oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
While it doesn't (or rarely does it) happen here in Talk Politics - if you pay attention to any other mediums where politics are discussed you've definitely - probably frequently - seen someone encourage others to register to vote, vote, vote for a specific person/party/movement, etc.

At first glance it probably seems like friendly advice, but is there more to it?

Does 'You should vote/You should vote for x' kinda come across like 'you should chew on a breathmint', 'you should put on some deodorant', 'you should read a book'? Does the suggestion itself imply 'I'm smarter than you. I'm more aware than you. You're lucky I'm here to share my wisdom.'?

Can you think of any context* where a person telling another to vote or vote a certain way isn't - whether intentional or not - condescending? Any context where the person receiving the advice shouldn't feel just a liiiiiittle bit insulted?

of course obvious exceptions with coma patients, newly obtained ability to vote...
dancesofthelight: (Order of the Ashen Swords)
[personal profile] dancesofthelight
After decades of insisting that government is the problem, not the solution, and that Jesus Christ is a magical Jewish sky fairy to kiss all wounds and make them better, the USA is learning the exact same lesson its fellow superpower did. Reality doesn't give two shakes of a rat's ass what a national mythology says, it will merrily steamroll it in an overpowering lesson in how all ideologies fail, ossify, and die.

In Which Magical Jewish Sky Fairy Fucks Off Elsewhere )
In which Papa Nurgle gives his virus-hugs to those moronic enough to welcome them )
And on a personal note, my state in the USA is keeping up its streak of being first in the shit and last in the good.
People in my state prove to be far stupider than I already knew they are, and they were already fucking stupid )
This is the kind of primitive stupidity I live among, and which endangers the lives of people I have a pseudo-obligation to care about but burned their bridges with me long ago, and actually innocent people who are the real reasons for precautions because doing otherwise is monstrous. So here I am, watching the world burn, and seeing that people around me are so ludicrously obsessed with marching to their own destruction it exceeds the standards so low even Godzilla would be awed at the amount of room therein I already had for them.

I thought I could not hate this shitty ratty country obsessed with civilization-busting weapons it will never use in anger and mistaking them for anything but that more, and then Beervirus moved it to something, frankly, beyond the impossible.

So yeah, the mythology that 'made America great' is dying by inches, and I have some idea how the relatively sane people in Austria in 1914 must have felt watching the senile old philandering douchebag decide two stupid-ass wars he lost weren't enough, it was time to exceed that record with the most spectacular military failure since Santa Anna blessed Mexico by dying



tcpip: (Default)
[personal profile] tcpip
Writing about the politics of public health whilst we are the midst of a major global pandemic is a peculiar combination of churlishness and critical necessity. At the time of writing, there are 425,000 confirmed cases, and 19,000 deaths, and in a few days that number will double, and then double again, and then double again. It is worth remembering that the first 100,000 diagnoses took from December to March, the second from March 5 to 17, and the third from March 18 to 21, and the fourth from March 22 to 24. It is the single greatest health risk of this century, in part due to the relatively high rate of fatalities (approximately 4.1% of diagnosed cases), and significantly due to the relative ease of transmission. Most of all, however, the greatest risk is the effects of the ease of transmission and fatality rate combined, that is, how it overwhelms our health-care systems, which are woefully unprepared for an event such as this.

But it is not as if that the knowledge was not there. There have been plenty of warning signs, such the previous outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in late 2002 to mid-2003, which is related to COVID-19, to the extent that academics warned of SARS as "an agent of emerging and reemerging infection". SARS had a fatality rate of 9.6% across 17 countries, with approximately 8,000 people infected. SARS was also highly infectious (R0 value of 2-4), but was successfully contained. Then in 2009, there was the Pandemic H1N1/09 virus ("swine flu"), which had a higher infection rate than seasonal influenza, and a similar fatality rate. In comparison Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), also a coronavirus, has a high fatality rate (36%) but a low transmission rate (R0 value of 0.3 to 0.8).

