I firmly believe that only one of three things will happen: A. Trump is successfully assassinated by someone B. Trump is killed by an act of God C. Trump wins a second term in the White House and...
I firmly believe that only one of three things will happen:
A. Trump is successfully assassinated by someone
B. Trump is killed by an act of God
C. Trump wins a second term in the White House and serves the full 4 years
They can indict him 10 times for all I care. It will not stop him from running for President in 2024. There will be no end to Trump unless one of those three possibilities above happens.
OJ was circa 1994-1995, thirty years ago before cable with 100+ channels were common and before internet and before streaming. Wikipedia says it went on for 11months. I wonder if modern "viewers"...
OJ was circa 1994-1995, thirty years ago before cable with 100+ channels were common and before internet and before streaming. Wikipedia says it went on for 11months. I wonder if modern "viewers" have that kind of patience for even entertaining lengthy tv.
The Depp v Heard trial was 3 weeks and attention held pretty solid for it's duration. No, not close to 11 months, but it's the biggest public trial since streaming and social media became...
The Depp v Heard trial was 3 weeks and attention held pretty solid for it's duration. No, not close to 11 months, but it's the biggest public trial since streaming and social media became mainstream. I imagine interest would ebb and flow as interesting soundbites get sliced out and shared, then quiet down until the next one.
This trial will be watched by way, way more people but most of them won't be tracked. Keep in mind, OJ was a big deal in the US but internationally nobody gave a shit. Trump has made an...
This trial will be watched by way, way more people but most of them won't be tracked.
Keep in mind, OJ was a big deal in the US but internationally nobody gave a shit. Trump has made an international mockery of the US, viewer numbers will be far higher in the US but there will be a lot of people from other countries with eyes on this.
Not only is it a spectacle like OJ was but it's also political history in the making.
I can think of a few groups who might be highly motivated. Lawyers who are intrigued by this unique case. People on the left who are super angry about Jan 6 and want to see Trump get his...
I can think of a few groups who might be highly motivated. Lawyers who are intrigued by this unique case. People on the left who are super angry about Jan 6 and want to see Trump get his comeuppance. Trump's super supporters.
We will see, but I think you are right about attention spans. on the other hand lots of people surf the web while watching tv, or have tv on in the background while working from home.
11 months! The poor jury. It’s hard to get viewership numbers for this kind of thing now. A lot of people will watch it, and a lot of others will watch via someone’s YouTube vid or tiktok. Both...
11 months! The poor jury.
It’s hard to get viewership numbers for this kind of thing now. A lot of people will watch it, and a lot of others will watch via someone’s YouTube vid or tiktok. Both can reasonably be said to have watched the trial but only one will be counted
I remember that in middle school. They interrupted class to have us students watch the trial. I didn't know anything about the guy or the sport and didn't care, and they literally stopped school...
I remember that in middle school.
They interrupted class to have us students watch the trial. I didn't know anything about the guy or the sport and didn't care, and they literally stopped school so we could watch the trial. It seemed very weird to me.
But for OJ people still used Cable and OTA television. And there was way less competition. It's like how the MASH finale will always be the top-viewed scripted TV program of all time. There were...
But for OJ people still used Cable and OTA television.
And there was way less competition. It's like how the MASH finale will always be the top-viewed scripted TV program of all time. There were like 3 channels back then.
Georgia tends to allow it unless there is good reason not to. Trump attorneys will likely try to move the trial to federal court because they don't want it on television. Edit among other reasons...
Georgia tends to allow it unless there is good reason not to. Trump attorneys will likely try to move the trial to federal court because they don't want it on television. Edit among other reasons they want it in federal court. It would still be state charges and not easily pardonable, regardless of which court the trial is held.
Seems more in his playbook to state he wants it to be televised but still try to get it moved, and then act indignant when federal courts won't allow it to be televised to rile up his base more...
Seems more in his playbook to state he wants it to be televised but still try to get it moved, and then act indignant when federal courts won't allow it to be televised to rile up his base more (even though he knew it wouldn't end up being televised if he did this which is what he wanted). Then because it's not televised, he can continue to make things up about what happened in court, he gets to be the arbiter of truth to his supporters if it plays that way.
