Out of my lane, but Trump’s extrajudicial cruelty is not a footnote—it needs to be on the front page. The casual and cruel attempt to destroy Garcia’s life matches the casual destruction of...
"And we must not apologize for telling these stories. We are not sorry. We are not going to apologize for believing that cruelty is wrong. That the state should not lie about people in order to justify kidnapping them. We are not sorry for refusing to play the game of triangulation."
1) Every day place advertisements, including in conservative media, of the dumbest, insanest, most outrageous thing said or tweeted. No commentary to get in the way; the clip will speak for itself, and many people would otherwise have never seen it.
2) Pick as many as 7 to 10 topics (due process can be one), each has 3 talking points with specific rhetoric (let Buttigiege lead that). Democrats repeat those talking points ad nauseam when a particular topic arises. They have to sing as a chorus to be noticed; no wandering off on your pet peeve, passion, or stumbling retort while in the minority.
The bigger, even tougher nut is our worsening institutional anti-democracy. How does this hard-capped 40 percent get to wield such extraordinary cultural sway? Sure, some of it is the wealth and superior organization of that minority, but some of it is also the Senate, the Electoral College, and the biased selection of SCOTUS members. Who will start preaching about this?
In addition, pay influencers and podcasters to raise the issue and even debate it. I would also use GenAI bots to test various messages, and GenAI to leverage responses to Trumpists, and arguably, Steven Miller followers. Every post he makes should be answered with emotional or ridiculing comments. We should "flood the zone" just as the TW is doing, rather than letting them rule that space.
"The desire to think that there are, today, experts in political communication is seductive."
What does it mean to be an expert on a subject? One answer is that you have studied and absorbed the accumulated wisdom of the past. But how was that wisdom developed in the first place?
If we are talking about predictive expertise, I think that the answer comes down to trial and error. The expert develops expertise from iterated situations in which they learn from their mistakes. Thus, if you claim to be a predictive expert on a subject, don't tell me about the times you were right, tell me about the times you were wrong. Can you name five? Did you acknowledge your error? Did you analyze the causes of your mistake, to prevent its repetition? Can you give details?
It's very rare, in my experience for people giving messaging advice to suggest downplaying an issue they actually care about. Can you imagine, for example, Matt Yglesias, reading the polls and saying something like "housing is an issue that doesn't resonate because persuadable voters already have houses. Let's talk about taxing billionaires instead".
I'm way out of my lane, but I'll say it anyway. Americans do not believe in due process when they think the system is corrupt or unjust. (And they have a point!) But generally, Americans believe in due process and rule of law. As a corollary, they cannot stomach something like the Garcia case: where a lack of due process directly leads to an unjust result.
Why is speaking for due process and against cruelty out of anyone's "lane"?
"And we must not apologize for telling these stories. We are not sorry. We are not going to apologize for believing that cruelty is wrong. That the state should not lie about people in order to justify kidnapping them. We are not sorry for refusing to play the game of triangulation."
Amen
1) Every day place advertisements, including in conservative media, of the dumbest, insanest, most outrageous thing said or tweeted. No commentary to get in the way; the clip will speak for itself, and many people would otherwise have never seen it.
2) Pick as many as 7 to 10 topics (due process can be one), each has 3 talking points with specific rhetoric (let Buttigiege lead that). Democrats repeat those talking points ad nauseam when a particular topic arises. They have to sing as a chorus to be noticed; no wandering off on your pet peeve, passion, or stumbling retort while in the minority.
The bigger, even tougher nut is our worsening institutional anti-democracy. How does this hard-capped 40 percent get to wield such extraordinary cultural sway? Sure, some of it is the wealth and superior organization of that minority, but some of it is also the Senate, the Electoral College, and the biased selection of SCOTUS members. Who will start preaching about this?
In addition, pay influencers and podcasters to raise the issue and even debate it. I would also use GenAI bots to test various messages, and GenAI to leverage responses to Trumpists, and arguably, Steven Miller followers. Every post he makes should be answered with emotional or ridiculing comments. We should "flood the zone" just as the TW is doing, rather than letting them rule that space.
Speaking out against cruelty and extrajudicial punishments is in *everyone's* lane.
"The desire to think that there are, today, experts in political communication is seductive."
What does it mean to be an expert on a subject? One answer is that you have studied and absorbed the accumulated wisdom of the past. But how was that wisdom developed in the first place?
If we are talking about predictive expertise, I think that the answer comes down to trial and error. The expert develops expertise from iterated situations in which they learn from their mistakes. Thus, if you claim to be a predictive expert on a subject, don't tell me about the times you were right, tell me about the times you were wrong. Can you name five? Did you acknowledge your error? Did you analyze the causes of your mistake, to prevent its repetition? Can you give details?
'Cruelty is wrong' - the easiest political message in history.
It's very rare, in my experience for people giving messaging advice to suggest downplaying an issue they actually care about. Can you imagine, for example, Matt Yglesias, reading the polls and saying something like "housing is an issue that doesn't resonate because persuadable voters already have houses. Let's talk about taxing billionaires instead".
I'm way out of my lane, but I'll say it anyway. Americans do not believe in due process when they think the system is corrupt or unjust. (And they have a point!) But generally, Americans believe in due process and rule of law. As a corollary, they cannot stomach something like the Garcia case: where a lack of due process directly leads to an unjust result.
In today's world the rich and powerful can get all the "Due Process" they need. They fail in that only when they piss off someone with more power.
Pain killer Darvon very effective pain killer for me in the 1980’s.
Darvon classed as a narcotic in 2010, and banned.
Pain killer Ponstel worked very well for me in the 1980’s. Still available, but may be not prescribed as it should be.
I was given Oxycodone for pain in the hospital in 2022. It did not help at all. No way would I ever be addicted to it.
Will not say what I am taking now, it might be a target for removal if it is something that works for me.