Der Fuhrer deploys 800 soldiers to the border to "stop the caravan".

[Zwinmar]

When we were deployed into Kosovo, and active warzone mind you, we had more ROE's than the average police force here in the States does. We had to account for every round, yes we counted them. It was not enough for them to have a weapon, they had to be actively pointing it at us before we could respond with lethal force. So no, throwing rocks should not be a deadly offense, we have riot control shields if it comes to it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Liberals need to understand the concept of reframing. Ok, so Trump has threatened to have troops gun down a bunch of rock throwing illegals. If you scream "he's a racist murderer who wants to kill brown migrants!", you've lost, no matter how true it is. You need to reframe it. Something like "poor refugees escaping oppression who want freedom and a better future in America, and Trump wants to deny them freedom, why do you hate freedom?"

The latter IS how most Democratic politicians and media outlets have been framing it from the very beginning. You're just being dishonest.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this same shit pulled by Alt. Reichists. Give what they pretend is "advice" to liberals which amounts to "you need to learn to muzzle yourselves more", then blame the Democrats for the rise of the Alt. Reich because the Democrats dared to ruffle their feathers. Unfortunately, some well-meaning Democrats fall into the same mistake.

I say we grow some balls and learn to call a spade a spade.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Part of it, I wager, is the proud embracement of ignorance and the pathological tendency to stay within their particular media bubble. That is, if they are ONLY getting their news from Fox News (or worse) and not making any independent effort to actually understand what is going on, then their worldview will only be shaped by the propaganda they are consuming. And that is what Fox News and so on report on; they don't mention the balanced and measured responses actually given by Democratic leadership or CNN, they either seek out the most absurd "evil liberal" overreaction they can find, or just fabricate one where it doesn't exist.

Perhaps me accusing aerius of dishonesty was off the mark, and I should just be accusing him of being an idiot instead. Major he actually is too sheltered to realize that every single major media outlet has been using language similar to the smug advice he gives as a preferable alternative to the strawman he has convinced himself is the reality.

EDIT: That said, it's not like I think the Democratic leadership has had a particular EFFECTIVE response to any of this. As usual, the Democratic party is too incompetent to actually come up with a coherent message around which to rally voters. They flit back and forth between vanilla protestations without ever coming up with a consistent platform.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

They flit back and forth between vanilla protestations without ever coming up with a consistent platform.

Probably why they drafted in Obama to campaign for votes in the midterms.

[aerius]

EDIT: That said, it's not like I think the Democratic leadership has had a particular EFFECTIVE response to any of this. As usual, the Democratic party is too incompetent to actually come up with a coherent message around which to rally voters. They flit back and forth between vanilla protestations without ever coming up with a consistent platform.

This is exactly what I'm referring to, you've been getting your shit stomped in on the messaging & branding side for the years and you still haven't figured out a)you're getting played, and b)how to actually do something about it. Your party leaders and other key members don't know how to build a messaging platform of your own nor how to turn the opposition's message against them. The Republicans have this shit figured out and they're murdering you. they troll you for a reaction and burn you on it, and any time you try to put a message out they reframe it to make you look weak, stupid, or whatever they want to appeal to their base. They have a highly polished and co-ordinated propaganda effort, the Dems are failing badly at countering it.

This thread (and the entire N&P forum in general) is an object lesson on why you Dems need to get your shit together. No one here wants a GOP government with Trump running free. But as soon as Bean, myself, or whoever brings up a fact that doesn't fit your worldview, certain folks start calling us sympathizers, morons, Nazi-lovers and words to that effect. And you wonder why you can't build a good support base, gee, when you spend as much time pissing them off as the other side...

[EnterpriseSovereign]

EDIT: That said, it's not like I think the Democratic leadership has had a particular EFFECTIVE response to any of this. As usual, the Democratic party is too incompetent to actually come up with a coherent message around which to rally voters. They flit back and forth between vanilla protestations without ever coming up with a consistent platform.

This is exactly what I'm referring to, you've been getting your shit stomped in on the messaging & branding side for the years and you still haven't figured out a)you're getting played, and b)how to actually do something about it. Your party leaders and other key members don't know how to build a messaging platform of your own nor how to turn the opposition's message against them. The Republicans have this shit figured out and they're murdering you. they troll you for a reaction and burn you on it, and any time you try to put a message out they reframe it to make you look weak, stupid, or whatever they want to appeal to their base. They have a highly polished and co-ordinated propaganda effort, the Dems are failing badly at countering it.

