I have some ideas on how we can frame the debate

[louis c]

(1). A symbol of our cause, the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty has always been a positive symbol of Patriotism. But in this day and age, it means more to us than it does to our opponents. First, the most obvious; it is a symbol of tolerance to immigrants and refugees. It reflects the better part of our history, and it pisses off our opponents. Next, Lady Liberty resides in New York Harbor, one of the most Liberal cities in one of the most Liberal sates in America. It has the added visual of being a female icon facing down the symbol to the worst piece of shit in American history, Trump Tower. Finally, Liberty. It speaks to our first amendment rights, which include the freedom of the press.

(2). Trump's political rallies should be described as "Trump's Nuremburg Rallies". It would go like this, "Donald Trump has scheduled another Nuremburg rally in Pennsylvania and Florida this week." His rallies are replete with the lies, the flag waving and the demeaning chants reminiscent of the Fascist days under Hitler.

(3). Devin Nunes' and Jim Jordan's caucus should be renamed "the treason caucus" for their active attempt to shut down a legitimate investigation of an obvious attack on this country by a foreign power.

These are just three of my suggestions. please feel free to add any of your own

[2naSalit]

1. On #2...

I would call them Brown Shirt Rallies... like the actual rallies they resemble. Nuremberg brings up the trials after the war. The rallies should be compared to the rallies they resemble.

[louis c]

2. Of course the most famous of Hitler's rallies was in Nuremberg

and who cares if it conjures up memories of the Nuremberg trials. That visual is appropriate, too.

[2naSalit]

3. Okay.

My WWII history is sorely incomplete, I didn't know about that part! I'll accept what you suggest given this additional point. I think either will do, but your argument rings stronger if people recognize that part. In any case, like right here, we need to make sure people have the facts so they can be informed about it all.

Thanks for that!

[louis c]

7. A little WWII History

Wikipedia:
The Nuremberg Rally (officially About this sound Reichsparteitag (help·info) (Reich Party Day)) was the annual rally of the Nazi Party in Germany, held from 1923 to 1938.[1] They were large Nazi propaganda events, especially after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933. These events were held at the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg from 1933 to 1938 and are usually referred to in English as the "Nuremberg Rallies". Many films were made to commemorate them, the most famous of which is Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and The Victory of Faith.

Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally

Link;

[2naSalit]

17. Thanks!

I was aware of the rallies in general, and am friends with someone whose father was actually a brown shirt, we talk history when we get together, and I have seen these movies but it's been a while.

My brother used to make me watch every movie there was in our reach that had anything to do with that war, maybe I block some of it because I was young and horrified about what I was watching. Some of my grandparents' immediate family were killed in the furnaces, they didn't talk about it except at funerals.

[Timer]

4. I like your suggestions a lot.

Lady Liberty is a potent symbol, for all of the reasons you mention. I'm with you on "Nuremberg Rallies." That's a powerful comparison. I could go with "Brown Shirt Rallies" too.

[louis c]

13. Waht's wrong with the "Treason Caucus"?

[onecaliberal]

5. Great suggestions.

[0rganism]

6. #2 requires people to know about the Nuremberg rallies

famous as they were/are, it's not a given that people would be familiar with them
"Praise The Leader rally" might work, or "Nazi rally" or "hood-optional klan event"
#1 & #3 seem sound

[louis c]

8. Read post number 7

[0rganism]

9. the problem is, #2 assumes general population familiarity

you know about the Nuremberg rallies
i know about the Nuremberg rallies
people who payed attention in their 20th century history classes probably know about them too
people who watch the history channel know ("All Hitler, All The Time" )

if that's the extent of your target audience, #2 is fine

[louis c]

10. I can't help it if people are historically illiterate

I have enough trouble trying to convince people. It's twice as hard if I have to educate them, against their will, and then try to convince them, against their will.

Let's just try to convince the smart voters. I believe they are the majority.

[0rganism]

11. i suspect Democrats are already getting the lion's share of "smart voters"

if we want to improve our representation, we're gonna need a bunch of the un-smart voters too.

[louis c]

12. How?

If an un-smart voter is stubborn, they think a smart voter is part of the "elite".

And remember, you can't fix stupid.

[0rganism]

14. and that is the challenge we face

smarter people than i are working on the many interesting problems involved with attracting such voters to our cause

personally, i'd recommend holding large rallies and handing out wearable swag -- proven effective since 1934!

[louis c]

15. We can win without them.

The demographic shift alone will make up for the 70,000 votes we needed to win the electoral college.

We can't win racists over, no matter how hard we try.

[0rganism]

16. i sure hope so

agree with you, the EC and the presidency could be handled with demographic shift; we'll definitely have the edge in 2024 assuming we continue to have a democracy by then.

in order to do anything substantial with said presidency, it would help to have at least one house of congress on our side by then. for that, i don't think demographics alone will be enough to give a win -- congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered, and incumbent senators tend to be difficult to unseat.

[louis c]

18. Well, look at it this way...

...How do you convince a person who thought Obama was born in Kenya, but the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt?

How do you convince a person that Pizzagate was a real conspiracy but Global Warming is a hoax?

Good luck converting them.

[0rganism]

19. i think your rhetorical questions imply their own answers

and no it's not "you just can't". for all our sakes, it better not be.

think about this:
> How do you convince a person that Pizzagate was a real conspiracy but Global Warming is a hoax?

now this is kind of an opposite day question, since i wouldn't want to do it in the first place, but i'll take your meaning as
> How do you convince a person who believes that Pizzagate was a real conspiracy but Global Warming is a hoax to vote for Democrats?

it all hinges on belief. as long as that person continues to believe Pizzagate and deny Global Warming, they will likely remain unreachable. but the important thing here is that beliefs come and go. that person didn't always believe Pizzagate happened, since it was invented out of whole cloth about 3 years ago. similarly, unless they're fairly young (sub-30), chances are they didn't always deny Global Warming since it's only been a matter of public policy for about 2 decades. over the course of some finite amount of time, people acquired those highly artificial views -- Pizzagate as promoted by 4chan and RWNJ's, Global Warming denial as promoted by the Koch bros and their collaborators. people didn't arrive at those beliefs through careful consideration of available evidence, but through extended exposure to highly effective agitprop.

so to the question of "How", Democrats will need to engage in a counter-messaging campaign of comparable scope to the messaging campaigns waged by RWNJs on 4chan and pollution advocates aligned with Koch industries. i'm not saying it will be simple, but there are (or at least there'd better be) professionals on the DNC payroll hard at work on this very problem. all i'm saying is it's not impossible, at least not the way a 4-sided triangle is impossible. and at the very least, we need to apply friction to and push back on the process of acquiring such unfounded beliefs -- inoculation against destructive memes, if you like.

the short answer: "we find a way to change those beliefs."

and that's sort of the spirit in which i was looking at your OP on framing the debate

[louis c]

20. I have come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time...

...to convince people that are unreachable