Recognising these rather impressive precursors, certain individuals also have tried to raise concerns. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota, argued in 2005 that "Time is running out to prepare for the next pandemic. We must act now with decisiveness and purpose", and in 2017 had his book, "Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs" published. Virologist and flu expert Robert G. Webster warned of an upcoming 'flu pandemic, “Flu Hunter: Unlocking the secrets of a virus" late last year. The US Intelligence Team has warned about the possibility of a pandemic for years. Dr. Luciana Borio, once a member of the White House National Security Council (NSC) team responsible for pandemics, warned of pandemic threats; the team was disbanded under the Trump administration. Famously, Bill Gates argued in a TED talk in 2015, that we simply were not prepared.

Read more... )

The System Kills

It is the system that is killing us. Yes, the direct cause is from a deadly infectious disease and part of that is, of course, the potential rate of transmission from a world that is a smaller place. But that could be managed with proper environmental considerations and animal welfare regulations in place. They are not in place because of the terrible levels of global inequality, the lack of social infrastructure in developing countries, and most of all because they would cost money. Our political economy is geared towards providing a race to the bottom in terms of value, and a race to the top for monopoly profits, which inevitably must be shared among fewer and fewer. Add to this either sensationalist private media which concerns itself more with shock value for sales rather than accuracy, and totalitarian media systems which have the facts at hand, but refuse to release them as to retain their social order, or engage in disruption through misinformation directed to more liberal societies. Managing the entire rotten edifice is the worst sort of political leaders whose concern for public welfare is demonstrably lacking in favour of their quest for perpetual power, manipulation of public opinion, and fulfilling their mission of their true masters. The irrational quest for the accumulation of power and wealth, at a cost of the lives of human and non-human animals, has reached the insanity that we witness today. The next pandemic, however, will be worse if these causes are not addressed; public health, media transparency, and the environment will not occur without smashing these accumulations in favour of more egalitarian power structures and a greater commonwealth. The warning has been given by this virus; and if the system does not show itself capable of reform, then revolution will be inevitable.
oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
I have a nagging thought, and now my thought must nag you too. It's funny, in a maddening not-funny-at-all way.

We, as a world - including but not limited to countries such as the United States, Russia, Brazil, Canada, and (as we speak) Australia - still haven't gotten the hang of putting out fire.

Does that seem strange to anyone else? Pretty much every person to reach an age of awareness throughout human history has known fire, experienced fire, had some sort of grasp on how fire works. Brilliant minds, beyond brilliant minds, below brilliant minds - all working as a team for (at least?) 100,000 years, and the best we've come up with is throwing water and dirt on it? Sure, the shit we use to throw the water and dirt on it would blow a cavemans mind, but am I the only one who feels like the caveman would still be disappointed?

Our approach to what could be our oldest unsolved problem has barely evolved. Should we feel stupid? Feels like we should feel stupid...

here, try some delicious choices -

a) there is no solution

b) a solution isnt a priority

c) I'm not buying a or b. Tell me your c's.
mahnmut: (Short cut? Must be electricity.)
[personal profile] mahnmut
I see everyone talking about WW3 these days. Well, sorry to rain on you party, you-know-who-you-are, but this time the killing of an important general, and the hurling of a few intentionally misdirected missiles won't result in a major military conflict. Sorry, CNN. But in a way, another sort of WW3 has already begun quite a while ago. And we're all participants. Unlike the previous two world wars, it's not beween countries and nations, or standing armies. It's between classes. The elite, those overfed with power - against everybody else. Class war, OMG! Anathema! I'm sure you'd yell at me now. Well, it is a thing, whether you want it or not. Has always been. It was a thing in the Middle Ages, and it's a thing now. And we're all involved, being used as a tool, a weapon in it.

