652
Democrats slam Trump for not making good on promise to ‘immediately’ lower food prices
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
652 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19607 readers
4444 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's ridiculous. You're thinking way too small, you can't just use the same line of attack over and over again with slightly different phrasing and expect it to suddenly start working.
Trump repeatedly crossed lines that were supposed to tank his campaign. You can't just chalk that up to some people using slightly less visceral language than you think they should have. The reason nothing sticks to him is because people have decided, "We don't care how much of a dirtbag he is, because he's our dirtbag." The only thing that can challenge that is to attack him on economics and demonstrate how he isn't actually working towards people's interests, and in order to do that convincingly, it's necessary to adopt a platform that does benefit people in a direct, material way.
For all the words that have been spilled about things like finger-raping a woman or January 6th or any of the other shitty things he's done, how much of it directly impacts the average voter? The best way to reach people is by appealing to their own material interests. Instead of, "Donald Trump fucked a pornstar" how about, "Donald Trump is fucking you, right now."
The only time Trump lost an election was when his botched handling of COVID directly impacted people's lives. I'm not sure what would have to happen for liberals to understand that the electorate does not give a shit about Trump's character. And even if they did, as I pointed out, he's not eligible to run again, so the whole thing's moot. Maybe next time they'll run someone clean as a whistle with the exact same policies, although, I suppose if they're smart, they'll run another dirtbag so liberals get distracted focusing on that.
It's not just slightly different phrasing, it's phrasing that packs an emotional/visceral punch. The economic angle has been tried to death, and a constant refrain I hear is, "how can people vote against their own self-interests?!" It's because the other side speaks to the animal brain, not the frontal lobes. The murder of a pretty, young nursing student activates strong emotions and has a lot more cognitive stickiness than economic arguments about who gets paid how much to pick our strawberries. Guarantee that if voters picture his grubby, little fingers sliding into a vagina in a department store dressing room, they'll remember it.
It really, really hasn't lol.
Yeah, and the animal brain wants stuff. And so do the frontal lobes, so it doesn't really matter what part of their brain they're using. Of course, you can't just maintain the status quo and talk about how the other guy would be worse. The status quo sucks and is getting worse and even if it didn't our brains aren't wired to be satisfied with it. That messaging, sure, it's been tried and failed, because it's basically just lecturing people on how they're not smart enough to understand economics and should be satisfied with what they've got. When I say economic messaging, I mean promising people new stuff beyond maintenance of the status quo.
Ok, I would like to collect on that guarantee, right now. Because you tried it already, over and over again, and it didn't fucking work. I guarantee you that it won't work if you keep trying it. If your position was at all true, Trump would've lost in 2016 when it first came out, when they could hear it straight from the horse's mouth! No matter how you phrase it, it'll never be more compelling than that moment when it first came out.
I repeat this for the third time since you seem to have missed it the first two times I said it: even if you were right, which you're absolutely not, Trump isn't even eligible to run again. Even if you've finally hit on the exact right phrasing that'll definitely get through to people, this time I swear (you didn't), you're too late.
Price of eggs.
I'd love to make good on that guarantee, but we would've needed somebody with a national media platform to phrase it that way, not some nobody on Lemmy like me. The past is the past, but the time to figure out how to frame the issues with the next fascist in line is now.
THE PRICE OF EGGS ANGLE WORKED WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT??