So kids, maybe the next time a concept or meme or catch phrase gets rolled out in a day and the entire media bleats it out in unison....it miiiiiight be bullshit.
This one was just painfully obvious from the onset.
What blows my mind is how fast regular people pick it up and do all the hard work of drilling it in.
The legacy mockingbird media is being dismantled and grassroots alternative media will be the future (as long as we can keep the internet an open source information highway, although Google is playing monkey games with search results). Corporate media is 90% evil 10% good (my non-empirical calculations, deal with it ) . i can't believe how many on this site still post Washington Post, NYT, CNN, etc. Do you believe these outlets are your really your best source of truth?
To be an informed citizen, be skeptical of every story you read. Look for corroboration, and remember that stories often get details wrong the first try. But just because they do doesn't mean the media is corrupt or worthless, or fake.
After the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary, the dems held their nose and went along with her, but there was no backbone behind Hillary- and that's because people knew intuitively that she can't be trusted.
She lost because she sucked, not because of fake news..
Just because it didn't actually flip the outcome of the election doesn't mean fake news didn't have some impact. There are many reasons Hillary lost, none of which can really be seen as fully explanatory. She had the Russians, Wikileaks, the FBI, and the fake news creators working against her, she made strategic errors before and during her campaign, and the less mainstream liberals who came out for Obama (young people of color, poorer white voters) never really warmed up to her, in part because of Bernie's demonization of her during the primary, in part because she was just a poor candidate who couldn't reach them. All of it together was enough, and when you lose by 80,000 votes in a country of 320 million people, any one thing could fairly be called "the difference" without any single factor being strongly determinative.
All of that said, if you want one thing to peg, she was probably on track to eke out a narrow win before the Comey letter came out. Then she dropped to about a 2 point lead nationally, which is just about where she ended up.
I agree that anyone saying "fake news is the reason she lost" is wrong, both because there is no single reason she lost, as I said, and because as that study shows the impact of fake news was relatively small, although in my opinion that blog post "analysis" is just excerpting some pieces without really explaining their relevance. The abstract of the study says:
"(ii) of the known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared eight million times; (iii) the average American saw and remembered 0.92 pro-Trump fake news stories and 0.23 pro-Clinton fake news stories, with just over half of those who recalled seeing fake news stories believing them."
Note also this finding on p. 16: "Republicans are four to eight times as likely as Democrats to report believing pro-Trump headlines, and Democrats are 50 to 100 percent more likely than Republicans to believe pro-Clinton headlines."
I would say the study finds that "fake news" as a whole was overall more favorable to Trump and more shared and believed by Trump voters (look also at Figure 3 on the number of shares), even though some of the stories more favorable to Clinton were among the most believed by the general public (though the percentages of people believing or not being sure about the stories, which is at page 37, are pretty close together for stories favoring Clinton vs. Trump).
<<<although in my opinion that blog post "analysis" is just excerpting some pieces without really explaining their relevance.
it's not just "one blog post" that takes this reading of the study. look it up. that's the consensus. The only other reading of it concludes , if anything, it helped Hillary.
"fake news" was about censorship and cooling inquiry.
that was obvious Day one and a few of us here saw it for what it was right away.
"look it up. that's the consensus. The only other reading of it concludes , if anything, it helped Hillary."
How can there be a "consensus" view if you admit there's "only" one other reading?
The original freakout over "fake news" in November and December was panic by liberals looking for an explanation in the wake of the election who landed on "nefarious overseas forces conspired to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." The intelligence community has concluded that that's likely true, but that it wasn't through placement of fabricated news stories, but rather quiet coordination between Wikileaks, Putin, and possibly representatives of the Trump campaign to leak material embarrassing to Hillary and Democratic officials. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-russia-20170106-story.html). The fake news phenomenon was just about making money for the people writing it, who were politically agnostic.
NOW the term is being used by conservatives as a form of censorship to smear real media outlets who write unfavorable stories about Trump and his allies.
Right, and what's interesting is that people are pissed about Russia hacking our election who was illustrating how the Democrats and the DNC were hacking ours.
No one has refuted or disputed the content and there's quite a lot of damning stuff in there.
"Do you think I'LL do better playing domino's on cheese than on pasta?"
I'm saying Russia hacking the election should be a concern, but now that the leaks are out there, we need to look at the information it contains.
Much of it is damning the the Clintons, their foundation and the DNC.
I'm saying that the leaks contained info about the DNC actively working against Bernie and I understand the difference between the Primary and the General and the forces at play, but most Democrats probably thought it was supposed to be a fair process on a level field. well we know now that wasn't the case.
Never again.
We need to look back with clear eyes, not telling ourselves the wrong narrative just because it's somehow comforting.
So now you're totally changing the subject, but fine. I never really bought the story about the DNC's systemic efforts to undermine Bernie. When all that stuff came out I saw a handful of leaked emails from a few DNC staff members who should have known better that indicated some hostility toward his campaign, but aside from some bits and pieces that seemed a little overblown, it didn't look like the concerted effort to tank him that many of his supporters have made it out to be. (I should add that the media reports on the leaks were never able to point to more than a few negative emails about Bernie.) I think it was right for Wasserman Schultz to step down, but it seems like Bernie got a lot more mileage out of attacking the DNC than they did from shooting off a few frustrated emails about means of pushing back against him that don't appear to have ever been used. He might have been treated a little unfairly, but Bernie lost the primary because he got fewer votes in states where it mattered, not because of DNC collusion against him.
On a broader note, it's pretty rich for people who have never been Democrats (Bernie included) to jump into the Democratic nomination process and suddenly insist on standards of fairness in an institution they've never had much regard for. But that's mostly beside the point.
At least a day before the election cycle starts would be nice. Bernie was not and is not a Democrat. He's spent years criticizing them in fact (for example, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/10/martin-om...). Once he decided he wanted to run for president, however, he had the nerve to exploit the party's institutional apparatus to get his campaign taken seriously, and then to attack that very institution as a means of gaining support. It wasn't right for DNC staff to try to undermine him to the extent any did, and the process should certainly be fair, but you should be able to understand their frustration.
It's also important to remember the bias that comes from limited information and why the information is limited. The DNC and Clinton campaign emails came out because of efforts by the Russians to harm Hillary Clinton. I can say with pretty strong certainty that we would've seen just as damning stuff, if not much worse, in the Bernie campaign's emails. But we don't have them, because foreign powers weren't actively working to undermine his campaign like they were with Hillary. If you want to talk about fairness, make sure you're thinking about it in all of the ways it was challenged in this election.
"The DNC WikiLeaks emails illustrate how this corrupt system—from Wasserman Schultz chastising Chuck Todd to the Hillary Victory Fund pocketing DNC money—favored Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders never benefited from these advantages.
That’s called a rigged election, and the “smoking gun” euphemism is used to defend Clinton from every scandal, specifically because Hillary supporters hide behind semantics. Hillary used a private server for convenience (there was no intent to hide), Bill Clinton spoke to Loretta Lynch about golf, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was neutral, and the FBI was merely conducting a security review. Pro-Clinton pundits looking for a “smoking gun” won’t find this weapon; only a semantic jungle of deceit and questionable behavior."
<<<It's pretty conclusive that what wasn't fake news
"what happened".
I was responding to you last sentence.
I started this thread, because, as Americans, we need to be concerned with Russian hacking, but as Democrats we need to wake up to the fact that it wasn't the big bad Ruskies that brought us Trump, we were saddled with a 90s candidate by an institution that couldn't tell which way the wind was blowing in a year that change was on the menu and their Hubris in going about it sunk them.....and us.
>>> as Democrats we need to wake up to the fact that it wasn't the big bad Ruskies that brought us Trump, we were saddled with a 90s candidate by an institution that couldn't tell which way the wind was blowing in a year that change was on the menu and their Hubris in going about it sunk them.....and us.
Remember my first point about how there's no one thing that "brought up Trump?" You're back to square one, and your argument assumes that Bernie would've won the general, which is unprovable speculation. Bernie has quite a bit of baggage that the Clinton campaign decided to stay away from during the primary, but Trump would have had no problem going there (just a taste: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-siempre-what-bernie-learned-i...). It's unreasonable to assume that swapping Hillary for Bernie would have maintained everything that was positive for Democrats in the general and not added any new liabilities.
Democrats do need to move forward, and that means the DNC institutionalists and Hillary supporters need to make amends with Bernie supporters, but it's a two-way street. If the Bernie people really want to unite to defeat Trump, the answer isn't to retreat further into their trenches screaming about how it's the DNC's fault that Democrats lost the election.
Lol. I wasn't presenting that as a checkmate or anything.
I know exactly who he is. He just covered many of the points I didn't feel like typing out, points that many democrats are blind to because they shut out any criticism of the Clinton campaign.
I agree Bernie had his own baggage, but in an election about Change, I'm confident the voters would have been able to see who was the real change candidate and who was the snake oil salesman.
Hillary wasn't Change and she was terrible at selling herself as such. Donald at least knew which way the wind was blowing, for better or for worse, and sold himself as exactly that.
1)The election is fixed. Hillary is being coronated
2)Hillary takes pride in aborting healthy 9 month old fetuses
3)Comey was impartial and was not working on behalf of the GOP.
Those are the 3 most influential lies that led to a Trump presidency.
I keep seeing 'CHANGE' in big fat letters. First what change were you looking for? A complete gutting of the political system? Are we that naive to think that will happen? Did Obama not help to make strides for realistic change in our country? Policy that Clinton backed?
This wasn't really a change election, or at least it didn't need to be. We were coming from a popular President with a fairly strong and growing economy and an international situation with some issues but no major pressing threats. There was no outcry for a change in direction like there was in 2008, and three million more people ultimately voted for continuity over the radical shift we ended up with.
What Trump did was grab hold of the boiling, raging id of the Republican Party still seething at its leadership for not fighting hard enough to stop the black President (hence what they did to Cantor and Boehner) to seize control of the party. In the general, he riled up racial anxieties among white middle class voters in the Midwest who were uneasy with Black Lives Matter and Latino immigration but weren't necessarily going to vote along those lines until Trump told them a story of how great America was when minorities had no power, and told them he'd take them back there. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton put forth a narrative about how multiculturalism strengthens America, which led Obama to success twice, but couldn't get away from a mostly unfair but deeply pervasive narrative that she was untrustworthy, rooted partly but not entirely in sexism, which seemingly every media report wanted to reinforce. Couple that with the mobilization of white voters who stood up to actively reject her embrace of Black Lives Matter and basic civil rights for Muslim immigrants, lack of enthusiasm for her from younger people of color, active demonization of her by Bernie and his followers (despite his later endorsement) that poisoned her in the minds of many liberal voters, and all of the external forces working against her (FBI, Wikileaks, the Russians), and it's not hard to see where we ultimately ended up.
Oh wait: Is the "Clinton Foundation pedophila" the Pizzagate thing? If so, I HAVE heard of that one (thanks Lava and that dude who investigated with his firearm).
man, people like uncle sam are a huge problem. not a change election? jesus fucking christ man. get your head out of your ass.
"active demonization by bernie"? that's just insane man. so many alternative facts, amazing. you're just as bad as people like seadog. congratulations.
>>> I do not see the world as you do, Sam. And you write with a lot of loaded language.
Show me where I'm wrong. Happy to engage. I call them as I see them.
>>> you're just as bad as people like seadog.
Yeah, fuck that though. We're interpreting facts, here. Don't lump me in with the paranoid racist mouthbreathers.
And you want to tell me Bernie didn't spend his entire campaign trying to tear down Hillary? You may think his criticism was deserved and appropriate, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Recognize your own biases before you come at me.
Bernie had no plans for a serious campaign. He entered the race to elevate his message about the 1% (which I agree with by the way) and help push Hillary to the left as she coasted to the nomination. But when it turned out he could get some real support, his ego got the best of him and he decided to start attacking Hillary with a narrative that she was a corrupt tool of Wall Street who couldn't be trusted. That played right into Trump's crooked Hillary message, and she never recovered:
“Hillary is a disaster, folks. She has bad judgment,” he said, referring to the former secretary of state’s e-mail scandal.
“That was said by Bernie Sanders . . . He’s given me a lot of my best lines. I mean, he has given me such great lines on her, and if I say it, they’re gonna say, ‘That’s not a nice thing to say,’ so I always refer to Bernie Sanders,” Trump quipped.
It looks to me like Uncle Sam is actually making a pretty rational argument that you all just don't agree with. I definitely think the Seadog comparisons and allegations of insanity are a bit unfounded, and a lot less convincing than the argument he's presenting.
Again, spare me the comparisons with the troglodyte white nationalist element. I would have excitedly supported Bernie if he were the nominee and I agreed strongly with most of his message. But I'm frustrated with how he conducted himself during the primary and with his tepid and weak endorsement of Hillary once he lost. And I'm angry at the Bernie supporters who were so proud of their purity that they didn't go to the polls to vote for the thoroughly moderate if somewhat hawkish and finance-linked candidate, if only to stop the rise of the dangerous and radical pile of human garbage that's now sitting in the Oval Office.
To be clear, I think Hillary fucked up BADLY by giving speeches to Goldman Sachs. I think she fucked up BADLY by using the private email server. And it was a colossal and foreseeable strategic failure not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. But that doesn't change the unreasonable opposition she faced from those who should've known better.
Of course I'm angry at the DNC, but mostly for being painfully mediocre and showing terrible judgment. They were overly complacent in assuming Hillary would coast to victory in the primary and should never have even allowed the appearance of any bias. It's also institutionally boneheaded to have a sitting member of Congress as the chair, especially the tone-deaf Hillary ally Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who should've been gone before the cycle started. There were failures up and down the board.
The more nonsense you all post in response, especially comparing me to the dictionary definition of right-wing nutjob, the more I think you're just trolling to piss me off. I'm not desperate for attention, I've just been stewing over this crap for two months and all of the wrongheaded discussion here has given me an outlet.
The media played everybody. They wanted trump. For the next four years they will have endless trump headlines and a bunch of braim warped Americans who just can't look away. The real business involving blood guns and oil will take place behind the scenes as usual.
Not really, Tim, when all they are saying is their reading of the study leads them to believe she got more votes from fake news stories than Donald did. In that way, she benefited. Obviously the end result wasn't in her favor, due to many other factors being debated here.
and shit, I misspelled " benefited" in the thread title.
The 'study' = someone else trying to justify why it wasn't their fault that Trump was elected. It's already been covered. The groups creating the fake news, basically progoganda on Facebook, admitted that the right were far better suckers than the left. It's assinine to even print or promote that 'fake news' had anything but negative effects on Hillary's campaign.
Jonas...I don't think I've ever seen uncle spam participate in anything but acrimonious political threads. He's a neolib version of seadog - there's a remarkably strong similarity in their extreme partisan narrative style, but that's just my opinion, man.
...there's plenty of people here I disagree strongly with regarding politics, but I don't get that bating seadog vibe from them like uncle sam. Either way it's all good, whoever he is. I don't hate seadog either, I just recognize when a person is over the top and probably not worth trying to have a discussion with.
from the Stanford study on the effects of Fake News.....
"Not only did the average American remember no more than one fake story, but even smaller fractions of them actually believed it. To sway a voter under these circumstances, the academics estimate that the story would need to be as persuasive as 36 campaign ads. "
I don't agree with everything that Uncle Sam says, and honestly I don't remember how much or how little he visits non political threads, but unlike Seadouche, Sam sticks around and responds. Seadouche's style is plainly hit, run and sit back.
Meh. I don't discuss politics with you either, felina. uncle spam is just as extremist as seadog is, only neoliberal and dogmatic As far as your judgments of seadog coloring what I said, that's on you. I have no bad feelings towards the guy, buy I'm not going to discuss politics with the nut, he's way too immersed in his own beliefs and bias. lol
Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter.
<<<Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter
Yeah! Stupid elite college boys working with math and facts and analysis of the data. get 'em!
<<<Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter
Yeah! Stupid elite college boys working with math and facts and analysis of the data. get 'em!
better to stick with your own *feelings* about this.
I think Uncle Sam is very astute in his points. If you go back and listen to his posts in a quiet voice, and not be on the defensive, he is clear and polite with his message. I wouldn't be surprised if he has had some forensics experience. He stayed on point, directly and cogently presented his case, and supported his argument with good sources. He also sounds like he is well informed and has given the issue much thought. Frankly, I find his posts in this thread refreshing. I feel he is the direct opposite of seadog and his ilk. Notice how he did not resort to name calling? He asked for clarification rather than throwing around snark and assumption. He kept emotion out of it despite direct attacks from the peanut gallery. I hope the good uncle keeps it up. well done sir/madam.
I don't hang around here as much as I used to for some personal reasons, not that I was ever a terribly active member, and also because the quality of the community has gone downhill over the last 12-18 months, though I'm glad we've continued over here on the new domain, thanks to the hard work of some dedicated folks. I post mostly in threads about shows, setlists, and great moments in Dead history, but sadly there are fewer and fewer of those nowadays. The politics threads are, like I said, a venue to get some anger out, and maybe open some eyes and change a few minds as the progressive movement tries to gather itself up for the next battle. As some have noted, I always try to back up my claims with facts and links and to consider my own biases and the shortcomings in my arguments, which apparently is shocking and threatening to some. As I've said, I'm happy to engage if you think my interpretations are wrong and can explain why, but if you resort to name calling and accusations of mental instability, be aware that that reflects on you more than it does your target.
Oh yes, didn't mean to take credit for your thread 73 -- I meant I somehow started a debate on whether I'm a real person or not. You of course opened the actual discussion.
Bernie had no plans for a serious campaign. He entered the race to elevate his message about the 1% (which I agree with by the way) and help push Hillary to the left as she coasted to the nomination.
this statement is not aligned with facts, sam.
bernies campaign was more than a presidential campaign, it was an attempt to save the democratic party by taking it over and realigning it with the changing demographics and emerging majority minorities in this country. the establishment fought our efforts tooth and nail – i recall office chatter about a hrc mole in the campaign – and bernies campaign lost when the establishment played dirty and selfishly doubled-down on a milquetoast candidate who wasn't going to win the general. since then, the bernie brain trust has divided itself into two symbiotic apparatuses: one focuses on the federal arena and the dp itself, while the other focuses on state and down-ballot races and initiatives. if everything goes as planned perez will lose, ellis will win, the establishment will recognize it's failures, or not, and the efforts to revitalize the dp will finally prevail paving the way for a take over in 2018, and win in 2020.
I'm pretty much done engaging here, but I'll say two things:
1. Glenn Greenwald is immensely biased by his bizarre and almost pathological fixation on attacking the Democratic Party. He is not a journalist; he's an aggressive opinion writer who occasionally does some reporting. You're welcome to read his editorials, but it's incredibly shortsighted to take his opinions as facts or fair characterizations without reading other sources. All you're doing is confirming your own existing perceptions. You're perfectly entitled to do that, of course, but it's important to be aware of it. If you are at all interested in an alternative opinion perspective, I'd recommend reading some of the writing by the pseudonymous Propane Jane: https://storify.com/docrocktex26
2. >>> bernies campaign was more than a presidential campaign, it was an attempt to save the democratic party by taking it over and realigning it with the changing demographics and emerging majority minorities in this country.
This is just false. Hillary Clinton campaigned in and won the great majority of the diverse states in the primary. Bernie's victories were mostly in heavily white states:
Sanders is winning states that are much whiter than the Democratic electorate as a whole, Clinton is winning states that are much blacker than the Democratic electorate as a whole, and Clinton is winning most of those states that are somewhere in the middle, whether they’re in the South (like Virginia) or elsewhere (like Ohio or Nevada).
The Democratic Party as it is, with its base of minority voters, selected Hillary. Bernie, meanwhile, dismissed the votes of the South (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/18/why-ber... -- opinion but with quotes that speak for themselves). Relatedly, by asserting that "the establishment playing dirty" is what led to Bernie's loss, rather than minority voters simply choosing a different candidate, you're robbing the Democrats who voted for Hillary of their ability to make a reasoned and informed decision. Black voters were not going to come to Bernie by hearing his ideas in one more debate. They heard his platform, and selected another candidate. I'd recommend taking a look at this piece, which is an op-ed, but I think captures well the implications of the racial split in the 2016 primary: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hilla.... Here also are two relevant pieces from Propane Jane (these don't speak directly to these questions but provide some opinionated but strong analysis, in my view): https://storify.com/docrocktex26/when-racism-gets-in-socialism;https://storify.com/docrocktex26/how-bernie-sanders (again, very much opinion, but I've found her persuasive).
Finally, I didn't say Bernie's campaign didn't become something serious, I said it didn't start that way. I look forward to seeing what kinds of organizing and mobilization efforts they're able to put together for 2018 and 2020.
<<<almost pathological fixation on attacking the Democratic Party.
Maybe if there wasn't so much to go after, he wouldn't have the daylight....like I said does a great job of holding BOTH sides to the fire.
<<<He is not a journalist
I vehemently disagree.
He's one of the truly independent journalists investigating issues outside of keeping up with the day to day hamster wheel.
Well aware of biases and as well as Propane Jane. I don't find her very persuasive. I do appreciate your subtle Civics lessons throughout the the thread, though. I'm sure some people never learned that stuff.
I guess it depends how you define journalist. To me, it means a reporter who pursues the truth without a guiding ideological framework. That's of course an ideal, not a fully attainable reality, but it's the right goal to be pursuing, in my mind. If you define journalist as a writer with a very clear and overt ideological bent and agenda who digs up stories that fit that agenda and provides his opinions to bolster that connection, then sure, Greenwald is a journalist. I would love to see clips of him holding the right's feet to the fire, at least recently, but they seem to be few and far between (though I haven't looked that hard). Instead, what I find easily is this kind of thing, holding up the Republican Party as a model the Democrats should be copying: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-...
opinionated, but like I said, holding both side to the fire...
"At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted."
>>> No. A journalist must pick sides, but stay fair. I think that last article was wonderfully argued. I'm not sure if it's totally correct, but overall, I agree. Also, it's in the Opinion section.
Journalists don't pick sides, by nature. They're supposed to report facts and events and leave "sides" to the people on each one. More importantly, you can't be a journalist if you're publishing pieces in opinion sections; newspapers have firewalls between their news and editorial sections for a reason. You can be a columnist or an analyst or a writer or what have you, but publishing opinion pieces means you're not a journalist in the normal meaning of the word. Also, the fact that you agree with a piece and find its arguments persuasive doesn't make it journalism. This is semantics a bit, but I think it's an important distinction.
On the links, that piece is from 2010. I noted I haven't seen anything recent from him that suggests he still turns his fire equally on both sides. It seems like sometime around 2011 Greenwald pretty much clammed up about Republicans and started attacking Obama and the institutional Democratic Party, but I could be wrong. Also, important to note again that's an opinion piece, and not journalism.
Boy, that article is quite a hack job. Greenwald goes from claiming Clinton allies propagated a "deliberate disinformation campaign," and reciting the definition of a lie to describe their behavior, to eventually mocking them for being fooled by fake news, which is pretty clearly what actually happened, based on the report from the guy who created the fake transcript (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/21/i-ve-been-making-viral-...). That's quite a jump in five hundred words, and majorly dishonest. This is what I'm talking about -- he has an agenda, he makes frenzied accusations to support it, and then glosses over what actually happened when it doesn't fit the headline. That's activist attack writing, not journalism.
opinionated, but like I said definitely holding both sideside to the fire....
"At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted".
<<<that piece is from 2010. I noted I haven't seen anything recent from him that suggests he still turns his fire equally on both sides. It seems like sometime around 2011 Greenwald pretty much clammed up about Republicans and started attacking Obama
I knew that was coming after I only supplied the one piece.
All you have to do if you are actually curious is to peek at his Twitter and you find links and ongoing arguments with the Republican establishment, GOP supporters and Trumpies. I know, it's not a peer reviewed journal, but he is extremely active and currently critical of the Republicans in power.
He speaks truth to power, and maybe he switched to criticism of Obama because Obama was in power? Makes sense to me.
Like I said, extremely opinionated, but critical of both sides.
>>> All you have to do if you are actually curious is to peek at his Twitter and you find links and ongoing arguments with the Republican establishment, GOP supporters and Trumpies
I don't really want to take your word for it, but it's not a point that seems worth focusing on much. The fact that Republicans are in power now but he still appears to be only attacking Democrats in his writing seems to cut against your suggestion that he targets the current regime, though. I do spend a lot of time on Twitter, and the only people I tend to see him tangling with are members of the hated Democratic establishment, but I'll look out for his criticism of the other side also.
>>> well, we know that's true now.
No we don't? What are you talking about?
>>> "At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted".
A mission statement does not a fact make. That's also Scahill's project, not Greenwald's.
>>> Grenwalds is absolutely tangling with the GOP there and your ignorance of it does make my assertion false.
Didn't say it did, I said I haven't seen it but I'll look out for it. Still not the primary point, which is that in his published writings for the last 6-7 years he seems to have laid off the GOP.
>> but it's also Greenwald'S project, too, so I'm guessing he is a part of that podcast aimed at "Trump and his cronies". That partisan shill!
Talking about the podcast, not the Intercept generally -- the podcast appears to be all Scahill, at least so far. Hopefully Greenwald will join him some time.
>> as someone who speaks truth to power, wouldn't that make complete sense?
We're really splitting hairs here, but I'd say speaking truth to power doesn't mean just criticizing the head of one branch of government, important as the President is. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Boehner before him) have wielded immense power at least since 2010.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
and other reading of the
and other readings of the study say Fake News had no effect.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/the-numbers-are-in-fa...