Indeed, every one of us has a role to play. Each of us has chosen a side. Even those who've chosen to call bullshit on it all, remain apathetic, and demand to be left alone. Those are actually the best weapon the other side can possibly dream of. You wonder who the Otherside is? Who that enemy is? Whom we can point a finger at, and head towards, torches in hand? Who "we" are and who are "they"? Well, do bear with me then.



Read more... )
luzribeiro: (Default)
[personal profile] luzribeiro
https://www.boldsky.com/img/2018/07/donald-trump-1531813150.jpg

Many on the Right are wired different than many Independents and many on the Left. I think the source of the differences are what sets them apart. What do you think?

When Obama was elected, many on the Right went crazy with unfounded hate. "It's because he's Black." "We're going to be the party of 'No'". "We won't let him pass anything". Gun sales went through the roof, and White Supremacy groups recruitment went through the roof. "He's not legit" No matter what was said.. "He's weak, he's apologizing, The whole 8 years it was pure hate.

Read more... )
garote: (adventure destiny)
[personal profile] garote
Everyone knows Donald Trump is a rich person, and has always been a rich person, even though his exact dollar value is hilariously debatable. He was was born in the lap of power and luxury, and that almost guaranteed he would be out of touch with reality unless he had wise and careful parenting -- which he did not get. But that outcome is not remarkable. Plenty of rich and out of touch men are around, and plenty have been elected to public office.

However, when your money problems are permanently solved, you concern yourself instead with issues of respect and acceptance. Your true friends become your version of priceless treasure, and unfortunately, beyond a certain point it is hard to make true friends that can relate to your problems and needs unless they too have their money problems permanently solved. That is where Donald took a hard right turn, because he never managed to win acceptance among the exclusively rich upper class of New York society, even though he clearly finds the idea of having to convince anyone else that he belongs there absurd and unfair. So after years of trying to buy, bribe, or ransom respect, and being rejected or ignored, he decided instead - consciously or no - to style himself as a hero and mentor to the working class. They are a far larger group, and they are far easier to impress. You won't get understanding, but you'll get adoration, and perhaps that can fill the gap.

Not to actually be a hero and mentor to the working class. That would mean selfless acts of charity, and difficult, humbling work mostly unobserved behind the scenes. No, it's about the styling. So he began to cultivate his brand: He was the guy who's rich as shit, that everyone knows is rich as shit, and he has no problems, never has to endure backtalk, never makes a mistake, and can never be fired because he's always the boss. In other words, he is exactly what the working class dreams of being, no more and no less. This brand cultivation peaked with a television show where The Donald himself acted out the role he had spent a lifetime trying to project and beamed it into a zillion working class living rooms.

Spend a long adulthood behaving this way, along with the more typical rudderless rich man indulgences of sexual conquest and conspicuous spending, stir in a handful of that special sense of detachment from one's early life decisions that those entering old age can embrace, and you end up with a person who truly believes in his own power, his own role, and his populist ideas. To him, his outsider status among the rich makes him uniquely positioned to change politics. When he declares, "I alone can fix it," he believes every word.

Matching his own blinkered worldview with those in his audience, matching his lack of interest in the truth with their lack of access to it, he climbed to the top of a wave of anger that grew larger than he ever expected, and to his surprise, it swept him into office.

Now that he's there, he remains totally uninterested in winning the cooperation of the establishment class, and feels no need to treat them - or anyone - with respect. To him, their rejection is a done deal. To him, they are the swamp and must be drained. That means replacing anyone who can reject him or question him with sycophants. Build a team that can execute? No. That entire paradigm went away when Bannon was kicked out. Find people sympathetic to his ideas? Not possible - he has no fixed ideas. (He says whatever comes to mind, just as he always has, which pleases his base but doesn't get traction in the legislature or the legal system.) As the hopeful and the thick-skinned are pushed out the revolving door, his power - feeble from the beginning - only diminishes further. And now we get to the unflattering core of the Trump presidency, as it stands during this half-time break, during a federal government shutdown that was easily avoided and could not possibly end well for him:

The Donald is a baby, reaching for things with no impulse control, surrounded by handlers who keep him from causing injury or damage; and now the handlers are leaving, and people are afraid that the baby will randomly trigger a disaster.

