I really wish the "reasonable person" angle had been pushed much sooner. His insanity could have been addressed much, much sooner.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
595 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3479 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
His supporters don't care. They love the government dysfunction until it affects them directly.
And when it does affect them directly, it's one of:
- See? The government doesn't work so we need more privatization. Vote Republican to dismantle socialization.
- This dysfunction happened under a Democratic president who was left with a fucking mess to clean up by the former Republican POTUS, a Republican supermajority SCOTUS, and a divided Congress whose Republicans stonewall meaningful progress. Vote Republican to get the Dems out.
- It's the (non-white) immigrants' fault probably for stealing my socialist benefits (non-whites in general, but making it about immigration gives me plausible deniability for my obvious racism). Vote Republican to get the immigrants out.
And the damn republicans do this shit on purpose. Like fix a problem only to have it expire for the next president who likely wont be republican to fix so they can start the blame game all over. Or vote against something so they can blame the current administration for not fixing the problem.
It’s like they don’t have any useful ideas at all and run on dysfunction, fear, and hate.
Or blame the deep state
They never believe that the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party meme is all about them. Even after their lose their face.
And it’s not a matter of “if” it will affect them, it’s “when”. His dumbass policies and ideas fuck it up for everyone. Well unless you’re stupid rich and maybe even then when he starts some asinine war that destroys everything.
"He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting" told me everything I need to know about his supporters.
They'll support literal death camps. They'll watch you and your family crushed under a tank. They'll say you had it coming.
They also like it during and after, for some reason.
I wish the “reasonable person” angle actually meant something in these elections. Trump has been spewing crazy unreasonable shit since the beginning of his political career and it did nothing but help him.
Incorrect .....
Trump HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO, MARKETED AND PROMOTED TO spew crazy unreasonable shit since the beginning of his political career and it did nothing but help him.
There are a lot of bat shit crazy people and even politicians out there ... the only difference is that most of them don't receive million dollar marketing promotion to get to the point of leading an entire nation.
This the fallacy of thinking that one single person as the persona and power to influence entire groups of people .... it's the other way around, entire groups of people influence one person to lead them
This isn't one shitty person .... it's an entire community of shitty people funded by a core of very wealthy shitty people
Whoa, crazy and unreasonable? Slow down there…
The democrats have been pushing that angle with Trump since 2015, and with republicans in general before that.
"Reasonableness" is at the core of democratic messaging, and that's a problem because what that does is allow the right to set priorities and values uncontested. Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama didn't stop that, he just said he would conduct the war in a more "reasonable" way. The same thing with Biden's attempted immigration bill that would've expanded the executive's ability to crack down on immigrants, the idea that cracking down on immigrants is necessary is uncontested, it's just about doing it in a more "reasonable" way. And when someone's electoral pitch is being reasonable, it puts them in a weaker position because they're expected to be reasonable and willing to compromise even when the other side stonewalls them, which republicans always do.
Apart from those things being bad, it's also not really an effective strategy. Many people are more concerned with whether a politician is on their side and representing their interests rather than whether they are being reasonable. On top of that, many Americans are straight-up anti-intellectual and so the reasonableness angle doesn't resonate with them. And there's a certain extent to which reasonableness is socially defined, and so if the current system isn't working for people and they want it to change, then they're probably not going to be concerned with existing norms of what is and isn't reasonable. Essentially, the reasonableness angle can at least potentially come across as elitist.
The democrats squeaked out a win with that angle in 2020, in the middle of Trump's terrible mishandling of the pandemic, and it's possible that they'll squeak out another one now, but if reasonableness was such an effective angle then every election against Trump should've been an absolute blowout.
I wildly disagree with this take. Both parties used to be a form of "reasonable", with differences generally around a few wedge issues, budgeting, and government size (at least outwardly). Since the Tea Party became a large voice, the Republican party has embraced conspiracy theorists, fascists, bigots, and christian nationalists. This has steadily pushed their rhetoric to absurdity. They can't even admit their guy lost in 2020! They've recently been claiming that Democrats can control the weather and that Biden's accomplishments or failures are Kamala's, despite the fact that the Vice President as as position does next to fuck-all regardless of who is in power. I think it's entirely fair for anyone with more than two lead-free braincells to rub together to point at the circus and question why it was running our country.
Additionally, Democrats are campaigning on a lot more than just being reasonable. Kamala is talking about child tax credits, first time homebuyer credits, fairer taxation, and even marijuana legalization. As a party, the Democrats have consistently been the better of the two when protecting our rights and promoting equity with minorities in our country. Sincerely, I'd literally sooner piss on a Republican than vote for one because their party is using people like me (trans woman) as a scare tactic and are legislating us out of our medical care, rights, and comfort.
