the quantity of success and failure here?

A minority of americans has maintained a lockout of democratic legislative control except for a brief period under Obama, over several decades, if I recall correctly. One presidential election is relatively insignificant. Look at the composition of the present supreme court. The minority is dominant. They get there by winning enough votes to get the office. This is largely a function of communication with voters.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by SR71

I also don't know what you mean when you say no one cares about states rights? I care. I want my state to legislate tighter than federal regs in connection with the environment, gun control, etc. I'd like to see it buck the federal gov't on marijuana decriminalization, for instance.

But that's exactly the problem - States' rights generally means "I want my state to be able to do [x] without federal interference." Your [x] bears no resemblance to a whole lot of other people's.

I do get your larger point, however. Republicans have been successful at coming up with "Four legs good, two legs baaaad" refrains for their base to bleat. Democrats, not so much. Conservatives will always be better than anyone to their left at this, because oversimplification almost invariably benefits conservative causes more. I guess that's the flip side of "the facts have a liberal bias."

I'm not saying a good slogan won't ever work for Democrats (cf. "Yes We Can"). It'll just never be as easy.

[Ari]

Everything is fine here, the Trump team isn’t worried at all...
“I’d like to say to you Mr. Hahn I should sue you for libel.” Said Guiliani
“Youre a public figure, so then you know the libel law.” Said Hahn.
”Shut up, shut up, you don’t know what you’re talk about, idiot!” Guiliani calmly responded.
“Ok guys, you’ve got to stop.” Said An exhausted Laura Ingraham.

When Nazi saluting troll Laura Ingraham has to step in play the adult and give Guiliani his lolipop, you know this are going well!

In I think the most telling quote of the whole exchange,
“You’re ruining your reputation, Mr. Mayor! And it is time for you to take a step back and please stop going on like this.” -Hahn.
“You may have had respect for me, but I don’t have any respect for you.” -Guiliani.

And there you have it one of the big differences between current republicans and democrats. Democrats are still trying to see these people as respected in their field, as lost and stray but still potentially reasonable people; while republicans never had any respect for their counterparts in the first place.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Ari

And there you have it one of the big differences between current republicans and democrats. Democrats are still trying to see these people as respected in their field, as lost and stray but still potentially reasonable people; while republicans never had any respect for their counterparts in the first place.

An abuser's world where respect equates to subservience.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

No joke: White House just emailed all Dem offices asking to “recall” the talking points email. https://t.co/4fFtVYmrPd

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 25, 2019

[erimir]

Originally Posted by SR71

Much I agree with, but you have a myopic view of what democrats believe in connection with immigration enforcement. Low income, low opportunity workers, many of whom are minority, directly compete for their livelihoods with illegals. When a worker is on a legitimate payroll, 7% from the worker and 7% from the employer go to payroll taxes. When it's under the table, 0% goes to payroll tax. The same goes for non-college whites. Construction workers, all types of low skill, physical labor, segments of manufacturing and production workers are subject to directly compete with illegal immigrants. There are democrats and republicans with legitimate reasons to want tighter control on illegal immigration. They need to eat and have a roof over their heads, for starters.

The reason they compete in that way is because when ICE raids a workplace, they deport the workers and the employers don't get punished for tax evasion and labor law violations.

Requiring that immigrants get the same pay and benefits would actually reduce that advantage, while benefiting the immigrants who do come here.

But either way, Trump's pitch to working class white voters who think their woes are caused by immigrants taking der jerbs is always going to be more appealing than the Democrats' pitch. He wants a wall, we don't. He wants to say, "You're illegal? Fuck you! Your mom brought you here? Who cares! If you didn't want to be separated and put in a lice pit, you shouldn't have been the child of an illegal!" Trump thinks that the US-born children of LEGAL immigrants shouldn't be entitled to citizenship, much less the children of undocumented immigrants! In fact, he probably wants to strip them of it. Democrats think that deportation shouldn't be expedited to get as many brown people out as fast as possible, that not all undocumented immigrants should be treated the same, and that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to all born in our borders.

If you think immigrants are the source of your woes, Democrats bringing up how there are too many illegal immigrants isn't going to make you think "I should vote for Democrats." It's just going to make you think we need to get "tough" on immigration. And which party is "tougher" on immigration?

We already have good points to press on Trump and immigration, such as his cruelty to children. If a voter's response to that is to say that talking about not traumatizing children but not talking about how we need stricter enforcement is open borders, that's not a voter we can get anyway. Most people don't think children should be traumatized, so that's an easier sell than on immigration issues where Americans are more divided, I think. At the same time, Democrats probably should not campaign on letting undocumented immigrants get Medicare For All for the same reason - it's unpopular.

I also don't know what you mean when you say no one cares about states rights? I care. I want my state to legislate tighter than federal regs in connection with the environment, gun control, etc. I'd like to see it buck the federal gov't on marijuana decriminilization, for instance.

Suppose that the federal government passed laws making automobile pollution requirements as strict as in California. Would you support states' rights for Texas to allow cars that pollute more than federal regulations require?

Or if the federal government passed a law legalizing marijuana and requiring (directly or indirectly through the withholding of federal funds) states to do the same, would you feel bad for the people of Alabama who feel that violates their state's right to make it illegal?

I support California having stricter air pollution standards, sure! But that's mostly because I don't expect the federal government to be able to pass such strict standards at this time. I'd rather it be imposed from on high, by the federal government.

States' rights is useful for piloting some programs and things like that, but in general, I prefer federal policies for most things.

[Ari]

I think Trump just attempted to fire Pelosi. “Nancy Pelosi, as far as I’m concerned, She’s no longer the speaker of the house.”-Trump

Given his firing of government officials in tweets and press conferences, I think he thinks he just fired her from house speaker.