Before we all panic, we should draw the baby metaphor out just a little more: If you leave a baby alone in a dangerous place, for example the control room of a nuclear submarine, what's the most likely thing to happen? The baby will cry for attention, maybe swing and feebly hit a few buttons which the system will ignore as invalid commands ... and if the baby is propped up where the controls are, the baby will eventually topple over and fall on the floor, getting a nasty bump on the head.

And the blinking lights will keep on blinking, around the empty command console, until the next shift begins, and someone comes in and discovers the poor furious baby on the floor.

Within the next month, congress will vote to override Trump's veto of their spending bill. That will be the bump on the head. What will be the fallout of Trump's embarrassing self-inflicted injury? Only time will tell. Personally, my money's on several pages of twitter put-downs, and a long string of rust belt "rallies" spent excoriating congress and stoking fear of another caravan of rapists from Central America. Unless the Russia investigation or some fresh outrage threatened via executive order drowns it out. Or perhaps if Ginsburg retires -- can you imagine the gnashing of teeth over that??

Good thing we've got plenty of popcorn... (And roasted sunflower seeds, for you Balkanites!)
johnny9fingers: (Default)
[personal profile] johnny9fingers
209 years ago the last great British political duel was fought between Canning and Castlereagh.

Canning accepted the duel even though he had never fired a pistol before.

Quoting from Wikipedia:



Duel with Castlereagh

In 1809 Canning entered into a series of disputes within the government that were to become famous. He argued with the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, Lord Castlereagh, over the deployment of troops that Canning had promised would be sent to Portugal but which Castlereagh sent to the Netherlands. The government became increasingly paralysed in disputes between the two men. Portland was in deteriorating health and gave no lead, until Canning threatened resignation unless Castlereagh were removed and replaced by Lord Wellesley. Portland secretly agreed to make this change when it would be possible.
Castlereagh discovered the deal in September 1809 and challenged Canning to a duel. Canning accepted the challenge and it was fought on 21 September 1809 on Putney Heath. Canning, who had never before fired a pistol, widely missed his mark. Castlereagh, who was regarded as one of the best shots of his day, wounded his opponent in the thigh. There was much outrage that two cabinet ministers had resorted to such a method. Shortly afterwards the ailing Portland resigned as Prime Minister, and Canning offered himself to George III as a potential successor. However, the King appointed Spencer Perceval instead, and Canning left office once more. He did take consolation, though, in the fact that Castlereagh also stood down.
Upon Perceval's assassination in 1812, the new Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, offered Canning the position of Foreign Secretary once more. Canning refused, as he also wished to be Leader of the House of Commons and was reluctant to serve in any government with Castlereagh.


Now that is a pretty extreme kind of personal responsibility to take for your opinions, but still strikes me as having a little more invested in ones' opinion than the investment that happens to your average politician's wallet. Canning could not have refused the duel and retained his influence.

This is a world to which we cannot return, and quite rightly too. But how do we ensure that our politicians are of noble intent? It was once the case that qualification for participation in politics required either a private income, or sponsorship of some kind; the sort of people supposedly, though never in actuality, above bribery and corruption because they didn't need it. That never worked as a system, so other models have been tried over time and in various places; and all of them haven't worked, for a given value of "worked".

So we have to temper and manage our expectations of political systems; what we are actually looking for is the least bad in an almost Utilitarian sense. But what we all fool ourselves into believing is that democracy is a panglossian panacea for all of our other ills, rather than the dynamic context in which they happen. And when it becomes apparent it isn't an universal panacea we throw out the baby with the bathwater, and replace representative democracy with other sorts of government, all of which are worse.

