re: #541 Timothy Watson

We’ve so ran out of ideas that you have to go back to George Lakoff?

Well, perhaps because too many Democrats didn’t go to him in the first place? e_e

Seriously though, what parts of his arguments - and the general idea of framing things in terms that resonate with people and advance one’s values - do you object to?

(example: he advocates Democrats say “public protections” instead of “regulations”, because the former as a moral, positive connotation while the other buys into GOPer negative framing. So far, I haven’t actually seen any Dems do this on a wide scale. What’s the harm in at least trying?)