Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 348: Trump Stumped by Massive Dumps

(+) Yeah! (+)

Trump is like that kid who's 5 and still on a Dummy/Pacifier.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

"Defund the police" IS a bad slogan.

Of course it is. This election is literally proof of that, because of how many seats were lost in red district pickups from 2018. It's the nationalization of politics and it really fucking works against Dems. It's why there's millions dumped into a senate race in South Carolina and yet Lindsey Graham wins comfortably. The second red states or districts think the Dem candidate is gonna agree with Washington Dems, there's an immediate backlash.

---

Obama is wrong for multiple reasons.

For one, people fucking love snappy slogans.

Hope. Change you can believe in. Make America Great Again. No Malarkey.

Defund the police isnt a snappy slogan. Police the Police would be a snappy slogan.

Defund the police is a policy position that got blitzed by right wing media, causing people to instantly think people actually wanted no laws of any kind, and has nothing to do with how snappy it is.


---

"Police the Police" would be more effective than "Defund the Police", I agree Tony.

---

once again I am asking people to stop pretending like they actually care about the defund slogan when really you want to argue about electoral strategy instead of policy

---

red sox 777 posted...

Pelosi bet the farm on a Democratic clean sweep at the election. Either that, or she didn't want a stimulus before the election precisely because it would help Trump.

I think now it is moreso that I was right when I said if the White House went to their number they would still find a reason to not pass it because they wanted to hamstring Trump's re-election.

The reason I say this is because she isn't sticking to her guns on it and calling for the Georgia races so they can pass stimulus. It also is a very far fall from where they were before.

---

Inviso posted...

"Police the Police" would be more effective than "Defund the Police", I agree Tony.

Make Police Accountable

Simple, not crazy, and backable.

---

Im not defending it, I am very explicitly saying its not even a slogan as much as a policy position that requires its own slogan due to need of elaboration

---

Corrik7 posted...

Make Police Accountable

Simple, not crazy, and backable.

Corrik, do you even want police to be held accountable? You defend their right to kill on a whim almost constantly

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik, do you even want police to be held accountable? You defend their right to kill on a whim almost constantly

You haven't been paying attention.

I have supported more funding for the police so that they all have cameras and making it a crime for the cameras to be off during interaction or shift since literally the very beginning. I believe that a lot of what we see is lacking context that police body cameras would clear up and help protect the good police just as much as weed out the bad ones.

---

Eh, I think enough idiots made it a slogan and enough counter-idiots latched on to attack it that it kinda poisoned the well because the country is full of idiots.

Basically, I've lost all faith in people, lately.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You haven't been paying attention.

I have supported more funding for the police so that they all have cameras and making it a crime for the cameras to be off during interaction or shift since literally the very beginning. I believe that a lot of what we see is lacking context that police body cameras would clear up and help protect the good police just as much as weed out the bad ones.

I very much doubt this. Sure, The only reason Derek Chauvin is in any trouble whatsoever because he was filmed. But even then, its more that he was filmed going way over the line. Indefensively over the line. Body cameras are not going to stop police from being able to say that they felt threatened or that they thought a victim had a weapon. Even if the camera shows otherwise, weve given the police so much authority that its difficult to argue against a claim of fear for ones life.

---

Espeon posted...

I very much doubt this. Sure, The only reason Derek Chauvin is in any trouble whatsoever because he was filmed. But even then, its more that he was filmed going way over the line. Indefensively over the line. Body cameras are not going to stop police from being able to say that they felt threatened or that they thought a victim had a weapon. Even if the camera shows otherwise, weve given the police so much authority that its difficult to argue against a claim of fear for ones life.

Forced cameras will be a deterrent a lot of times if abided by. Also, it will shed information on what led up to things.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Eh, I think enough idiots made it a slogan and enough counter-idiots latched on to attack it that it kinda poisoned the well because the country is full of idiots.

Basically, I've lost all faith in people, lately.

exactly. Reform the police is a slogan that essentially covers the true definition of defund. But very vocal voices say reform isnt good enough. So theyve distinguished reform as being different from defund. And in that context, People are more inclined to view defund as a more extreme and frightening proposal. Claiming its all the faults of right wing media ignores the fact that on the surface, to stupid or uninformed people, defund sounds radical and dangerous. It doesnt take much for the media to play into that.

---

I think defund the police lends itself to being intentionally misinterpreted honestly.

And the umbrella of people underneath that slogan is fairly diverse and includes people who mean something more along hold the police accountable and redistribute funds as needed and literally abolish the system so it gets difficult for consistent messaging to occur.

---

For what it's worth, activists who support police reform are kind of forced to use radical slogans. All the reasonable ideas have already been claimed by moderate politicians for a long time, which would be fine if they had ever tried to implement any of them. Now the only way to show that you want real police reform (as opposed to spouting platitudes while quietly supporting the status quo) is to vocally support much going further than moderates would want to.
---

Xeybozn posted...

For what it's worth, activists who support police reform are kind of forced to use radical slogans. All the reasonable ideas have already been claimed by moderate politicians for a long time, which would be fine if they had ever tried to implement any of them. Now the only way to show that you want real police reform (as opposed to spouting platitudes while quietly supporting the status quo) is to vocally support much going further than moderates would want to.

This doesn't make sense though because the cause was winning in the court of public opinion until the slogan came out.

Xeybozn posted...

For what it's worth, activists who support police reform are kind of forced to use radical slogans. All the reasonable ideas have already been claimed by moderate politicians for a long time, which would be fine if they had ever tried to implement any of them. Now the only way to show that you want real police reform (as opposed to spouting platitudes while quietly supporting the status quo) is to vocally support much going further than moderates would want to.

Yes, this is exactly it, and how it has become about more than policy. People like the idea of reforming but our current strategy of reforms hasn't been working. The reason it hasn't been working is because moderate politicians are opposed to any significant reform. This basically causes a stalemate where everyone is vaguely in support of police reform but no real action is being taken. So you end up with defund the police, which, as mentioned, is also a concrete policy proposal of giving less money to the police.

The second part is that politicians do NOT want to give less money to the police, nearly universally. They also don't really want to hold police accountable! So they paint "Defund the Police" as a sweeping indictment of all large reforms. Now they have an excuse to oppose all of them and keep on doing what they've been doing.

The final part, and the punchline, is that Democrats, having denounced defunding the police but also not offering any concrete plan or reforms of their own (because they do not want any, and/or are worried that any capitulation to ANY reform will make them look too radical), look weak and end up being bludgeoned with it from the right anyways.

So again, if you have a disagreement with the actual policy then just say so. You have to understand everything else is a matter of electoral strategy for politicians.

---

"You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done," the former president said in the interview scheduled to go live at 6 a.m. on Wednesday, according to Axios.

"The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?" Obama added.

I mean, point out the lie here.

---

Espeon posted...

I very much doubt this. Sure, The only reason Derek Chauvin is in any trouble whatsoever because he was filmed. But even then, its more that he was filmed going way over the line. Indefensively over the line. Body cameras are not going to stop police from being able to say that they felt threatened or that they thought a victim had a weapon. Even if the camera shows otherwise, weve given the police so much authority that its difficult to argue against a claim of fear for ones life.

good example but not for the reason you're thinking: the body cams in the Derek Chauvin case are also what are basically making the case a trial of manslaughter 2 or walking. if we relied on that instead of random people in the street more for trials, we'd be fighting over manslaughter 2 or negligent homicide, which should be where the case lies. the murder charges are basically dead in the water right now. he'll be caught on other stuff too mind you, stuff related to taxes and conspiracy, but on floyd's death the police body cams are a solid defense for him against the footage everyone has seen. as a result, this is why cops should also be 100% in favor of body cams because it gives them a defense to things that seem completely indefensible.

---

Part of the loss of attention is the slogan and the lack of attention of course.

If you can't hit people in the pocketbook it is hard to keep attention. I'm going to preface this by saying people should not riot, but this year has definitely displayed how effective riots are at garnering attention. The media does not cover peaceful protests as extensively.

TheRock1525 posted...

"You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done," the former president said in the interview scheduled to go live at 6 a.m. on Wednesday, according to Axios.

"The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?" Obama added.

I mean, point out the lie here.

The lie is that they are not going to actually get something done

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The lie is that they are not going to actually get something done

Beat me to it.


---

I mean Obama did get shit done but apparently a black man trying to get people lower cost health care for the GOP to lose their collective minds and literally run a reality star for president.

---

I mean honest to goodness, what senate race would Dems have won if their candidate ran on "Defund the Police"? Would they have defeated Joni Ernst? Lindsey Graham? Thom Tillis?

