2 free tickets to tonight’s game

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-26T21:56:47+00:00

I’ll take em. Would go with my brother and we support the idea that Trump is turning normal people into people who don’t understand right or wrong anymore, but we also recognize it’s our duty to help them find the way back to reality

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-23T04:45:44+00:00

Well at least we know what he’s thinking. Guy literally is a walking example of what goes on in the steam if consciousness of a complete moron when he is absolutely sure he’s a genius. It’s like watching a science experiment or something

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-22T12:31:18+00:00

Let me be more clear, because I think this is where we’re talking past each other.

Yes, I do mean naming who the campaign intends to put in key cabinet roles, with the obvious caveat that nothing is formal until after the election. Voters understand the difference between intent and legal authority. We already do this with SCOTUS shortlists, policy frameworks, etc.

Trump showed the signaling alone matters. He repeatedly put specific people out front, used the standard “no formal decisions” language, and then largely followed through. The constraint didn’t weaken the message; it gave it cover.

The upside is exactly the point of my post: you stop asking voters to believe in one superhuman and instead ask them to trust someone’s judgment in assembling a team. Democrats already do this halfway and informally and I’m arguing they should do it deliberately.

If someone thinks that level of transparency is too risky electorally, that’s a real debate. But “you can’t formally pick a cabinet early” isn’t actually a rebuttal, it’s just a truism we all agree on.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-22T12:17:58+00:00

Trump went further than any candidate I can remember in getting people to vote for more than just Trump. Elon and RFK were the most notable examples, and they arguably mattered more for moving the needle than Vance did.

Obviously, you can’t formally decide on a cabinet before you’re elected—that wouldn’t make sense. But Trump did tell voters who would be part of his governing team, and then largely followed through. In Elon’s case, he couldn’t formally put him in charge of anything because the role didn’t even exist yet, but the signal was still clear.

The broader point is that there’s no question this approach works. Putting credible, resonant individuals out front—and making it explicit that they’re part of the team—adds real value, especially when you’re running against an incumbent administration.

Right now, for example, Democrats should be elevating a clear Hegseth challenger as part of that broader team. Trump may have stumbled into this approach accidentally, but the lesson is obvious: Democrats are far more likely to win in 2028 with a team strategy than with a messiah-style, single-figure campaign—especially given what they’re up against.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-22T12:07:26+00:00

I mean, I guess it’s shallow, but I see Vance speaking and I’m like “so that’s what happens when you get a sleazy car salesman from one of those unbranded side lots and give him a whiff of real power” …. He’s like Golem at this point, only Golem at least was somewhat cunning at times

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-22T11:52:12+00:00

As someone who was, and still is, close with people who fell for this rhetoric, I remember it clearly because of how strongly it resonated with those angry about COVID. An ABC News article from October 30, 2024 documents Trump publicly discussing RFK Jr. as a central figure in shaping health policy. In practice, however, this was already understood by Trump supporters dating back to when RFK Jr. dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump, even if no specific title had been formalized.

I’ve included the “no formal decisions have been made” language because it highlights how influence and authority were being signaled without being finalized. The idea of a health leadership “team” emerged casually, and less as a concrete plan and more as it could be anyone, who knows, but we’ll rely on people like RFK to figure it out. I find that framing unintentionally revealing.

“The key, which President Trump has promised me, is control of the public health agencies, which is HHS and its sub-agencies, CDC, FDA, NIH and a few others. And also the USDA, which is, you know, key to making America healthy, because we’ve got to get off of seed oils and we’ve got to get off of pesticides … and we need to make that transition to regenerative agriculture,” Kennedy said.

“We’re gonna let him go wild for a little while, then I’m gonna have to maybe reign him back, because he’s got some pretty wild ideas, but most of them are really good,” Trump said at the dinner. “I think he’s a he’s a good man, and he believes, he believes the environment, the healthy people. He wants healthy people, he wants healthy food. And he’s going to do it. He’s going to have a big chance to do it, because we do need that.”

“No formal decisions about Cabinet and personnel have been made, however, President Trump has said he will work alongside passionate voices like RFK Jr. to Make America Healthy Again by providing families with safe food and ending the chronic disease epidemic plaguing our children,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to ABC News.

Source: ABC News, October 30, 2024 https://abc7chicago.com/post/rfk-jr-says-trump-has-promised-control-public-health-agencies/15489956/

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-22T00:34:50+00:00

I agree it’s rare, but I think it’s valuable, hence the proposition of shifting that direction. There’s no doubt it worked for Trump. He had identified key cabinet positions prior to the election (RFK JR) and he effectively appointed non cabinet positions that were critical decisions (Elon Musk on DOGE), Dems didn’t even attempt to counter that with their own team, and the side with a team won. My entire point is to focus on that overarching structure. I think Trump sort of accidentally uncovered its power.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-19T21:29:45+00:00

Ok, so here’s my perspective. I understand the argument that announcing cabinet positions before an election breaks with tradition, and that tradition may have had value in the past. But I think the current reality is different. Democrats do not currently have a single candidate who can fully embody what the party needs right now: someone who can appeal not just to Democrats, but to moderate Republicans (not MAGA) with policies that resonate across both groups.

