Democrats Announce Bold Plan to Resist Trump Policies by Playing Katy Perry’s “Roar” Really Loud
Democrats Announce Bold Plan to Resist Trump Policies by Playing Katy Perry’s “Roar” Really Loud
You're viewing a single thread.
Genuinely curious what people want the Democrats to specifically do right now, apart from vague calls of "something" and "more" and "better." At least on a federal level, aren't they pretty much powerless at this point? What even can they do?
I mean, I'm not an expert by any means but haven't the republicans been able to very efficiently stifle democrat majorities before? If they just follow that playbook (delaying things, being pains in the ass, constant insistence on funky rules) they can at least annoy the shit out of them and hopefully slow things down. They're way too polite for that tho, they'd rather just let it happen and hope they come out okay in the end then to risk the wrath of the annoying orange and his minions.
One thing they could do is stop voting with republicans to confirm Trump's appointees. Have you seen. how well the Republicans obstruct? They can get everybody in their rank and file out on network TV to call for banning a book by title while the democrats can't even get their best faces on TV to call what's happening with NY's mayor blatant quid pro quo corruption
EDIT: Trump energy chief says there are upsides to ecological collapse
agreed. that's literally their job. oppose the other party by whatever means at their disposal. use the press, support union actions, so many ideas. be bold be creative.
they at least should stop pretending that "playing by the rules" and "trusting the system" is an appropriate response to illegal orders, illegal firings, violations of constitutional doctrine, and open defiance of judicial and legislative oversight. relevant video from InnuendoStudio, sadly aged like wine
You can't filibuster cabinet picks or federal judges, meaning the Dems cannot stop Trump appointees, either. The Republicans have 53 senate seats so they can pass whoever they want.
The GOP needs every single person on their side to pass the nominations... Which rarely happen.
Why aren't the dems working whatever GOPers they can to say no? Or is that something only the GOP is allowed to do? Get Dems to defect?
False, Hegseth is the closest to losing confirmation when 3 GOP voted no, but VP tiebreaker confirmed him anyways.
Hegseth, Vought, Gabbard, Kennedy, and Lutnick all recieved 0 dem votes and passed.
Only 3 Republicans have voted against any confirmation, and Mitch McConnell is the only republican to vote against more than one: he voted against 3.
Fuck Mitch McConnell trying to leave a legacy when he was instrumental in creating this fucking mess
Same with Pence, yeah.
Only if the appointees are bad (which, since it's Trump and "stuff up the deep state" project 2025, there's probably a lot of bad appointees). If we obstruct appointees that are good, we'll just keep seeing the pendulum swinging when a new party comes into power.
I don't believe you're making that argument in good faith. Every one of his nominees have been ridiculous caricatures of stereotypical MAGA car salesman
IIRC he had like two or so with good credentials. The one replacing Lina Khan I think was surprisingly good.
There's more appointees than Trump's cabinet, which I agree is bad. There's for example district court judges.
None of Trump's appointees are good. If they were, they would refuse to serve under him.
Appointed federal judges do not have obligations to Trump and may strike down his orders.
lol, k.
Sure bud. It's not like they didn't block Biden's stuff and rubber stamped Trump's stuff.
I do not think that is enough reasoning for claiming they're incompetent for blocking their nominations. The Supreme Court has 2 or 3 problem justices, yes, but just look at the plethora of court cases against Trump with injunctions right now. Quite a bit of them were speedily decided under Trump appointees.
Please name a single person Trump has picked for a cabinet position that is objectively good.
Yep, all they have to do is think…”what would republicans do in this situation?”
Republicans would get one of their followers to bash Mike Johnson's spouse in the head with a hammer like they did to Pelosi.
Democrats need to pass progressive reform to win. Republicans need to stop progressive reform to win. They're playing different games.
For example, Republicans are gutting Medicaid and Medicare in their new budget proposal and the only thing Dems can do is block the bill which will defund those programs regardless.
Zero win conditions.
Not lining up to bend over for republicans would be nice a nice start. Even a quarter the obstructionism as the republican party has put forth when Democrats are in charge would be appreciated.
Certainly, but like -- what specifically? If you could pick one specific thing they should do/have done, what would it be?
Not vote "Yes" on appointments.
For the most part they haven't; and with the votes available, not a single nominee was in danger of being voted down even when all Democrats voted against them. Pete Hegseth received 0 Democratic votes and still got confirmed.
The greatest damage from this administration's lawlessness does not come from tearing down government agencies, it's the corrosive effect of hopelessness in the minds and hearts of the citizens as we look around and feel like we're alone, and that nobody else actually cares about our laws, traditions, and principles.
They already did number 2, exclusively, and its part of the problem.
"We're second worst, you have no choice but to vote for us, and we will only move right" might have resonated with you.
