I'm not sure how one puts the attempted firing of a black Fed governor into the proper context without mentioning race.
Is the Democratic party now to avoid mention of race when confronting the actions of an administration focused on attacking anyone "not white"?
I agree that the Dems need to start talking normal again, but it's not like anyone is going to decide to oppose fascism just because the Democrats learn to use different words.
This is a time when I thought Andrew was wrong in what he wrote. It is absolutely critical to keep in mind WHO Trump is targeting: Powell (the Chair) and Cook (the only Black female committee member). Trump hates powerful, smart Black women, that much is clear. It's also important to take into consideration that her early work at Michigan State involved expanding and refining a database of lynchings in the US to, in part, understand the economic impact of lynchings. Also, she mentors minority students in an American Economics Association summer program. And for good measure, she is is an expert on the Russian economy. Her sex and her race and her scholarship absolutely matter here. Sorry, Andrew, Jeffries was right to bring up the fact that Cook is a Black woman, and he has certainly not been the only one to state this.
I'm sorry, but Donald Trump is not trying to get rid of Lisa Cook because her early work at Michigan State involved expanding and refining a database of lynchings in the U.S. That might be a reason she is worthy of respect and praise, but it has zilch to do with Trump's attempted takeover of the Fed.
"But to hear Jeffries tell it, the most outrageous thing about Cook’s attempted firing is that he’s trying to undo her historic appointment as the first black woman on the board."
I know eggers is a bad writer, but what the hell is he talking about. The entire statement is perfectly anodyne. Jeffries mentions her race once, that's hardly framing the attempted firing as all about race
Egger's real objection is that that main point is lost. The power grab is the true danger and messaging about that reaches more people. We're trying to EXPAND the tent, not preach to the choir.
I don't believe the main point was lost on anyone who didn't want to lose it. I am tired of the nonsense about how people experience messages.
I have had people explain to me in all seriousness that they rejected mRNA vaccines simply because they didn't like how they were presented. That sounds to me like an utter BS way of saying that they found a reason to dislike the vaccines that were rejected by their cult.
I do not believe that mentioning that Trump is trying to fire the first female Black Fed governor is going to turn anyone away from the Democratic party, or tip the scales to voting for Trump.
I don't think that Democrats' messaging style is going to change minds. But I do think it may cause people to lose interest and be drawn to the next shiny object Trump tosses out.
The Democrats need to learn to connect with the low-information morons in our country, or we will continue to be governed by low-information morons.
"I don't believe the main point was lost on anyone who didn't want to lose it"--if this is true, it's no thanks to Jeffries, who didn't mention the main point at all!
I see nothing wrong with mentioning Cook’s race, because it’s an important point. My gripe with Jeffries is that he omitted the main point of why Trump wants to fire her. And people need to know why he wants to fire her, because it’s a dangerous reason.
Every message has to have a dominant and secondary point. That's what I'm talking about. Where is the energy? What's being pushed hard? It needs to be the one that has the most universal buy-in.
I like Jeffries, but I think he is not angry enough for this moment in history. His messaging is calm, and he wants his words to carry the weight, so he says his piece and expects his listeners to process his message.
I don't like the emotional approach, but Dems need to start messaging to the heart instead of the head.
Yeah, I'm also not a fan of appeal just to emotion and it's sad that facts and history carry so little weight (because Trump, social media etc have made it impossible to even agree on basic facts). We live in a time when emotions are the main driver. Trash talking is seen as a sign of strength. Etc. We play the game or we lose.
This is true except that the MAGAsphere media will amplify anything that makes Dems look out of touch. And those 'undecideds' will find about him there.
I'm here to tell you that "Democrats' messaging style" *has* changed minds. Specifically, the excessive focus on identity has changed the minds of at least some people who would otherwise vote Democratic, while making many other lifelong Democrats feel that none of the parties represents their interests. I don't think this fact is a revelation.
Oh my, nothing like giving the brutal truth - however, it's true. Instead of telling it like it is, we look like we agree with their reasoning by not refuting their trash talk.