---

Probably affected the house more considering the double digit flip there.

Unless you blame that on Pelosi, which could be fair.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean honest to goodness, what senate race would Dems have won if their candidate ran on "Defund the Police"? Would they have defeated Joni Ernst? Lindsey Graham? Thom Tillis?

You're being willfully obtuse. They did not even run on popular police reform policies, because as mentioned they either don't want them or are scared to. "Defund the Police" is not a slogan for politicians, it is a demand. Politicians not getting elected is their own problem. To be specific, this is due not to "Defund the Police" existing but the vast network of right-wing disinformation targeting liberal politicians as radicals. Even the "liberal" media is guilty of this because like the politicians they also gain by painting it as a radical strawman.

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean Obama did get shit done but apparently a black man trying to get people lower cost health care for the GOP to lose their collective minds and literally run a reality star for president.

Obama got less done than he could have specifically because of capitulating to the center and worrying about what the right would think, and all people are asking is that we don't keep committing the same mistake.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean Obama did get shit done but apparently a black man trying to get people lower cost health care for the GOP to lose their collective minds and literally run a reality star for president.

Well a lot of people cried about it.

---

also also this isn't just about winning elections but tangible action at the local level! Many liberal cities ignore the demands for major reforms, again, because the people in power resist implementing them! Only a small handful of cities have even started the first steps towards doing so.

once again I am asking blah blah blah

---

There's like 500x more complaining about "defund the police" than there is anyone using it as an actual slogan

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You're being willfully obtuse.

No, I'm accurately pointing out how Dems cannot run on nationalized policies the same way the GOP does because there are literally more red states and districts, and even if something is popular at a national level, it will likely have zero appeal in those states. Dems running in red states HAVE to deviate from any national messaging to stand a chance. It's why we literally have a Democratic Senator in fucking West Virginia.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You're being willfully obtuse. They did not even run on popular police reform policies, because as mentioned they either don't want them or are scared to. "Defund the Police" is not a slogan for politicians, it is a demand. Politicians not getting elected is their own problem. To be specific, this is due not to "Defund the Police" existing but the vast network of right-wing disinformation targeting politicians as radicals. Even the "liberal" media is guilty of this because like the politicians they also gain by painting it as a radical strawman.

Obama got less done than he could have specifically because of capitulating to the center and worrying about what the right would think, and all people are asking is that we don't keep committing the same mistake.

What could Obama have gotten done by pushing farther left that he didn't get done?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You're being willfully obtuse. They did not even run on popular police reform policies, because as mentioned they either don't want them or are scared to. "Defund the Police" is not a slogan for politicians, it is a demand. Politicians not getting elected is their own problem.

I mean, if more Republicans get elected it's not going to be any easier for activists to get anything they want

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Obama got less done than he could have specifically because of capitulating to the center and worrying about what the right would think, and all people are asking is that we don't keep committing the same mistake.

This is just not true. What do you think Obama had the votes for that he didn't get done because he appealed to the center?

He didn't get a public option, for example, because Joe Lieberman wasn't on board, not because Republicans weren't on board.

---

Inviso posted...

What could Obama have gotten done by pushing farther left that he didn't get done?

I mean, instead of complaining he needed 60 votes to get past the filibuster and was at the mercy of Joe Lieberman on ACA and the public option (in his book btw), he could have simply abolished the filibuster. Turns out we needed to do so anyways.

edit: very glad LotM ninja'd me on this one

TheRock1525 posted...

No, I'm accurately pointing out how Dems cannot run on nationalized policies the same way the GOP does because there are literally more red states and districts, and even if something is popular at a national level, it will likely have zero appeal in those states. Dems running in red states HAVE to deviate from any national messaging to stand a chance. It's why we literally have a Democratic Senator in fucking West Virginia.

I can't give much of a shit about Dems being bad at selling their own policies, but you should ask yourself what the national Dem policy on police reform was that these red state Dems felt they needed to deviate from.

---

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-says-dnc-should-give-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bigger-platform-feud-between-1551801

I mean Obama also said this too if youre looking for something to not be angry about.

---

I mean Biden has talked about police reform but in red States and districts even talkin about any reform and not implying that police are perfect and incapable of any mistakes will get you voted out.

---

There's no way there were 50 votes to abolish the filibuster in 2010

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean, instead of complaining he needed 60 votes to get past the filibuster and was at the mercy of Joe Lieberman on ACA and the public option (in his book btw), he could have simply abolished the filibuster.

