Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,095 posts)
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 08:31 AM Oct 2018

Should Democrats fight fire with fire or try to draw a contrast for the voters??

Many suggest that Democrats should hit back twice as hard?

But, I would suggest that when you get down in the mud with the pig, it doesn't mean you are equipped for such a battle. As some have noted, "The pig loves it and all you get is muddy."

Republicans have many, many years of pig wrestling. They know how to play the game. Normally, Democrats have used different tactics.

So the question: Should Democrats get down in the mud with Trump and the Republicans or should Democrats draw a contrast with what they think America should stand for?

Perhaps the first contrast should be about the tone of division. If anyone thinks that dividing this country, and pitting one group against the other, is going to end well, they are walking around with blinders covering half of their vision. It is a naive and fool-hardy position.

I tend to think we should attempt to portray America with a brighter future than is offered by the Trump Republicans. In my opinion, we should offer contrast instead of trying to fight fire with fire.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should Democrats fight fire with fire or try to draw a contrast for the voters?? (Original Post) kentuck Oct 2018 OP
Draw constrast oberliner Oct 2018 #1
I've always wondered SHRED Oct 2018 #2
Taking it literally kinda helps... N_E_1 for Tennis Oct 2018 #8
Hitting back twice as hard would not require getting into the mud. We have truth on our side. Squinch Oct 2018 #3
Use facts but fight greymattermom Oct 2018 #4
Would never happen. Only young boys that he has paid do that. Funtatlaguy Oct 2018 #5
we need some hard hitters...maybe not all of us but we need some attack dogs on our side too samnsara Oct 2018 #6
Just to say... UncleTomsEvilBrother Oct 2018 #7
The vision is the key. The tone must be calm but firm. delisen Oct 2018 #9
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
1. Draw constrast
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 08:32 AM
Oct 2018

Most Americans agree with what we stand for. We can win on the issues without getting down in the mud.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
2. I've always wondered
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 08:33 AM
Oct 2018

What does "fight fire with fire" mean in this case exactly?

Some examples would be helpful

N_E_1 for Tennis

(9,724 posts)
8. Taking it literally kinda helps...
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 09:43 AM
Oct 2018

The phrase came from fighting fires, but and this is a huge but, it’s not helpful in all circumstances.

https://www.knowyourphrase.com/fight-fire-with-fire

This phrase is believed to have originated with firefighters, who will literally fight fire with fire depending on what method the situation calls for.

That's right, simply using water is not always the ideal solution for combating raging infernos. In fact, there are several approaches for extinguishing a flame. Of course, you already know one of the most common solutions for putting a fire out—water, and sometimes, it takes a whole lot of water to get the job done. However, one of the techniques that firefighters may decide to use, which again, depends on the circumstances, is literally what this phrase states: they will fight fire by making their own. Indeed, heat against heat!

This technique is called backfiring, and it's typically utilized to help control violent forest fires. The strategy, from what I understand, is to intentionally set a fire in front of the oncoming primary fire in order to create a "roadblock" of sorts. By burning away the nearby timber, the primary fire will have nothing left to fuel itself once it reaches that burnt out area, thus crippling the primary fire from advancing any further.

Anyways, this idiom goes back to at least the mid to late 19th century, as it's written in plenty of newspapers from that time. For example, one of earliest I could find the newspaper The Rock County Recorder from the 1870s, where it reads:

"Some one has suggested that it might be proper to fight fire with fire on the prairies, but it would hardly answer to attempt this in an oil refinery."

greymattermom

(5,754 posts)
4. Use facts but fight
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 08:35 AM
Oct 2018

Just fight clean, no cheating. If politics is a sport, we just need to get better. We can fight without being mean, just punch hard but play by the rules. On the other hand, I'd love to see what Lindsey Graham would do if a big strong woman grabbed him by the balls.

7. Just to say...
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 09:24 AM
Oct 2018

...threads like this one is the reason I love this site. Real strategies about real issues by real people.

That being said, I'll do more reading and learning in this thread than I will posting.

Carry on, good people!

delisen

(6,043 posts)
9. The vision is the key. The tone must be calm but firm.
Sun Oct 7, 2018, 10:06 AM
Oct 2018

Many Trump voters seek structure and follow the Strongman when they they fear disorder.

Democrats should project strength, patriotism, confidence, and resolve.

Democrats have not yet painted that picture of a future that everyone except the most rabid Trump followers can gravitate to.

Maybe this thread can start the process. We are going to need it no matter how this election turns out.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Democrats fight fi...