When your definition of "destroying the country" involves following intentional law regarding refugees and not being a racist piece of shit...
Very funny. I'm thinking more of people who honestly believe Democrats/socialist policies will bring economic ruin, because those are the lies they've been taught.
Look, I'm just as frustrated with misinformed/idiot/bigoted conservative voters as the rest of you; but the insistence on these forums that they're all mustache-twirling evil xenophobes is tiresome. I felt the same way listening to crazy people in church ranting that liberals wanted to outlaw religion, kill grandma, and force your kids to be gay.
edit: to put it another way: there are plenty of actual reasons to be angry at these people without needing to invent new ones.
Gonna have to disagree bigly here.
Any of the ~40% who are in the Maybe/Probably/Definitely category on that chart are monsters. I simply don't know how else to categorize them.
There's room for variation, absolutely. But not for those people.
And to answer the previous question, if the Democratic nominee was credibly found to be a rapist, and I was eligible to vote? Then no, I wouldn't vote for that person. If that meant Trump won re-election, so be it. Then I'd weep for the country, and look at an exit out to another place to call home. And if Trump still lost, then I'd be demanding my Senators impeach.
The "If it happened to your side, you'ld do the same thing.". Nope. There are some lines that I just can't cross. If that means another 4 years of Trump, so be it.
There's enough bad shit that I have to accept as part of the society I live in. I'm not gonna affirmatively support one of those things. Rape, torture, woman/child bashing, to name a few. No, fuck no. You don't get my vote. Ever. And if that's the best the leftist party can put up as the nominee? Fuck them too.
The reason that these people can say the allegations are definitely true and still vote for Trump is because they have committed the same acts themselves. They don't want to see Trump punished because they themselves don't want to be punished.
I mean... if it came out in 2020 that the Democratic candidate for POTUS was a rapist, how would you vote?
There are people who genuinely believe - wrongly - that liberals want to destroy the country, so Trump's having raped a woman or ten is still the lesser evil.
Doesn't make it any less gross, but let's not reduce our ideological opponents to caricatures.
The poll was specifically targeted at people who stated they would vote for Trump in 2020. It's not about a Democratic candidate, and I'm pretty sure that the people who would vote for Trump despite believing that he is a rapist would still vote for Trump even if the Democratic candidate was also a rapist; because to them that's a non-issue.
My only issue with that poll is that the language used about "sexual misconduct" is so vague it could refer to any number of things Trump has done. We can't tell if they're saying they would vote for him even though he had an affair, or even though he bragged about grabbing women, or even though he committed sexual assault, and those things are not all equivalent.
And I know that the common refrain from a lot of trump supporters is that anything they don't want to hear is Fake News. So while i'm certain there is definitely a subset of trump supporters who would vote for him even if they knew he committed heinous sex crimes, i'm not sure that poll tells us how big that subset is.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+13
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I suspect Trump supporters also contain a higher proportion of people who will answer poll questions with the intent of "triggering the libs."
But I also suspect a good portion of those would genuinely be in the probably/definitely category so... oh well?
When your definition of "destroying the country" involves following intentional law regarding refugees and not being a racist piece of shit...
Very funny. I'm thinking more of people who honestly believe Democrats/socialist policies will bring economic ruin, because those are the lies they've been taught.
Look, I'm just as frustrated with misinformed/idiot/bigoted conservative voters as the rest of you; but the insistence on these forums that they're all mustache-twirling evil xenophobes is tiresome. I felt the same way listening to crazy people in church ranting that liberals wanted to outlaw religion, kill grandma, and force your kids to be gay.
edit: to put it another way: there are plenty of actual reasons to be angry at these people without needing to invent new ones.
You know what the difference is between the pulpit ranter ranting about liberals and us ranting about conservative politicians?
The conservative politicians are actually doing the things we say they're doing.
I don't give a shit what excuse a voter tells themselves while they vote down the party line for the GOP. If they've convinced themselves that it's still "better than voting Democrat," it doesn't fucking matter if they're actually a racist piece of shit or a sexual abuser in their heart of hearts, because they're a collaborator with all those racist pieces of shit and/or sexual abusers.
Roy fucking Moore is planning on running for Senate again in 2020 and the GOP has yet to say they won't allow him to run as a Republican. What more needs to be said?
Trump has discovered that when you're president and your party is protecting you, you get to just tell audacious lies every day and there's not much anybody can do about it. Definitive proof of a bald-faced lie isn't enough, because yeah obviously, he does that all the time.
When your definition of "destroying the country" involves following intentional law regarding refugees and not being a racist piece of shit...
Very funny. I'm thinking more of people who honestly believe Democrats/socialist policies will bring economic ruin, because those are the lies they've been taught.
Look, I'm just as frustrated with misinformed/idiot/bigoted conservative voters as the rest of you; but the insistence on these forums that they're all mustache-twirling evil xenophobes is tiresome. I felt the same way listening to crazy people in church ranting that liberals wanted to outlaw religion, kill grandma, and force your kids to be gay.
edit: to put it another way: there are plenty of actual reasons to be angry at these people without needing to invent new ones.
Gonna have to disagree bigly here.
Any of the ~40% who are in the Maybe/Probably/Definitely category on that chart are monsters. I simply don't know how else to categorize them.
There's room for variation, absolutely. But not for those people.
