[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: fact and fake

Not yet much available about what changes allegiances in the places I go, Andy.  No one seems to bother about what the backgrounds are of those we are working with during teach-ins, rallies, marches, jail support, planning, collaborative research about swing districts, street drama.  Our clothing, buttons, signs and physical appearances we take at face value and acceptance/distance arise during eventual co-action.  There might be people who were once pro tRump in our midst, but it doesn't come up, yet.  We might all be pretty much like each other, some might be  on left or right, peaceful or violent. Technology assures us anything we do or say is widely available if anyone wants to monitor it or use it against us, so no need for censoring each other for safety!  
Nevertheless, we persist.  
(By the way, I notice more and more males wearing pussy hats at gatherings.  Yesterday, we filled street and sidewalk of Connecticut Avenue with very nice police support that had us proceed at three block chunks in our walking and choral chants from Dupont Circle to the White House.)
We are each, I think, in and by our activity developing the "who I am" and "who we are" before we get to the "who we were" or  "who tRump voters are/were/."

I think most of us are sure of this:  The number of 2016 voters for one candidate or another does not have a strong relation (overall or state by state or district by district) to the number of supporters or activists we have for our agenda points.  It's "us" we need to figure out how to get out to act/think/vote by 2018; we don't need to suppress/seduce/trick the votes or voices for other candidates; we do, of course, need "conversions"  to win in some districts/states but the old saw about politics being local in the US probably means different strokes for different folks and with different success.  Some of that local diversity will be good evidence in change experiments we might use for our advantage in 2020. 

I'll pass it on if I hear anything relevant to your query, Andy.  Meanwhile, remember that lots of folks have no experience with the federal exchanges for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), these were supposed to just be fall backs for state exchanges.  Some states also refused the Medicaid increase part of the ACA.  Differences among state exchanges and results of court actions increase the diversity people here experience(d) even before the election and will experience in any of the "repeal-replace" scenarios.


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 8:43 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] fact and fake

The Washington Post has a series of interviews with people attending Trump's rally where they were the first to learn of the Swedish terrorist attack in Trump's imagination, planted there by FOX News. The faith of these Trump loyalists seems unshakeable, though the resignation of Flynn was causing a little difficulty, but I wouldn't put it more strongly. It was still the fault of the "mainstream media".

Is there no point beyond which Trump can step where fact and fake can be distinguished from trust and favour? In the discussion we had around his Inauguration Day speech I suggested it would be people getting ill and discovering that they had lost the coverage they had under ObamaCare.

I would be interested in hearing early anecdotes of people who are Trumpistas up till now but who change their mind and what it is which does the trick. It seems almost like we have to discover a hole in political space-time to escape this black hole!


Andy Blunden