No, but it is the aggregation of many "woke"* tweets that can change opinion against the Dems. It is a mistake to discount this. I know from experience it is what helped drive people from Hilary to Trump in 2016
* I am using that term because that's how MAGA sees it.
It's not woke to me because I understand where the term came from.
You have to understand the MAGA brain. To them, Jeffries played the race card. Of that message from him, that is the only thing most of them will see. That is their conditioning. I guarantee most of the MAGA base who saw the tweet rolled their eyes - not because they don't think Jeffries is right, but because he pulled race into the comment.
past is prologue. It's not the isolated tweet, it's what the leadership thinks should be the dominant talking point. Republicans are masters at deciding on a message and being relentless. Dems need to get on the stick. And we don't really have until November 2026. If Trump is not stopped before then, we are sunk.
Why does race have to be mentioned at all? Trump doesn't care that she is the first black woman on the board, he just cares that a black woman is there. He knows he can't get rid of Powell, so he will try and get rid of other people to weaken Powell. The threat to the independence of the Fed and putting monetary control under the president is more than enough of an issue. Bringing race into it is a distraction from the real big issue of checks and balances.
I don't know, if we're not in this for inalienable rights for all, I'm in the wrong place. If we can't see what is being done to Black people by Trump's Admin right now and criticize it, I'm in the wrong place.
I'm trying to approach this from the mindset of people outside of The Bulwark. How do we sound to people who don't understand the chaos like we do? I'm not saying it isn't important - but when we put up something like first black woman Fed Governor, that just isn't an important detail to so many people. People barely understand what the Federal Reserve does itself, the fact that it has Governors - a term that the vast majority of people associate with state leadership is likely to make them shrug and say, "I guess that is important..."
I'm trying really hard to step outside of myself and see things from a different perspective these days. You and I and everyone else here knows what is happening and the importance of inalienable rights for all - but that is preaching to the choir, and we need to focus on the pews.
Oh, I get it, I do. It's just that I don't think people outside the Bulwark understand what the Fed does at all. Is it independent? Should it be independent? You're trying to teach pigeons to play chess.
Jeffries might also be recognizing that black women are as reliable a democratic base as exists. Whether this particular stmt resonates, I'm not sure--I would also have thought that the impact a Fed takeover could have on the interest rates of ordinary households, including those helmed by black women, might also have resonated/resonated more widely.
Then send that message. Don't make it out to be some historic slight about "the first black woman" to do X is being fired. Say that again, the administration is firing minorities first because he is a racist. We have to stop with all of the "firsts" otherwise a lot of people will just tune out the democrats.
send what message? you want the minority leader to give an econ lecture in a tweet? if he did then people like you and egger would complain about dems being out of touch/too educated/too elite
this is a wild thing to get upset about. its a standard statement, idk what youre getting spun up about
Many if not most regular people are perfectly capable of understanding and caring about Fed independence (and the possible economic ramifications if it's lost) AND the racial aspect that is likely present. It's not either/or (imho).
I don’t think he’d care if she was a white man, as long as he didn’t think his agenda wasn’t being backed. He still lacks the nerve to fire Powell. When you can’t punch the boss, you go home and kick the dog as a substitute.
He’s already tried to fire Powell. Then his pretext fell apart. Another person (white woman) mysteriously resigned—probably after being threatened with firing on some or other pretext.
Both things can be true. He wants to take power over the fed so he can do what he wants. The fact that the person he fires is black is just icing on the cake for the MAGA base.
Maybe the fact she was a Biden appointee is as relevant. The only thing that's really relevant is Trump couldn't get Jerome Powell and she's collateral damage. In the end, I'm just glad she's going to fight the bastard and eventually win.
Okay I'm late but what the heck? "...Eggers is a bad writer..."? How am I the only one who didn't know this? (Cuz it's FAKE NEWS I tell you!)
Meanwhile, whilst I'm back at a keyboard, how about slathering a little Solzhenitsyn (true or not) on the crazy sycophancy of the cabinet -- "Don't ever be the first person to stop applauding Stalin!"