This thread (and the entire N&P forum in general) is an object lesson on why you Dems need to get your shit together. No one here wants a GOP government with Trump running free. But as soon as Bean, myself, or whoever brings up a fact that doesn't fit your worldview, certain folks start calling us sympathizers, morons, Nazi-lovers and words to that effect. And you wonder why you can't build a good support base, gee, when you spend as much time pissing them off as the other side...

Do they really have their heads so far up their asses that they cannot figure this out for themselves? Or worse, that some do but are ignored by the rest?

[The Romulan Republic]

There is a difference between not fighting your own supporters, and trying to place nice with the fascists by refusing to call them out clearly on what they are, and what they are doing. I strongly support the former. You will never convince me of the wisdom of the latter.

Democrats have tried being reasonable and conciliatory. Our thanks is to be called a violent mob by the people who are inciting terrorist attacks against us. One of the most damaging attacks against Democrats is that we're spineless. That needs to change.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But as soon as Bean, myself, or whoever brings up a fact that doesn't fit your worldview, certain folks start calling us sympathizers, morons, Nazi-lovers and words to that effect.

None of that has anything to do with me. I've never called you, Bean, or anyone else any of those things. And I've been as critical of the Dems on these boards as anyone. Even TRR here can point you to some times that I have disagreed with him. In other words ... shove it. I pointed out that you made a factually incorrect statement, and all you can do is rant and rave about how mean the "Dems" are being to you. Seriously, grow up.

(EDIT: The ironic thing is that even all the ranting and raving is still factually off base. The Democrats get a larger number of votes than the Republicans pretty consistently in terms of raw numbers. Republicans are better at "playing the game", so to speak, and appealing to the interests of a narrow subset of voters residing in inordinately important districts. Much of this is driven by social and economic factors; the Democrats biggest failure has been their relative lack of interest in appealing to the white middle class voters that largely drive this difference. The voting numbers are pretty cut and dry, with little room for interpretation. All of this vague hand-waiving about branding and the supposed inability of Democrats to pump out propaganda is just a non sequitir.)

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Its good to keep in mind that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections. Republicans are just better at cheating, because that's the "benefit" of being morally bankrupt. Which means that we have to compensate with enthusiasm for their voter suppression efforts.

[Gandalf]

Yeah. Its good to keep in mind that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections.

It's also a largely irrelevant metric, owing to the US electoral system's bizarre construction, and should usually be qualified with "majority of people who showed up."

The popular vote is a false hope, and people should stop clinging to it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Its good to keep in mind that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections.

It's also a largely irrelevant metric, owing to the US electoral system's bizarre construction, and should usually be qualified with "majority of people who showed up."

The popular vote is a false hope, and people should stop clinging to it.

The popular vote (obviously) does not determine the Presidency (though it should). It is, however, the most valid measure we have of how the public actually feels. And if its skewed, then if anything its probably skewed in favour of Republicans by voter suppression. So in fact the percentage of the electorate that supports them is even smaller than what the popular vote indicates.

The Republicans aren't the majority. End of story. They're just good at rigging the game.

[Gandalf]

The popular vote (obviously) does not determine the Presidency (though it should). It is, however, the most valid measure we have of how the public actually feels. And if its skewed, then if anything its probably skewed in favour of Republicans by voter suppression. So in fact the percentage of the electorate that supports them is even smaller than what the popular vote indicates.

There's some fascinating leaps of logic there.

The Republicans aren't the majority. End of story. They're just good at rigging the game.

Nobody's the majority. End of story. Some are just better at playing a game set up to keep wealthy slaveowners in political influence.

[The Romulan Republic]

The popular vote (obviously) does not determine the Presidency (though it should). It is, however, the most valid measure we have of how the public actually feels. And if its skewed, then if anything its probably skewed in favour of Republicans by voter suppression. So in fact the percentage of the electorate that supports them is even smaller than what the popular vote indicates.

There's some fascinating leaps of logic there.

Pointing out basic math, and drawing a reasonable conclusion based on a pattern of voter suppression which is common public knowledge is "leaps of logic"?

Nobody's the majority. End of story. Some are just better at playing a game set up to keep wealthy slaveowners in political influence.

Opponents of Trump are the majority, if polling is any indication at all.

You don't get your "alternative facts" any more than the Trumpers do.

[Gandalf]

The popular vote (obviously) does not determine the Presidency (though it should). It is, however, the most valid measure we have of how the public actually feels. And if its skewed, then if anything its probably skewed in favour of Republicans by voter suppression. So in fact the percentage of the electorate that supports them is even smaller than what the popular vote indicates.

There's some fascinating leaps of logic there.

Pointing out basic math, and drawing a reasonable conclusion based on a pattern of voter suppression which is common public knowledge is "leaps of logic"?

