"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."
- [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
Speaking in broad strokes here...
I believe more people are relating to (i.e. are inclined to agree with) Trumps [closed border] message and therefore do not need to relate to Trump the messenger.
Fewer people are relating to the open border message and thus, to help guide their analysis, people are looking to the messenger and finding them less relatable.
So there isn't an equal burden of proof / relatability and that's part of the problem. The left is already perceived as being out of touch and their loudest / most visible voices may not be helping that.
That's why he is so obsessed with crowd sizes and the lie that he would've won the popular vote if not for 5-10 million fraudulent votes.
First, it establishes a norm with the press. This administration will lie to them, and blatantly. That way some of them will react more positively in the future when they're given anything resembling an answer of substance on some future issue. It's the PR equivalent of the "negging" pickup practice.
Second, it increases the separation between his core constituency and the rest of the country. He can't afford for any of his core constituency to abandon him, so he needs to ensure that they live in a different reality from the rest of the country and that no logic can cross that barrier. The more that the credibility of left-center-neutral news organizations is destroyed in the eyes of his Fox/Breitbart/alt-right constituents, the more legitimate news/logic can be dismissed by his supporters.
Third, it can help create a feeling in the minds of middle ground voters that the truth is unknowable if every fact is contested. At that point, it becomes a battle of personalities to determine who people believe. Donald Trump, if he's good at anything, it's sounding sure of himself.
These don't work if you only do it once or only do it on the important things. They work over time, based on opponent fatigue to combat every falsehood and our (humans) own natural-but-flawed ways that we determine trust. These techniques start off feeling absurd, especially to opponents, but have proven very effective to dictators around the world, including Russia.
Wasn't low democrat turnout part of the problem?
Trump is undeniably more corrupt, less trustworthy and has no experience whatsoever. It shows everyday. She on the other hand was actually a decent candidate with a lot of experience and few scandals.
You can say the same thing about the Democratic smear campaign against Trump.
Clinton was somebody who was complacent, part of the existing political machine, and ran on a divisive platform that marginalized 25% of the electorate. Plus it didn't help that she ran the gender card into the ground and got out campaigned by political neophytes in both major parties in the biggest campaign in the world.
What's your point? Clinton screwed up in not exactly the same way?
Almost every single thing you've said can be applied to Clinton. She's defended a sexual predator, written off 25% of United States citizens as stupid, failed to eliminate domestic conflicts of interest, used a private email server and deleted emails, destroyed the relations between the sexes, and presided over the death of a diplomat. She is unfit for the presidency.
Undeniably? Why do you say "undeniably". Almost half the country disagrees with that I think. Not saying he is not corrupt, but I wouldn't go with "undeniably" here.
How does that show undeniable corruption. He is not legally required to release those. It is suspicious, yes. I wish he did, but because he didn't doesn't mean there is undeniable corruption. There might be corruption but it is pretty deniable
> appointed an administration full of bankers, CEOs and even family members (nepotism).
And Hillary got paid $200k for speeches to the same CEOs and bankers... She appealed to Occupy Wall St. kids in public and also Wall St. That's pretty interesting I think and afraid one of the reason she lost.
> and even family members (nepotism)
True. But Clinton appointed Hillary the head head of the health task force. That is far worse nepotism. She wasn't qualified and it was a waste and a failure.
> Mayor intelligence agencies are investigating his relationship to Russia.
And Hillary has been investigated by FBI since ... forever? The start of her campaign at least. All brought on by her own misjudgment to use a private email server. Which ended up with Top Secret classified material on it.
But the list goes on with Hillary.
* For example rigging Palestinian election:
" we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” or in her own words: https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1
* Took $1m bribe from Qatar after she new it was funding ISIS
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396
"- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011."
You might say it is because Qatar was deeply concerned about AIDS in the world. And it might be believable except that as soon as the election was lost, Clinton Foundation donations dropped. That is very unexpected as clearly Hillary and her family will now have a lot more time to refocus on charity. Many people might call that whole setup "corruption" and "pay to play".
* Even during the campaign she could not win honestly and had Donna Brazil pass questions to her for the debates. Why? That is ridiculously stupid. She didn't have to cheat. She could have just let Trump talk and bury himself.