[Ensign Steve]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is not, nor has he ever been, the President. So everybody wins.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by erimir

The reason they compete in that way is because when ICE raids a workplace, they deport the workers and the employers don't get punished for tax evasion and labor law violations.

Requiring that immigrants get the same pay and benefits would actually reduce that advantage, while benefiting the immigrants who do come here.

But either way, Trump's pitch to working class white voters who think their woes are caused by immigrants taking der jerbs is always going to be more appealing than the Democrats' pitch. He wants a wall, we don't. He wants to say, "You're illegal? Fuck you! Your mom brought you here? Who cares! If you didn't want to be separated and put in a lice pit, you shouldn't have been the child of an illegal!" Trump thinks that the US-born children of LEGAL immigrants shouldn't be entitled to citizenship, much less the children of undocumented immigrants! In fact, he probably wants to strip them of it. Democrats think that deportation shouldn't be expedited to get as many brown people out as fast as possible, that not all undocumented immigrants should be treated the same, and that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to all born in our borders.

If you think immigrants are the source of your woes, Democrats bringing up how there are too many illegal immigrants isn't going to make you think "I should vote for Democrats." It's just going to make you think we need to get "tough" on immigration. And which party is "tougher" on immigration?

We already have good points to press on Trump and immigration, such as his cruelty to children. If a voter's response to that is to say that talking about not traumatizing children but not talking about how we need stricter enforcement is open borders, that's not a voter we can get anyway. Most people don't think children should be traumatized, so that's an easier sell than on immigration issues where Americans are more divided, I think. At the same time, Democrats probably should not campaign on letting undocumented immigrants get Medicare For All for the same reason - it's unpopular.

Suppose that the federal government passed laws making automobile pollution requirements as strict as in California. Would you support states' rights for Texas to allow cars that pollute more than federal regulations require?

Or if the federal government passed a law legalizing marijuana and requiring (directly or indirectly through the withholding of federal funds) states to do the same, would you feel bad for the people of Alabama who feel that violates their state's right to make it illegal?

I support California having stricter air pollution standards, sure! But that's mostly because I don't expect the federal government to be able to pass such strict standards at this time. I'd rather it be imposed from on high, by the federal government.

States' rights is useful for piloting some programs and things like that, but in general, I prefer federal policies for most things.

Once again I find merit in most of that, but... You have just validated the republican charge that democrats want unfettered illegal immigration. Just excuse the act of illegal entry and give them benefit parity? Most Americans are not there from my impression. They do overall support legal immigration if I remember the last time I looked at polling.

I must have missed the part where Democrats have a plan to deal with employers who hire illegal immigrants. Nor have I heard a Democratic plan to sort those legitimately seeking asylum from those seeking better economic opportunity. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to those willing to break our laws to seek out better economic conditions, you do what you have to do, sometimes, but I'm more sympathetic to our own citizens who are born into domestic systemically disadvantaged circumstances.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Trump Throws Mike Pence Under the Bus: ‘I Think You Should Ask for VP Pence's Conversations’

[SR71]

He throws everybody under the bus if they hang around long enough.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Hold my beer. I forgot about this.

Yes, trump projects every one of his crimes onto other people.

Just waiting for the human trafficking charges to come out.https://t.co/hhs0i0uL2j

— Ivan, Son of Comics' Dave (@santarchy) September 25, 2019

[erimir]

Originally Posted by SR71

You have just validated the republican charge that democrats want unfettered illegal immigration.

Where did I say that?

Just excuse the act of illegal entry and give them benefit parity?

Or that? I would frame that as punishing exploitative employers. If you employ someone, you pay them the required wage and overtime, you pay your taxes, etc. That's a separate issue from deporting people - and although it would help those workers, it would also have the effect of making hiring undocumented workers less attractive for employers!

Trump wants deportations to go quickly - cursory court cases, no chance for appeal, etc. Not expediting the process isn't the same as having no process.

(Also, excusing the "act" of illegal entry is not the same as granting legal status. It means you don't get charged with a crime, not that you can't be deported.)

Most Americans are not there from my impression. They do overall support legal immigration if I remember the last time I looked at polling.

But either way it seems you're complaining that Democrats have adopted policies that are too "weak" on illegal immigration. That's not a matter of message discipline, that's a matter of saying they have the wrong message and policy.

I must have missed the part where Democrats have a plan to deal with employers who hire illegal immigrants.

I doubt they'll be campaigning on it, because it's hard to talk about without feeding anti-immigrant hysteria, but I wouldn't be surprised if they want to do it.

Nor have I heard a Democratic plan to sort those legitimately seeking asylum from those seeking better economic opportunity.

We already have asylum hearings that are meant to sort them out. What is the basis of the assumption that the current system, if funded and staffed properly, is inadequate? I certainly wouldn't take Trump's word for it.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to those willing to break our laws to seek out better economic conditions, you do what you have to do, sometimes, but I'm more sympathetic to our own citizens who are born into domestic systemically disadvantaged circumstances.

That's fine, but I don't see them as being directly in competition and immigrants aren't the cause of their disadvantaged circumstances.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by SR71

[That the minority is dominant] is largely a function of communication with voters.

If by "communcation" you intend to include stuff like policy choices and also negative coverage from hostile agencies, this is obviously true. But the more narrowly you focus on the role played by people like Frank Luntz, the less true it is, I think.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you have on occasion joined in the davidm chorus of "Hillary lost because she was a shitty choice". Yet here you are saying it's the communications, stupid!

I get that you find politics frustrating, but if your anger is incoherent it is destructive.