And to answer the previous question, if the Democratic nominee was credibly found to be a rapist, and I was eligible to vote? Then no, I wouldn't vote for that person. If that meant Trump won re-election, so be it. Then I'd weep for the country, and look at an exit out to another place to call home. And if Trump still lost, then I'd be demanding my Senators impeach.
The "If it happened to your side, you'ld do the same thing.". Nope. There are some lines that I just can't cross. If that means another 4 years of Trump, so be it.
There's enough bad shit that I have to accept as part of the society I live in. I'm not gonna affirmatively support one of those things. Rape, torture, woman/child bashing, to name a few. No, fuck no. You don't get my vote. Ever. And if that's the best the leftist party can put up as the nominee? Fuck them too.
I would.* Because at that point my choices are someone who did something awful to a handful of people in the past, and someone who does awful things that affect millions of people every day. Most people can't just up and leave the country.
If nothing else, we'd have a Democrat VP ready to take over after the impeachment.
I've said it before: I would vote for my own rapist over Trump, if those were my viable options.
*in the general, I mean. Certainly not in the primary.
Just to remind ourselves, these are just some of the accusations women have made against the president:
Kristin Anderson says she was in a bar when Trump reached under her dress and grabbed her genitals.
Jessica Leeds says Trump groped her when they sat next to each other on a plane.
Natasha Stoynoff says Trump got her in a private room, pushed her up against the wall, and kissed her against her will. They were interrupted by a butler, allowing Stoynoff to get away.
Jill Harth says she was exploring a business opportunity with Trump when he pushed her up against a wall, then kissed and groped her.
Summer Zervos says she went to Trump to discuss career opportunities, whereupon he kissed and groped her.
To repeat, these are just a few of the many allegations of sexual misconduct against the president. What they have in common is Trump allegedly acting in precisely the way he bragged that he could.
...
But the rest of us need not acquiesce to their dismissal of these stories out of some supposedly savvy assessment of political realities. We can speak the truth:
If the allegations are true, the president of the United States is certainly a sexual predator, and most probably a rapist. We will never know for sure how numerous are his victims, but at a minimum they might number in the dozens.
I feel like the moment that people moved beyond his admitting to abusing women, this just became a background fact of who he is. If you (correctly) hate this monstrous person, him being a rapist is part of why. If you support him, him being a rapist is just women trying to trick people, like always.
Just to remind ourselves, these are just some of the accusations women have made against the president:
Kristin Anderson says she was in a bar when Trump reached under her dress and grabbed her genitals.
Jessica Leeds says Trump groped her when they sat next to each other on a plane.
Natasha Stoynoff says Trump got her in a private room, pushed her up against the wall, and kissed her against her will. They were interrupted by a butler, allowing Stoynoff to get away.
Jill Harth says she was exploring a business opportunity with Trump when he pushed her up against a wall, then kissed and groped her.
Summer Zervos says she went to Trump to discuss career opportunities, whereupon he kissed and groped her.
To repeat, these are just a few of the many allegations of sexual misconduct against the president. What they have in common is Trump allegedly acting in precisely the way he bragged that he could.
...
But the rest of us need not acquiesce to their dismissal of these stories out of some supposedly savvy assessment of political realities. We can speak the truth:
If the allegations are true, the president of the United States is certainly a sexual predator, and most probably a rapist. We will never know for sure how numerous are his victims, but at a minimum they might number in the dozens.
I feel like the moment that people moved beyond his admitting to abusing women, this just became a background fact of who he is. If you (correctly) hate this monstrous person, him being a rapist is part of why. If you support him, him being a rapist is just women trying to trick people, like always.
It’s extremely sad that the best outcome we can hope for from this and all the other rapes he’s been accused of is that history will remember and won’t be kind
It’s extremely sad that the best outcome we can hope for from this and all the other rapes he’s been accused of is that history will remember and won’t be kind
History will remember americans elected him and he remained popular despite all of these things.
Never again can america claim any moral superiority in the modern age about any other monster elected anywhere.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
He's a shameless pig. Always has been, always will be.
He also called the woman he paid 130K to keep silent about, "not the type of woman he finds attractive". Didn't stop him from giving her a mediocre experience, though. https://wapo.st/2GdrmwF?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.f444fcae3732
That the man clearly doesn't find rape, or even being accused of rape, anywhere as important as his "taste in women", is abhorrent.
That the media, who spent many hours and multiple segments and articles on Biden's unwanted shoulder touching, and next to nothing on Trump's most recent credible rape accusation, is fucking despicable.
Sunday shows: 3/31/19: ABC asked 3 guests about the Biden allegations; NBC asked 6 guests about it; CBS asked 2 guests. All three hosts suggested the allegations might be "disqualifying."
This Sunday: the new Trump rape allegations weren't mentioned on any of the 3 Sunday shows.
Brian Klass is an Assistant Professor in Global Politics at University College London, and political author.
But the rest of the media, what's your fucking excuse? Loss of access? Afraid of Trump? FUCK YOU.
It should be noted that that article is published by CNN, and I was directed there by a tweet from Jake Tapper, but it's on the BUSINESS section of the INTERNATIONAL edition. The CNN domestic version has a single video link on the front page, 5 PgDn's from the top.
I'm finding it harder and to get riled up when the President threatens the media, when the media are so complicit in normalizing this f'n guy's actions, and glossing over just how fucking disgusting he is. I mean, who cares if they are prohibited from speaking truth to power, when they're doing that to themselves anyway?
Just so fucking tired of him being allowed to be normalized. Anyone who pays attention, knows Trump is disgusting. But the media (who he HATES) protect his image and paint a rosy picture to the general public.
The media has come to only care about what they can classify as “drama” or conflict. So when someone like trump comes along, whose party and supporters don’t care that he rapes, he doesn’t care that he rapes, the media can’t find easy traction and so moves on to incidents around Biden, whose supporters and party ostensibly find his behaviour problematic, and therefore a source of tension and drama
The media has become a rudderless shell hunting for a “hook”
All pretensions that they are supposed to alert us to, or safeguard against, ethics in public figures and government, has been eroded almost completely.
I don’t even really know what to say, other than to scream at the media that they can make this a story if they want to. And that Democrats should be fucking impeaching the fucker right now politics and estimations be damned
The media has come to only care about what they can classify as “drama” or conflict. So when someone like trump comes along, whose party and supporters don’t care that he rapes, he doesn’t care that he rapes, the media can’t find easy traction and so moves on to incidents around Biden, whose supporters and party ostensibly find his behaviour problematic, and therefore a source of tension and drama
The media has become a rudderless shell hunting for a “hook”
All pretensions that they are supposed to alert us to, or safeguard against, ethics in public figures and government, has been eroded almost completely.
I don’t even really know what to say, other than to scream at the media that they can make this a story if they want to. And that Democrats should be fucking impeaching the fucker right now politics and estimations be damned
This ain't it either. They want him to win. They have since 2015.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The media has come to only care about what they can classify as “drama” or conflict. So when someone like trump comes along, whose party and supporters don’t care that he rapes, he doesn’t care that he rapes, the media can’t find easy traction and so moves on to incidents around Biden, whose supporters and party ostensibly find his behaviour problematic, and therefore a source of tension and drama
The media has become a rudderless shell hunting for a “hook”
All pretensions that they are supposed to alert us to, or safeguard against, ethics in public figures and government, has been eroded almost completely.
I don’t even really know what to say, other than to scream at the media that they can make this a story if they want to. And that Democrats should be fucking impeaching the fucker right now politics and estimations be damned
This ain't it either. They want him to win. They have since 2015.
The media is complicit. Every day that concentration camps isn't the top fucking story on every single website and newspaper is gross negligence.
I'm now of the opinion that, if the media won't do its fucking job and insist on creating horse race narratives and false equivalencies where there are none, then it falls on the public and their elected representatives to force their hands.
By that I mean, opponents to the Republican party need to make the story instead of hoping the media will do it.
How? We can start by using stronger language.
Call Trump a racists and a rapist to his, and his party's, face.
Trump calls Democrats and "leftists" "the enemy". He calls the media "fake news" and "enemies of the people", and yet we're so afraid of "sinking to his level" because... reasons that I don't rightly understand.
We don't want to debase the discourse? Well too bad, the discourse has been debased, and not by the left, and we need make it clear that we don't want to have to resort to using such language, but we have no choice. We can't let republicans control the narrative with their invective and lies, so we speak the truth, in the most direct and provoking ways possible.
Donald Trump protects rapists and pedophiles
Donald Trump supports, and uses the language of, hate groups
Donald Trump tortures children in concentration camps - a crime against humanity
You want a shorthand version of all this? Simple, we have one and it's Evil. I want people to start using the word Evil to describe Trump and his policies, because that's what they are. And yeah, it's inflammatory, yeah, it's bound to ruffle some feathers, but you know what else it does? Force people to address the assertion.
Finally, Trump IS the republican party. When he speaks, he speaks for the party. Don't let republicans get away with trying to claim Trump doesn't speak for them. They chose him as their leader, he is their mouthpiece, he speaks for them, they enact his policies. What he says matters, and what he says, and what he does, is evil.
He is an embodiment of the cartoon villain whe have featured in our children's media for decades, and he is surrounded by wormtongues, toadies and lackies who enable him. In a fictional setting, we would have no problem calling such characters evil, but, for some reason, we fear to do so in real life, at least publicly. Why? Because real life is nuanced? Most of the time, sure, but every so often, things can be black and white.
Slavers are evil, child traffickers are evil, Nazis are evil, and Trump is evil.
It needs to be said, live, to the media, during interviews, not just anonymously in online forums. We need to force the media to address those talking points and respond. We need to force republican representatives to address us on our terms, and not give them the opportunity to dismiss such claims as "hysterics" or "incitement" or whatever term they wish to use. Call things what they are. Loudly. Where people can hear you. Of course, alarmism should be curtailed when it's done simply to gain attention, and liable to cause more harm than good, but there are times where it is appropriate, and it is appropriate now.
Moreover, any answer to the question of "what can we do" is already being done, more loudly, by people with more influence, and more often that any of us realize.
But those people are being ignored too! There are definitely people calling Trump out as being an evil rapist liar. The problem isn't that nobody is using strong enough language. The problem is that Trump has a complicit power institution.
Republicans need to feel unsafe defending him for things to change.
There are a few ways to change this, but demographics are probably the big one. Calling Trump a rapist on TV probably isn't.
"Evil" isn't the right word to use. I think it just comes off as meaning "cartoonishly bad" - which in fairness he is, but it's also not really taken seriously.
"Trump is a rapist" is far harder hitting, in my opinion.
As is "Trump supports pedophiles, and puts children in concentration camps knowing they don't keep track of them all".