The fundamental matter here is that 47 seeks to stifle independent analysis and opinion in all governmental activities. The ethnographic characteristics of any targeted Fed member are secondary. Leader Jeffries' error is not in mentioning Ms. Cook's ethnicity, but putting it up front, not after noting that 47's action threatens the truthfulness and independence of the Fed.
So now we're gong to dissect and dispute the ordering of mentions of every statement? I don't know what's worse, the scary "woke" or this kind of speech policing.
Jeffries' statement was perfectly fine. However, the old ways of speaking no longer translate. Not in this current moment. He could have said less and intoned just as much, with simpler language, while driving home Ms. Cook's qualifications and ethics, without reducing her to simply her gender and color.
The fact that both these things were written in the very first line of his statement will make all of those who are tired of this general rhetoric from Dems, roll their eyes and forgo reading the rest of what he had to say - and I say this as a woman myself. So, if a larger portion of the American population is indeed reading at a 6th-grade level, as statistics present, yes, Dems DO need to change the way they speak and refocus their message entirely.
Yes, I have been saying this for some time now. Jeffries is boring. If Dems really want to make a point, send out someone who speaks with passion, enthusiasm, and authenticity. It's not "what" Jeffries is saying, it's "how" he is saying it that turns people off. He may make an excellent Speaker of the House, but he is a terrible Public Speaker. If his fellow Dem politicians cannot see this for themselves and adjust to the times, then they are doing all of us a terrible disservice. They need to speak boldly and try to reach MAGA voters through MAGA media sites. Get with it !!
We already know "they" are "anti-fairness". However, some reading, not viewing photos, may not have understood the game played. Giving identity once is enough, with "..qualifications and ethics" FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
Economics, philosophy, knowing stats, etc, of lynching? It's no wonder these "Klan wannabes" are afraid of this Fed Reserve member refusing to step down.
Why be afraid? This is not the first scandal of "their kind". Indiana Klan had its peak in 1925 when their "misguided leader" went after literacy teacher, Madge Oberholzer, a case of misleading her about her job, followed by her kidnap and vicious rape and re-rape. The perp wanted to hide the crime of his bitemarks by forcing her to marry him. (Believing wives can't testify?)
Ms Oberholzer tried to commit suicide, causing her release, but signed a statement for police before she died, naming the perpetrator and two enablers. The perp went to prison. Denied a pardon in 1926, he did name names first.
REPUBLICANS? The Wiki article on Oberholtzer says, "The state of Indiana finally indicted several high-ranking officials, including Governor Edward L. Jackson and the head of the Republican Party in Marion County. Other local officials resigned when facing charges. "
Targeting Germanics and others, the Indiana Klan went from 250,000 in 1925, to 4000, by Feb. 1928. They lost 98% of their members.
Four active newspapers opposing the Klan were in Indianapolis (Indiana Catholic and Record, Indianapolis Freeman, Indiana Jewish Chronicle, and the Indianapolis Times). The Times "battled the Klan throughout the 1920s and received a Pulitzer Prize in 1928 for its detailed reports on the Klan’s involvement in bribery and corruption in city, county, and state politics". (Source: https://IndyEncyclopedia.org/ku-klux-klan/)
Exactly that. It goes without saying that I believe in civil liberties, but I still want opportunities, a livable wage, housing, and a safe city to live in. Dems wrap themselves in performative acts and language and do nothing. And I've been voting for them for the last 2 decades.
They need to refocus what they say and do, because if even a reliably blue voter like me is frustrated with them, the moderate voter won't even look their way.
Yes, Trump wants to take over the federal reserve. But the 1st person of this body he fired was a black woman. Not because he is racist, (he'll totally is) but because MAGA will totally support his firing of a back women more than firing a random male member of the federal reserve.
The point for me, Dan, is that Jeffries did not make any reference whatsoever to the larger issue of subversion of the Fed, which if successful would have catastrophic consequences.
In referencing only that the target of this attack is Black, Jeffries made this exclusively about race. That to my mind is the error.