Remember all of the Chicken Littles running around here blaming Fake News for the downfall of western society?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lassen
From the fake news NYT:
From the fake news NYT:
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
So kids, maybe the next time
So kids, maybe the next time a concept or meme or catch phrase gets rolled out in a day and the entire media bleats it out in unison....it miiiiiight be bullshit.
This one was just painfully obvious from the onset.
What blows my mind is how fast regular people pick it up and do all the hard work of drilling it in.
Fascinating to watch unfold.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Across
sweet thread, bros.
sweet friday night thread, bros.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lassen
The legacy mockingbird media
The legacy mockingbird media is being dismantled and grassroots alternative media will be the future (as long as we can keep the internet an open source information highway, although Google is playing monkey games with search results). Corporate media is 90% evil 10% good (my non-empirical calculations, deal with it
) . i can't believe how many on this site still post Washington Post, NYT, CNN, etc. Do you believe these outlets are your really your best source of truth?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
lol. posting from the club
<<<sweet friday night thread, bros.
lol. posting from the club tonight, Asscheeks?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
"Fake News" was about
"Fake News" was about censorship.
Plain as day.
This study confirms that. There was no "there" there for everyone and their mother to claim the sky was falling, but they sure latched right on.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Fake news was a real thing:
Fake news was a real thing: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-denve.... Non-reporters came up with fabricated news stories to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign in order to make money.
Then after the election every conservative started using the term to refer to any unfavorable news story about them, and it lost its meaning. But it was very real: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen...
To be an informed citizen, be skeptical of every story you read. Look for corroboration, and remember that stories often get details wrong the first try. But just because they do doesn't mean the media is corrupt or worthless, or fake.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Non-reporters came up with
<<<Non-reporters came up with fabricated news stories to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign in order to make money.
To no effect, as the Stanford study says.
But if you believed everyone a few weeks back, it was responsible for a Russian takeover of our society.
Turns out, not the case.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dave
Uh 8% means that if the wheel
Uh, 8% means that if the wheel spins 100 times, 8 times would give us our current POTUS.
Nothing fake about that.
All this is way old news.
Tonights fun is going 2 B about our POTUS Vs a federal judge in Seattle.
This one is going 2 B real fun.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lassen
After the DNC rigged the
After the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary, the dems held their nose and went along with her, but there was no backbone behind Hillary- and that's because people knew intuitively that she can't be trusted.
She lost because she sucked, not because of fake news..
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Uh, 8% means that if the wheel spins 100 times, 8 times would give us our current POTUS.
Here's the whole quote I think you are referencing, Dave.
Perhaps you read it wrong?
"and 8 percent recalled believing it when they saw it. Interestingly, the most-remembered fake story was a pro-Clinton one"
No reading of that leads me to believe Donald would become president 8% of the time as you say.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Just because it didn't
Just because it didn't actually flip the outcome of the election doesn't mean fake news didn't have some impact. There are many reasons Hillary lost, none of which can really be seen as fully explanatory. She had the Russians, Wikileaks, the FBI, and the fake news creators working against her, she made strategic errors before and during her campaign, and the less mainstream liberals who came out for Obama (young people of color, poorer white voters) never really warmed up to her, in part because of Bernie's demonization of her during the primary, in part because she was just a poor candidate who couldn't reach them. All of it together was enough, and when you lose by 80,000 votes in a country of 320 million people, any one thing could fairly be called "the difference" without any single factor being strongly determinative.
All of that said, if you want one thing to peg, she was probably on track to eke out a narrow win before the Comey letter came out. Then she dropped to about a 2 point lead nationally, which is just about where she ended up.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Just because it didn't
<<<Just because it didn't actually flip the outcome of the election doesn't mean fake news didn't have some impact.
Agreed, if anything, it helped her, as the first analysis of the study I posted posits.
and I'm not looking for something to peg on why she lost.
I'm more interested in the fact that it wasn't "fake news" as many here ran around shouting.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
I agree that anyone saying
I agree that anyone saying "fake news is the reason she lost" is wrong, both because there is no single reason she lost, as I said, and because as that study shows the impact of fake news was relatively small, although in my opinion that blog post "analysis" is just excerpting some pieces without really explaining their relevance. The abstract of the study says:
"(ii) of the known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared eight million times; (iii) the average American saw and remembered 0.92 pro-Trump fake news stories and 0.23 pro-Clinton fake news stories, with just over half of those who recalled seeing fake news stories believing them."
Note also this finding on p. 16: "Republicans are four to eight times as likely as Democrats to report believing pro-Trump headlines, and Democrats are 50 to 100 percent more likely than Republicans to believe pro-Clinton headlines."
I would say the study finds that "fake news" as a whole was overall more favorable to Trump and more shared and believed by Trump voters (look also at Figure 3 on the number of shares), even though some of the stories more favorable to Clinton were among the most believed by the general public (though the percentages of people believing or not being sure about the stories, which is at page 37, are pretty close together for stories favoring Clinton vs. Trump).
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<although in my opinion
<<<although in my opinion that blog post "analysis" is just excerpting some pieces without really explaining their relevance.
it's not just "one blog post" that takes this reading of the study. look it up. that's the consensus. The only other reading of it concludes , if anything, it helped Hillary.
"fake news" was about censorship and cooling inquiry.
that was obvious Day one and a few of us here saw it for what it was right away.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Jelly roll
Losers
Losers
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
"look it up. that's the
"look it up. that's the consensus. The only other reading of it concludes , if anything, it helped Hillary."
How can there be a "consensus" view if you admit there's "only" one other reading?
The original freakout over "fake news" in November and December was panic by liberals looking for an explanation in the wake of the election who landed on "nefarious overseas forces conspired to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." The intelligence community has concluded that that's likely true, but that it wasn't through placement of fabricated news stories, but rather quiet coordination between Wikileaks, Putin, and possibly representatives of the Trump campaign to leak material embarrassing to Hillary and Democratic officials. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-russia-20170106-story.html). The fake news phenomenon was just about making money for the people writing it, who were politically agnostic.
NOW the term is being used by conservatives as a form of censorship to smear real media outlets who write unfavorable stories about Trump and his allies.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Right, and what's interesting
Right, and what's interesting is that people are pissed about Russia hacking our election who was illustrating how the Democrats and the DNC were hacking ours.
No one has refuted or disputed the content and there's quite a lot of damning stuff in there.
"Do you think I'LL do better playing domino's on cheese than on pasta?"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
I have no idea what you just
I have no idea what you just said
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
I'm saying Russia hacking the
I'm saying Russia hacking the election should be a concern, but now that the leaks are out there, we need to look at the information it contains.
Much of it is damning the the Clintons, their foundation and the DNC.
I'm saying that the leaks contained info about the DNC actively working against Bernie and I understand the difference between the Primary and the General and the forces at play, but most Democrats probably thought it was supposed to be a fair process on a level field. well we know now that wasn't the case.
Never again.
We need to look back with clear eyes, not telling ourselves the wrong narrative just because it's somehow comforting.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
The 92% meme is dated Oct. 24
The 92% meme is dated Oct. 24. Comey reopened the email witch hunt on Oct. 28, then said no charges on Nov. 6.
Those events toppled HRCs lead in the polls.
Polls, like any social science research, have some validity issues.
Don't fall for Trumpian dystopia which lies about data, science, and law regardless of the how it plays in Peoria.
NYT, WP, WSJ, and other quality news orgs still beat breitbart and their fascist ilk.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
So now you're totally
So now you're totally changing the subject, but fine. I never really bought the story about the DNC's systemic efforts to undermine Bernie. When all that stuff came out I saw a handful of leaked emails from a few DNC staff members who should have known better that indicated some hostility toward his campaign, but aside from some bits and pieces that seemed a little overblown, it didn't look like the concerted effort to tank him that many of his supporters have made it out to be. (I should add that the media reports on the leaks were never able to point to more than a few negative emails about Bernie.) I think it was right for Wasserman Schultz to step down, but it seems like Bernie got a lot more mileage out of attacking the DNC than they did from shooting off a few frustrated emails about means of pushing back against him that don't appear to have ever been used. He might have been treated a little unfairly, but Bernie lost the primary because he got fewer votes in states where it mattered, not because of DNC collusion against him.
On a broader note, it's pretty rich for people who have never been Democrats (Bernie included) to jump into the Democratic nomination process and suddenly insist on standards of fairness in an institution they've never had much regard for. But that's mostly beside the point.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
So, what's a good number on
So, what's a good number on how long one must be "in" before it's acceptable to expect a level paying field?
Not changing the subject at all.
The two are inextricably linked.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<it was right for
<<<it was right for Wasserman Schultz to step down
only to be picked up by Hillary.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
At least a day before the
At least a day before the election cycle starts would be nice. Bernie was not and is not a Democrat. He's spent years criticizing them in fact (for example, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/10/martin-om...). Once he decided he wanted to run for president, however, he had the nerve to exploit the party's institutional apparatus to get his campaign taken seriously, and then to attack that very institution as a means of gaining support. It wasn't right for DNC staff to try to undermine him to the extent any did, and the process should certainly be fair, but you should be able to understand their frustration.
It's also important to remember the bias that comes from limited information and why the information is limited. The DNC and Clinton campaign emails came out because of efforts by the Russians to harm Hillary Clinton. I can say with pretty strong certainty that we would've seen just as damning stuff, if not much worse, in the Bernie campaign's emails. But we don't have them, because foreign powers weren't actively working to undermine his campaign like they were with Hillary. If you want to talk about fairness, make sure you're thinking about it in all of the ways it was challenged in this election.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Bernie downplayed emails,
Bernie downplayed emails, endorsed HRC, votes with the Dems, sits in Dem caucus, and is committed to total resistance to trumpian dystopia.
Horse is still dead and thoroughly beaten.
Look ahead.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> only to be picked up by
>>> only to be picked up by Hillary.
Technically true, but not in any substantive way: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schult...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Can't totally look ahead yet.
Can't totally look ahead yet. The race for DNC chair has become a soft proxy battle between those who supported Clinton and those who were skeptical of the DNC (Sanders people) during the primary: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-clinton-sanders-dnc-233648
These wounds are still pretty raw, and it's important to keep dispelling misconceptions about what happened and why.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
and it's pretty conclusive it
and it's pretty conclusive it wasn't fake news.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
It's pretty conclusive that
It's pretty conclusive that what wasn't fake news?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
http://m.huffpost.com/us
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd
"The DNC WikiLeaks emails illustrate how this corrupt system—from Wasserman Schultz chastising Chuck Todd to the Hillary Victory Fund pocketing DNC money—favored Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders never benefited from these advantages.
