Trevor Rutledge-Leverenz

Hi, It’s Me, Wikipedia, and I Am Ready for Your Apology “Wikipedia, the constantly changing knowledge base created by a global free-for-all of anonymous users, now stands as the leading force for the dum...

"I suppose you’ve come to say you’re sorry? I hope so, given your years of sneering and hand-wringing about how I was ruining knowledge. Meanwhile, you turned your information environment into a hypercapitalist post-truth digital snuff film."

Honest question, do you think Sarah McBride is a bigoted asshat? Because my original post was in defense of her view that Democrats should be more accepting (to a degree, IMO) of people with differing stances on trans rights.

And Democrats should be shouting from the rooftops that Republicans are weirdo creeps for wanting that. Not my overall point at all though.

I'm not saying throw trans people (or anyone) under the bus - Dems who do that are dumb. I'm saying the perception of Dems is that we're the 'scolding' party, and we need to figure out a way to talk about nuanced issues without making those who may look at the issues in a different way feel scolded.

I don't disagree. My point is that there are people who feel scolded by Dems when it comes to issues like this, and the perception that Dems are 'scolders' turns off voters. I think there's a way to support trans issues w/o making those who feel different/aren't educated on the issues feel scolded.

Unfortunately Rs have successfully made trans rights a winning issue for them, for all the wrong reasons. Pushing away those who feel differently on the issue but who otherwise would vote for Dems is not helpful IMO. Sadly, I think winning is more important than being right. Win first, THEN govern.

The institutional Democratic Party is guided by an almost pathological level of conflict avoidance in almost every direction. “What can we do to make the least number of people mad?” is just a bankrupt way to operate.

Cough @booker.senate.gov @kim.senate.gov cough

I think headlines are just clickbait now, right? It's a business decision - they're crafted not necessarily to highlight/synopsize the story but to get the most attention, clicks, etc. I would be interested in seeing the correlation between the shift to sensational headlines and subscriptions.

I think you're agreeing with me - we need to describe the ways in which authoritarian actions are a threat to the public, how it will impact people's daily lives, etc. I don't think it's enough to just call Trump an authoritarian and leave it at that, which it seems is what Stancil was suggesting.

I honestly don't think the majority of voters care that much about "American democracy" because I think most voters don't believe "American democracy" does anything for them. To me, the argument has to include how their daily lives will improve with Dems in charge. Winning has to be #1 goal.

But I don't think the majority of voters speak in terms of 'authoritarian'/'oligarchy.' I think we need to make sure we are speaking to them in a way that resonates.

(We also need to make sure we are reaching all voters; Harris did a good job of that but unfortunately she needed to do a great job)

Again, I don't disagree, and I'm not sure why you're getting passive aggressive with me since I get the sense that we're on the same side politically. I think there were a lot of factors that went into how people voted, including anti-incumbency, sexism/racism, Trump's weird (IMO) charisma, etc.

I don't disagree. Sadly, Trump conned the majority of voters (again). Of course we shouldn't ignore what Trump is trying to do; I'm saying the argument can't just be 'he's authoritarian.' We have to highlight how his policies will impact people's daily lives. Otherwise, I don't think they'll care.

Agreed, but it wasn't enough. 'Trump is a wannabe authoritarian' was one of the campaign's messages, but it wasn't an effective argument for the majority of voters. My argument is that for most voters, the kitchen table issues are what drove them to vote, and Dems need to run (& govern) accordingly.

Like I said, I think either they didn't hear or they didn't care - probably a mixture of the both. My guess is that there were a lot of voters who had these weirdly fond memories of Trump's first term (Obama's economy, pre-Covid) and believed that a vote for him meant a return to those times.

I don't know that I agree. We tried the 'he wants to be dictator/he's a wannabe authoritarian' throughout the campaign and people either a) didn't hear or 2) didn't care. People were literally googling 'what's an oligarch' just a few weeks ago! www.thedailybeast.com/searches-for...

Nuance and social media don’t mix 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😂😂

I think there are two groups that put Trump in the WH: Trump SUPPORTERS are ride or die with him and do not care about policies or plans; Trump VOTERS think he will make their lives better but are persuadable for Dems. @jamellebouie.net

Here’s Why I Decided To Buy ‘InfoWars’ Today we celebrate a new addition to the Global Tetrahedron LLC family of brands. And let me say, I really do see it as a family. Much like family members, our brands are abstract nodes of wealth, int...

The Onion has purchased InfoWars.