Both evil things, but evil is too nebulous - especially around an unpopular person in power or coming from a political opponent.
"Evil" isn't the right word to use. I think it just comes off as meaning "cartoonishly bad" - which in fairness he is, but it's also not really taken seriously.
"Trump is a rapist" is far harder hitting, in my opinion.
As is "Trump supports pedophiles, and puts children in concentration camps knowing they don't keep track of them all".
Respectfully disagree. Rapist didn't keep Kavanaugh off the bench, Pedophile may have cost Roy Moore the election, but not by nearly enough as it should have.
Both evil things, but evil is too nebulous - especially around an unpopular person in power or coming from a political opponent.
I understand the point you're trying to make, and would normally agree, but these aren't normal times.
The main reason I recommend resorting to the term "evil" is to counter Trump's own false, pithy, narrative of calling the left and the media "fake" and "enemies of the people". You could make the same claim of "nebulousness" towards the term "enemy", and yet it resonates with Trump's base. We can't ignore his success, we need to learn from, and adapt to it.
We could, as an example, take ownership of Trump's own term "enemy", and start branding ourselves as Enemies of Evil, let's say.
Is it nebulous? Is it pithy? Yeah, it totally is, but it can also resonate with those who aren't as informed as we are, with the bonus advantage of it being the fucking truth.
Trump is a bad guy, just like Hitler was a bad guy, just like David Duke is a bad guy, and we can USE that to rally people to the cause. Trump supporters want to argue that we're being reactionnary or alarmists or whatever, fine, then let the onus fall on them to disprove OUR, actually truthful, narrative, for a change, instead of us having to continuously play defense against their entirely false narrative.
They'll just throw it back with "no u no, it is you who are Evil sinful liars" and we're right back where we started, except that the rhetoric has escalated a bit and both camps are even more dug in.
Maybe you think that's fine and good, that there's more of Us than Them and if it comes to that, we'll win. After 2016 (and everything since), I'm no longer as sure.
I think the interview after announcing your "Enemies of Evil" campaign goes more along the lines of the press asking you "Do you really think Donald Trump doesn't love his children? That he's that evil?", and then turning to the other guy and saying "This guy thinks you hate America, is that true?" rather than actually getting the press to take your side.
Regardless of how true it is, "This guys are evil" is an outrageous statement - it's literally designed to cause outrage (both in the people being called it, and for your followers when you to point to the outrageous acts they have performed). As such, it'll be challenged rather than accepted from a supposedly neutral party.
But if you refer to him as the "Rapist Donald Trump" and then that statement is challenged - it's "did you just call the President a rapist?!" To which the response is "Yes, because these 8 women did, and so did Trump when he boasted about doing it." Plus all the stuff with his ex-wife who settled out of court etc, and the lawsuit that follows makes more news.
We've already tried "deplorables", "fascists" and/or "Nazis"... I really don't know what another deniable rhetorical label will accomplish. Make us feel righteous, I suppose. For a while.
We've already tried "deplorables", "fascists" and/or "Nazis"... I really don't know what another deniable rhetorical label will accomplish. Make us feel righteous, I suppose. For a while.
And yet so many people get really up in arms when specifically called a racist, more than Nazi.
I think the interview after announcing your "Enemies of Evil" campaign goes more along the lines of the press asking you "Do you really think Donald Trump doesn't love his children? That he's that evil?", and then turning to the other guy and saying "This guy thinks you hate America, is that true?" rather than actually getting the press to take your side.
Honest answer:
- Hitler loved his dogs and was a vegetarian, and we have no problem calling him evil. Most gangsters love their moms. How many priests cloak themselves in righteous causes while doing horrible things behind closed doors?
- As for the America comment: I love America, which is exactly why we cannot abide Evil in the White House one moment longer.
Regardless of how true it is, "This guys are evil" is an outrageous statement - it's literally designed to cause outrage (both in the people being called it, and for your followers when you to point to the outrageous acts they have performed). As such, it'll be challenged rather than accepted from a supposedly neutral party.
Actually agreed, but as we're up against a group who has no regard for facts and constructs false narratives out of whole cloth, this is what it's come to. When facts don't matter, you need to call upon feelings
But if you refer to him as the "Rapist Donald Trump" and then that statement is challenged - it's "did you just call the President a rapist?!" To which the response is "Yes, because these 8 women did, and so did Trump when he boasted about doing it." Plus all the stuff with his ex-wife who settled out of court etc, and the lawsuit that follows makes more news.
Why not both? This narrative can simply serve as a more specific supporting narrative for the evil narrative.
We've already tried "deplorables", "fascists" and/or "Nazis"... I really don't know what another deniable rhetorical label will accomplish. Make us feel righteous, I suppose. For a while.
The difference here is that those invectives were aimed at Trump's following. Causing them to feel personallyl attacked. I'm recommending attacking the man himself, directly. Heck, we can even (begrudgingly) offer his followers an out by letting them think he deceived them, because that's what evil men do.
Here’s the thing...if we want calling Trump a rapist to stick, then Bill Clinton needs to go away for about 18 months.
Because he’s a big target, and once we start defending him or making excuses or dismissing his accusers, we lose.
The only way to get it to stick will be if Bill becomes invisible and the stock answer to the “what about...” question is “Bill Clinton is not running in 2020.”
I think the interview after announcing your "Enemies of Evil" campaign goes more along the lines of the press asking you "Do you really think Donald Trump doesn't love his children? That he's that evil?", and then turning to the other guy and saying "This guy thinks you hate America, is that true?" rather than actually getting the press to take your side.
Honest answer:
- Hitler loved his dogs and was a vegetarian, and we have no problem calling him evil. Most gangsters love their moms. How many priests cloak themselves in righteous causes while doing horrible things behind closed doors?
- As for the America comment: I love America, which is exactly why we cannot abide Evil in the White House one moment longer.
That's a fairly decent answer for the first one, though I think you'd get some pushback from the interviewer about literally comparing Trump to Hitler. Which you might not get a chance to directly reply because they'd turn to your opponent to ask the America question - that's not one you get to answer, it's the Trump supporter who gets that one.
At which point the interview just falls off the rails when they bring up Venezuela or the USSR, and the conclusion that wraps this segment up is that America is more divided now than ever. Perhaps with a public poll of viewers/listeners.
I mean these are imaginary interviews that I can kind of see the BBC doing, but I think even the more neutral media groups are going to come at you with a fairly combative stance and give your opponent the opportunity and likely a lot of leeway in making an equally emotional rebuttal.
That said, thinking about it I can see it more as a hashtag or punchline to a more facts based advert/billboard type thing.
Some statement long the lines of "U.S. immigration and health authorities, facing what they say is a financial and logistical crush, have scrambled to move hundreds of migrant children out of an overcrowded Border Patrol station after lawyers who visited the facility last week described scenes of sick and dirty children without their parents, and inconsolable toddlers in the care of other children. This is Evil."
But then perhaps that's more marketing aimed at firing up the base rather than convincing undecideds. I think the issue there (and with this whole sexual assault bit) is that people not wanting to believe it was actually that bad.
"Why are there two sides to this argument if what you're saying is 100% literally true?". And the answer there is not just because they're literally just bad people who like bad things, it's because they're getting paid for it. (which is, admittedly, evil). I think to convince people not on your side, you need the why.
I think the interview after announcing your "Enemies of Evil" campaign goes more along the lines of the press asking you "Do you really think Donald Trump doesn't love his children? That he's that evil?", and then turning to the other guy and saying "This guy thinks you hate America, is that true?" rather than actually getting the press to take your side.
Honest answer:
- Hitler loved his dogs and was a vegetarian, and we have no problem calling him evil. Most gangsters love their moms. How many priests cloak themselves in righteous causes while doing horrible things behind closed doors?
- As for the America comment: I love America, which is exactly why we cannot abide Evil in the White House one moment longer.
That's a fairly decent answer for the first one, though I think you'd get some pushback from the interviewer about literally comparing Trump to Hitler.
Comparing Trump to Hitler no longer invokes Godwin’s law. The comparison is apt. He has boasted about his copy of Mein Kampf, he is actively pursuing policies and rhetoric taken directly out of Nazi Germany’s playbook. This is not hyperbole, this is fact. We should not be cowed into not drawing appropriate parallels just because such comparisons were abused in the past.
At which point the interview just falls off the rails when they bring up Venezuela or the USSR, and the conclusion that wraps this segment up is that America is more divided now than ever.
I regret that I have to say that I feel this is unavoidable at this point. Republicans are continuously making sweeping false generalizations and comparisons and no one in the media seems to be willing to take them to task on that. Facts don't matter to the Media anymore, so we must resort to the only thing that does: emotions.
The difference between us and republicans, however, is that, while we may have to debase ourselves to his level, making shallow appeals to emotions, we have the advantage of being able to back up those appeals with actual facts when we're challenged. All the republicans have are outright lies, and, when those don't work, attacking the ones asking the questions.
We can go on Fox news with our rhetoric and get them frothing at the mouth, while they shy away from outlets that dare challenge them. See Mayor Pete and Bernie for recent examples, while they are too afraid to even step foot near the more left-friendly arenas. We should leverage that. That's how we reach those who only vote with their feelings.
I mean these are imaginary interviews that I can kind of see the BBC doing, but I think even the more neutral media groups are going to come at you with a fairly combative stance and give your opponent the opportunity and likely a lot of leeway in making an equally emotional rebuttal.
That's already happening anyways, so I don't see how my proposed tactic changes that calculus.
That said, thinking about it I can see it more as a hashtag or punchline to a more facts based advert/billboard type thing.
Some statement long the lines of "U.S. immigration and health authorities, facing what they say is a financial and logistical crush, have scrambled to move hundreds of migrant children out of an overcrowded Border Patrol station after lawyers who visited the facility last week described scenes of sick and dirty children without their parents, and inconsolable toddlers in the care of other children. This is Evil."
But then perhaps that's more marketing aimed at firing up the base rather than convincing undecideds. I think the issue there (and with this whole sexual assault bit) is that people not wanting to believe it was actually that bad.
"Why are there two sides to this argument if what you're saying is 100% literally true?". And the answer there is not just because they're literally just bad people who like bad things, it's because they're getting paid for it. (which is, admittedly, evil)
Firing up our own base is totally a viable strategy... I mean, it's what Trump is doing, isn't it? And as I stated above, polling seems to show that facts are of little concern to the undecided, so we appeal to emotion. Showing strong conviction in the face of evil is highly attractive, our fiction is rife with those kinds of narratives. Heck, we can even appeal to untrusting conspiracy-theory minded types by playing up Trump's role in obfuscating truth. Hammer on his falsehoods, demonstrate his inability to keep his promises, expose his blatant grift. But we need to be on the attack. Call out his blatant lies LOUDLY (remember the airtime "You Lie!!" got? We can do that too!) I want to see more outward contempt (the Nancy clap was a start, but too snide. Made Trump supporters who feel put upon sympathize with Trump, rather than the intended effect).