Given this rather cynical analysis, does the panel think that:-

a) We can manage our unrealistic expectations of democracy and the democratic process, and what democracy can achieve? If you like, can we save democracy from our opinion of it?

b) We can avoid the descent into New-neo-Fascism of a C21st kind?

c) Politicians will ever be the noble guiders and protectors of society, rather than the self-interested posing as ideologues, or ideologues posing as populists, or populists disguising their anti-democratic natures and aims and objectives?

d) I'm barking up the wrong tree, and eventually we will find a political system that is actually good rather than merely the least bad of an awful set?

Even our most rigorous systems inhere towards paradox. Maths gives us Russell's set paradox at its heart, and leads to the understanding of the breakdown of absolute meaning in language. So we fudge and approximate things with general agreements and conventions of meaning, but even so we do have an idea of best possible information. When politicians deny reality, and promote the denial of best information, the only justification they can possibly have is that history will prove them right.

I want to think about what should happen to them when history proves them wrong.


mahnmut: (Default)
[personal profile] mahnmut
He kept saying the world was laughing at America; now it's literally laughing. At him. But so what?


The world may be laughing at Trump's shenanigans, but the truth of the matter is, they're impotent to do anything as Trumpism keeps spreading around the globe. Europe has seen its share of Trump-style populist xenophobia taking over one country after another; Trump is flexing muscle in trade and diplomacy, and smaller countries are caving in; and Putin is rubbing his hands in delight as the Idiot-In-Chief sitting in the White House ordering diet Coke is tweeting while squatting on the toilet - and handing him the upper hand in geopolitical corners of importance all over the place.

So yeah, he's amusing and he's clownish, and no one really takes him seriously - or at least they pretend not to. Others (like Erdogan) may be outright angry at him, and so they choose to gnash their teeth at him, lash out in public speeches designed for their own domestic audience, and walk out of the room demonstratively - but so what? America is powerful enough to do as she pleases (still). Europe cannot defend itself on its own - not at this point. So they'll have to cave in to Trump's demands for more defense expenses ("We're your liberator and protector, yo"). China is not as powerful as she thinks she is, so there'll be a deal there too. Iran is struggling, and so will the companies who want to keep doing business with it (that sanction-bypassing new fund notwithstanding). So they'll cave in too. North Korea is already caving.

So yeah. Keep laughing. But as stupid and idiotic as he may be looking and behaving, and as opportunistic as he may be in using the upside trend of global economy (the US one in particular) to boast about "achievements" and boost his ego (and the political chances of his cronies in Congress, by extension), he's going to keep having the upper hand.

Expect Trump re-election in '20. And four more years of the same. The world won't be the same after that, I guarantee you this. Then we'll see who will remain laughing.
kiaa: (Default)
[personal profile] kiaa
How will Edward Witten’s legacy be viewed if string/M-theory, supersymmetry and extra dimensions are disproven? Will he be relegated to a footnote?

Science is NOT mathematics. Nothing in physics is "disproven," that's a concept from mathematics. As for string theory, it makes no contact at all currently with any aspect of physical reality, so there is hardly any imaginable observation that could "contradict" its structure and assumptions. The pessimistic view of string theory is that it will never become part of established physics, but because some of the best physicists around have been working on it for nearly 40 years, it is a huge toolbox full of nifty mathematical techniques, that really have nothing to do with "strings." The formal apparatus of string theory is likely to be useful in physics for the foreseeable future, even if string theory as a description of fundamental processes were to be completely abandoned.
fridi: (Default)
[personal profile] fridi
I know this is counter-intuitive, but here's my take: the Trump presidency is the end point of a road the US society has been on for over 40 years.

During this time (of Neoliberalism) democratic institutions and the rule of law have been systematically dismantled as the result of the wholesale takeover of all relevant levers of power by American oligarchs (both in industry, characterized by the rise of monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, media conglomeration, and government, as the result of influence-peddling corruption).

