Facts?! That just makes them devolve to No true Scotsman rhetoric. ;-)

Vance and the rest – including Trump himself – are suggesting that the attacks are because Democrats are demonizing Trump and Democrats need to tone down the vitriol, ignoring that Trump has said Democrats are destroying America and that we won’t have a country left if they get in office and all the rest. At least Vance is – after saying on TV with Dana Bash that they have confirmed reports from Springfield (in an interview about the pet eating thing) – that he, too, ought to tone down his rhetoric, but let’s see if he can stick with that for more than a day.

Here’s a story from July about the left/right spread in toxic language: https://theconversation.com/trump-shooting-is-a-warning-about-how-toxic-language-leads-to-violence-234637

Note the disparity on their graphic:

Ehn. The latest guy called Putin a terrorist on camera, which is something a Trumper would never say.

Refresher on McCabe from The Guardian:

McCabe was part of FBI leadership, briefly as acting director, during investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and links between Trump and Moscow. Trump fired McCabe in March 2018, two days before he was due to retire. McCabe was then the subject of a criminal investigation, for allegedly lying about a media leak. The investigation was dropped in 2020. In October 2021, McCabe settled a lawsuit against the justice department.

I mention this because y’all know that Trumpers will immediately brush off McCabe’s comments as a known-bad-guy who was fired for being so awful and is now trying to get revenge.

You’re right. I hear you. Intellectually, I understand that the conservative/fundamentalist mindset gives higher importance to following leaders and is more triggered by moral disgust. I understand that a conservative may feel a liberal is less moral because liberals ‘lack’ a moral imperative to follow leaders simply because they are leaders. I even accept that agreeing to a premise has utility by getting everyone to work towards a common goal. Unfortunately, I get stuck on the bit where the premise seems illogical to me, or the leader seems to be obviously lying. That’s the part where any intellectual understanding of why someone might choose to ignore obvious red flags flies to the wayside and I can’t figure out what to do about it.

I’m pretty sure that journalists should continuously report which things are unfounded lies, but I don’t think that will sway those who believe those lies. It might, however, convince the continuously emerging crop of newly interested people to be skeptical.

I spent a good while writing up a reply, but it was long and the main point was: while any group of 100+ people is likely to have a bad actor, you look for credible proof (like Edward Snowden showing evidence rather than Sidney Powell saying she had ‘visions’). Side bit: tales of killing/eating/sexually-exploiting babies and pets by a GROUP should always be taken as a manipulative lie because it always is. When some whacko actually tries that crap, the Boys in Blue get up in arms – even if it means ignoring pressure from their bosses, “He’s Illuminati. Let it go.” No. That sort of thing gets exposed.

I kinda understand how some people fall for conspiracies, but I don’t understand how so many people would VOTE for someone who reliable falls for and promotes so very many obvious conspiracies.

@aihorde@lemmy.dbzer0.com draw for me a Simpsons cartoon of people picnicking while Trump shouts, “In Springfield they’re eating the dogs!”, causing everyone to look on in shock and incredulity.

If you missed it, I highly recommend watching it. High drama. Great visual reactions that you’ll miss if you only hear or read it. Just for fun, here’s a composite image of Daily Beast posts that were flying up as I read reviews elsewhere:

… but even a monster like Dick Cheney – a man who largely created a needless war and supposedly LIKES being compared to Darth Vader – even that monster thinks, “Trump would be horrible for the U.S.”

I basically agree with you, but I took it as both a warning to Democrats to stay vigilant and as permission for Republicans to abandon Trump.

I wish I’d been online yesterday to see this because it is way worse than just not working, so I’m repeating this whenever I see it brought up: They’re targeting swing state voters (via in-person canvassers) to vote Trump. The key pieces are Palantir, which compiles data to see trends and ‘insights’ and a new FEC opinion that says PACs can work with candidates for canvassing. CNBC had a big article on it and states (archive – emphasis is mine):

[…] users who enter a ZIP code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different.

Rather than be directed to their state’s voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age.

So that person who wanted help registering to vote? In the end, they got no help at all registering. But they did hand over priceless personal data to a political operation.

“What makes America PAC more unique: it is a billionaire-backed super PAC focused on door-to-door canvassing, which it can conduct in coordination with a presidential campaign,” Fischer said. “Thanks to a recent FEC advisory opinion, America PAC may legally coordinate its canvassing activities with the Trump campaign — meaning, among other things, that the Trump campaign may provide America PAC with the literature and scripts to make sure their efforts are consistent.”

The America PAC raised more than $8 million between April 1 and June 30, according to FEC records. It has received donations from veteran investor Doug Leone, cryptocurrency investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and a company run by longtime venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, according to FEC records.

They also quote the NYT in saying Lonsdale is one of Musk’s political confidants – which is interesting because he’s at Palantir which was you’d think of as his old buddy Peter Theil’s gig. Palantir sells info. As long as they get good info, we can expect them tailor the perfect messages to win over swing states voters, because those voters are (unintentionally) telling them exactly how to do it.