This scares me. Trump has mastered manipulation and demagoguery. He practiced working audiences for decades. He will say exactly the things needed to tear your country apart and you will televise...
This scares me. Trump has mastered manipulation and demagoguery. He practiced working audiences for decades. He will say exactly the things needed to tear your country apart and you will televise it eagerly.
I am not an American so why would I care? Me and most people dear to me, we live in a small country close to Russia. If America falls, life will get shittier here too.
I think you're partially correct. Trump is good at getting attention and telling people what they want to hear. However I don't think he's mastered a set of skills so much as tried so many times...
I think you're partially correct. Trump is good at getting attention and telling people what they want to hear. However I don't think he's mastered a set of skills so much as tried so many times he defaults to certain patterns that work. Like a mouse that has figured out how to get food from a pantry.
The key difference that is that mastery implies understanding and the capacity for strategy, which I do not think Trump has except in a very rudimentary way. His narcissistic personality drives him to certain patterns, patterns that have by coincidence and luck (and being born rich) led him to where he is now. It remains to be seen how well his behavior will serve him again during this election. The country has changed in myriad ways, but I don't think Trump is really capable of change. Has the county changed enough? We can only hope.
The major difference is that while he is quite adept at manipulating rubes with easily disprovable lies that doesn't work in a court of law. If he started spewing the same things he says online in...
The major difference is that while he is quite adept at manipulating rubes with easily disprovable lies that doesn't work in a court of law. If he started spewing the same things he says online in a court, under oath, there would be actual consequences. If you have the facts, you argue in a court of law. If you don't have the facts, you argue in the court of public opinion.
His lawyers know this which is why out of the dozens/hundred+ of election fraud court cases they filed they offered nothing more than "trust us, bro" as "evidence". There is actual problems associated with lying in a court.
Does it? I am not a native English speaker, so maybe "mastery" is not the right word - what I meant was that I believe talented people can get good at their craft through deliberate practice. You...
mastery implies understanding and the capacity for strategy
Does it? I am not a native English speaker, so maybe "mastery" is not the right word - what I meant was that I believe talented people can get good at their craft through deliberate practice. You try, you observe the feedback you get, and you try again. This does not necessarily imply any understanding of "why" it works - you just develop a sixth sense that this or that will work.
Many people have "demons" (Jung would call them "shadow"). The craft that Trump "mastered" is summoning those to do his bidding. That does not mean he knows what he is doing. Kind of like Faust - well, at least that's how I see him.
I can see both sides here, basically the way I see it ... Trump has NO IDEA what he does, all he knows is whatever he does, works... most of the time. So him and his team just keep doing the same...
I can see both sides here, basically the way I see it ... Trump has NO IDEA what he does, all he knows is whatever he does, works... most of the time.
So him and his team just keep doing the same tricks over and over, eventually it will get old. He's basically run out of lawyers at this point and has to hire from the bottom of the barrel.
I'd rather there are (or have been) people around him that are much more strategic thinkers and could leverage his "skill" more deliberately, but that would require him to listen and judge who has...
I'd rather there are (or have been) people around him that are much more strategic thinkers and could leverage his "skill" more deliberately, but that would require him to listen and judge who has the best idea. As opposed to what appears to actually happen, which is he agrees with the last person he spoke with.
A lot of us Americans are also scared, but also determined in our opposition to Trump. In 2016 for the election, the opposition was not as committed or determined or cohesive. Some people didn't...
A lot of us Americans are also scared, but also determined in our opposition to Trump. In 2016 for the election, the opposition was not as committed or determined or cohesive. Some people didn't believe he could win. Others were not familiar enough with his history to see how very bad he was. His choice on January 6 to incite the mob is unique in our history.
Just yesterday, I had lunch with my family - no Americans were present but we were talking about US presidents for some reason. Please do not take this the wrong way - we obviously see things from...
Just yesterday, I had lunch with my family - no Americans were present but we were talking about US presidents for some reason. Please do not take this the wrong way - we obviously see things from a large distance - but we were kind of puzzled why Democrats have not come up with some new, young, sharp, charismatic leader. I mean - I am not saying Biden is a bad president, but with his age... if he died tomorrow it would not be such a huge surprise, would it? With such a large pool of talent in the US, it seems odd (to us, with very superficial knowledge of US politics).
As an American voter and a registered Democrat, I share your confusion. This generation of political leaders clings to power and has not developed their bench of successors. It is a failure in...
As an American voter and a registered Democrat, I share your confusion. This generation of political leaders clings to power and has not developed their bench of successors. It is a failure in leadership and very selfish decision.
American political parties are like any other "power grouping" one might find throughout history. The Catholic Church, actual governments, East India Trading Company, and so on. Not to say the...
Exemplary
American political parties are like any other "power grouping" one might find throughout history. The Catholic Church, actual governments, East India Trading Company, and so on. Not to say the DNC/RNC are as powerful as those examples were in their primes, but just that they're full of people who maneuver for power and harness the organization to help themselves. Which is not the same as having a roster of people who seek to achieve victory through the polls, whose first and primary goal is to get good leaders elected.
So you have a lot of "long time" or "key" people in the DNC who enjoy being exactly that; powerful due to their tenure or from their essential critical position within the DNC. This is one of the things Hillary was harnessing when she ran in 2016; she'd spent decades "setting up" her run by moving and shaking within the DNC and felt it was her turn. That she'd invested all that time setting up the board and thus it was hers to run.
The past several decades show the DNC/RNC aren't particularly interested in "winning" so much as they are maintaining and building their power. Neither necessarily has to have control of Congress or the White House to have that power. Their power comes from connections and leverage; sure they have more when they have the votes, but their "key players" still have leverage over other political players, industry figures, companies, members of courts, the wealthy, and so on.
If you look at American politics over the past few decades assuming the national parties are mostly interested in keeping their soft "behind the scenes" power, a lot more of the bullshit they've done (or not done as the case may be) makes more sense.
We're headed for a pitiless and brutal oligarchy. One could argue it's already here, and the national parties and their actions are examples of it. Who benefits from not having any of the major groundswell changes so many of the unwashed masses are clamoring for? Who would block such moves? And who's getting paid to ensure they stay blocked as desired?
That's who's populating the national parties. People who like things the way they are, who are working for people who also like the way things are. A charismatic leader who can rally the masses is actually dangerous to the national parties; that demagogue (benevolent or not) would rock the boat and things would no longer be the way they are. For example, the RNC is terrified of Trump, because he's in charge of most of their voting base, and that threatens their power and position. He's got more of it than they do.
The DNC has no interest in any rising stars, especially not ones the unwashed masses are trying and hoping to buoy up because that person (seems to) favors something that would help said masses. Safer for the national party and its power brokers' interests if everyone waits their turn and plays the game the way it's currently being played. Quietly, selfishly, and gathering favors and financial gratitude for keeping any major changes from taking place.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you for explaining. But ultimately, it is people who vote. Why do they not vote for someone outside of this dual system? I get why unknown nobody would not stand a...
That makes a lot of sense, thank you for explaining. But ultimately, it is people who vote. Why do they not vote for someone outside of this dual system? I get why unknown nobody would not stand a chance... but let's say somebody already popular decides to run... maybe someone like Morgan Freeman or Keanu Reeves - why does no one outside of those two parties even try?
I do not know much about political science and I suspect the response has something to do with the way the US system is set up. But still... it seems that the system so polarized could use some new input. For example, I am from a country where politics was also kind of locked between two parties at certain times. The result was that new parties emerged and were successful because people were fed up with the old two parties. Our new president is someone who was not a politician until he decided to run, although he was already pretty well known. Our system seems to be fluid in a way that should also work in the US, in theory, but it does not really.
I have always been told that third parties only function as spoilers and that people who vote for them, cause the party they most oppose to win. Ross Perot came the closest in my life time....
I have always been told that third parties only function as spoilers and that people who vote for them, cause the party they most oppose to win.
Ross Perot came the closest in my life time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
I share few of Perot's policy positions, but he was a big deal and threatened to shake things up.
In general, "The Squad" in the House of Representatives is a promising group of young, left-wing Democrats. However, since they're all visible minorities in one way or other (women and/or...
In general, "The Squad" in the House of Representatives is a promising group of young, left-wing Democrats. However, since they're all visible minorities in one way or other (women and/or non-White), their leadership path is difficult.
