The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Donald and Boris Options
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 8:25:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 569
Neurons: 3,838
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Apart from being bigoted, insensitive, self-seeking misogynistic hypocritical buffoons with hair issues, what do Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have in common?

Well, a fair degree of success.

Despite all his known defects, Trump became POTUS. Despite his failure to carry out most of his election promises, he retains record approval ratings among Republicans, and a not-too-sniffy 40% approval rating overall.

Despite all his known defects, Johnson did become Mayor of London, did seriously influence the Brexit vote, and did become British Foreign Secretary.

It is not impossible that the Trump effect will lead to Republican successes in the mid-terms or that Trump will be elected for a second term.

It is not impossible that Johnson will become Prime Minister or that he will lead the Conservatives to victory at a future General election.

Meanwhile, most of those of us who are opposed to their policies continue to berate them as bigoted, insensitive, self-seeking misogynistic hypocritical buffoons with hair issues, and hope that the great unwashed will come to their senses and rid us of these turbulent men.

Trump and Johnson are both very good at sensing the worries, fears and problems of millions of ordinary voters, and voicing them. Trump even does this in the voice of these people*. Unless those of us opposed get off our smug backsides and present our policies to voters in a way that excites them, we are going to lose again. If we simply deride these men, we can be seen as deriding the millions of voters who believe that they (T and J) speak for them (the voters).


*Professor David Crystal, a UK-based linguist and author of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, said via email: “What’s been interesting is to hear a mode of speech we associate with informal domestic or street exchange being used by someone in high office. That presumably is what made Trump so appealing to so many, avoiding the high oratory of his predecessor. ‘He talks like us,’ I’ve heard people say.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/trump-attacks-twitter-black-people-women
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 12:35:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 31,291
Neurons: 187,383
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Applause Applause Dancing

The fact that they are both prolific twits seems to also have an effect. Sorry, I don't know the modern, correct noun for "a person who tweets".

When I was young (probably about nineteen or twenty, I suppose), I saw the two major party leaders in the UK speaking in Manchester.
Neither of them really had an exceptionally good set of policies - I suppose they both had a few good ones and a few bad ones.

However, their impact as speakers was dramatically different.

They were both grammar-school lads and Oxford graduates (at the same time, if not exactly the same year), yet Harold Wilson spoke like "an ordinary bloke" but Edward Heath spoke like a "toffee-nosed chinless aristocrat".

Heath v Wilson: the 10-Year Duel (BBC) "Wilson gave the impression of being an ordinary man because he was an ordinary man. Brought up in a terraced house in Huddersfield, he won a grammar school place and went on to Oxford . . .
Wilson was the antithesis of the Tory toffs who had preceded him, whose grouse moor image seemed anachronistic as the Sixties started to swing. . .
As individuals, they were chalk and cheese. Where Wilson was affable, quick on his feet and populist in his instincts, Heath was buttoned-up, wooden and chippy. "


As you say about Trump and Johnson, Wilson directly addressed the fears and worries of "the ordinary people" (he may not have done anything about them, but he spoke about them).

*******
Times are different now - social media, and the style and language which is used - is what is listened to.

I don't know who would be a good 'anti-Johnson' - someone who speaks 'with the voice of the people' and has the good of the people of the UK at heart.

I'll leave the USA to the Americans - let then believe they 'rule the western world' for a bit longer.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
TL Hobs
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 1:03:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,394
Neurons: 5,576
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States

I keep waiting for the day I hear the Trump say that famous phrase spoken so often by "his people."

"Hey Y'all! Watch this!"


"When you don't know where you are going, you have to stick together just in case someone gets there." - Ken Kesey
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 1:57:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Bob, I think you are correct that the Democrats need to energize their base but there really is no sense trying to change the followers who voted on emotion of whether or not he "speaks their language" and because of fear he stirred up while they eschewed the well-thought-out policies and extensive experience of his opponent.

"Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason." - James Randi, magician and skeptic (b. 7 Aug 1928)

With stats of job losses because of his tariffs in areas that voted Trump (a prominent example being farmers being given billions in socialistic relief needed because of Trump's tariffs) Dems are hoping that will lower his approval rating. In time?

But they need something besides Trump's character to attack. Any suggestions?

They also need to put forward some candiates with charisma and good policies, and also need to convince the Green Party voters to stop splitting the liberal vote! Anybody who doesn't vote or votes any way except Democrat is a vote for Trump and they have no right to complain later if he gets in again.

Drago, Not sure but probably tweeter is the noun you want although many of any group on Twitter with their tweets could be classed as twits. Love your last statement.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 2:16:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 569
Neurons: 3,838
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:

They also need to put forward some candiates with charisma and good policies, and also need to convince the Green Party voters to stop splitting the liberal vote! Anybody who doesn't vote or votes any way except Democrat is a vote for Trump and they have no right to complain later if he gets in again.


So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that principles and beliefs are irrelevant; if you are opposed to Trump, you should vote Democrat?

I think that could be one reason that a few (million) people voted for Trump rather than the Democrat candidate.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 4:18:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
BobShilling wrote:
Hope123 wrote:

They also need to put forward some candiates with charisma and good policies, and also need to convince the Green Party voters to stop splitting the liberal vote! Anybody who doesn't vote or votes any way except Democrat is a vote for Trump and they have no right to complain later if he gets in again.


So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that principles and beliefs are irrelevant; if you are opposed to Trump, you should vote Democrat?

I think that could be one reason that a few (million) people voted for Trump rather than the Democrat candidate.


There were many reasons Trump got in but probably your statement about one of them is correct. Many Republicans overlooked a lot of their family values and religious beliefs and made them irrelevant in order to get a candidate that would give them their supreme court justice and anti abortion beliefs. That is an open secret.

Fortunately the Green Party does not have the same dilemma if it really has the environment as their main concern, as that is shared by the Democrats (Obama did a lot to help the environment). They would not be making their beliefs and principles irrelevant. In fact by voting against Trump they are furthering their cause as Trump is doing everything he can to loosen up trophy hunting rules, wreck water cleansing efforts, lessen pollution control - I forget all the changes he has made to stop the rules put in by Obama to help the environment. There's a new one every day but people are being distracted by other minutiae and miss these rule changes done quietly.

What I am saying is that people need to get out and vote. And sometimes one needs to vote strategically when there are two parties with similar principles and beliefs versus one differing one, if one cares about the direction of the future of the country. People who vote Green Party also know it does not have a hope in hell of getting in, not yet anyhow.

I'm sure if Progpen is around he may explain more and even disagree with me. But anyone who dislikes Trump's policies and does not vote to help viable opposition to him when there are really only two possibilities has no right to complain later if he gets back in.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 5:30:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Bob, I looked up the Green Party platform: "Four Pillars, namely ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy and nonviolence". They have not won any seats in Congress ever since 1994. "The Green Party of the United States is a green federation of political parties in the United States. The party promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory, grassroots democracy, gender equality, LGBT rights, anti-war and anti-racism. On the political spectrum, the party is generally seen as left-wing". Wiki. There must be more to it than that because the Democratic Party encompasses all those principles. It is just like a split in a party. Same thing happens in Canada except it is the New Democratic Party that splits the liberal vote while the Green Party keeps its one seat in Parliament year after year.

The Democratic Party has their platform spelled out in much more detail but the same principles apply.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 8:33:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Back to the topic of talking the language of "the people"... I don't know anything about Boris so can't add anything to Drago's post.

Michael Avenatti doesn't use the coarse racist language that Trump does, but he is a street fighter and he's smart. He started out representing Stormy Daniels but is also representing asylum seeker parents who lost their children. He is on Twitter all the time not afraid to post redacted legal documents to prove his points. He is out to get Trump. He says Dems need to fight fire with fire.

He says that the Democrats need to be willing to get down and dirty like the Republicans. Maybe he has a point. I've been watching from afar and shaking my head for years at how nasty the Repubs seem to be with the dirty smearing of their opponents with lies and half truths that people accept, and their hitting below the belt. From the never ending attacks on the Clintons when they never found anything except a lie about something that was none of their business to apply the same principle with which they now judge Trump, to the loss of the 2000 election by G. W. Bush for which the world will forever be sorry. Add to that what they, including Comey, did to Hillary this time.

Following is an excerpt from this link. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/11/opinions/avenatti-dems-fire-with-fire-opinion-zelizer/index.html


"While Barack Obama did find a way to make civil electoral politics work in 2008, this is not a recipe that is going to work today against a Republican Party consistently willing to go to any length to win.

Democrats need to accept the nature of the political fight they face. To be sure, Democrats need to find a set of principles that inspire and excite their votes. But just as urgent is the need to find candidates who understand what has become of national politics and now are willing to go after their opponents with the same ferocity and ruthlessness as many of their Republican opponents.
Without question, whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2020, Trump will go after him or her with hammer and tong, aiming to destroy their reputation, credibility and viability with a barrage of insults and smears. The Republicans will find media figures such as Fox host Laura Ingraham who are even willing to spread the rhetoric of white nationalism. (On Thursday, Ingraham denied...

In a recent episode of CNN's "The 2000s," viewers were reminded about the costs of always taking the high road. The show examined the contested presidential election of 2000, where Republicans, guided by James Baker, launched an all-out political campaign to win the public relations war over the presidential election vote recount, while Democrats, headed by Warren Christopher, tried to handle the controversy in more civil fashion, treating it as a purely legal battle. The outcome: Democrats lost and George W. Bush became President."




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
BobShilling
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 1:31:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 569
Neurons: 3,838
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
He says that the Democrats need to be willing to get down and dirty like the Republicans.


Trump's opponents have done a pretty good job of exposing the dirty truth about him. It makes little difference to his supporters . Indeed, it increases his support among certain elements. So, his language is coarse, and he talks (and probably acts) dirty where women are concerned. That just shows he's like us, not like those elitist upper-class Dems who wouldn't know an honest God-fearing working man looks like. Or, OK, he has faults, like all of us, but at least he is putting America first, stopping Muslims coming in to destroy us, stopping Mexicans coming in to take our jobs and rape our women, and stopping those goddam Canadians, Europeans, Iranians, etc ripping us off. And, if all goes well, he is going to stop wanton women taking the lives of their helpless unborn children. So what if Putin did interfere a little with the election It helped get our guy in, so Vlad can't be all bad.

In the UK, Boris can't quite talk in the same way as manual workers, but he can sure as hell articulate their thoughts and fears about, for example, the European Union and Muslims. His opponents repeatedly expose his lies, hypocrisy and blatant self-interest, but this doesn't deter his supporters.

Bernie did, I think, pose a real threat to Trumpist ideas in the USA, but he was too radical for the Democrat establishment, whi finally ensured. Corbyn (though he has disappointed some recently similarly posed a threat tothe right in the U. He not only had to face savage and dirty attacks from the right, but repeated back-stabbing from the 'liberal' left.

If the opponents of the factions represented by Trump and Boris could present exciting ideas that recognise the(to them) genuine fears and concerns of ordinary voters, they might get somewhere. Sanders and Corbyn did have such ideas, and received a great deal of support from many ordinary voters. With more support from the establishments of their parties, they might have achieved what seemed impossible.

Getting down and dirty won't work. That can be dismissed as FAKE NEWS, Having exciting policies gives a better chance of success.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 10:02:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Bob.

Thanks for the info about the UK.

My bad. I was using my term "down and dirty" which is how I think the Republicans behave, and collating it with what Avenatti said.

I skimmed the article again and I don't see that phrase anywhere.

Avenatti: "We must be a party that fights fire with fire. When they go low, I say hit back harder."

He said 'harder' not 'lower'. The means to hit harder could be anything - maybe just be more persistent, push for more "investigations" etc.He puts stuff out there and criticizes but is still classy about what he says.

The emboldened part actually explains it better so I'll post it again below.

I wonder what issues the Dems should take up. Do Americans want healthcare or not? Help with education that is no longer revered or wanted? Higher minimum wage? Ontario just proved that more jobs were created after the minimum wage was raised. But business still argues against it. Those ideas are labelled the feared socialism when the country already has socialism unbeknownst to those who argue against healthcare etc.

Climate change? What percentage of the American population deny it? Humane Immigration? What to do there with so many opposed. Auto makers like the lowered emission rules and banks and Wall Street like the lowered financial rules. Until another recession caused by the relaxation of the rules happens, or the tariffs start hitting pocketbooks, what are the issues the Dems should embrace? Ideas would be gratefully accepted by them, I'm sure.

Democrats need to accept the nature of the political fight they face. To be sure, Democrats need to find a set of principles that inspire and excite their votes. But just as urgent is the need to find candidates who understand what has become of national politics and now are willing to go after their opponents with the same ferocity and ruthlessness as many of their Republican opponents.
Without question, whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2020, Trump will go after him or her with hammer and tong, aiming to destroy their reputation, credibility and viability with a barrage of insults and smears. The Republicans will find media figures such as Fox host Laura Ingraham who are even willing to spread the rhetoric of white nationalism. (On Thursday, Ingraham denied...



"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:02:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Bob, Avenatti is a lawyer with a great deal of experience in taking on David vs Goliath cases. He is currently representing a porn star against Trump and parents separated from their children at the southern US border, trying to get them reunited. He has not decided yet if he wants to run for president. He has not been in government but that didn't stop Trump who exploited the fears and baser instincts of many people. So maybe Avenatti can exploit the better instincts of more people. He does have confidence which is an important factor in elections. Depending upon who else runs for the Democrats and any other info that comes out, and depending upon the platforms, I would probably vote for a younger fresh face rather than an older person with baggage.

Anyhow, here is what he posted on Twitter as to his point of view on many topics. He says there is more to follow.

What do you (plural anybody) think of his viewpoints on the links as running material?







"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 10:19:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Bob, Just a little contrast - the opposite to Trump and Boris, from the thread about separated children, and pertaining to our digression about what might energize the Left:

Good news! For one child anyhow.

Avenatti has been fighting for the "underdog" for 18 years. And it seems the press and twitter have some pull after all, even over judges?

I hope we get a pic tomorrow of Antony being reunited with his mother.



Today on Twitter:

Michael Avenatti: @ricardo_de_anda & I appeared in ct today to attempt to allow us to take our client Antony home to mom in Guatemala TODAY. The govt opposed our request - he will now have to stay perhaps another 2 mos here. He hasn’t seen his mom in 81 days. Trump and his cronies have no heart.

(Another tweeter: What judge in Houston denied this child the opportunity to be reunited with his family⁉️I thought the courts ordered the families reunited⁉️I want to know the name of the judge❗️I want to see if the judge is running for re-election❗️)

Avenatti:
I have been negotiating with the government since my stmts to the press this morning and my last tweet. It now appears that they will grant me custody and allow me to take Antony home to his mother in Guatemala on a flight tonight, after 81 days of being separated.

Avenatti later:

81 days after being forcibly separated from his mother due to the cruel and unusual president, Antony is going home to Guatemala to be reunited with his mother. Finally.



"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.