That’s not the point, though, is it? It doesn’t matter if Nazis mask faster. What matters is that there are Nazis and other non-state-actors who will happily try to identify and dox people who get in their way. Such doxxers aren’t even necessarily at the protests. They might be in, say, Russia and looking to shut up pro-Western activists in neighboring countries.

It may be that no one in Sweden is immuno-comprosmied and that no one in Sweden could get hacked or doxxed when their identity is uncovered, but for the rest of the world, there are plenty of reasons a person might want to wear a mask that don’t involve wanting to be riot-ready.

Or the thing about his former cabinet secretary’s sexual harassment issue.

From the Daily Beast:

A fellow Democrat […] tweeted last week that she wanted a vice presidential pick who “doesn’t sweep sexual harassment under the rug.”

In his reply:

The governor’s office highlighted his “long track record of protecting survivors and prosecuting predators” when he was attorney general, including exposing "child sexual abuse and cover-ups within the Catholic Church.”

Have you seen people protesting against Nazis in Sweden? That’s the sort of situation where you do not need to fear the state, but the violent and retributive people you are protesting.

from: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-if-reelected-wont-have-to-vote-fixed-1235069397/

At the Florida summit, hosted by conservative group Turning Point Action, Trump promised that if he wins in November, he would “once again appoint rock-solid conservative judges who will protect religious liberty.”

After repeating his usual unfounded claims about mail-in voting, Trump launched into an appeal directed at Christian voters. “Christians, get out and vote!” yelled Trump. “Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine! You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you, Christians!” He added, “You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”

You did really good work looking that up. I appreciate it!

They know they done bad. They’re already claiming everyone misheard him and that he didn’t really say “colored”. They claim he said “college”.

From Raw Story, “Fox News has asserted that Kilmeade simply didn’t speak clearly and he in fact said "a college sorority.”

By the time The Independent was looking into it, the Fox statement was that news has “completely misquoted and unnecessarily maligned Brian Kilmeade who clearly said college sorority.”

They’re escalating into another indignant outrage that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

At least for now, I am hopeful. All sorts of other countries have elected women. The U.S. should get with it. I know there will be people who say, “Maybe, but not THAT woman” – but those people always say that about any woman, so that’s never going to be the base.

he wasn’t forcibly subduing conservatives out of being racist with his speech

No one suggested that. That’d never have worked.

he was inspiring people

Exactly!

I fear the article triggered you to only hear the word “dominate” with the most negative of connotations when that isn’t what this is about. This is more akin to saying, “My right hand is dominant” where you mean it is stronger and more skilled, not that it is beating up your other hand as in Alien Hand Syndrome. It is a

Remember when Obama had to address how badly he debated and brushed off his shoulder? That was Obama dominating the conversation. That’s what they mean.

Biden can’t say

Biden CAN say, “What’s happening in Gaza is reprehensible and I want it to stop NOW. The good people of Israel want it to stop, too. They want a new leader, an end to bloodshed, and a return of the hostages, and it is because of those good people that I will NOT abandon Israel. I will do everything in my power to end the conflict, but I will not leave an ally to face what would surely become a multilateral war.”

I’m no speech writer, but the point is to use active language, show a firm commitment, and risk that some will disagree. The article is espousing language like that for anyone running against Trump.

MLK did not “dominate” anyone

MLK dominated the conversation. He spoke in strong terms that didn’t allow for compromise with his ideals. Of course he compromised and cooperated on actual policy, taking what he could get when he could while always demanding more.

No one “owns” AOC

Agreed!

– but to the point: if nothing changes, swings state voters will make Trump our next President. Fish suggests a dominant message like this:

The United States was founded for the purpose of self-government, and our history has largely been an effort to expand the blessings of liberty to larger and larger groups of Americans. Finally, in 1965, we became a full democracy when African Americans in the South got the right to vote. That’s who we are as Democrats.

This country has its faults. We have a horrific history of racial oppression. But look at the incredible progress we’ve made, from the heinousness of slavery, to the idiocy of Jim Crow, to the mighty mind of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.

That’s what we Democrats are about.

The closing sums up the position:

Spreading the blessings of liberty to all Americans is what America is all about. Liberals have to proclaim how it was done in the past and how we’re going to keep doing it in the future. Talk about how you’re going to beat everybody who wants to go backward. Offer a stirring vision. Forget about prescription drug prices and quit treating voters like despairing stiffs in dire need of a government break.

To be clear, this is all about speech and elections, so when they say, “how you’re going to beat everybody”, it is NOT about physical attacking. It is about winning campaigns and swaying opinions.

Allll that said, I’m going to break with the above message. I don’t know if Fish is correct. He has a lot invested in the idea of looking at if and when politics can be won with “prestige” or requires a display of verbal “dominance” to appeal to the primal side of our nature. He has spent years arguing that to beat Trump, a candidate must hit that note. Maybe he is going down the wrong path. I don’t know.

What I DO know is that we will get Trump for 4 more years if swing voters in a handful of states aren’t convinced to vote (D).