I disagree with you that the Dems can successfully transition to being Law and Order candidates.
However, I strongly agree with you that it's important to talk with the people you know with honesty about your political beliefs. People here often seemed frustrated about not being able to do things, but that's one thing they can do. Just start small, take a little risk, and then build up from there.
I've been more honest with a lot of my colleagues lately and it's shocking how much agreement I get from them. Bring up the riots, mention that you are against the riots. Then take it from there.
Yeah I understand what you're saying and I do agree that they very well may try to pull off a verbal shift. I'm just saying that I don't think it'll be convincing.
Libtards who were never really concerned about the rioting in the first place because it doesn't affect them will of course swallow up whatever garbage is fed to them. But they were voting Dem no matter what anyway. everyone who is actually affected and concerned about it knows exactly the score. It will be a massively wasted effort to try to change the minds of people like that.
Biden has already flipped the narrative to claim that Trump is the one who wants to defund the police. Half the country already thinks the Dems are the law and order party, don't they?
No I don't think half the country thinks the Dems are the law and order party. Two days ago a liberal told me that its a fascist trait to emphasize "law and order."
My guess is that you have some uninformed neutral people who vaguely blame Trump for "divisiveness" and, in that sense, blame him for "making" people riot. The hardcore libs are anti-law and order, and then people like us are strongly law and order. But no group thinks that Trump is anti-law and order.
Again it won't stop them from saying it, and it won't stop disingenuous libs claiming that they are the "law and order" folks when they think it will convince a neutral person. But I don't think anybody is going to buy it. That's my sense of things, could be wrong.
I disagree with you that the Dems can successfully transition to being Law and Order candidates.
However, I strongly agree with you that it's important to talk with the people you know with honesty about your political beliefs. People here often seemed frustrated about not being able to do things, but that's one thing they can do. Just start small, take a little risk, and then build up from there.
I've been more honest with a lot of my colleagues lately and it's shocking how much agreement I get from them. Bring up the riots, mention that you are against the riots. Then take it from there.
Yeah I understand what you're saying and I do agree that they very well may try to pull off a verbal shift. I'm just saying that I don't think it'll be convincing.
Libtards who were never really concerned about the rioting in the first place because it doesn't affect them will of course swallow up whatever garbage is fed to them. But they were voting Dem no matter what anyway. everyone who is actually affected and concerned about it knows exactly the score. It will be a massively wasted effort to try to change the minds of people like that.
Biden has already flipped the narrative to claim that Trump is the one who wants to defund the police. Half the country already thinks the Dems are the law and order party, don't they?
No I don't think half the country thinks the Dems are the law and order party. Two days ago a liberal told me that its a fascist trait to emphasize "law and order."
My guess is that you have some uninformed neutral people who vaguely blame Trump for "divisiveness" and, in that sense, blame him for "making" people riot. The hardcore libs are anti-law and order, and then people like us are strongly law and order. But no group thinks that Trump is anti-law and order.
Again it won't stop them from saying it, and it won't stop disingenuous libs claiming that they are the "law and order" folks when they think it will convince a neutral person. But I don't think anybody is going to buy it. That's my sense of things, could be wrong.