Monday, February 27, 2017

Activism is the New Money! @realDonaldTrump is a Symptom of #Democratic Failure. #Perez vs #Ellison? Wake up #DNC!


No, this is not an Alternative Facts article about about protestors getting paid. That’s a load of crap. I know many who have protested. I know of none who have been paid. This is an expression of concern and hope for the DNC.

Perhaps there is real hope with Perez and Ellison leading the party. Perez has been recognized as an excellent manager, something the DNC very much needs.
 

Ellison is great at getting out the vote, another thing the DNC really needs.

We are reminded that Perez has much more in common with Ellison than with old school methods used by past leaders.

Perez would not have been elected if he were old school.

The state DNC members who voted Perez in are excited, willing, and ready for change. A substantial number were newly elected themselves, and many of the rest have already been pushing for change.


Perez being new school or old school isn't the main issue. His behavior in the primaries and his networking within the party are something that concerns some, as well as the optics of rejecting Sanders's choice.

It might not be a deal breaker for some Democrats, but many are not happy and might need more convincing.

The swing voters who have fluctuated from feeling good about the DNC to feeling disenfranchised are critical to success. Even some long time Democrats have begun to feel disconnected and have joined that squeaky wheel. The DNC needs to start start making some of them feel a little better and more like "us" so they don't become "them.".

But why did they vote against Obama's ban on taking corporate PAC money? Are they pandering to corporate interests? Or is it just pragmatism?
  
It takes money to run campaigns. And the opposition is certainly well funded. And we don't want to force Democratic candidates to take a knife to a gun fight.

But Clinton had a pretty good bit of money. Some might not buy that pragmatist argument outright. Obama won with a different strategy. Sanders had donations enough, even fighting against the system. Sanders and Obama both proved that fundraising success can be achieved by getting more people involved on a personal level.

Activism, that's the new money.
 
Treating the concerns of the Sanders' bloc as non-issues is bad strategy. There are lots of districts, with diverse constituents, issues, and challenges. Corey Booker's troubles show how reactionary some on the left can be, rather than being measured, pragmatic and focused. Reactionary people tend to be active though. Pretending this isn't important is a bad strategy.

Is it even wrong to react? Of course people react to what they consider very big issues. Discounting what a large portion of your constituents feel is important in the wrong thing.

There needs to be a very strong response to the concerns of those who are nervous about corporate influence. It would be a very smart move to initiate a messaging campaign along with some concrete steps to reassure them that the money coming in is not buying undue influence.

The DNC needs money for races all over the country. Proactively addressing the concerns of those who comprise the least secure supporters is the best move. The perception of the establishment as corrupt is widespread. Simply snarking at those who feel this way, which many do, is a losing game.


The DNC establishment needs to be powerful, as well as representative of good values, as well as transparent as hell, as well as responsive. It needs to focus on inclusive policies, as well as messaging, as well as branding. Sure, lots of Democrats can read polls and opinions and articles full of reasons and reasonable arguments. But that won't swell the numbers of supporters like needed.

Trump foments a mood and rides it like a wave. Regardless of how "stupid" the wave is...he and his are riding it. We need to get all our professors and nurses and half the people on his surf board over onto ours... and fast. Nothing is a non issue.

The numbers needed to win are the right numbers, not just the most numbers.
The fact that people are even paying attention to these less glamorous races is great. Trump has proven, yet again, that any attention can be used. The attention on DNC strife has everyone looking.

It's now up to Perez to come out and look like a winner, walk, talk and act like a winner while strongly embracing the progressive wing of the party. He needs to make overtures and basically say "Keith and I are gonna do this together." He started on the right foot with that. He needs to keep it up. He needs to be dynamic, and strong, and motivational
as hell. The DNC has a very strange and dysfunctional relationship with the concept of dynamism.
Trump is already campaigning hard. Every single Democrat needs to be doing the same.

"Corporate corruption of politics is a meaningful problem to many (think Citizens United). It seems more reactionary to decide to let the end justify the means. This could backfire when money starts coming in from unexpected places, with unfortunate strings.