Let's see some real outrage! No more benefit of the doubt! No more assumptions of good faith! No more acting like Trump supporters are just sadly misguided. They are accomplices to a nakedly evil and self-serving agenda and it's time those in power who claim to be on the right side of history started acting like it!
So now it's not just the woman who was attacked that Trumpists have to call a liar, it's the two women she told who have come forward to corroborate, that they need to call liars too. Which I'm sure they will, because Trumpists are assholes.
And so these two women are going to cop some serious shit, and they knew they would as soon as they put their hands up. So good on them for not letting their friend stand alone.
Is Dr blasey-ford still essentially in hiding? The repercussions for coming forward are hideous, it's enormously brave to do so. I don't know if I could.
Posts
Gonna have to disagree bigly here.
Any of the ~40% who are in the Maybe/Probably/Definitely category on that chart are monsters. I simply don't know how else to categorize them.
There's room for variation, absolutely. But not for those people.
And to answer the previous question, if the Democratic nominee was credibly found to be a rapist, and I was eligible to vote? Then no, I wouldn't vote for that person. If that meant Trump won re-election, so be it. Then I'd weep for the country, and look at an exit out to another place to call home. And if Trump still lost, then I'd be demanding my Senators impeach.
The "If it happened to your side, you'ld do the same thing.". Nope. There are some lines that I just can't cross. If that means another 4 years of Trump, so be it.
There's enough bad shit that I have to accept as part of the society I live in. I'm not gonna affirmatively support one of those things. Rape, torture, woman/child bashing, to name a few. No, fuck no. You don't get my vote. Ever. And if that's the best the leftist party can put up as the nominee? Fuck them too.
The poll was specifically targeted at people who stated they would vote for Trump in 2020. It's not about a Democratic candidate, and I'm pretty sure that the people who would vote for Trump despite believing that he is a rapist would still vote for Trump even if the Democratic candidate was also a rapist; because to them that's a non-issue.
Which is goddamned horrifying.
And I know that the common refrain from a lot of trump supporters is that anything they don't want to hear is Fake News. So while i'm certain there is definitely a subset of trump supporters who would vote for him even if they knew he committed heinous sex crimes, i'm not sure that poll tells us how big that subset is.
But I also suspect a good portion of those would genuinely be in the probably/definitely category so... oh well?
Well gee, ask Dr. Ford how well coming forward works out for ya.
You know what the difference is between the pulpit ranter ranting about liberals and us ranting about conservative politicians?
The conservative politicians are actually doing the things we say they're doing.
I don't give a shit what excuse a voter tells themselves while they vote down the party line for the GOP. If they've convinced themselves that it's still "better than voting Democrat," it doesn't fucking matter if they're actually a racist piece of shit or a sexual abuser in their heart of hearts, because they're a collaborator with all those racist pieces of shit and/or sexual abusers.
Roy fucking Moore is planning on running for Senate again in 2020 and the GOP has yet to say they won't allow him to run as a Republican. What more needs to be said?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I would.* Because at that point my choices are someone who did something awful to a handful of people in the past, and someone who does awful things that affect millions of people every day. Most people can't just up and leave the country.
If nothing else, we'd have a Democrat VP ready to take over after the impeachment.
I've said it before: I would vote for my own rapist over Trump, if those were my viable options.
*in the general, I mean. Certainly not in the primary.
I feel like the moment that people moved beyond his admitting to abusing women, this just became a background fact of who he is. If you (correctly) hate this monstrous person, him being a rapist is part of why. If you support him, him being a rapist is just women trying to trick people, like always.
...excellent point.
History will remember americans elected him and he remained popular despite all of these things.
Never again can america claim any moral superiority in the modern age about any other monster elected anywhere.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It’s shameful that he is permitted to act in a way that makes victims afraid to speak out against their rapists
Absolutely disgusting.
He's a shameless pig. Always has been, always will be.
He also called the woman he paid 130K to keep silent about, "not the type of woman he finds attractive". Didn't stop him from giving her a mediocre experience, though.
https://wapo.st/2GdrmwF?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.f444fcae3732
And while I can't access WAPO, the headline from October 14, 2016 says it all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/14/trump-mocks-sexual-assault-accuser-she-would-not-be-my-first-choice/
That the man clearly doesn't find rape, or even being accused of rape, anywhere as important as his "taste in women", is abhorrent.
That the media, who spent many hours and multiple segments and articles on Biden's unwanted shoulder touching, and next to nothing on Trump's most recent credible rape accusation, is fucking despicable.
Sunday shows: 3/31/19: ABC asked 3 guests about the Biden allegations; NBC asked 6 guests about it; CBS asked 2 guests. All three hosts suggested the allegations might be "disqualifying."
This Sunday: the new Trump rape allegations weren't mentioned on any of the 3 Sunday shows.
Brian Klass is an Assistant Professor in Global Politics at University College London, and political author.
Of course, we expect this from Murdoch entities,
"Murdoch lieutenant ordered removal of New York Post story on Trump sexual assault allegation, sources say"
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/24/media/new-york-post-col-allan-trump/index.html
But the rest of the media, what's your fucking excuse? Loss of access? Afraid of Trump? FUCK YOU.