I have seen articles highlighting policy initiatives from Democratic governors, especially the ones in the Midwest. The talent is there, but we don't get to know leaders outside our own regions...
I have seen articles highlighting policy initiatives from Democratic governors, especially the ones in the Midwest. The talent is there, but we don't get to know leaders outside our own regions much unless they actually run for president.
Edit lawmakers like Schiff who played a role in the Jan 6 hearings, now have a national profile.
The old guard Democrats saw what happened when the Republicans went with their populace champion, and they'll be damned if they let that happen to their party. Plus a changing of the guard would...
The old guard Democrats saw what happened when the Republicans went with their populace champion, and they'll be damned if they let that happen to their party. Plus a changing of the guard would mean they would lose their seats to power, and it's not a good time for that, you know, because stuff...
Indeed, here in MI we have hopes for Whitmer in 2028. For now I'm happy for her to fulfill her current term as governor, and then focus on a 2028 presidential bid.
Indeed, here in MI we have hopes for Whitmer in 2028. For now I'm happy for her to fulfill her current term as governor, and then focus on a 2028 presidential bid.
I know he's a legacy but Joe Kennedy III (grandson of RFK) seemed to be very well liked and had some heat behind him for a bit there. However when the 2020 elections rolled around he really beefed...
I know he's a legacy but Joe Kennedy III (grandson of RFK) seemed to be very well liked and had some heat behind him for a bit there. However when the 2020 elections rolled around he really beefed it -- he held a seat in the House and decided to run for Senate by trying to beat an incumbent Democratic Senator (Ed Markey) in the primaries. Kennedy positioned himself as the young blood progressive candidate and to be fair that's all true, but the problem is that despite being in his 70s, Markey is also quite progressive, seemingly on the ball and very well liked. So Kennedy ended up losing the primary and now he's the Special Envoy to Ireland.
Seeing him speak, he's very charismatic, and smart, and a young-ish white man which certainly helps a lot in the US (42, but then you have to be 35 to run for President anyway) with a known name behind him. RFK was a hero and he very clearly idolized his grandfather which is a good thing. I doubt he will run again though, for senate or for anything higher.
AOC is obviously one a lot of people have their eyes on. She would technically have been eligible to run in the 2024 election but Biden is still around and I think the expectation was that either Kamala Harris or Biden would run in 2024. I don't know if AOC would run for President, because frankly in the current landscape I don't think she has a chance at winning and I think she is smart enough to know that -- but she will stay in the House as long as she wants and could be a Senator if she wanted to.
A lot of young talent was lost in the 2010 elections, which saw the GOP take control of the House. This was partly the result of the Democrats letting their state networks atrophy (the same...
A lot of young talent was lost in the 2010 elections, which saw the GOP take control of the House. This was partly the result of the Democrats letting their state networks atrophy (the same networks that helped Obama win in 2008).
For what it's worth, the Admistrative Office of the US Courts (all federal courts) is piloting streaming video services with the major Cloud Service Providers. That's a fun coincidence.
For what it's worth, the Admistrative Office of the US Courts (all federal courts) is piloting streaming video services with the major Cloud Service Providers. That's a fun coincidence.
If this ends up televised I'm going to pick up a bottle of champagne and take the day off to watch the first day of trial and I'm sure I won't be the only one celebrating.
If this ends up televised I'm going to pick up a bottle of champagne and take the day off to watch the first day of trial and I'm sure I won't be the only one celebrating.
Televised trials tend to be more sensational, no? There's not just the Jury, but outside opinion would definitely be taken into account with every statement, considering how politically charged...
Televised trials tend to be more sensational, no? There's not just the Jury, but outside opinion would definitely be taken into account with every statement, considering how politically charged this is.
I'd hope they don't. But if they do, that'll be something.
Fox news, OAN and other entertainment networks masquerading as "news" stations will fill the airwaves (both television and radio) with sensationalized rhetoric regardless. The prosecutor will ask...
Fox news, OAN and other entertainment networks masquerading as "news" stations will fill the airwaves (both television and radio) with sensationalized rhetoric regardless. The prosecutor will ask a question about why they picked fake electors and a Fox talking head will just scream "HUNTER'S DICK PICS!!" over and over while OAN will be talking about "If they can go after an ex-President, YOU could be next!!".
Like, yes, please go after everyone who tries to overthrow our democracy.
Sort of like a sports event that is televised, the commentary will not change the process or the outcome. But news professionals will definitely be offering their interpretation to viewers.
Sort of like a sports event that is televised, the commentary will not change the process or the outcome. But news professionals will definitely be offering their interpretation to viewers.
Right, I don't know of any particularly good comparisons of televised trials on this level lol. I would point to Heard/Depp, but that was defamation, and a totally different type of court I'd...
Right, I don't know of any particularly good comparisons of televised trials on this level lol.
I would point to Heard/Depp, but that was defamation, and a totally different type of court I'd presume. I doubt such antics would be pulled here for that reason.
There is a way to block specific tags from your feed on Tildes. I think the tag might be donald trump, but double check and apply the block and you won't see this content. You can also block the...
There is a way to block specific tags from your feed on Tildes. I think the tag might be donald trump, but double check and apply the block and you won't see this content. You can also block the tag politics and any other tag you choose.
I'm alright with never wasting another second of my life seeing or thinking about this person, and potentially not continuing this 8+ year-long media circus surrounding him.
I'm alright with never wasting another second of my life seeing or thinking about this person, and potentially not continuing this 8+ year-long media circus surrounding him.
Did you see the conversation elsewhere in this thread about how to block topic tags on Tildes? You definitely don't have to see it here if you don't want to.
Did you see the conversation elsewhere in this thread about how to block topic tags on Tildes? You definitely don't have to see it here if you don't want to.
No issue with seeing this article here (sorry, should have clarified). It's just very exhausting to contemplate 'even more Trump content' as a kind of TV blockbuster event, given what we've...
No issue with seeing this article here (sorry, should have clarified). It's just very exhausting to contemplate 'even more Trump content' as a kind of TV blockbuster event, given what we've already been through.
Wake me up when there is a conviction.
I firmly believe that only one of three things will happen:
A. Trump is successfully assassinated by someone
B. Trump is killed by an act of God
C. Trump wins a second term in the White House and serves the full 4 years
They can indict him 10 times for all I care. It will not stop him from running for President in 2024. There will be no end to Trump unless one of those three possibilities above happens.
Yeah, I remember feeling that way about the OJ trial. But lots of people will be interested.
OJ was circa 1994-1995, thirty years ago before cable with 100+ channels were common and before internet and before streaming. Wikipedia says it went on for 11months. I wonder if modern "viewers" have that kind of patience for even entertaining lengthy tv.
The Depp v Heard trial was 3 weeks and attention held pretty solid for it's duration. No, not close to 11 months, but it's the biggest public trial since streaming and social media became mainstream. I imagine interest would ebb and flow as interesting soundbites get sliced out and shared, then quiet down until the next one.
This trial will be watched by way, way more people but most of them won't be tracked.
Keep in mind, OJ was a big deal in the US but internationally nobody gave a shit. Trump has made an international mockery of the US, viewer numbers will be far higher in the US but there will be a lot of people from other countries with eyes on this.
Not only is it a spectacle like OJ was but it's also political history in the making.
I can think of a few groups who might be highly motivated. Lawyers who are intrigued by this unique case. People on the left who are super angry about Jan 6 and want to see Trump get his comeuppance. Trump's super supporters.
We will see, but I think you are right about attention spans. on the other hand lots of people surf the web while watching tv, or have tv on in the background while working from home.
11 months! The poor jury.
It’s hard to get viewership numbers for this kind of thing now. A lot of people will watch it, and a lot of others will watch via someone’s YouTube vid or tiktok. Both can reasonably be said to have watched the trial but only one will be counted
I remember that in middle school.
They interrupted class to have us students watch the trial. I didn't know anything about the guy or the sport and didn't care, and they literally stopped school so we could watch the trial. It seemed very weird to me.
Lol. Thanks for lightening my mood today.
I remember the OJ Simpson trial. I expect this to be at least as big.
The OJ trial was what I immediately thought of when they mentioned televising.
Has to be much bigger, for one there are a lot more people now, and this will be the first time we see a president on trial (unless you count Nixon)
But for OJ people still used Cable and OTA television.
And there was way less competition. It's like how the MASH finale will always be the top-viewed scripted TV program of all time. There were like 3 channels back then.
this is all conjecture though right? There isn't a realistic expectation that any of the proceedings will be publically televised?
Georgia tends to allow it unless there is good reason not to. Trump attorneys will likely try to move the trial to federal court because they don't want it on television. Edit among other reasons they want it in federal court. It would still be state charges and not easily pardonable, regardless of which court the trial is held.
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/14/trump-georgia-indictment-televised-court
https://deadline.com/2023/08/trump-indictment-televised-georgia-1235519210/
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/could-trumps-potential-georgia-trial-be-televised/video_8963595c-4db9-53bf-93d4-5977f7c328f4.html
https://truthout.org/articles/a-televised-trial-in-georgia-could-damage-trump-experts-say/
I feel like his lawyers are going to argue to move it until Trump declares that he'd love for it to be televised.
Seems more in his playbook to state he wants it to be televised but still try to get it moved, and then act indignant when federal courts won't allow it to be televised to rile up his base more (even though he knew it wouldn't end up being televised if he did this which is what he wanted). Then because it's not televised, he can continue to make things up about what happened in court, he gets to be the arbiter of truth to his supporters if it plays that way.
This scares me. Trump has mastered manipulation and demagoguery. He practiced working audiences for decades. He will say exactly the things needed to tear your country apart and you will televise it eagerly.
I am not an American so why would I care? Me and most people dear to me, we live in a small country close to Russia. If America falls, life will get shittier here too.
I think you're partially correct. Trump is good at getting attention and telling people what they want to hear. However I don't think he's mastered a set of skills so much as tried so many times he defaults to certain patterns that work. Like a mouse that has figured out how to get food from a pantry.
The key difference that is that mastery implies understanding and the capacity for strategy, which I do not think Trump has except in a very rudimentary way. His narcissistic personality drives him to certain patterns, patterns that have by coincidence and luck (and being born rich) led him to where he is now. It remains to be seen how well his behavior will serve him again during this election. The country has changed in myriad ways, but I don't think Trump is really capable of change. Has the county changed enough? We can only hope.
The major difference is that while he is quite adept at manipulating rubes with easily disprovable lies that doesn't work in a court of law. If he started spewing the same things he says online in a court, under oath, there would be actual consequences. If you have the facts, you argue in a court of law. If you don't have the facts, you argue in the court of public opinion.
His lawyers know this which is why out of the dozens/hundred+ of election fraud court cases they filed they offered nothing more than "trust us, bro" as "evidence". There is actual problems associated with lying in a court.
Does it? I am not a native English speaker, so maybe "mastery" is not the right word - what I meant was that I believe talented people can get good at their craft through deliberate practice. You try, you observe the feedback you get, and you try again. This does not necessarily imply any understanding of "why" it works - you just develop a sixth sense that this or that will work.
Many people have "demons" (Jung would call them "shadow"). The craft that Trump "mastered" is summoning those to do his bidding. That does not mean he knows what he is doing. Kind of like Faust - well, at least that's how I see him.
I think we're on the same page, Trump has definitely had a lot of practice doing whatever dark art he does, even if he doesn't understand it.
I can see both sides here, basically the way I see it ... Trump has NO IDEA what he does, all he knows is whatever he does, works... most of the time.
So him and his team just keep doing the same tricks over and over, eventually it will get old. He's basically run out of lawyers at this point and has to hire from the bottom of the barrel.
I'd rather there are (or have been) people around him that are much more strategic thinkers and could leverage his "skill" more deliberately, but that would require him to listen and judge who has the best idea. As opposed to what appears to actually happen, which is he agrees with the last person he spoke with.
A lot of us Americans are also scared, but also determined in our opposition to Trump. In 2016 for the election, the opposition was not as committed or determined or cohesive. Some people didn't believe he could win. Others were not familiar enough with his history to see how very bad he was. His choice on January 6 to incite the mob is unique in our history.
Thanks for the warning.