What you see as a "squeaked out" win in 2020 is actually a predictor of what happened in 2022. A complete blowout where Democrats won way more seats than was expected of them. And a lot of that was because they're the only "reasonable" party left. I don't think that's a losing position. It would take them actively spitting on the center-right or center-left of this country to make them lose the support they've garnered by trying to keep our heads above water and fascism out of our country's government.
I never claimed that the Republicans are not unreasonable. As you say, the Tea Party was very unreasonable, and republicans at that time stonewalled Obama, despite his all of his attempts at reasonable compromise. That's my point, it isn't new.
My issue is that the narrative of reasonableness is tied to the status quo. When the status quo is failing, then people will be more prone to drastic changes then staying the course. If the two sides are "the status quo" and "not the status quo," then the worse the status quo gets, the more prone people will be to consider the "not the status quo" option. If you think things are generally headed in the right direction, I suppose that's fine, but if you feel, as I do, that conditions are deteriorating, then that's a problem, and if that continues, then it becomes inevitable that the strongest "not the status quo" option is going to win, whether now or later.
That's why I think it's a better strategy for the left to embrace progressive policies in a very bold way, in order to present an alternative vision of the future that is distinct from both the status quo and the far-right. Those policies would be the best chance of setting us on a positive path that would prevent things from falling into chaos, while also offering an alternative to the failing capitalist status quo that isn't fascism. Because the road we're on currently makes fascism an inevitability.
If what you say is true, and the democrats are now assured victory on the basis of being the only reasonable party left, then why is this election still a toss-up?
No reasonable person ever voted for Trump in the first place. Nothing he could do well even l ever change their minds.
The first time I can sorta forgive. They at least had hope he would be decent and do things differently. Even though any semiconscious person could see the writing on the wall. The second or third time, there is more than amble evidence as to what as asshat he truly is.
His insanity could have been addressed much, much sooner.
"Insanity" doesn't mean anything from a political perspective. Its a generic invective that politicians use on one another routinely. Sanders was "insane" for being a Far-Left Antifa Socialist. Rick Santorum was "insane" for taking the bible as literally as the rest of his Opus Dei fan club. McCain was "insane" for repeatedly advocating we escalate conflicts with Iran, Russia, and China (oops! looks like he was right all along). Hilary was "insane" for something something her emails Comet Pizza Benghazi.
Trump got caught dead-to-rights bragging about sexual assault and he still won the majority of white women voters. There were no magic words you were going to say in 2016 that would have made him not be President, after that. It was purely a question of volume (sheer number of people screaming at Hilary versus people screaming at Trump) over content. MAGA was louder, so he won.
Too true, the cult of personality is real.
Its amazing how much they hated him and how normal he was to the point they never even got an impeachment thing really going even though they try to impeach at the drop of a hat.
I mean, I only every noticed quick impeachments happening after Trump was rightfully (in my opinion) impeached, and Biden took office. Since then, it has all been retaliation for impeaching Trump.
Clinton was impeached for giving an intern a cigar.
Clinton should have been impeached for the ridiculous power imbalance but Repubs are pretty comfortable with rapey situations and full-on rapists so they went with something else.
that happened from a side comment during an investigation he was completely cleared for.
Only Republicans would say someone is unfit to run the country because they fucked their intern, and then hand the keys to a idiot so that he can fuck the country. I was making the point that the Republicans have always been like this.
well that was not the reason. it was honestly sorta stupider. it was because during an investigation of questionable merit to begin with he lied to congress about his relationship with his intern. That is what they impeached on when the investigation completely cleared him of the original thing (whitewater).
Obama would have been in neverending impeachments. Shit, they probably already have paperwork ready to go for the second Harris becomes president.
I'd be weary of Obama cracking jokes about Trump though. Last time he did that to a crowd of people (who all laughed in Trump's face) it was shortly before Trump became president.
Ehhh, Obama was a bastion of professionalism through some of the vilest shit said about him in public by other “professionals” for more than 8 years. He can say whatever he wants about Trump or anyone else, and he’s still super tame about it.
I’d be weary of Obama cracking jokes about Trump though. Last time he did that to a crowd of people (who all laughed in Trump’s face) it was shortly before Trump became president.
that was ~~like 10~~ 13 years ago and trump is becoming more senile by the day. I think they are trying to goad him into more public appearances to highlight that.
It's a pretty black and white issue, to be honest.
It's not like Trump wore a tan suit or asked for dijon mustard.
Never Forget.
The $100,000 watch was made in the part of Switzerland that's in China. Beautiful sweatshops, very special.
No... Not made in Wyoming. That's where the LLC is, but not the actual manufacturing facility.
Grab em by the pussy. Trying to overthrow the government, quid pro quo and a thousand other illegal actions are fine. But imagine if he wore a tan suit, that's where Republicans draw the line.
view more: next ›