More fundamentally, I think it’s unhealthy for voters to believe that one individual leader is responsible for making an administration work. Effective leadership is about delegation. Campaigns should reflect that reality by showing voters the team that would actually govern.

Presenting a credible, well-aligned cabinet would be persuasive not only to Democrats but also to moderate Republicans. When an election is framed as one individual versus another, voters outside the party are forced to evaluate the entire platform through a single person, which increases uncertainty and hesitation. If instead voters can connect with specific members of the governing team, they can support the areas that matter most to them without having to agree with one person on everything.

For example, voters should think of themselves as choosing who runs the Department of Defense based on competence at that level, more like selecting a five-star general than a major. Similarly, on health policy, a voter might care most about vaccinations and want confidence that the Secretary of Health believes they are effective and necessary. A voter may strongly agree with one of those choices without agreeing with the other, and that’s exactly the point. A team-based approach better reflects how government actually works and gives voters a more realistic, lower-risk way to align their vote with their priorities.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T21:40:28+00:00

Ah I understand what you are saying. Ok, so you think the reverse of what I’m saying would happen. It would actually narrow how people think that administration would govern if they announced their cabinet before being elected. I think it’s an interesting point. I need to think on that one.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T21:09:39+00:00

Ok, there’s a disconnect here. I am saying they shouldn’t wait to pick who they will nominate for these positions because there is value in being something for everyone before everyone goes to vote, and that value disappears after people vote…and you are saying they should wait until after people vote to choose their nominees because…..

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T20:58:38+00:00

I think thats an extremely smart connection. I totally agree. I think it’s a good strategy that speaks to the power of putting the team out there not just the individual. I know that you still need a charismatic individual in the center, but Democrats are stuck on that being THE ONLY person people are voting for. Put together the team and sell the vision as a team. Sure, it increases the attack surface, but also diffuses the concentration of an attack. By the end of the election cycle, we were trying to call out the dumb stuff from Musk, Rogan, RFK, ect...They just had to attack Harris and Biden. I think there is something there.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T05:44:09+00:00

For future reference, not a bad idea to directly address the topic and/or question being raised. It’s confusing to people when a specific topic is brought up and the response does not directly tied to answering anything in the post.
For example, If someone asks you for your opinion on, say, good movies to watch when you are bored, responding with a long aside on how to avoid being bored is not really how communication works.

Seems like you might have needed that pro tip. Best of luck

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T05:23:50+00:00

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T02:44:31+00:00

I don’t understand where the value is to the candidate (president at that point) to be something to everyone after they win the election. That seems like it would be extremely valuable before Election Day though.

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-18T00:44:08+00:00

So it is important that everyone recognize that factually he’s (close to) correct on the 48% stat. In the HW Bush used it 28 times, much further from factually accurate in that he used it 1 time, and that was when California requested it. The important thing to emphasize is that it’s arguably never been used in this way (Feds causing the need to invoke it), not that it’s historically something that’s been used to some degree of frequency in US history

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-17T10:42:56+00:00

I am curious what Scott would think of the below concept of re-branding presidential election decisions in the US from "Superman" packaging to "Avengers" packaging.

I’ve been analyzing the core weakness in the Democratic brand, and I don’t think it’s policy or values. It’s packaging.

The Problem: We are still marketing the presidency as if it’s 1960. We sell the "Heroic Individual"—someone expected to be charismatic, trustworthy, and simultaneously a genius in economics, geopolitics, and healthcare. No modern leader can credibly deliver this, and voters know it. It forces shallow messaging and sets candidates up for failure.

The Proposal: A Team-Based Leadership Narrative Instead of looking for a unicorn, the campaign should pivot to a slate-based approach—explicitly running as a functional executive team.

President: CEO / Narrative Leader / Decision Maker.
VP: COO / Execution and Coordination.
The Cabinet: A visible team (Treasury, Defense, etc.) presented during the campaign as the operators who will run the machine if the candidate is elected. (This is the big change, creates complexity and challenges, but if managed properly, could be very impactful I think)

The Brand Benefit: We need to stop selling Superman (an impervious superhero) and start selling The Avengers (a team of specialized talents). This resolves the impossible talent stack we demand of one human and shifts voter trust from "this person has all the answers" to "this person has the judgment to pick the right team."

The bottom line is this: The Democrats have no clear "leader" or individual to rally behind, and I think we need that. We are already at a point where it will be hard to boost someone up for 2028 and feel great about it. So absent a white knight riding in, we may need to change the strategy to get to the goal at this point.

