dfs4114.bsky.social
Father, husband, attorney.
3,874 posts
476 followers
365 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
So quit. Refuse to do it. Walk away and make it a noisy exit while you're at it.
comment in response to
post
Swore*. Stupid autocorrect...
comment in response to
post
I really, really hope you're right. In particular, I really hope the National Guard or, God forbid, regular military take their oaths seriously and remember they serve the people and sword to uphold and protect the Constituition, and not the will of a would-be despot.
comment in response to
post
My recommendation:
Motörhead -- either Another Perfect Day or Ace of Spades. Dealer's choice.
comment in response to
post
I guess my point is our current union is badly broken and not functioning properly. We should fix it and improve it, rather than abandon it.
comment in response to
post
Well yeah, the social contract doesn't work when one party breaches.
comment in response to
post
The union is absolutely worthwhile. The problem is Trump and all of his enablers.
No government works when the people running it are cruel, corrupt assholes.
comment in response to
post
Ugh. *Vader. Missed that autocorrect.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
How're them Rule 11 sanctions lookin'?
comment in response to
post
Christ, I don't want ANY of them to be president.
comment in response to
post
10\Maybe Kat won't be the right candidate. I don't know. She's not running in my district. But she's doing one thing right, and that's standing up for her values and fighting back on that ground, instead of letting a prick like Jennings push her around.
We need more of that across the party.
comment in response to
post
9\The public has punished Dems for being feckless, weak, and acting like they don't actually believe anything they say, often because of moments where a candidate in Kat's position took the other safer, more consultant's-advice, "poll-driven" path.
That strategy has failed & led us to here.
comment in response to
post
8\For at least 40, Dems have ceded the values fight to the GOP, instead of countering with their own set of values and vigorously defending THOSE values. They've let the GOP pick the battleground over, and over, and over again, and it's a big part of how we ended up in this awful moment.
comment in response to
post
7\But she rejects that approach, recognizing that this is a fight about *values* and the only way -- truly, the only way -- to make that a real fight, is to push back with your own set of values, which she does.
comment in response to
post
6\There's a split-second where (to my eye) she spots the trap and hesitates. We've seen this movie before. Most folks' political instinct would be "avoid the trap" by shifting to something that'll poll test well and avoid being clipped and hammered by GOP media.
comment in response to
post
5\This is why Dems fail: they're arguing *policy* when they should be arguing *values.*
Kat, it seems, understands this. Maybe it's instinct, maybe it's calculated, but she seems to get this.
comment in response to
post
4\First, it makes them look weak. They're always in a defensive crouch. They're always getting their asses kicked. Second, it makes them look insincere, b/c when they abandon the position for a slightly more defensible one, it suggests they don't have core values. Both are electoral poison.
comment in response to
post
3\This is a classic right-wing move to define the discussion frame, & force the Dem opponent on to the defensive. It's how they've operated for at least 40 years, and it's become reflex for them. Often because it works. Usually Dems accept the frame, and wobble or backpedal. This has 2 bad effects.
comment in response to
post
2\The "trap," of course, is obvious. Jennings thinks he's set up a "damned if you do/don't" position: if she says "yes, everyone," it's a GOP talking point and they hammer her, presumably losing "moderates." If she says "ok, maybe not *everyone*," she's a phony and the left abandons her.
comment in response to
post
Assuming this is accurate, it is 100% on-brand for these jackasses.
comment in response to
post
You know you wanna.
comment in response to
post
Yes.
Also, I hate this kind of show format.
It's like Crossfire, only worse.
comment in response to
post
I get why they ask this question, but also, why the hell are we asking *the would-be mayors of NYC* about matters of foreign policy?
If you want to ask "What's your position on protestors," ok, valid question. But the mayor isn't sending the 7th Bronx Fleet to blockade the Sinai Peninsula.
comment in response to
post
Yep. Now we get to lie here, bleeding, watching these two titanic dipshits lay into each other.
But you know what I always say?
comment in response to
post
Anyone who says "This is what masculinity looks like" doesn't know what masculinity looks like.
comment in response to
post
Pretty typical for guys like them, really.
comment in response to
post
Needs more consistent cadence and better end-of-line rhymes if you're gonna "We Didn't Start the Fire" that one.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you.
comment in response to
post
Get that hammer out.
comment in response to
post
Right, I'm just saying don't force it. And keep in mind who the messengers are.
(Which, of course, is part of the problem, but that's a separate discussion.)
comment in response to
post
Eh, I think whatever we do, it's got to be something that feels natural. I think making up goofy names is natural for Trump, which is why it "works" for him. I don't think that's a natural fit for Dems, either specifically or writ large.
comment in response to
post
That might work, except (1) you're playing on Trump's turf there, and he's generally better at it, and (2) the Dems in office are really *bad* at that sort of thing.
comment in response to
post
I think part of the problem is a kind of "search for a slogan," when what's really needed is a form of communication that doesn't come across as fake or, worse, out of touch.
Start by speaking like regular folks, and the "slogan" will probably crop up naturally. (e.g., Waltz's "They're weirdos.")
comment in response to
post
Lutnick seems like a real asshole.
comment in response to
post
*sigh*
I wish our national nightmares could be over in a matter of minutes.
comment in response to
post
I tried, man. I really, really tried.
It just wasn't enough.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you (read the other posts in the thread).
What I'm saying is that even the shitty message doesn't reach people who are tuned out.
comment in response to
post
It's not really. It gets thru to people like us: politically plugged-in folks. And yes, it sucks.
But there are *tons* of people who are 100% checked out of politics altogether, and whatever flaccid message the Dems offer never even gets to them, except maybe via mockery vids from the opposition.
comment in response to
post
This is the thing that gets me about AI usage in a creative field. Anyone can come up with prompts. In an age where C-suite execs are looking to cut costs everywhere, it strikes me that your only real currency is your ability to outdo what they can do on their own via prompts.
comment in response to
post
Blue books are back, baby!
comment in response to
post
This is perhaps more of a rhetorical matter, but personally, I want our electeds to recognize that they are *representatives* and not *leaders.* As in, I don't need them telling me what to do. I need them doing what I tell them.
That's a problem when people aren't telling them anything, though.
comment in response to
post
I think much has to do with *how* Dems speak. Like, literally their demeanor, word choice, etc. It comes across as calculated, disingenuous, tone dead, or lacking in emotion or conviction. It feels out of touch the way George H.W. Bush did when he was amazed by a supermarket scanner.
comment in response to
post
I think attention -- even in this environment -- *can* be grabbed and even held, but it requires constant effort and constant content *outside* of the media apparatus itself. It's not Sunday shows and interviews.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, to be clear, I think Booker & Van Hollen have shown that the media *will* pay attention, but only if you give them something meaningful to pay attention to. The state of the media is a whole other discussion, though. I think we're in a similar "transition" phase to a new era there as well.
comment in response to
post
Ultimately, I think -- I *hope*-- we're headed for a new era for Dems, because the old one simply can't continue, given our immediate, near-term, and long-term situation. We need to do politics in a fundamentally different way, and I think that change is coming one way or another.
comment in response to
post
This could end up being a Dem equivalent to the Tea Party response we saw in the face of the GOP's losses in 2008. And obviously, not all of that was great, but it did signal a shift in how the GOP practiced politics.