It should be noted that that article is published by CNN, and I was directed there by a tweet from Jake Tapper, but it's on the BUSINESS section of the INTERNATIONAL edition. The CNN domestic version has a single video link on the front page, 5 PgDn's from the top.
I'm finding it harder and to get riled up when the President threatens the media, when the media are so complicit in normalizing this f'n guy's actions, and glossing over just how fucking disgusting he is. I mean, who cares if they are prohibited from speaking truth to power, when they're doing that to themselves anyway?
Just so fucking tired of him being allowed to be normalized. Anyone who pays attention, knows Trump is disgusting. But the media (who he HATES) protect his image and paint a rosy picture to the general public.
The media has become a rudderless shell hunting for a “hook”
All pretensions that they are supposed to alert us to, or safeguard against, ethics in public figures and government, has been eroded almost completely.
I don’t even really know what to say, other than to scream at the media that they can make this a story if they want to. And that Democrats should be fucking impeaching the fucker right now politics and estimations be damned
This ain't it either. They want him to win. They have since 2015.
The media is complicit. Every day that concentration camps isn't the top fucking story on every single website and newspaper is gross negligence.
By that I mean, opponents to the Republican party need to make the story instead of hoping the media will do it.
How? We can start by using stronger language.
Call Trump a racists and a rapist to his, and his party's, face.
Trump calls Democrats and "leftists" "the enemy". He calls the media "fake news" and "enemies of the people", and yet we're so afraid of "sinking to his level" because... reasons that I don't rightly understand.
We don't want to debase the discourse? Well too bad, the discourse has been debased, and not by the left, and we need make it clear that we don't want to have to resort to using such language, but we have no choice. We can't let republicans control the narrative with their invective and lies, so we speak the truth, in the most direct and provoking ways possible.
Donald Trump protects rapists and pedophiles
Donald Trump supports, and uses the language of, hate groups
Donald Trump tortures children in concentration camps - a crime against humanity
You want a shorthand version of all this? Simple, we have one and it's Evil. I want people to start using the word Evil to describe Trump and his policies, because that's what they are. And yeah, it's inflammatory, yeah, it's bound to ruffle some feathers, but you know what else it does? Force people to address the assertion.
Finally, Trump IS the republican party. When he speaks, he speaks for the party. Don't let republicans get away with trying to claim Trump doesn't speak for them. They chose him as their leader, he is their mouthpiece, he speaks for them, they enact his policies. What he says matters, and what he says, and what he does, is evil.
He is an embodiment of the cartoon villain whe have featured in our children's media for decades, and he is surrounded by wormtongues, toadies and lackies who enable him. In a fictional setting, we would have no problem calling such characters evil, but, for some reason, we fear to do so in real life, at least publicly. Why? Because real life is nuanced? Most of the time, sure, but every so often, things can be black and white.
Slavers are evil, child traffickers are evil, Nazis are evil, and Trump is evil.
It needs to be said, live, to the media, during interviews, not just anonymously in online forums. We need to force the media to address those talking points and respond. We need to force republican representatives to address us on our terms, and not give them the opportunity to dismiss such claims as "hysterics" or "incitement" or whatever term they wish to use. Call things what they are. Loudly. Where people can hear you. Of course, alarmism should be curtailed when it's done simply to gain attention, and liable to cause more harm than good, but there are times where it is appropriate, and it is appropriate now.
But those people are being ignored too! There are definitely people calling Trump out as being an evil rapist liar. The problem isn't that nobody is using strong enough language. The problem is that Trump has a complicit power institution.
Republicans need to feel unsafe defending him for things to change.
There are a few ways to change this, but demographics are probably the big one. Calling Trump a rapist on TV probably isn't.
"Trump is a rapist" is far harder hitting, in my opinion.
As is "Trump supports pedophiles, and puts children in concentration camps knowing they don't keep track of them all".
Both evil things, but evil is too nebulous - especially around an unpopular person in power or coming from a political opponent.
Respectfully disagree. Rapist didn't keep Kavanaugh off the bench, Pedophile may have cost Roy Moore the election, but not by nearly enough as it should have.
I understand the point you're trying to make, and would normally agree, but these aren't normal times.
The main reason I recommend resorting to the term "evil" is to counter Trump's own false, pithy, narrative of calling the left and the media "fake" and "enemies of the people". You could make the same claim of "nebulousness" towards the term "enemy", and yet it resonates with Trump's base. We can't ignore his success, we need to learn from, and adapt to it.
We could, as an example, take ownership of Trump's own term "enemy", and start branding ourselves as Enemies of Evil, let's say.
Is it nebulous? Is it pithy? Yeah, it totally is, but it can also resonate with those who aren't as informed as we are, with the bonus advantage of it being the fucking truth.
Trump is a bad guy, just like Hitler was a bad guy, just like David Duke is a bad guy, and we can USE that to rally people to the cause. Trump supporters want to argue that we're being reactionnary or alarmists or whatever, fine, then let the onus fall on them to disprove OUR, actually truthful, narrative, for a change, instead of us having to continuously play defense against their entirely false narrative.
Maybe you think that's fine and good, that there's more of Us than Them and if it comes to that, we'll win. After 2016 (and everything since), I'm no longer as sure.
