Old Thread About Election Consequences
A) I LOVE how you suddenly rely on the evil NY Times (they're on your evil list right?) for your facts
B) Well, hmmmmmmm could these folks possibly be those who voted for Bernie and then couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary (because...wait for it.... they are BERNIEBOTS)?
Likely.
sbenois said:
A) I LOVE how you suddenly rely on the evil NY Times (they're on your evil list right?) for your facts
B) Well, hmmmmmmm could these folks possibly be those who voted for Bernie and then couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary (because...wait for it.... they are BERNIEBOTS)?
Likely.
I have a New York Times subscription.
sbenois said:
Please don't use MSM as a source when it suits you. Thankey.
The MSM is an important source when read critically, but it should not be taken at face value or trusted unconditionally.
From "Manufacturing Consent" the definitive work on the MSM by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.
In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.
The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. In assessing the newsworthiness of the U.S. government’s urgent claims of a shipment of MIGs to Nicaragua on November 5, I984, the media do not stop to ponder the bias that is inherent in the priority assigned to government-supplied raw material, or the possibility that the government might be manipulating the news, imposing its own agenda, and deliberately diverting attention from other material. It requires a macro, alongside a micro- (story-by-story), view of media operations, to see the pattern of manipulation and systematic bias.
sbenois said:
Please don't use MSM as a source when it suits you. Thankey.
Read Paul's post above and stop telling people what they can and cannot do. You are not the Queen.
nan said:
Read Paul's post above and stop telling people what they can and cannot do. You are not the Queen.
Here’s the hitch: If someone cites or enjoys only the stuff in The Times or, say, The New Yorker that aligns with his or her beliefs, and dismisses whatever doesn’t (sometimes even questioning whether the writer believes it himself), that person isn’t really reading critically. That’s a person jonesing for reinforcement.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Here’s the hitch: If someone cites or enjoys only the stuff in The Times or, say, The New Yorker that aligns with his or her beliefs, and dismisses whatever doesn’t (sometimes even questioning whether the writer believes it himself), that person isn’t really reading critically. That’s a person jonesing for reinforcement.
Read Paul's post above and stop telling people what they can and cannot do. You are not the Queen.
This is almost right.
It's possible to read the NYT, and believe some stuff, and not believe other stuff, and use a critical eye while doing it. So long as your decision to believe or not is based on an objective look at what the reporter is trying to say (or more to the point, how they're trying to say it.)
Point is, if you're going to cherry pick a source, be ready to back up your decision with some reasoning as to why A but not B.
It's in this area that I think nan is lacking. It seems that articles are chosen simply based on philosophical alignment.
Klinker said:
nan said:He is the one who told me to vote for Stein (I actually voted for the moldy ham sandwich with a D next to her name).
sbenois said:Read Paul's post above and stop telling people what they can and cannot do.
Please don't use MSM as a source when it suits you. Thankey.
Thank you, that was the act of a rational adult. I did the same.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Here’s the hitch: If someone cites or enjoys only the stuff in The Times or, say, The New Yorker that aligns with his or her beliefs, and dismisses whatever doesn’t (sometimes even questioning whether the writer believes it himself), that person isn’t really reading critically. That’s a person jonesing for reinforcement.
Read Paul's post above and stop telling people what they can and cannot do. You are not the Queen.
You analyse my whole personality based on my mention of one article I read in the New Yorker that I said I liked. That's as lame as it gets. Who on MOL posts regularly posts articles and says, "Wow, this article really challenged me and made me change my mind 180 degrees" Not you, that's for sure. But piling on a personal attack--that is a person jonesing for reinforcement. That's Psychology 101.
nan said:
You analyse my whole personality based on my mention of one article I read in the New Yorker that I said I liked. That's as lame as it gets. Who on MOL posts regularly posts articles and says, "Wow, this article really challenged me and made me change my mind 180 degrees" Not you, that's for sure. But piling on a personal attack--that is a person jonesing for reinforcement. That's Psychology 101.
FWIW, I’m on the record as enjoying much of what paulsurovell posts for that reason (even if it never gets me quite to 180). And when another regular suggested that I nitpicked with ulterior motives and was too lazy to open threads, it nudged my thinking a degree or two. But point taken. Mine was a self-serving comment.
drummerboy said:
This is almost right.
Excellent. Almost is above my average.
sbenois said:
Please do. Thanks.
I'm sure that individuals like you have driven a lot of folks into the arms of the Greens.
Red_Barchetta said:Thank you, that was the act of a rational adult. I did the same.
You are welcome.
I'm not sure about the rational part though. NJ was going to go for Clinton and Clinton was going to lose no matter how I voted so maybe I would have been better off using my vote to protest her candidacy.
I go back and forth about it as time goes by. And, of course, Seboses's encouragements factor into it...