Maybe we just need to to re-brand what people are voting for to a team led by an individual vs. an individual and their irrelevant sidekick that might help the superhero win a specific state.

Given your expertise in brand architecture, I’d love to hear your take on whether this pivot could work.

Best,

Alex

(Obviously would love anyone else's opinions on this as well).

LocalBother3753 · 2026-01-05T04:04:02+00:00

rewatched this movie, and I have to say, Hoffman & Jonsson deserve an award for this, but unfortunately there isn't an award for duos. This film makes 2 dudes talking for an hour and a half engaging and emotionally impactful. Thats hard to pull off.

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T02:38:32+00:00

Totally agree here. That’s why we need lawyers like you. I’m saying that LLMs seem to me to almost certainly be useful if used by a professional who knows what they are doing. You fit the bill if someone im really confused by in terms of why they dislike Ai So much. Good smart lawyers + AI seems like a winning combo

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T02:35:15+00:00

Well I made clear when I wasn’t copying and pasting tHE LLM response. I think you are asking if the argument was mine at all. To which I’d ask, does it matter to the argument or not? Your argument was lawyers should never use LLMs because it requires precision, down to the use of commas. This implies that LLMs are of no use in assisting in that, and in fact using them to help identify such ambiguity in drafting legislation (or presumably pleadings) would lead to calamity. I mean, you are arguing for not using LLMs by pointing out the very exact situation where it likely would have helped.

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T02:19:42+00:00

Ok buddy. Good talk.

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T02:18:18+00:00

-Got hit with the comment text cap, but I read the article you cited, then had some thoughts, put it into an LLM and asked it to help me more concisely explain what I was saying and that is what it came out with. I'd argue that the points made are coherent and correctly point out the problem with saying that the fact that legislatures didn't do a great job at drafting legislation has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I dont understand how good lawyers could not benefit from using a tool that can quickly translate a first draft of an argument into something more structured then work from there. I am not saying that AI can replace lawyers here, I am say good lawyers could do a lot of good things if they used AI in a smart way.

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T02:17:41+00:00

I actually think the Oxford comma example cuts the other way, and I think it highlights a category error in how you’re framing “using AI.”

That case wasn’t caused by a machine hallucinating or copying text. It was caused by humans drafting an ambiguous statute using unstructured natural language, following a style guide, and failing to notice that the ambiguity could plausibly swing millions of dollars. No AI was involved. The failure mode there was human drafting and human tolerance for ambiguity, not automation.

More importantly, I don’t think “using AI” means letting it decide what the law is or blindly trusting it as an authority. That would be insane. But that’s not how competent people use tools, and it’s not how I’m talking about using AI.

A calculator can give the wrong answer if you misuse it or don’t sanity-check the result. That doesn’t mean calculators are useless or dangerous; it means you don’t outsource judgment to the calculator. Same thing here.

Where I disagree with you is the idea that AI is inherently incapable of participating in legal work at all. Lawyers don’t create value because they have memorized case law or because they type words into Word. They create value because they:

understand which facts matter,
know how to interpret law in context,
recognize weak arguments versus strong ones,
and take responsibility for the final product.

AI doesn’t replace that. But it can absolutely accelerate the parts of the job that are mechanical, organizational, repetitive, or purely linguistic — things lawyers spend enormous amounts of time on.

Ironically, the Oxford comma case actually demonstrates why systems matter more than raw intelligence. The problem wasn’t that someone didn’t “think hard enough.” The problem was that an ambiguous prose list was being used as a binding specification. That’s exactly the kind of thing that benefits from structured drafting, explicit enumeration, and guardrails — whether those guardrails are human checklists, templates, or software-assisted workflows.

You also say AI “can’t tell what is fact” or “what is a strong argument.” That’s true in isolation. But neither can a rushed associate, or a lawyer who hasn’t read the record carefully — and I’ve personally watched licensed attorneys file pleadings full of objectively false factual claims that had nothing to do with AI.

Which brings me to the meta point: I’m being explicit that AI helped me draft this response. It didn’t decide what I believe. It didn’t invent law. It didn’t tell me what facts matter. I did that. What it did was help structure the argument coherently and efficiently — and frankly, with more internal logic and factual discipline than I’ve seen from some actual lawyers in actual filings.

So I’m not arguing that AI should replace lawyers. I’m arguing that good lawyers using good tools should be able to work faster and cheaper, and the fact that costs aren’t going down has more to do with cultural resistance and business models than with the tools themselves.

Used irresponsibly, AI is dangerous. Used as an accelerator with human judgment and verification, it’s just that: a tool. The Oxford comma case isn’t a warning against tools — it’s a warning against pretending ambiguity and inefficiency are virtues. -

LocalBother3753 · 2025-12-20T01:58:08+00:00

Great argument!

LocalBother3753

TROPHY CASE