This process can be thought of a "creeping fascism," as the legal, societal, and technological infrastructure for an eventual fascist state was put in place.

Trump's ascension to power (however it happened) represents the tipping over (of the country) into an actual fascist state.

Within that context, I believe we've been experiencing a sort of psyops campaign at the national (and international) level; this situation has caused enormous stress on the population, to the point that people feel psychologically exhausted and overwhelmed.

I see this unprecedented anonymous op-ed in that light: as another (psyops) attack on the population.

Who does it benefit (ultimately)? Trump. Why? It should be clear by now that he will not be impeached or prosecuted.

Given that reality, and given the depravity of his administration, convincing people that he may be a little (or a lot) crazy will ultimately serve as a shield for future unconscionable actions.
johnny9fingers: (Default)
[personal profile] johnny9fingers
For some time now, in fact over the past decade, I've had a few bees in my bonnet.

I have posted and commented on a few things, and at a guess, I'd say most folk who have been on here for any length of time know my positions on just about everything.

Read more... )
mahnmut: (Default)
[personal profile] mahnmut

War is an extension of politics, but with different means, Gen, Carl von Clausewitz once said. Today, however, the situation is a bit different. Today, war is an extension of economics, but with different means.

War has become cynical. It has no political legitimacy any more. It lacks a historical meaning. Now we don't conquer territory, we don't conquer peoples, we don't make Crusades. All we do is pursue profit. Everything boils down to this arrogant economic objective of the "free market", profit. Every bomb, every explosion must generate profit. War is a huge investment that is supposed to bring revenue, economic results, including the blood and death of some people that stand in the way of profit.

Who is to blame? )
oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
It's tricky making a post about no information - but this is only interesting because there is no information.

Left vs. Right - we're used to it, it all seems simple enough; somewhere we have a middle line, and the disagreements become more passionate the further you go out. The beliefs, the demands, the expectations - you pass moderate, the next recognizable prefix is 'far', and eventually - you get to 'alt' (if you're hip and into the new lingo).

How crazy would it be for the edges to agree, and disagree with the innards?

Well, here we are.

There's a memo - which could explain the dirty inner-workings of the Trump campaign, but could also explain the dirty inner-workings of the previous Democrat administrations activities to uncover the possible dirty inner-workings of the Trump campaign.

The edges, confident in the purity of their representatives - want it released.

The middle - not quite so secure - would rather let it be (as in, let it be a secret).

What say you?

Would you rather play it safe, or let it ride?

You wanna stick with Door Number 2, or blindly accept whatever is behind Door Number 3?

You want you AND your significant others internet history projected onto the big screen, or would you rather just cut the power and pretend this never happened?

My inner conspiracy theorist believes the memo will be released, but only after the establishment types from both sides get together and take out the juicy details. Right now is the most exciting this story will ever be.
oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
With some issues, you aren't affected at all, or maybe just minimally affected. Without (much) skin in the game - you can either remain indifferent, or form an opinion based on everything that has made you who you are up to this point.

As for the issues that do affect you, for the most part - we tend to favor what benefits us. Almost always, only almost though. Is this selfish? Maybe - but also natural.

Despite that, we still pretend to be shocked if a politician votes for something that makes them rich(er). Here in internetland, I bet every one of us has used the argument 'I bet you wouldn't believe X was good if X had negatively affected you!' (to which a great, but losing, retort would be 'No shit').

If you tell me what you believe, I won't doubt you - but are you a person of conviction? Can you really say for sure, without the experience of having what you believe screw you over?


Have you opposed a tax bill that lowered your taxes, or supported one that raised them?

Have you opposed a healthcare plan that lowered your premiums/deductibles, or supported one that raised them?

Do you still like the idea of a high estate tax when you're a primary beneficiary? Or, do you think people should be able to pass on - penalty free - what they want to who they want - even when the boss's inexperienced kid gets promoted above you?