I just read that Tom Hayden endorsed Hillary before he died a couple of weeks before Election Day.
Was Hayden progressive enough for all of you?
I hope I do not have to explain who Tom Hayden was.
Guess I’m not really clear about who these pure progressives are? Names please.
LOST said:
I just read that Tom Hayden endorsed Hillary before he died a couple of weeks before Election Day.
Was Hayden progressive enough for all of you?
I hope I do not have to explain who Tom Hayden was.
Tommy was from Newark......I knew him. Not from his days as a community organizer in my town
but later he and two others visited North Vietnam. I think it was Ramsey Clark and Lynd the Yale college professor who rounded out the group.
I managed to get Tommy to give up a weekend in order to address a surprising number of people at an old Newark ballroom on Broad St. concerning the Vietnam situation.
I think when he made that endorsement of what's her name he had
indigestion.
Should clarify....he was not born and raised in Newark but spent years there in his pursuits. He frequently wore a black and red checked shirt jack. Black and red are Anarchist colors.........he wore them proudly.
Tom Hayden was not originally from Newark. He did political work there. He was, I believe, from Michigan.
He involved himself in Democratic Electoral Politics and after supporting Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary after she became the nominee.
He decided to embrace reality.
LOST said:
Tom Hayden was not originally from Newark. He did political work there. He was, I believe, from Michigan.
He involved himself in Democratic Electoral Politics and after supporting Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary after she became the nominee.
He decided to embrace reality.
The reality of which you speak put Mr. Trump in the White House .
Hayden did not do political work in Newark in the orthodox sense
He was a Community Organizer with the Newark Community Union Project.
author said:
LOST said:The reality of which you speak put Mr. Trump in the White House .
Tom Hayden was not originally from Newark. He did political work there. He was, I believe, from Michigan.
He involved himself in Democratic Electoral Politics and after supporting Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary after she became the nominee.
He decided to embrace reality.
Hillary was the Democratic nominee. As a true progressive, he endorsed her since the alternative was Trump.
Endorsing Hillary in the November election didn't put Trump in the White House.
Selfish egomaniacs who thought the election was all about them, and not only didn't endorse but attacked Hillary, helped put Trump in the White House.
I know what Tom Hayden did in Newark. It was a type of "political work", just as serving in the California Legislature is another type.
We could argue forever about which is more effective.
LOST said:
I know what Tom Hayden did in Newark. It was a type of "political work", just as serving in the California Legislature is another type.
We could argue forever about which is more effective.
I meant no argument............just pointing out that the work he did in Newark was not the standard Republican/Democratic type political work.
One of his greatest and most overlooked accomplishment was to coauthor the Port Huron Statement.
It galvanized the New Left during the early formative years and helped lead to the formation of the Students for a Democratic Society.
He was seen as such a threat to "society" by the Nixon administration that he was one of the Chicago 7.........originally 8 that were brought up on conspiracy charges. All found guilty, of course, they were acquitted on appeal.
He lead a full life.
They were not found guilty of conspiracy. They were each found guilty of individual acts. Reversed on Appeal.
I am not trying to bust chops. I just believe that historical accuracy is important.
I voted for Bernie in the Primary. Tom Hayden voted for Hillary.
What a long strange trip it's been.
Here’s what Tom had to say about that in his endorsement of Clinton:
“ I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the California primary for one fundamental reason. It has to do with race. My life since 1960 has been committed to the causes of African Americans, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, and freedom struggles in Vietnam, Cuba and Latin America. In the environmental movement I start from the premise of environmental justice for the poor and communities of color. My wife is a descendant of the Oglala Sioux, and my whole family is inter-racial.
What would cause me to turn my back on all those people who have shaped who I am? That would be a transgression on my personal code. I have been on too many freedom rides, too many marches, too many jail cells, and far too many gravesites to breach that trust. And I have been so tied to the women’s movement that I cannot imagine scoffing at the chance to vote for a woman president. When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary—for instance the Congressional Black Caucus and Sacramento’s Latino caucus—that was the decisive factor for me.”
After checking Wikipedia on what was to become the Chicago7...........and I am not going to cut and paste the article ....they were found guilty of conspiracy with a few other charges thrown in.
Of the group Dave Dellinger who was the owner of Liberation magazine had his office about 75 feet from my desk. Abby H wandered in once in a when when he had no money for lunch and I mentioned Tom previously. So I was honored to have 3 of the Chicago 7 as part my life.
It was a good time to be young.
Port Huron Statement? We're into Big Lebowski territory now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/sunday-review/the-port-huron-statement-at-50.html
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
What about the Obama voters who went for Trump, cause the Democrats don't do crap for them anymore? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
What have the Democrats done to try to win this kind of voter back except for voter shaming?