"Aside from that hypothetical, if our system of democracy currently is functioning in such a way that it requires corporate money to accomplish anything, then we have a problem that will not be solved even by removing Trump.

"Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations? No, thank you." - Margaret Waites

Saturday, February 25, 2017

The Tactics of @RealDonaldTrump: Bombastic, Belligerent or Beguiling?


It's dangerous to assume anything with certainty where Donald Trump is concerned. Results would lead one to believe, at least as far as campaigning goes, that he, or someone on his team does seem to know what they're doing.

It could be simply that Bannon's strategy and worldview have been skulking around the edges of reality just waiting for a moment like this, and Trump was the doorway Bannon needed to walk them in. Or it could be that Trump is actually more clever than he seems and deftly crafted his team with forethought. More likely the former than the latter.

But too much good analysis has already fallen to the sword of underestimation when it comes to Trump.

Loathe to credit anyone in the Trump administration, including President Trump himself, with enough skill and intellect to pull off his 2016 victory, most pundits look for any excuse to play down his abilities.

Analysts and editors, politicians and podcasters continually look for the million and one reasons for Trump's success, rather than focusing outward from the simple fact, he won.

Trust me, that very commitment to winning is most likely the purity of focus which allowed for such a November surprise. Really. Trust me when I tell you. He won, bigly. Believe me. Really.

Putting the anomaly that is Trump under a microscope might reveal an amazing array of unexpected random complexity. This would be at best, a fruitless endeavor, at worst, a tragic diversion during a critical moment.

Whatever magic or skill currently being exuded by The Donald is almost irrelevant. It doesn't matter so much how he is doing what he is doing, but more that he IS doing it. And whatever dynamic in the contemporary social and political constructs allowing him to succeed to the degree he is...is.

The question "Does he know what he's doing?" is foolish. Of course he knows what he's doing.

Is he doing what needs to be done? To him and his, yes. They want the chaos. It is part of the dismantling of the modern liberal construct.

So the true question is, given this admitted goal of disruption, "Does Donald Trump know how to be a good president?" All evidence at this time points to no. Changing the paradigm has been done. This doesn't automatically negate Trump's credibility. But is Trump a viable vessel for this paradigm shift, whether the world wants it or not? It would seem, instead, that he is just a buffoon.  

Analyzing the Trump phenomenon requires observance from a knowledgeable position. We have to get close, and see as his see.

In many ways, yes, he's a stereotypical demagogue. This is obvious. But the thing that is Donald Trump does not live in a vacuum. The strengths of the American system that limit his ability to fully dismantle democracy also allow him, and his, to percolate in ways where other tyrants, at other times or in other places, would self destruct, pushing further than their own limits, eventually exploding through abuse of their own ambition and avarice.

But our system, both fortunately and unfortunately, comes with built in regulators which could allow him time to mature. Maturity in this instance should not be interpreted as meaning "good" or "grown," or any other positive outcome. Snakes, hyenas and hurricanes mature. That doesn't mean we want them to have "The Codes." 

Whatever skill set, lucky streak, communal confabulation, or distortion of cosmic consciousness which has set about to allow the unallowable, or concede to the unconscionable, President Trump is a reality. His manifestation within the American experience represents a unique set of challenges when considering his brand of authoritarianism.

One thing is certain, Trump has brought a level of uncertainty, unparalleled in U.S. history into a world near powder keg climax. This is bad.

Simple statements are needed at this time, both to navigate this new world, and to communicate to those who support Trump, hoping to reach them and pull them, and us, back from the brink of Trumpian dystopia.

This is critical. Why would I reach out to you, spend my time writing all this?

Simple statements: I'm just a guy. Trump is bad. Some people don't understand that Trump is bad. We need to explain to them that Trump is bad. Those people DO NOT follow intellectuals down rabbit holes of mindful meanderings. They are not impressed by any egotistic, pedantic, pretentious, or overly intellectual ramblings. Don't shake them off. The fault is ours if we can't speak to the people who need to hear.

It's time to stop fantasizing about impeachment. It could happen. It probably should happen. But if "should" were the measure, November 2016 would have represented "should" much better.

Pushing for impeachment, for investigations, for checks on an out of control president are all actually valuable parts of resisting Trump. But yet still, we need to focus also on turning the gaze of his mesmerized Cult of Trump away from the captor of their souls. These things must be understood. As we resist him, Trump uses that energy to feed his followers. It is unpleasant that they worship him so much as to allow him such license of vulgarity and abuse of American values. But again, like the fact that he is, they do.

Together they feed in a loop of admiration. He loves what they give him. His followers love what he gives them. Lies? Falsehoods? To them, comfort in blissful ignorance. How can we compete with that? I'm not yet sure. But we have to


Follow @Trumpnalysis for your daily Trumpnalysis.


                   
 

Friday, February 24, 2017

BREAKING: #Trump goes full fascist, blocks CNN, BBC, NY Times, LA Times from media briefing, lets #Bannon's Breitbart in!

The Trump administration today blocked numerous major news outlets from its press briefing.


Press Secretary Spicer hand picked which news outlets could participate in this off-camera “gaggle.” It was also held inside his office in the West Wing instead of in the press briefing room.

Among those excluded were organizations Trump has personally criticized: CNN, BBC, The New York Times, LA Times, New York Daily News, Daily Mail, along with several others.


Allowed, instead, were various right wing outlets: Breitbart News, One America News Network, The Washington TimesSome major news outlets were allowed to attend, those whom Trump has not personally attacked: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, Reuters and Bloomberg.


“Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.”
- Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times.


The White House Correspondents’ Association also criticized the exclusions and some media organizations, such as the Associated Press and TIME Magazine boycotted the briefing.

“The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today's gaggle is being handled by the White House. We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.” - Jeff Mason, WHCA President

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Peripheral Damage from @RealDonaldTrump's Sweeping Immigration Orders

A recent US Border Patrol press release casually mentioned the results of an "immigration traffic stop."

They claimed success at having detained three undocumented aliens who were passengers in the car, along with one legal resident alien who was driving.

Immigration traffic stop? What the hell is that?


There have also been many questions about the legal rights of undocumented aliens lately.

Nobody seems to be focusing on the constitutional abuses bound to take place against Latino citizens or people of color.

Case in point: How would agents determine who to pull over in an "immigration stop?"

These new orders on their face present multiple issues. But delve deeper into the peripheral results and you'll see problems spreading in all directions.

Just the PR element alone of these crackdowns is bad for anyone who respects multiculturalism. Examining the obvious advantages and liabilities through the potential effects on undocumented aliens is one thing. But those who will see this as an extreme repudiation of America's long standing tradition of tolerance will respond accordingly, whether in support of this intolerance, or as a result.

These extreme measures are a win for white supremacists and white nationalists, even some who don't recognize their own leanings as such. Talented immigrants will stay away, feeling unwelcome. Low skilled labor, those most targeted by these orders, those with the most need, will still seek any opportunity they can find, just to live. And they will do so from such a weak position that they will fail to report crimes against them, or crimes they witness. In short, many negative elements will have more cover under which to hide.   

Those issues notwithstanding, what about the rights of any American who doesn't look like his or her ancestors wore powdered wigs?

The general consensus seems to be it is appropriate to have an interpretation of constitutional violations ONLY relative to court admissibility or arrest. But doesn't the Constitution protect citizens from targeting without probable cause? those targeting events are flawed regardless of discovery.

Focusing only on the results of constitutional violations based on failure or success of conviction rates has been too long accepted. Those violations should not take place to begin with.And how do the new orders from Trump effect parents of children born in the United States?

These extreme orders are another reason Trump's bull in a china shop strategy is bad for America.

Either there is no adequate thought given to the ripple effect of these rough rollouts, or the ripples are desired. Either way is bad.

Prediction realized - Examples:
This will be a list of these peripheral results. I hope it isn't too long.

Border Patrol Agents Stop Domestic Travelers at New York Airport

Trump: Removal of undocumented immigrants is ‘military operation’

Kansas man charged in shooting of two Indians in possible hate crime

ICE Agents Take Undocumented Mom With Brain Tumor From Hospital To Detention Center