* Now also in case there is still doubt about the purpose of many of those "charitable foundations". Doug Band clearly articulates how the "bread is buttered" so to speak:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 (see doc attachment)
The list goes on. Unlike claims against Trump these are pretty undeniable. Unless we think these emails are doctored and not original. But I think they are and most people think they are.
It's not easy, but protests work. Calling your local congressmen and putting pressure on them works. Remember the debacle from back when Republicans tried to "reform" medicare? People spoke up overwhelmingly. They put tremendous pressure on their congressmen, who in turn put pressure on the party leadership, who then backed down. The same mechanic played itself out during every single government shutdown, where public pressure eventually cowed stubborn politicians into submission.
It's not going to be easy, but some things are worth fighting for. Defeatism is seductive, but isn't going to get you anywhere.
The fuck are you even talking about? That makes no sense.
Furthermore, millions of people voted for Clinton over Trump. Trump has the lowest approval ratings of a new president ever. It's very clear that the majority of the country is against him and his policies.
>Instead of doing all this "yell out louder" crap, any serious opposition should rather do some serious soul searching to figure out how to win back key constituencies
How do you do that without calling, participating, and sharing? These are all key on-the-ground actions for building a political base.
I've worked in politics and organizing for 20 years. You don't know what you're talking about in the slightest. Please stop spreading bullshit.
Yes. It will positively hurt them. Consider it a price signal, a message. This idea that we somehow have to be nice about this is wrong. This idea that I somehow have to do some soul searching is also wrong.
The opposing side is people who support the arbitary and harmful ban on a huge number of people based primarily on their religion.
No, the opposing side needs to learn some bipartisanship. The idea that a narrow election victory gives the right to steamroller a programme like this through is extremely dangerous.
[trolling deleted]
Regarding the second amendment: ".@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can't handle the fact that he's losing to a girl," - Elizabeth Warren
You're a smart guy: you know this. You can do better.
I agree that talk of Second Amendment remedies is incredibly inappropriate. Random internet comment suggests it, and it should be downvoted. Donald Trump suggests it, and he should be considered ineligible for election to dog catcher, let alone President. Agreed?
The GOP won majorities in both houses of congress, along with winning the presidency. There's also no "almost" winning in American politics. The left was shot down pretty decisively and we really need to start thinking about why that is. Call me crazy, but I don't think we're going to win back more of those swing voters by advocating armed overthrow of the president they democratically elected.
There were some anti-Trump protests. Right after election remember people blocking hospital exits, and setting cars on fire. At the inauguration, downtown DC, a lot of protestors torched trash cans in the street and blocked people getting the main event. It was very visible, for sure, but did it have the desired effect? I don't talk to Trump supporters but wonder how many saw the burning trash cans or who failed to get to the Inauguration thought "yap, this has convinced me, I am switching sides and will vote against him next time..."?
Plenty of them all over the world. Occupy Wall Street lacked one thing: a clearly defined goal. You can protest social and economic inequality but that's not the same as saying we will continue to protest until we have 'X' where X is some very clear, concrete and achievable goal.
Exactly. What is the most recent one? It has been so long. Does this tactic even work. I am worried it doesn't.
> Occupy Wall Street lacked one clear thing: a defined goal.
I think Trump opposition is also in trouble for not having a clear goal unless the goal is "remove Trump because I wanted Hillary to win". It has to be like in this case "against extreme vetting from these 7 countries". Or against "building the wall". It has to be a clear message.
Heck, I remember the Vietnam war and the end of it (I was 12 at the time).
Of course it will work. If enough people will get off their well-fed asses that is, and there lies the biggest problem.
> I think Trump opposition is also in trouble for not having a clear goal unless the goal is "remove Trump because I wanted Hillary to win".
No, that would be the wrong goal.
More something along the lines of 'stop this madness or we'll shut the country down until congress presents a working plan on how we're going to:
(1) get rid of Trump
(2) put safeguards in place that limit the power of the Presidency
Way too much power in those executive orders, it should not be possible for a single individual to affect the world this radically on such a short timespan without adequate debate and on-the-record voting by people that can be held accountable.
Republicans are in power, they own this mess, they should solve it. And if they don't perceive it as a mess it is fairly easy to make them see the light if enough people will connect, and I suspect that by now plenty of Republicans see it the same way.
> Way too much power in those executive orders,
Makes sense. Coming from Europe and talking to people there, it takes a while to explain to them how the President here has so much power here.
> we'll shut the country down until congress presents a working plan on how we're going to: > (1) get rid of Trump
But what would be the basis of that? Just people saying "not my president". He was voted in by a large part of the country after all.
Now let's think about Google or Facebook shutting for a day maybe. That would get people's attention. Wonder if that would work... it might. There is no real "Republican leaning" equivalent there for those services. Most technology companies which face the public are left-leaning I think. So yeah, I want to see they try that perhaps.
Damaging America, possibly beyond repair. One person should not be allowed to do that, especially someone who was voted in on the slimmest of margins.
I'm trying to imagine how the Republican congress would have reacted to Hillary Clinton signing any of these executive orders, I don't think they'd be wanting for reasons to impeach in that situation.
> Now let's think about Google or Facebook shutting for a day maybe. That would get people's attention.
Just twitter for a couple of weeks. That would at least stop Trump from putting his foot in it for a while, though I'm sure the narcissist in chief would quickly find some other avenue to keep ramming on the buttons of his base.
Oh, another real problem with the US electoral system: no matter what there is a four year lock-step system, even if the outcome is horrible. Elsewhere governments can fall early and new elections would be called. Such a thing would never happen in the US and I believe this is an important safety mechanism.
How so? He won an unexpectedly high number electoral college votes 304 vs 227. That's not the slimmest margin. Slimmest margin would be having a national recount and so on.
> Just twitter for a couple of weeks.
Shadow ban him! Let him Tweet and if he refreshes the browser he'll see his own tweets. Then add a few "great tweet" comments from some robots, but nobody else see them.
> Elsewhere governments can fall early and new elections would be called. Such a thing would never happen in the US and I believe this is an important safety mechanism
Oh, great point. I forgot about that. I remember it periodically when I read "such and such government has fallen" in the news from Europe and then have to explain to the horrified American what that means (they think it means mass unrest, cats and dogs living together, chaos, looting etc)
Lost the popular vote and won because of approximately 100K votes in three states.
The electoral college is a total aberration and should be abolished (fat chance of that happening), if it didn't stop this BS from happening it is patently useless, that was the only reason I thought it might have some use one day.
I hope those electors lose a lot of sleep.
Electoral campaign strategy is endogenous so to speak. Why would he bother campaigning in a state if he was sure he had enough there to win just a bit over the margin.
I understand if it was a single state that flipped but it was multiple states that flipped, and most importantly it seems he knew he needed just enough votes to flip them. And campaigned exactly there in the last weeks before the election.
The other question is why did Clinton campaign in California and never even set foot in some states that flipped? She was the one supposedly having the most experience and stellar team managing the strategy for her.
I think it is important to not minimize or reduce his winning to chance, it wasn't a random and and not a slim margin of error. Consider he didn't even start on equal footing. He was a TV personality with no political experience, with all mass media against him, with the president against him, without all the Wall Street backing him etc. That means he is even less of a random fluke. I think he is a symptom of something. If we don't understand why he was elected we'll have another Trump and another worse one and so on. Not saying I have a clear answer yet why but I think it is worth digging more in there, mostly on the self-reflecting side than blaming and name-calling side, thought I've see more of the later not the former in my circle of acquaintances.
> I hope those electors lose a lot of sleep.
It was sad really. There was so much talk and a small glimmer of hope that electors would flip against Trump and in the end the opposite happened more flipped against Clinton (5).
We dutchies didn't get a vote in this, but we will in all likelihood have to face consequences for his actions.
This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have worked in the '90s to get a gold medal for Rosa Parks. It will not work in 2017 to make Trump back off his core message.
The problem here is not that your side isn't loud enough and can't get political attention for an issue. The problem is that the opposing side is too organized and too strong and already has a decided stance about your issue.
Being more strident won't help. Ostracizing people who have links to the opposing side will positively hurt.
Instead of doing all this "yell out louder" crap, any serious opposition should rather do some serious soul searching to figure out how to win back key constituencies. The only people who need to be ostracized are the idiots who got us here in the first place.