Obama couldn't have abolished the filibuster; the Senate would have to do that themselves. And there's no way there would have done that just to let Obama not have to listen to them.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Obama couldn't have abolished the filibuster; the Senate would have to do that themselves. And there's no way there would have done that just to let Obama not have to listen to them.

Obama was the most powerful man in America, he has a little bit of clout. I was asked to give an example of something he could have pushed left on and done more, and I did. He didn't want to have that battle, but he could have.

---

Also don't forget that it was the Democrats who eliminated the judicial filibuster. That worked out pretty well for them right?

---

TheRock1525 posted...

No, I'm accurately pointing out how Dems cannot run on nationalized policies the same way the GOP does because there are literally more red states and districts, and even if something is popular at a national level, it will likely have zero appeal in those states. Dems running in red states HAVE to deviate from any national messaging to stand a chance. It's why we literally have a Democratic Senator in fucking West Virginia.

Also I have to admit I lied about not giving a shit about Dems being able to sell policy so I have an example.

In 2018 there was this dude called "Beto O'Rourke" who ran for Senate on a platform of, among other things, increasing access to healthcare (including supporting M4A if it was being voted on), gun control, abortion rights, legalizing weed, and support for BLM. He got within 3% of his Republican opponent, in Texas. Could he have won by compromising a little, on specific issues? Maybe! But after a margin that close followed by most of the "tossups" being blowouts this year, I think people have to consider that maybe most Dems suck at messaging, and just refuting the Republican narrative while having an unconvincing policy message of their own isn't enough.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Also don't forget that it was the Democrats who eliminated the judicial filibuster. That worked out pretty well for them right?

Completely different process with a totally different power dynamic that people tend to falsely relate to each other just because of the word "filibuster"

However, judge confirmation should not have a filibuster. Cabinet confirmations should not have a filibuster either! Actual problem is that the process (and Senate itself) sucks ass.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Also I have to admit I lied about not giving a shit about Dems being able to sell policy so I have an example.

In 2018 there was this dude called "Beto O'Rourke" who ran for Senate on a platform of, among other things, increasing access to healthcare (including supporting M4A if it was being voted on), gun control, abortion rights, legalizing weed, and support for BLM. He got within 3% of his Republican opponent, in Texas. Could he have won by compromising a little, on specific issues? Maybe! But after a margin that close followed by most of the "tossups" being blowouts this year, I think people have to consider that maybe most Dems suck at messaging, and just refuting the Republican narrative while having an unconvincing policy message of their own isn't enough.

Are we going to ignore the fact that Ted Cruz has become a highly unfavorable candidate who regularly polls in the negative 20 to 30 range?

People hate him a lot more than they hate Trump. And he was still reelected.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Are we going to ignore the fact that Ted Cruz has become a highly unfavorable candidate who regularly polls in the negative 20 to 30 range?

People hate him a lot more than they hate Trump. And he was still reelected.

This isn't actually true. He had a spike of unpopularity during the 2016 presidential campaign season, and has national infamy, but his reputation largely recovered in the time since then. His approval rating hovers around the 40s, similar to Trump. Comparing to Cornyn, he is just a little more polarizing. More people just don't give a shit about Cornyn.

Look for yourself:
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/ted-cruz-favorability-trend
https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2536
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/ted-cruz-approval-october-2020

And Cornyn
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/john-cornyn-approval-october-2020

---

He had a very high very unfavorable rating until February 2018.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

He had a very high very unfavorable rating until February 2018.

Meanwhile, he beat Beto for reelection in November 2018.

It could be that the closer they got to the election and the more likely he was running against a "socialist" that he got a significant uptick in his strong favorability.

---

And regardless, he isn't polling in the "negative 20-30% range" and never was. Though, I might have interpreted you talking about the differential when maybe you meant raw disapproval rating? Anyways, Ted Cruz's approval rating is such a wash because he is widely recognized and polarizing, not due to a lack of support. It's very similar to Trump!

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/donald-trump-favorability-october-2020

This level of polarization somehow did not result in a close race in Texas.

---

https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1334217812894736384?s=20

How come Arizona gets all the cool senators?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This level of polarization somehow did not result in a close race in Texas.

Is there a huge difference in losing by 3% versus losing by 5%?

---