Have you supported amnesty despite a loved one being harmed by an illegal immigrant, have you opposed it despite befriending/falling-in-love-with a Dreamer?

Is a war still just as noble of a cause when a deployed relative misses making their routine weekly call?

Is a soda tax a good idea even though you enjoy the refreshing taste of an ice cold Dr. Pepper?

Those are hypothetical questions - just a little somethin' to get the brain juices flowing. Unless they do apply to you, in which case - go with it.

Tell us a position you have that has affected, is affecting, or has the high probability of eventually affecting you negatively.
oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
There's a lot of disappointed folks out there - upset folks - sometimes with good reason, but not always. There's a lot of whining and complaining (from both sides!) - too much negative, not enough positive. How about some positive?

Liberals! )

Conservatives! )Foreigners! )
[identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
I did not vote for Donald Trump. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton. I stood aloof this cycle, unwilling to lend my endorsement to any candidate. I could not lend my support to either of such a despicable pair. God help us.

Blah, blah, blah. )

If Donald Trump can do this, then I think he will have done our country a great service, even if he didn't mean to do it
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com

Even George R.R. Martin Thinks 2016 Was ‘Too Much to Bear’

“Please, let this wretched year come to an end!"

I don't know what it was for you like, personally. But 2016 was quite a horrible year for the world, overall. Even despite the statistical fact that we currently live in the most peaceful and least bloody times in recorded history, 2016 presented us with plenty of reasons to think that the world was going crazy.

Name me one place that is all right! )
[identity profile] nairiporter.livejournal.com
While I'm aware that what I'm about to describe is an ideal that's easier wished than achieved, still, here's what I imagine political rhetoric should be about, and consequently, how it should look like.

We saw from Hillary's problems with connecting with the voters (both during the primaries and in the general election) that a politician should be striving to say things in a simple way, using words and concepts that voters can actually understand, and have an interest in. The purpose of communicating a message shouldn't be to replace sophisticated policy language with buzzwords - it should be to present a policy measure, whatever it may be, which you could then explain how it would work to solve an issue that people care about. To explain how exactly it would solve that issue - in the simplest possible terms.

While communicating with people may not be the easiest job, if a politician has a purpose, a mission, and they have n understanding of the issues they are involved with, people would know. They would appreciate that - and if the message resonates with people's needs and interests, they would respond accordingly. Perhaps this is why populism has been so successful lately - it has simple messages about the important issues of the day. Sure, it tends to offer simplistic solutions that would likely not work in the real world - but the problem of the more reasonable, rational politicians is that they have been unable to explain in clear terms exactly how and why those pseudo-solutions would fail.

People need to know these things. They might not be as stupid as some suspect they are. Just be open and honest with them, instead of throwing a fuss like most mainstream parties have been doing in response to the ascent of populism, or pretending that they would just shut up at some point. As if that would make political opportunists go away. No it won't.

As the brilliant and insightful Jon Stewart said in his final speech on his last show, the best defense against bullshit is vigilance - so if you smell something, say something. But how you say that something, also matters a great deal.
[identity profile] debunkgpolitics.livejournal.com
This is what I meant to post.

Over the last eight years, immigrants seeking to destroy America penetrated U.S. borders. Unlike the immigrants who people claim built this country, they do not want to assimilate into American culture. Another threat is the descendants of immigrants from certain countries. Part of protecting U.S. borders involves banning immigration from countries in which terrorists thrive. Otherwise, Americans will lose cherished liberties, if the United States of America is destroyed.

The only immigrants complaining about deportation and more border controls are those who entered into this country illegally. Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. After coming into this country legally, they received the same rights and protections as other U.S. citizens.

Also, federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities cannot handle the tide of illegal immigration. Many illegal immigrants are discovered after they commit a crime, besides entering the United States illegally. Then, more tax dollars are expended to try the illegal immigrants and detain them in overcrowded prisons or jails.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
OSZAR »