What Went Wrong and How can we fix it?

Look I'm a very honest person, so I'm going to plug myself for a couple of minutes. Freedom of Speech is very important. We as a society sometimes forget the functions free press can serve. Especially the middle. Because there is no gateway. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Drug Dealers giving out free samples is a gateway to drug addiction. Thats why legalization of marijuana and eliminating the drug dealer is a viable solution. The middle in terms of speech is not a gateway to the right or the left. It's the glue that holds society together. Because without the middle people go to the far left and they go the far right politically. Donald Trump likes to put a little extra "zip" on everything he says. So does SNL, South Park and lots of entities in the middle.
America needed one of these entities to step up and to counter Trump. But when you have a bunch of for-profit blacklisting companies, that are unregulated, the will to intervene isn't there. In my opinion, you can't blacklist words and ideas. And when your talking about certain political movements (alternative or socialist) that have gained traction recently, its because the middle is being gutted. People like a little extra "zip" and when they don't get it in the middle they gravitate toward more extreme content. We have all lost track on the internet and asked "How did I get here?"

That being said I've given a lot of free advice. Reducing media coverage for candidates with a lot of name recognition. Because when someone with name recognition says something controversial it generates ratings. And we owe it to our veterans and this wonderful free society to not clickbait an election. But we did and I'll get to that later.
There was another recommendation to push for reforms sooner because it always seems like we're late in the game. And when we don't it creates a great divide. For example slavery and civil rights. Many countries were able to move their people forward without going through an embarrasing war and loss of life. And I'm sure someone in a Trump cabinet would point out the Middle East and other conflict zones. But that's another long story that involves Manifest Destiny, World Wars (fall of Ottoman Empire), and the end of colonialism (drawing lines on a map and high tailing it out of there).
Also during the primaries, the Republican candidates needed to take some gray positions to offset some of Trumps momentum and they weren't able to do that and we are going to get to that now.

Even I get a little frustrated when the media says populism. Because Donald Trump punched you in the gut and now you want another. I think both parties and the major media companies will pay tens of millions of dollars to analyze this election. You should give it to me. Because I'm going to give it you in a cleaner, simplier and more digestable manner.
From the very beginning it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to add a little "zip" to everything he says and all the media and other candidates had to do is counter that. Think of Chris Christie pointing out Robot Rubio.
For instance, Donald Trump would imply Mexicans illegally immigrating to the US are rapists, or purposely refusing to answer a question about David Duke. He's assuming the press will jump to a desired conclusion. This would give him "plausible deniability". Think of Russia invading Ukraine. They send in little green soldiers without uniforms and then say the Russians in the Ukraine are rebelling. Then a couple of weeks later they annex Crimea.
With the press jumping to the desired conclusion he gets to play both angles (tough on immigration (via plausible deniability) and pandering to the alt-right). In addition he gets to discredit the media coverage and make the position so toxic that no other candidate will touch it.
So how do you counter that. Well instead of calling him a bigot and lots of other terms you simply point out what he's doing in a manner that people can wrap their heads around. So he's playing both angles, you find an idiomatic expression that's the closest fit and hammer that point home. In this case it's "both sides". He's playing both sides. Obviously there are more than two sides, but you want to say something in a manner that people can wrap their heads around. And you can justify it by saying politicans are always tough on the issues and Trumps also pandering to the far right.
So you hammer home that point "He's playing both sides." And it's like that movie "Inception". The next time he says something controversial or with a little "zip" people will say in their heads "He's playing both sides", like a slimy politician.
And to a certain extent that's what you wanted to do. Trump says he's not a politician, but you make him one. That takes the air out of everything he says.
I'm assuming he would've changed strategies, but as long as you have competent people that can counter and quickly, I don't think he would've made it out of the primaries.
(to be continued over the next week or two)

Joke Generators: