HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » marylandblue » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

marylandblue

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Nov 8, 2016, 02:02 PM
Number of posts: 12,129

Journal Archives

We need find out the shooter's religion and political affiliation

So we know who to blame: ISIS, liberals, or just a random act of nature.

George Lakoff Interview with Tavis Smiley on lies and messaging


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/professor-cognitive-science-george-lakoff/

Beyond opposing Trump, do Democrats have a message?

Beyond opposing Trump, Democrats keep searching for a message

by Dan Balz

The loss in last week’s special congressional election in Georgia produced predictable hand-wringing and finger-pointing inside the Democratic Party. It also raised anew a question that has troubled the party through a period in which they have lost ground political. Simply put: Do Democrats have a message?

Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. What’s needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.

The defeat in Georgia came in a district that was always extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the loss touched off a hunt for scapegoats. Some Democrats, predictably, blamed the candidate, Jon Ossoff, for failing to capitalize on a flood of money and energy among party activists motivated to send a message of opposition to the president. He may have had flaws, but he and the Democrats turned out lots of voters. There just weren’t enough of them.

Other critics went up the chain of command and leveled their criticism at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She has held her party together in the House through many difficult fights — ask veterans of the Obama administration — but she also has become a prime target for GOP ad makers as a symbol of the Democrats’ liberal and bicoastal leanings. Pelosi, a fighter, has brushed aside the criticism...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beyond-opposing-trump-democrats-keep-searching-for-a-message/2017/06/24/6bb05b54-5857-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.7d965864d

I think he is right on the money. We need to talk about Trump less, and we are going to do more.

On Edit: People don't seem to understand what I mean by messaging. For information on that, see the video of George Lakoff with Tavis Smiley or read some of Lakoff's work online. It's not enough to have a policy paper or a bunch of positions you talk about, it's about what you say most often and what aspects of a person's brain are being activitation. Conservatives activate the authoritarian brain. Liberals need to activate the nurturing brain, and we haven't down a very good job of it.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/professor-cognitive-science-george-lakoff/

How Democratic Timidity May have Helped Trump Win the Election


What comes through again and again is that the Obama administration was terrified of looking partisan or doing anything that might seem like it was putting a thumb on the scale of the election, and the result was paralysis. This is a manifestation of what some years ago I began calling the Audacity Gap.

Democrats are forever worried about whether they might be criticized, whether Republicans will be mean to them, whether they might look as though they’re being partisan, and whether they might be subjected to a round of stern editorials. Republicans, on the other hand, just don’t care. What they’re worried about is winning, and they don’t let the kinds of criticism that frightens Democrats impede them. It makes Republicans the party of “Yes we can,” while Democrats are the party of “Maybe we shouldn’t.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/06/23/how-democratic-timidity-may-have-helped

Could SC-05 be a surprise victory??

Somebody who knows more about this district than, please tell me. I took a look at the Sec of State site. Right now it says


Parnell - 16,531
Norman - 16,198

Ballots cast - 34,409

So with only 1800 votes left to count, Parnell has a lead of 330 votes. Could he really win this sleeper? Am I missing something?


http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/68145/187763/en/summary.html

Breaking[Template]: Trump [Administration Member] is under investigation for [Crime]

The (News Outlet) has learned from (number) sources that (Title) (name) is under investigation for (Crime). (Name) has retained (Bad Lawyer) to represent him. (Name) will meet with Robert Mueller next (Time Frame). At (Time) Donald Trump tweeted (Accusation) against (Enemy) for not doing (Something about Someone Else) which he said was (Adjective). Trump then threatened to fire (Name). (Republican Congressmember)(Name) expressed concern and said the (Committee Name) would investigate after (Trump Administration Member) said (Lie).


Since we have so much breaking news about investigations these days, I thought I'd help you all save time by giving you this handy template to report the news faster. Hope it helps. Feel free to modify my template as you wish.

I hope Rep. Giffords makes a statement today

To remind people that right wing lunatics shoot politicians too.

Who do you like better in 2020?

On Comey making a prosecutorial decision

I distinctly remember when Lynch recused herslef, she said DOJ would follow whatever recommendation the FBI made about prosecution. Anybody else remember this?

Don't over-react to rumors about Mueller

This all came from Christopher Ruddy, who's exact words were:

"“I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he’s weighing that option,” Ruddy said when asked by Woodruff whether the president was prepared to let the special counsel pursue the Russia investigation. “I think it’s pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television recently.”

“I personally think it would be a very significant mistake,” Ruddy added.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-confidant-think-hes-considering-perhaps-terminating-special-counsel/


He only speculated and didn't say he spoke to 45. And even if he did speak to him, it appears he advised against it. This is speculation that is no more than what DUer's have been speculating about since Mueller was hired. Nothing has changed. Maybe he will do it. Maybe he won't. Or maybe he'll start WWIII. You just never know with Trump. And he likes it that way. Don't give him what he wants.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »