Or maybe people should be prepared for the worst because a violent felon was just elected to run the country?
I will agitate for change and liberty that doesn't concentrate power. Including power that comes from money.
But I will do so in the legacy of Dr King. Without violence. And through solidarity.
So, I think we both do agree that concentrations of power are the enemy. I think one of us just realized that money is a concentration of power, and the other one is possibly supporting a billionaire con man.
The term woke as a pejorative is a form of manipulation by the way. It's a way in an abuser keeps people trapped in an abusive relationship. Making blindly following an autocrat a virtue.
In case you didn't know.
You also have to connect to people on an emotional level. The argument style that appeals to voters isn't the one that is going to convince a judge that you're right.
She appealed to reason in other words. And she needed to hit people on more levels than that.
I'm not saying she didn't talk about policy I'm saying she didn't connect with voters about policy.
Trump didn't need to connect about policy because he could connect with them emotionally. Kamala just tried to appeal to reason but when people are frustrated with the government that doesn't work so well.
And it doesn't work well on busy low information voters either.
In other words she lacked charisma. I like her policies I don't think she would have been a bad president and I voted for her.
But she talks like a prosecutor. And she uses that type of argument style. And it just doesn't connect as easily as appeals to emotion.
I think a lot of people have explained to you how this could be traumatizing.
And trauma needs to be addressed and people need to be given time to recover in order to function well.
This is how a nervous system works. Other animals do this too. After a stressful event they need time to decompress.
If you would like to learn more about trauma I am sure there is tons of information on the internet for you to get a better understanding of how trauma interacts with the body and the nervous system.
We call this shock. And no animal really functions well in a state of shock. If you think that you function well in a state of shock it's likely that your traumatized and already disassociating.
I just told you I practice non-violence, why do you keep thinking I plan to go to war lol
Trump appealed to emotion. Harris tried appealed to reason.
Considering most voters don't pay enough attention to politics to have well informed opinions, it's easy to see why her messaging failed.
I think if we would have had a primary, had Biden stepped down a long time ago, we may have gotten a more charismatic nominee.
So I absolutely do blame Biden. And I forgive him too because he has been a good president and we all are vulnerable to pride and hubris.
She was a prosecutor and was mostly using court room style arguments that appeal to reason.
And that works great in court and for high information voters, but doesn't connect with people's emotions.
Trump connected with people's frustrations and grievances and basically argued that Harris and Biden were to blame. There's no rational argument that can counter an appeal to emotion.
I could say the same thing about blame shifting.
My opinion is that Biden cost us the election, by running again and not allowing a primary to take place.
But if you want to shift that blame onto yourself and your fellow voters go for it.
No I agree with you there it was too late.
Or they failed at messaging.
If Kamala would have spent half the time she spent talking about Trump, talking about corporate price gouging instead and how she would go after corporations like a bulldog, voters would have had a place to look for blame other than the Democrats.
Instead her vision was narrow and she mostly just compared herself to Trump.
Yes, she had some good policy ideas. Yes she was backing some other good policy ideas. Yes Biden has been great.
Her messaging still sucked.
Likely because she didn't want to piss off corporate donors.
Jobs that typically women do also pay much less. Regardless of if the women in question take any time off to raise children. Or if the individual employee happens to be a man.
Teachers for example. But also human services workers and similar jobs. And this doesn't get into hiring biases for high paying jobs, like management positions in any field, which tends strongly to break for men.
The idea that women take time off from work to raise babies, and therefore they get paid less, isn't the issue, in other words. Women don't take 25% more time off then men. And not all women are having babies. But we're affected by the gender pay gap all the same.