Just yesterday, I had lunch with my family - no Americans were present but we were talking about US presidents for some reason. Please do not take this the wrong way - we obviously see things from a large distance - but we were kind of puzzled why Democrats have not come up with some new, young, sharp, charismatic leader. I mean - I am not saying Biden is a bad president, but with his age... if he died tomorrow it would not be such a huge surprise, would it? With such a large pool of talent in the US, it seems odd (to us, with very superficial knowledge of US politics).
As an American voter and a registered Democrat, I share your confusion. This generation of political leaders clings to power and has not developed their bench of successors. It is a failure in leadership and very selfish decision.
American political parties are like any other "power grouping" one might find throughout history. The Catholic Church, actual governments, East India Trading Company, and so on. Not to say the DNC/RNC are as powerful as those examples were in their primes, but just that they're full of people who maneuver for power and harness the organization to help themselves. Which is not the same as having a roster of people who seek to achieve victory through the polls, whose first and primary goal is to get good leaders elected.
So you have a lot of "long time" or "key" people in the DNC who enjoy being exactly that; powerful due to their tenure or from their essential critical position within the DNC. This is one of the things Hillary was harnessing when she ran in 2016; she'd spent decades "setting up" her run by moving and shaking within the DNC and felt it was her turn. That she'd invested all that time setting up the board and thus it was hers to run.
The past several decades show the DNC/RNC aren't particularly interested in "winning" so much as they are maintaining and building their power. Neither necessarily has to have control of Congress or the White House to have that power. Their power comes from connections and leverage; sure they have more when they have the votes, but their "key players" still have leverage over other political players, industry figures, companies, members of courts, the wealthy, and so on.
If you look at American politics over the past few decades assuming the national parties are mostly interested in keeping their soft "behind the scenes" power, a lot more of the bullshit they've done (or not done as the case may be) makes more sense.
We're headed for a pitiless and brutal oligarchy. One could argue it's already here, and the national parties and their actions are examples of it. Who benefits from not having any of the major groundswell changes so many of the unwashed masses are clamoring for? Who would block such moves? And who's getting paid to ensure they stay blocked as desired?
That's who's populating the national parties. People who like things the way they are, who are working for people who also like the way things are. A charismatic leader who can rally the masses is actually dangerous to the national parties; that demagogue (benevolent or not) would rock the boat and things would no longer be the way they are. For example, the RNC is terrified of Trump, because he's in charge of most of their voting base, and that threatens their power and position. He's got more of it than they do.
The DNC has no interest in any rising stars, especially not ones the unwashed masses are trying and hoping to buoy up because that person (seems to) favors something that would help said masses. Safer for the national party and its power brokers' interests if everyone waits their turn and plays the game the way it's currently being played. Quietly, selfishly, and gathering favors and financial gratitude for keeping any major changes from taking place.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you for explaining. But ultimately, it is people who vote. Why do they not vote for someone outside of this dual system? I get why unknown nobody would not stand a chance... but let's say somebody already popular decides to run... maybe someone like Morgan Freeman or Keanu Reeves - why does no one outside of those two parties even try?
I do not know much about political science and I suspect the response has something to do with the way the US system is set up. But still... it seems that the system so polarized could use some new input. For example, I am from a country where politics was also kind of locked between two parties at certain times. The result was that new parties emerged and were successful because people were fed up with the old two parties. Our new president is someone who was not a politician until he decided to run, although he was already pretty well known. Our system seems to be fluid in a way that should also work in the US, in theory, but it does not really.
And BTW, if this seems absurd, I think those two could be much better presidents than anyone who is currently trying.
John Stewart.
I have always been told that third parties only function as spoilers and that people who vote for them, cause the party they most oppose to win.
Ross Perot came the closest in my life time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
I share few of Perot's policy positions, but he was a big deal and threatened to shake things up.
In general, "The Squad" in the House of Representatives is a promising group of young, left-wing Democrats. However, since they're all visible minorities in one way or other (women and/or non-White), their leadership path is difficult.
I have seen articles highlighting policy initiatives from Democratic governors, especially the ones in the Midwest. The talent is there, but we don't get to know leaders outside our own regions much unless they actually run for president.
Edit lawmakers like Schiff who played a role in the Jan 6 hearings, now have a national profile.
The old guard Democrats saw what happened when the Republicans went with their populace champion, and they'll be damned if they let that happen to their party. Plus a changing of the guard would mean they would lose their seats to power, and it's not a good time for that, you know, because stuff...
Indeed, here in MI we have hopes for Whitmer in 2028. For now I'm happy for her to fulfill her current term as governor, and then focus on a 2028 presidential bid.
I know he's a legacy but Joe Kennedy III (grandson of RFK) seemed to be very well liked and had some heat behind him for a bit there. However when the 2020 elections rolled around he really beefed it -- he held a seat in the House and decided to run for Senate by trying to beat an incumbent Democratic Senator (Ed Markey) in the primaries. Kennedy positioned himself as the young blood progressive candidate and to be fair that's all true, but the problem is that despite being in his 70s, Markey is also quite progressive, seemingly on the ball and very well liked. So Kennedy ended up losing the primary and now he's the Special Envoy to Ireland.
Seeing him speak, he's very charismatic, and smart, and a young-ish white man which certainly helps a lot in the US (42, but then you have to be 35 to run for President anyway) with a known name behind him. RFK was a hero and he very clearly idolized his grandfather which is a good thing. I doubt he will run again though, for senate or for anything higher.
AOC is obviously one a lot of people have their eyes on. She would technically have been eligible to run in the 2024 election but Biden is still around and I think the expectation was that either Kamala Harris or Biden would run in 2024. I don't know if AOC would run for President, because frankly in the current landscape I don't think she has a chance at winning and I think she is smart enough to know that -- but she will stay in the House as long as she wants and could be a Senator if she wanted to.
A lot of young talent was lost in the 2010 elections, which saw the GOP take control of the House. This was partly the result of the Democrats letting their state networks atrophy (the same networks that helped Obama win in 2008).
For what it's worth, the Admistrative Office of the US Courts (all federal courts) is piloting streaming video services with the major Cloud Service Providers. That's a fun coincidence.
If this ends up televised I'm going to pick up a bottle of champagne and take the day off to watch the first day of trial and I'm sure I won't be the only one celebrating.
Televised trials tend to be more sensational, no? There's not just the Jury, but outside opinion would definitely be taken into account with every statement, considering how politically charged this is.
I'd hope they don't. But if they do, that'll be something.
Fox news, OAN and other entertainment networks masquerading as "news" stations will fill the airwaves (both television and radio) with sensationalized rhetoric regardless. The prosecutor will ask a question about why they picked fake electors and a Fox talking head will just scream "HUNTER'S DICK PICS!!" over and over while OAN will be talking about "If they can go after an ex-President, YOU could be next!!".
Like, yes, please go after everyone who tries to overthrow our democracy.
Sort of like a sports event that is televised, the commentary will not change the process or the outcome. But news professionals will definitely be offering their interpretation to viewers.
Right, I don't know of any particularly good comparisons of televised trials on this level lol.
I would point to Heard/Depp, but that was defamation, and a totally different type of court I'd presume. I doubt such antics would be pulled here for that reason.
That totally won't feed his ego at all and will never come up ever again as a future talking point. No sirree. Not a pinch.
If I never hear about that orange creature again, it'll be too soon.
There is a way to block specific tags from your feed on Tildes. I think the tag might be donald trump, but double check and apply the block and you won't see this content. You can also block the tag politics and any other tag you choose.
I'm talking about in general. Thankfully on this site his name is rarely invoked.
I am oddly fascinated by his legal troubles so far. I feel vengeful, which is not ideal, but he hurt us a lot.
I don't have positive feelings for people who wouldn't give your existence a second thought were they in the position to do so.
How, Ive tried but maybe didn't do it right because I still see politics show up in my stuff?
You can filter it by adding
politicsto your topic tag filter page found here.Ask here: https://tildes.net/~tildes/182p/new_users_ask_your_questions_about_tildes_here_v2
I'm alright with never wasting another second of my life seeing or thinking about this person, and potentially not continuing this 8+ year-long media circus surrounding him.
Did you see the conversation elsewhere in this thread about how to block topic tags on Tildes? You definitely don't have to see it here if you don't want to.
No issue with seeing this article here (sorry, should have clarified). It's just very exhausting to contemplate 'even more Trump content' as a kind of TV blockbuster event, given what we've already been through.