Regardless of how true it is, "This guys are evil" is an outrageous statement - it's literally designed to cause outrage (both in the people being called it, and for your followers when you to point to the outrageous acts they have performed). As such, it'll be challenged rather than accepted from a supposedly neutral party.
But if you refer to him as the "Rapist Donald Trump" and then that statement is challenged - it's "did you just call the President a rapist?!" To which the response is "Yes, because these 8 women did, and so did Trump when he boasted about doing it." Plus all the stuff with his ex-wife who settled out of court etc, and the lawsuit that follows makes more news.
And yet so many people get really up in arms when specifically called a racist, more than Nazi.
Honest answer:
- Hitler loved his dogs and was a vegetarian, and we have no problem calling him evil. Most gangsters love their moms. How many priests cloak themselves in righteous causes while doing horrible things behind closed doors?
- As for the America comment: I love America, which is exactly why we cannot abide Evil in the White House one moment longer.
Actually agreed, but as we're up against a group who has no regard for facts and constructs false narratives out of whole cloth, this is what it's come to. When facts don't matter, you need to call upon feelings
Why not both? This narrative can simply serve as a more specific supporting narrative for the evil narrative.
The difference here is that those invectives were aimed at Trump's following. Causing them to feel personallyl attacked. I'm recommending attacking the man himself, directly. Heck, we can even (begrudgingly) offer his followers an out by letting them think he deceived them, because that's what evil men do.
Because he’s a big target, and once we start defending him or making excuses or dismissing his accusers, we lose.
The only way to get it to stick will be if Bill becomes invisible and the stock answer to the “what about...” question is “Bill Clinton is not running in 2020.”
At which point the interview just falls off the rails when they bring up Venezuela or the USSR, and the conclusion that wraps this segment up is that America is more divided now than ever. Perhaps with a public poll of viewers/listeners.
I mean these are imaginary interviews that I can kind of see the BBC doing, but I think even the more neutral media groups are going to come at you with a fairly combative stance and give your opponent the opportunity and likely a lot of leeway in making an equally emotional rebuttal.
That said, thinking about it I can see it more as a hashtag or punchline to a more facts based advert/billboard type thing.
Some statement long the lines of "U.S. immigration and health authorities, facing what they say is a financial and logistical crush, have scrambled to move hundreds of migrant children out of an overcrowded Border Patrol station after lawyers who visited the facility last week described scenes of sick and dirty children without their parents, and inconsolable toddlers in the care of other children. This is Evil."
But then perhaps that's more marketing aimed at firing up the base rather than convincing undecideds. I think the issue there (and with this whole sexual assault bit) is that people not wanting to believe it was actually that bad.
"Why are there two sides to this argument if what you're saying is 100% literally true?". And the answer there is not just because they're literally just bad people who like bad things, it's because they're getting paid for it. (which is, admittedly, evil). I think to convince people not on your side, you need the why.
Comparing Trump to Hitler no longer invokes Godwin’s law. The comparison is apt. He has boasted about his copy of Mein Kampf, he is actively pursuing policies and rhetoric taken directly out of Nazi Germany’s playbook. This is not hyperbole, this is fact. We should not be cowed into not drawing appropriate parallels just because such comparisons were abused in the past.
I regret that I have to say that I feel this is unavoidable at this point. Republicans are continuously making sweeping false generalizations and comparisons and no one in the media seems to be willing to take them to task on that. Facts don't matter to the Media anymore, so we must resort to the only thing that does: emotions.
The difference between us and republicans, however, is that, while we may have to debase ourselves to his level, making shallow appeals to emotions, we have the advantage of being able to back up those appeals with actual facts when we're challenged. All the republicans have are outright lies, and, when those don't work, attacking the ones asking the questions.
We can go on Fox news with our rhetoric and get them frothing at the mouth, while they shy away from outlets that dare challenge them. See Mayor Pete and Bernie for recent examples, while they are too afraid to even step foot near the more left-friendly arenas. We should leverage that. That's how we reach those who only vote with their feelings.
That's already happening anyways, so I don't see how my proposed tactic changes that calculus.
Firing up our own base is totally a viable strategy... I mean, it's what Trump is doing, isn't it? And as I stated above, polling seems to show that facts are of little concern to the undecided, so we appeal to emotion. Showing strong conviction in the face of evil is highly attractive, our fiction is rife with those kinds of narratives. Heck, we can even appeal to untrusting conspiracy-theory minded types by playing up Trump's role in obfuscating truth. Hammer on his falsehoods, demonstrate his inability to keep his promises, expose his blatant grift. But we need to be on the attack. Call out his blatant lies LOUDLY (remember the airtime "You Lie!!" got? We can do that too!) I want to see more outward contempt (the Nancy clap was a start, but too snide. Made Trump supporters who feel put upon sympathize with Trump, rather than the intended effect).
Let's see some real outrage! No more benefit of the doubt! No more assumptions of good faith! No more acting like Trump supporters are just sadly misguided. They are accomplices to a nakedly evil and self-serving agenda and it's time those in power who claim to be on the right side of history started acting like it!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/e-jean-carroll-two-women-go-public-to-say-writer-told-them-about-the-alleged-trump-assault?via=twitter_page
So now it's not just the woman who was attacked that Trumpists have to call a liar, it's the two women she told who have come forward to corroborate, that they need to call liars too. Which I'm sure they will, because Trumpists are assholes.
And so these two women are going to cop some serious shit, and they knew they would as soon as they put their hands up. So good on them for not letting their friend stand alone.