They should have to give back their campaign money when they lose.
And not hoard it for themselves to buy private guards? Never. That would actually help America, and the rich don't like that.
They love Republican policy they just hate wearing red as commies have used it before. Blue is a much better fitting color.
When did that happen? Their messaging is pretty widely regarded as terrible.
Because it was so rehearsed and prepared. They needed the opposite, which is what trump and JD Vance did. Podcasts and shows where they just had casual conversations. The experts and linguists and whatever else were a horrible idea.
They need to have rehearsed and prepared talking points because that's the only way they'll actually come across as standing for anything other than the status quo, which is deeply unpopular. Most democrats probably don't even know what they even theoretically stand for without a corporate donor explicitly telling them what to do, and most of them can't do improv on the level of even being able to make shit up or lie in the absence of that, much less to charmingly lie by omission or tell the truth by technicality.
I'm saying the status quo IS the rehearsed and prepared talking points. Whether they are honest or not, its not what people want, and they dont trust it. Having casual unscripted conversations without restrictions, like trump and Vance did on podcasts, is a great way to appeal to people directly. Theres a reason these podcasts have millions of subscribers.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Harris's message was along the lines of (from a Lemmy comment, TBF), "address disparate health care outcomes that predominantly impact Black men." Nobody even knows what that means, much less has the ability to remember it. Or, she had some talking point about a several-thousand-dollar tax credit. (I don't recall how much or for whom.) That is, they talked like policy wonks, not in terms like "dignity" and "providing for your family" that reach people emotionally.
Their opponents said highly memorable-but-evil things like, "Haitian immigrants are eating the pets." I mean, like that, but good. Or, when you think of Obama, there's one word that immediately comes to mind. Like that.
ETA: I just remembered one of Harris's other leitmotifs for the campaign: "We're not going back." Just awful messaging. Democrats constantly, constantly, go for the negative formulation, which is terrible messaging. For one, saying you're not your opponent lets your opponent control the terms of the debate. Also, our memories and subconscious minds are bad with negatives. Like the famous pink elephant example, if I were to say, "I'm not a professional dogcatcher," a week from now, you might have the vague recollection of u/SwingingTheLamp and dogcatchers, or maybe just dogs. If I were smart, I'd say, "u/SwingingTheLamp is such a sexy guy" instead.
This particular example doesn't suffer from that problem, but on the other hand, it doesn't say anything of importance. So we're not going back, great, we already knew that, but where are we going? It doesn't say anything emotionally-impactful about the future and Harris's role in it. By contrast, "make America great again" is much better slogan, because it makes a promise about the future. And a vague one, so you can seamlessly fill in whatever you think "great" looks like, and you can actually envision a perfectly-tailored picture of the future. Harris == discontent about the past; MAGA guy == good-feels about the future.
What democrats saw from trump is much different than what republicans saw.
For example, her interview on fox, most democrats saw clips of it, rather than watch the whole conversation. Most democrats aren't aware of just how many podcasts trump went on. Most know about rogan but thats about it.
I agree with how you frame the messaging from democrats, but I dont think it was because they didnt pay the right people to write their slogans, I think it was because all the had were slogans.
Hands down, trump was the more personable candidate, which should be extremely upsetting to the democrats, but instead they have blamed voters for being too stupid to understand they were the good team.
Okay, yeah, I get it now. I think we agree. That's what I was saying originally, it's that they skipped Step 1, the part about deciding on the substance behind the slogans.
Speak up, speak loud and speak often. Be the leaders of the grassroots organization they pretend to represent.
They seem to be incessantly tweeting and Facebooking, but people are complaining that that's not very effective.
Because shitposting isn't organizing.
It seemed to work for MAGA. Maybe the Democrats need more bot accounts? Shittier shitposts, maybe?
Project 2025 wasn't a tweet.
It's also not why people voted for Trump. He had to consistently lie about supporting it so as not to scare off his potential voters. Meanwhile, a deliberately misleading viral shitstorm made out of a single Biden comment had MAGAts rolling up to their polling places in trash bags.
Organising what? What should they organise?
Workers strikes, general strikes, work stoppages and walk outs ... organize people to conduct mass disruptive activities in a peaceful obstructive way to force those in power to either move against them or take steps back to accommodate people.
Strikes need strike funds. Dem billionaire donors are not going to fund picket lines and unions (half of which majority voted for trump) are not going to sacrifice their livelihoods for what trump has done so far.
Mass protest is possible, but it won't come from organized labor unless something changes drastically.
Congresscritters could do a little more to gum up congress. Stop confirming his nominees except for the 3 sane options.
As others have said they will have a chance to negotiate when the shutdown comes due. We will see.
They could reach out to Sean O'Brien.
"But my [insert excuse not to go out and protest]..."
…wife and child need to eat and have shelter? Yeah, clearly we're the problem.
Plenty of Nazis said that, plenty of Nazis had their reasons. There's a word for them - Nazi. Would you get in line with fascists if it meant a sense of security? Would you hide targetted members of the public like Anne Frank? Or are you gonna rat out your neighbors (lets face it you don't even know em, not your problem) to avoid getting into trouble? These are questions the "wife and child need to eat" crowd need to start considering, because there's no "centrist position" when it comes to that.
The next real test will probably be the budget vote in the House. Post-Trump Republicans have historically been unable to pass budgets without democrat help, even when they had a majority, so one thing democrats can do is squeeze the GOP dry for concessions before helping them pass the next budget.
All great ideas. Have you mentioned them to the Democrats? They are depressingly poll-driven, but it's probably worth directly reaching out. My local congress people are probably sick of my shit by now, but if so -- good.
Well since they think a mean worded tweet is all you need to stop Trump, I figured a mean worded comment is just as good /s
I want Dems to start arming the working class. Like, empty the campaign coffers, and use it to buy guns, bullets, and butter for the working class.
How's that for a start?
It's certainly specific!
What the Repugs do whenever they're in the minority: complain loudly and publicly, and obstruct absolutely goddamned everything.
step one should be a change of leadership.
Agreed. Can anyone think of somebody the Progressive wing and the mega-donors can agree on?
Mega donors can't eat their money. The working class WILL get behind a strike, if they see support from the electeds.
What will the working class eat while they aren't getting paid during the strike?
We already produce the food.... oligarchs don't.
We can seize the means of production.
My interpretation: the right is broadly successful because they are presenting a compelling narrative to explain the problems in America. It's "elites" in business, government (deep state), and schools that are pushing an unamerican agenda of "wokeness", using immigrants to gain power, and indoctrinating through schools and universities. This is enough to get people to vote right because at least the right is doing something to address their concerns.
What the Democrats need to do, is present a more compelling narrative. They can't just be the "non-maga" party. They have to actually address people's concerns about economic insecurity and present a vision for the future. I remain convinced that the first president that runs on economic populism will sweep an election.
Yeah, I remember in 2016 when the Hillary campaign's response to "Make America Great Again" was "America is Already Great" and man did that go over like a lead balloon. Democrats fucking love to pretend everything is okay.
And then Harris did the same and wondered why she lost.
"Everything is okay! Sure you can't afford food, rent, housing, the government spends more on wars than social services, but I might give those with millions a few hundred thousand to buy a house! And I'll appoint a Republican to my cabinet!"
Most of the votes cast by Democrats were against Trump's cabinet picks. (Not that it mattered, but I'll never know how the fuck Marco Rubio pulled so many Democrats 🤦♀️ .)
Because Dems are complicit, that's why.
Obstruct fucking everything instead of being the complicit bastards they are.
massive string of lawsuits
That is happening as we speak: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
Surely this will be an Onion link
Oh, for fuck's sake…
Also, please don't link to Xitter.
Sorry 😅
When eighty million Americans sat out the election they sent a pretty clear message that they're okay with whatever Trump and Co wants to do.
No, they sent a message saying "Both of these choices suck, badly."
They sent a message saying "Both of these choices suck by exactly the same amount. I have no preference".
How can you win a war, when you lack the strength to grit your teeth and choose the lesser evil? Will you stamp your fists on the ground and demand no evil, while the greater evil slaughters your people? How many lives of your tribesmen will you give in order to send your message to the Democrats?
No, more like "both of these people should be tried for crimes against humanity, so I support neither"
As far as "how do I win a war" it starts with not supporting a capitalist, because as long as they have power, the working class will be oppressed.
You have power! You are responsible! You need to use that power. You need to make active choices in the world.
Yes, we have power, which we can use to toss off the chains of the oppressors, and seize the means of production.
Ready to help?
When eighty million Americans sat out the election they sent a pretty clear message that they're okay with whatever Trump and Co wants to do.
Bo, the6 sent the message of "both of these are atrocious human beings, so I will support neither "
By choosing neither they threw their full support behind the winner which was Trump.
There is blood on their hands from the choice they made.
I always find it telling when someone blames the people who couldn't stomach to vote for an openly corrupt, genocidal party, instead of blaming the leadership of the party for being openly corrupt and genocidal.
There were two choices and by not being able to see that reality they helped the worse choice get power.
Well, there were a few choices, not two. They also didn't "help", by definition. They sat back and watched. And while I disagree with standing back and watching, I can't blame them for looking at a shit-sandwich, and a shit-sandwich with sprinkles and deciding not to waste their time on either.
There were two choices.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024
I'm seeing 4, and you can write in a candidate