You state (without any backing) that the popular vote is the most valid measure for how the public actually feels. That's fucking absurd. Then you act as though voter suppression is the sole factor acting on this. Try harder. Really think it through.

Nobody's the majority. End of story. Some are just better at playing a game set up to keep wealthy slaveowners in political influence.

Opponents of Trump are the majority, if polling is any indication at all.

You don't get your "alternative facts" any more than the Trumpers do.

How are you classing "opponents of Trump" is this?

[The Romulan Republic]

At the least, will you acknowledge that it is a more valid measure of public opinion than who wins the race, given the peculiarities of the US system?

Lets define opponents of Trump as being people who actively oppose his Presidency.

[Beowulf]

At the least, will you acknowledge that it is a more valid measure of public opinion than who wins the race, given the peculiarities of the US system?

Nope. Because of the peculiarities of the US, and the fact that a number of voters are, in fact, rationally ignorant of politics, there are sure to be people in states and districts that are fairly non-competitive, that decide that there's no point on voting, because there's no chance of their vote making a difference.

[Gandalf]

At the least, will you acknowledge that it is a more valid measure of public opinion than who wins the race, given the peculiarities of the US system?

Nope. The weird US system means that there are a fuckton of weird and inconsistent variables on every voter. For example, there are some states so red that a blue voter may just decide "fuck it" and not turn up, and also the inverse. Some states have awesome distance and early voting, while others do not. That is not an ideal (or even passable) sample.

To get a popular vote like you're describing would require something like a national mandatory popular vote, combined with absurd ease of access. That way everyone knows that their vote counts, and is able to cast it easily.

Lets define opponents of Trump as being people who actively oppose his Presidency.

Fantastic. How are they the majority?

[Elheru Aran]

To get a popular vote like you're describing would require something like a national mandatory popular vote, combined wit

To comment quickly:

I'm *fairly* sure that a mandatory vote may not be 100% legal in the US; the Constitution mandates that all people should have an *opportunity* to vote, it doesn't say they HAVE to vote. That said, it's mostly a semantic game and I honestly see no reason (for myself; as I said, 'fairly' sure, there may be legal niceties I'm not aware of) that a mandatory vote couldn't be required.

That would line up well with what I was saying in the 'Midterm Elections Thread' about how we need better Federal-level voting regulations and enforcement. Mandatory voting would be a start; if all the voters (or a significant majority of them, anyway) do vote, then they are more likely to elect someone appropriately representing the majority of the population, rather than the percentage of the population that actually bothered to vote.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

"It's muh raht t'decide whether I wanna vote or not! Fuck you and yer Big Gubmint innerference! Now gimme mah muthafuckin food stamps, and fucking git a job y'dam liberal snowflake! MAGA!"

[Batman]

I can see where Gandalf is coming from but I'm with TRR here-while the popular vote, thanks to the peculiarities of the US electoral system and situation, isn't a particularly good indicator of what most of the population want, it's still a better one than the election results, for the very same reasons

[Ralin]

I'm *fairly* sure that a mandatory vote may not be 100% legal in the US; the Constitution mandates that all people should have an *opportunity* to vote, it doesn't say they HAVE to vote. That said, it's mostly a semantic game and I honestly see no reason (for myself; as I said, 'fairly' sure, there may be legal niceties I'm not aware of) that a mandatory vote couldn't be required.

Seems fairly easy to avoid with a null vote or None Of The Above option on the mandatory ballot.

[Batman]

Would still make it mandatory voting. Yes, it gives the voter a 'yeah, whatever' option but they're still forced to vote. Which, provided it is EASY for them to vote, isn't necessarily a bad idea.

[Zaune]

Would still make it mandatory voting. Yes, it gives the voter a 'yeah, whatever' option but they're still forced to vote. Which, provided it is EASY for them to vote, isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Pity that a lot of elected officials are bent on the exact opposite, to the point where someone should really have been hauled up on charges of conspiracy against rights by now.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can see where Gandalf is coming from but I'm with TRR here-while the popular vote, thanks to the peculiarities of the US electoral system and situation, isn't a particularly good indicator of what most of the population want, it's still a better one than the election results, for the very same reasons

That's fair, yeah.

It's not a fool-proof survey of what every single person really thinks, by any means- and I'm not sure what would constitute such a thing or how it could even be possible. It is, however, a hell of a lot better than using who wins the Electoral College as a measure of public opinion.

Of course, people who just want to uniformly bash America/Americans don't want to hear that. They want to say that Trump is a true indicator of the values and character of the American people- and in doing so, ironically, grant Trump and Trumpism far greater legitimacy than they deserve.