1st female black fed governor to be clear. Jeffries didn’t spend anytime attributing anything special to her ethnicity, but merely used as a descriptor for who she is. I agree that we can get to caught up in some of the language we use, and minutiae, but he was just using it as to describe who Ms. Cook is that’s it. It’s not like Trump doesn’t use race to his advantage either. I thought that was a poor example on Andre’s part.
You nailed it, Dan. No fancy words would be needed. "Today, Donald Trump affirmed that he's got a real cob stuck up his ass when it comes to Black women who dare not to submit", a senator could have said. Pretty frank and certainly honest.
I've been thinking about that. At least some of the problem is the way we have conversations has gotten so "flattened." When I was a philosophy grad student, I'd talk very differently with my fellow academics, my students, and my family and friends. And that was fine, it was good even - specialists use specialized meanings that can be offputting to people just wetting their toes in the topic, or who couldn't care less about determinist vs. compatibilist understandings of freedom and really just wanted the thirty-second version of how work was going while we waited to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner.
Maybe those spaces still exist and we just don't see them from the outside. Maybe it is as simple as people needing to get better to talking to people without that background. But I've noticed a lot of expert-to-expert talk shared with the general public, either because the news decided some DNC planning group's annual meeting was news-worthy or because two experts in the same field used a podcast as the way to catch up. It just feels like a lot of people are having normal conversations that just mismatch the other people listening in, that would be fine if it was just them. And that seems to be happening more these days than I remember before.
I found it very interesting Third Way left off not-normal-sounding words people use to talk about economics. Oligarchy doesn't appear on the list (https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said), nor does kleptocracy or plutocrats. Unless I missed them? I guess we're still allowed to talk about them because they're kitchen-table issues.
I understand the push not to be divisive, to appeal to the issues focus groups tell us could convince people to vote against MAGA-ism next time. Especially to not make normal people feel looked down on when we use overly-complicated, academic-type words. But damn if I'm not tired of feeling like I can only care about what's in my wallet. :(
Exactly. What would they propose if, for example, it was the 1940s and Trump would have asked for the firing of Jackie Robinson from the Brooklyn Dodgers? Really? You don't mention the fact the only person he's firing is the first African American woman to sit on the Fed? #ComeOnNow
I think Trump picked this woman to harass because she was the first fed governor he found a good pretext to fire. It's the same one he's using to go after Sen. Adam Schiff—presumably not, in that case, for racist reasons.
I'm not sure how one puts the attempted firing of a black Fed governor into the proper context without mentioning race.
Is the Democratic party now to avoid mention of race when confronting the actions of an administration focused on attacking anyone "not white"?
I agree that the Dems need to start talking normal again, but it's not like anyone is going to decide to oppose fascism just because the Democrats learn to use different words.
This is a time when I thought Andrew was wrong in what he wrote. It is absolutely critical to keep in mind WHO Trump is targeting: Powell (the Chair) and Cook (the only Black female committee member). Trump hates powerful, smart Black women, that much is clear. It's also important to take into consideration that her early work at Michigan State involved expanding and refining a database of lynchings in the US to, in part, understand the economic impact of lynchings. Also, she mentors minority students in an American Economics Association summer program. And for good measure, she is is an expert on the Russian economy. Her sex and her race and her scholarship absolutely matter here. Sorry, Andrew, Jeffries was right to bring up the fact that Cook is a Black woman, and he has certainly not been the only one to state this.
I'm sorry, but Donald Trump is not trying to get rid of Lisa Cook because her early work at Michigan State involved expanding and refining a database of lynchings in the U.S. That might be a reason she is worthy of respect and praise, but it has zilch to do with Trump's attempted takeover of the Fed.
Please see my comment above, Andrew.
"But to hear Jeffries tell it, the most outrageous thing about Cook’s attempted firing is that he’s trying to undo her historic appointment as the first black woman on the board."
I know eggers is a bad writer, but what the hell is he talking about. The entire statement is perfectly anodyne. Jeffries mentions her race once, that's hardly framing the attempted firing as all about race
Egger's real objection is that that main point is lost. The power grab is the true danger and messaging about that reaches more people. We're trying to EXPAND the tent, not preach to the choir.
I don't believe the main point was lost on anyone who didn't want to lose it. I am tired of the nonsense about how people experience messages.
I have had people explain to me in all seriousness that they rejected mRNA vaccines simply because they didn't like how they were presented. That sounds to me like an utter BS way of saying that they found a reason to dislike the vaccines that were rejected by their cult.
I do not believe that mentioning that Trump is trying to fire the first female Black Fed governor is going to turn anyone away from the Democratic party, or tip the scales to voting for Trump.
I don't think that Democrats' messaging style is going to change minds. But I do think it may cause people to lose interest and be drawn to the next shiny object Trump tosses out.
The Democrats need to learn to connect with the low-information morons in our country, or we will continue to be governed by low-information morons.
"I don't believe the main point was lost on anyone who didn't want to lose it"--if this is true, it's no thanks to Jeffries, who didn't mention the main point at all!
I see nothing wrong with mentioning Cook’s race, because it’s an important point. My gripe with Jeffries is that he omitted the main point of why Trump wants to fire her. And people need to know why he wants to fire her, because it’s a dangerous reason.
That's a crucial omission. Means that he missed the point and does not know how to engage the moment.
Every message has to have a dominant and secondary point. That's what I'm talking about. Where is the energy? What's being pushed hard? It needs to be the one that has the most universal buy-in.
On this we agree.
I like Jeffries, but I think he is not angry enough for this moment in history. His messaging is calm, and he wants his words to carry the weight, so he says his piece and expects his listeners to process his message.
I don't like the emotional approach, but Dems need to start messaging to the heart instead of the head.
Yeah, I'm also not a fan of appeal just to emotion and it's sad that facts and history carry so little weight (because Trump, social media etc have made it impossible to even agree on basic facts). We live in a time when emotions are the main driver. Trash talking is seen as a sign of strength. Etc. We play the game or we lose.
I know Jeffries is the minority leader, but who in America is paying attention to what he says?
The Republicans, if they can make him look bad with a sound bite.
The Democrats, if they catch him on MSNBC (he shows up sometimes, but I just get pissed off when I see him).
People who are anywhere in the "undecided" camp? Nah. Those low-information folks aren't looking to Jeffries for anything.
This is true except that the MAGAsphere media will amplify anything that makes Dems look out of touch. And those 'undecideds' will find about him there.
I'm here to tell you that "Democrats' messaging style" *has* changed minds. Specifically, the excessive focus on identity has changed the minds of at least some people who would otherwise vote Democratic, while making many other lifelong Democrats feel that none of the parties represents their interests. I don't think this fact is a revelation.
Oh my, nothing like giving the brutal truth - however, it's true. Instead of telling it like it is, we look like we agree with their reasoning by not refuting their trash talk.
absolutely zero people will decide to vote for democrats in the midterms because of a tweet in August 2025
No, but it is the aggregation of many "woke"* tweets that can change opinion against the Dems. It is a mistake to discount this. I know from experience it is what helped drive people from Hilary to Trump in 2016
* I am using that term because that's how MAGA sees it.
what makes this tweet 'woke'
Mentioning race when it’s not the issue—the issue is 100% her view that the Fed should be independent of Trump.
It's not woke to me because I understand where the term came from.
You have to understand the MAGA brain. To them, Jeffries played the race card. Of that message from him, that is the only thing most of them will see. That is their conditioning. I guarantee most of the MAGA base who saw the tweet rolled their eyes - not because they don't think Jeffries is right, but because he pulled race into the comment.
past is prologue. It's not the isolated tweet, it's what the leadership thinks should be the dominant talking point. Republicans are masters at deciding on a message and being relentless. Dems need to get on the stick. And we don't really have until November 2026. If Trump is not stopped before then, we are sunk.
Why does race have to be mentioned at all? Trump doesn't care that she is the first black woman on the board, he just cares that a black woman is there. He knows he can't get rid of Powell, so he will try and get rid of other people to weaken Powell. The threat to the independence of the Fed and putting monetary control under the president is more than enough of an issue. Bringing race into it is a distraction from the real big issue of checks and balances.
I don't know, if we're not in this for inalienable rights for all, I'm in the wrong place. If we can't see what is being done to Black people by Trump's Admin right now and criticize it, I'm in the wrong place.
I'm trying to approach this from the mindset of people outside of The Bulwark. How do we sound to people who don't understand the chaos like we do? I'm not saying it isn't important - but when we put up something like first black woman Fed Governor, that just isn't an important detail to so many people. People barely understand what the Federal Reserve does itself, the fact that it has Governors - a term that the vast majority of people associate with state leadership is likely to make them shrug and say, "I guess that is important..."
I'm trying really hard to step outside of myself and see things from a different perspective these days. You and I and everyone else here knows what is happening and the importance of inalienable rights for all - but that is preaching to the choir, and we need to focus on the pews.
Oh, I get it, I do. It's just that I don't think people outside the Bulwark understand what the Fed does at all. Is it independent? Should it be independent? You're trying to teach pigeons to play chess.
Trump is firing all Black women, that people get.
You're not in the wrong place. Everybody counts or nobody counts.
ICE doesn't count. They just round up.
And if they did count, they'd have to take off their shoes to get past 10.
So says Harry Bosch, and he's not wrong.
It’s not relevant here. (In this case.)
I cant speak for black people, which Hakeem Jeffries is one of, but they might care
the congressional black caucus might care, which jeffries is also a member of
regular people dont understand how fed independence can impact their lives
they can understand another example of 'trump is trying to run another black person out of government'
Um, this old white chick cares. Anyone who pays attention to the history of Jim Crow in this country should care.
Yes, thank you.
Jeffries might also be recognizing that black women are as reliable a democratic base as exists. Whether this particular stmt resonates, I'm not sure--I would also have thought that the impact a Fed takeover could have on the interest rates of ordinary households, including those helmed by black women, might also have resonated/resonated more widely.
Then send that message. Don't make it out to be some historic slight about "the first black woman" to do X is being fired. Say that again, the administration is firing minorities first because he is a racist. We have to stop with all of the "firsts" otherwise a lot of people will just tune out the democrats.
send what message? you want the minority leader to give an econ lecture in a tweet? if he did then people like you and egger would complain about dems being out of touch/too educated/too elite
this is a wild thing to get upset about. its a standard statement, idk what youre getting spun up about
no regular people care about this
Trump doesn’t care about race in this particular case.
Many if not most regular people are perfectly capable of understanding and caring about Fed independence (and the possible economic ramifications if it's lost) AND the racial aspect that is likely present. It's not either/or (imho).
I don’t think he’d care if she was a white man, as long as he didn’t think his agenda wasn’t being backed. He still lacks the nerve to fire Powell. When you can’t punch the boss, you go home and kick the dog as a substitute.
He’s already tried to fire Powell. Then his pretext fell apart. Another person (white woman) mysteriously resigned—probably after being threatened with firing on some or other pretext.
Race is irrelevant here.
I don’t know if it really matters. I mean, these people are ok will all the egregious and hateful things Trump and Miller say.
Both things can be true. He wants to take power over the fed so he can do what he wants. The fact that the person he fires is black is just icing on the cake for the MAGA base.
Especially when the Trump administration has bent over backwards to show that's all they are about is targeting racial minorities.
Here's another clue for Andrew. Detroit has magically disappeared from the crime infested shit hole cities because the mayor is white.
I agree they’re racially prejudiced but in this particular case it’s not relevant.
More than one fact can be relevant at a time.
Maybe the fact she was a Biden appointee is as relevant. The only thing that's really relevant is Trump couldn't get Jerome Powell and she's collateral damage. In the end, I'm just glad she's going to fight the bastard and eventually win.
Being a Biden appointee is definitely a negative.
Don’t forget the woman who resigned a few days ago for no stated reason. She was probably threatened.
Okay I'm late but what the heck? "...Eggers is a bad writer..."? How am I the only one who didn't know this? (Cuz it's FAKE NEWS I tell you!)
Meanwhile, whilst I'm back at a keyboard, how about slathering a little Solzhenitsyn (true or not) on the crazy sycophancy of the cabinet -- "Don't ever be the first person to stop applauding Stalin!"
Although it probably is. Trump is a total racist.
The fundamental matter here is that 47 seeks to stifle independent analysis and opinion in all governmental activities. The ethnographic characteristics of any targeted Fed member are secondary. Leader Jeffries' error is not in mentioning Ms. Cook's ethnicity, but putting it up front, not after noting that 47's action threatens the truthfulness and independence of the Fed.
Well-said.
Exactly.
So now we're gong to dissect and dispute the ordering of mentions of every statement? I don't know what's worse, the scary "woke" or this kind of speech policing.
Jeffries' statement was perfectly fine. However, the old ways of speaking no longer translate. Not in this current moment. He could have said less and intoned just as much, with simpler language, while driving home Ms. Cook's qualifications and ethics, without reducing her to simply her gender and color.
The fact that both these things were written in the very first line of his statement will make all of those who are tired of this general rhetoric from Dems, roll their eyes and forgo reading the rest of what he had to say - and I say this as a woman myself. So, if a larger portion of the American population is indeed reading at a 6th-grade level, as statistics present, yes, Dems DO need to change the way they speak and refocus their message entirely.
I agree. We can talk about these important things but we need to do it differently.
Yes, I have been saying this for some time now. Jeffries is boring. If Dems really want to make a point, send out someone who speaks with passion, enthusiasm, and authenticity. It's not "what" Jeffries is saying, it's "how" he is saying it that turns people off. He may make an excellent Speaker of the House, but he is a terrible Public Speaker. If his fellow Dem politicians cannot see this for themselves and adjust to the times, then they are doing all of us a terrible disservice. They need to speak boldly and try to reach MAGA voters through MAGA media sites. Get with it !!
We already know "they" are "anti-fairness". However, some reading, not viewing photos, may not have understood the game played. Giving identity once is enough, with "..qualifications and ethics" FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
Economics, philosophy, knowing stats, etc, of lynching? It's no wonder these "Klan wannabes" are afraid of this Fed Reserve member refusing to step down.
Why be afraid? This is not the first scandal of "their kind". Indiana Klan had its peak in 1925 when their "misguided leader" went after literacy teacher, Madge Oberholzer, a case of misleading her about her job, followed by her kidnap and vicious rape and re-rape. The perp wanted to hide the crime of his bitemarks by forcing her to marry him. (Believing wives can't testify?)
Ms Oberholzer tried to commit suicide, causing her release, but signed a statement for police before she died, naming the perpetrator and two enablers. The perp went to prison. Denied a pardon in 1926, he did name names first.
REPUBLICANS? The Wiki article on Oberholtzer says, "The state of Indiana finally indicted several high-ranking officials, including Governor Edward L. Jackson and the head of the Republican Party in Marion County. Other local officials resigned when facing charges. "
Targeting Germanics and others, the Indiana Klan went from 250,000 in 1925, to 4000, by Feb. 1928. They lost 98% of their members.
Four active newspapers opposing the Klan were in Indianapolis (Indiana Catholic and Record, Indianapolis Freeman, Indiana Jewish Chronicle, and the Indianapolis Times). The Times "battled the Klan throughout the 1920s and received a Pulitzer Prize in 1928 for its detailed reports on the Klan’s involvement in bribery and corruption in city, county, and state politics". (Source: https://IndyEncyclopedia.org/ku-klux-klan/)
Exactly that. It goes without saying that I believe in civil liberties, but I still want opportunities, a livable wage, housing, and a safe city to live in. Dems wrap themselves in performative acts and language and do nothing. And I've been voting for them for the last 2 decades.
They need to refocus what they say and do, because if even a reliably blue voter like me is frustrated with them, the moderate voter won't even look their way.
It was Hakeem's statements which only focused on Trump firing her because she's a black woman and nothing else.
When the real issue is Trump trying to end the Feds independence which would have serious negative effects on all Americans.
She's not just a random civil servant who faces a personal tragedy because of Trump's racism.
Yes, Trump wants to take over the federal reserve. But the 1st person of this body he fired was a black woman. Not because he is racist, (he'll totally is) but because MAGA will totally support his firing of a back women more than firing a random male member of the federal reserve.
The point for me, Dan, is that Jeffries did not make any reference whatsoever to the larger issue of subversion of the Fed, which if successful would have catastrophic consequences.
In referencing only that the target of this attack is Black, Jeffries made this exclusively about race. That to my mind is the error.
Agree.
1st female black fed governor to be clear. Jeffries didn’t spend anytime attributing anything special to her ethnicity, but merely used as a descriptor for who she is. I agree that we can get to caught up in some of the language we use, and minutiae, but he was just using it as to describe who Ms. Cook is that’s it. It’s not like Trump doesn’t use race to his advantage either. I thought that was a poor example on Andre’s part.
You nailed it, Dan. No fancy words would be needed. "Today, Donald Trump affirmed that he's got a real cob stuck up his ass when it comes to Black women who dare not to submit", a senator could have said. Pretty frank and certainly honest.
He can’t stand ANYONE who won’t submit. This should be crystal clear by now.
His objection to her wasn’t based on race. If she was in favour of Trump doing whatever he wanted with interest rates, Trump would be fine.
We can't ban words. Banning words is bad. The list of proposed banned words is designed to stop people from discussing social justice.
Let's all agree that banning words, concepts, and books is not the way to go.
I think the point is not to ban words, but to use words more appropriate to the target audience.
When a doctor talks to other doctors, he might describe a patient's contusion and ecchymosis.
When a doctor talks to the patient, he says, "You got a bruise and it turned purple."
Don't ban words, just consider your audience.
I've been thinking about that. At least some of the problem is the way we have conversations has gotten so "flattened." When I was a philosophy grad student, I'd talk very differently with my fellow academics, my students, and my family and friends. And that was fine, it was good even - specialists use specialized meanings that can be offputting to people just wetting their toes in the topic, or who couldn't care less about determinist vs. compatibilist understandings of freedom and really just wanted the thirty-second version of how work was going while we waited to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner.
Maybe those spaces still exist and we just don't see them from the outside. Maybe it is as simple as people needing to get better to talking to people without that background. But I've noticed a lot of expert-to-expert talk shared with the general public, either because the news decided some DNC planning group's annual meeting was news-worthy or because two experts in the same field used a podcast as the way to catch up. It just feels like a lot of people are having normal conversations that just mismatch the other people listening in, that would be fine if it was just them. And that seems to be happening more these days than I remember before.
That. Consider your audience.
Third Way probably should've considered their audience better. But yes, we need people who at least sound like they speak from their hearts.
I found it very interesting Third Way left off not-normal-sounding words people use to talk about economics. Oligarchy doesn't appear on the list (https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said), nor does kleptocracy or plutocrats. Unless I missed them? I guess we're still allowed to talk about them because they're kitchen-table issues.
I understand the push not to be divisive, to appeal to the issues focus groups tell us could convince people to vote against MAGA-ism next time. Especially to not make normal people feel looked down on when we use overly-complicated, academic-type words. But damn if I'm not tired of feeling like I can only care about what's in my wallet. :(
I'm a citizen not a consumer, dammit.
Exactly. What would they propose if, for example, it was the 1940s and Trump would have asked for the firing of Jackie Robinson from the Brooklyn Dodgers? Really? You don't mention the fact the only person he's firing is the first African American woman to sit on the Fed? #ComeOnNow
You think Trump picked this woman to harass for some other reason than that she was black? Trump hates blacks. Learned it from his father.
I think Trump picked this woman to harass because she was the first fed governor he found a good pretext to fire. It's the same one he's using to go after Sen. Adam Schiff—presumably not, in that case, for racist reasons.