That’s called a rigged election, and the “smoking gun” euphemism is used to defend Clinton from every scandal, specifically because Hillary supporters hide behind semantics. Hillary used a private server for convenience (there was no intent to hide), Bill Clinton spoke to Loretta Lynch about golf, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was neutral, and the FBI was merely conducting a security review. Pro-Clinton pundits looking for a “smoking gun” won’t find this weapon; only a semantic jungle of deceit and questionable behavior."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
That article seems to
That article seems to highlight the principals are downplaying a rerun of the primaries.
I am supporting Ellison but whoever is elected the reality is eyes on the prize, prize being stopping the fascists.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<It's pretty conclusive
<<<It's pretty conclusive that what wasn't fake news
"what happened".
I was responding to you last sentence.
I started this thread, because, as Americans, we need to be concerned with Russian hacking, but as Democrats we need to wake up to the fact that it wasn't the big bad Ruskies that brought us Trump, we were saddled with a 90s candidate by an institution that couldn't tell which way the wind was blowing in a year that change was on the menu and their Hubris in going about it sunk them.....and us.
In my opinion.
This study shows it sure wasn't Fake News
That was about censorship and stifling inquiry.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> as Democrats we need to
>>> as Democrats we need to wake up to the fact that it wasn't the big bad Ruskies that brought us Trump, we were saddled with a 90s candidate by an institution that couldn't tell which way the wind was blowing in a year that change was on the menu and their Hubris in going about it sunk them.....and us.
Remember my first point about how there's no one thing that "brought up Trump?" You're back to square one, and your argument assumes that Bernie would've won the general, which is unprovable speculation. Bernie has quite a bit of baggage that the Clinton campaign decided to stay away from during the primary, but Trump would have had no problem going there (just a taste: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-siempre-what-bernie-learned-i...). It's unreasonable to assume that swapping Hillary for Bernie would have maintained everything that was positive for Democrats in the general and not added any new liabilities.
Just a tip on your Goodman link -- if the conclusion of your argument is to point to an opinion piece by a known partisan (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/31/the-poet-laureate-of-be...) that's heavy on outrage and low on facts, you've lost the argument.
Democrats do need to move forward, and that means the DNC institutionalists and Hillary supporters need to make amends with Bernie supporters, but it's a two-way street. If the Bernie people really want to unite to defeat Trump, the answer isn't to retreat further into their trenches screaming about how it's the DNC's fault that Democrats lost the election.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<< Just a tip on your
<<< Just a tip on your Goodman link -- if the conclusion of your argument is to point to an opinion piece by a known partisan (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/31/the-poet-laureate-of-be...) that's heavy on outrage and low on facts, you've lost the argument
Lol. I wasn't presenting that as a checkmate or anything.
I know exactly who he is. He just covered many of the points I didn't feel like typing out, points that many democrats are blind to because they shut out any criticism of the Clinton campaign.
I agree Bernie had his own baggage, but in an election about Change, I'm confident the voters would have been able to see who was the real change candidate and who was the snake oil salesman.
Hillary wasn't Change and she was terrible at selling herself as such. Donald at least knew which way the wind was blowing, for better or for worse, and sold himself as exactly that.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
The wikileaks campaign by the
The wikileaks campaign by the Russkies was not fake news.
It was information warfare designed to piss off the Bernie idiots.
It worked, but only with a huge assist from Comey.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
1)The election is fixed.
1)The election is fixed. Hillary is being coronated
2)Hillary takes pride in aborting healthy 9 month old fetuses
3)Comey was impartial and was not working on behalf of the GOP.
Those are the 3 most influential lies that led to a Trump presidency.
I keep seeing 'CHANGE' in big fat letters. First what change were you looking for? A complete gutting of the political system? Are we that naive to think that will happen? Did Obama not help to make strides for realistic change in our country? Policy that Clinton backed?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Those are the 3 most influential lies that led to a Trump presidency
Link? That sounds a lot like opinion.
<<<First what change were you looking for?
I'd imagine that meant different things to different folks, but it was undoubtedly the "thing" this election and Hillary completely missed that.
and I think you underestimate the Hate for Hillary on the other side if you aren't factoring that into your top 3.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
I'm going to get a slice
I'm going to get a slice
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dave
>> No reading of that leads
>> No reading of that leads me to believe Donald would become president 8% of the time as you say.
I was not saying Donald is (only) an 8% POTUS.
Donald is (oviously) 100% POTUS.
I was only reacting 2 the NYT election prediction, to which Lassen(No Treble No More) posted: "From the fake news NYT:"
If the NYT "predicted" that Donald had an 8% chance to win, that is a "prediction," not fake news.
The argument can B made that this is a fake prediction. Which would also seem silly, at least to me.
YMMV
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
This wasn't really a change
This wasn't really a change election, or at least it didn't need to be. We were coming from a popular President with a fairly strong and growing economy and an international situation with some issues but no major pressing threats. There was no outcry for a change in direction like there was in 2008, and three million more people ultimately voted for continuity over the radical shift we ended up with.
What Trump did was grab hold of the boiling, raging id of the Republican Party still seething at its leadership for not fighting hard enough to stop the black President (hence what they did to Cantor and Boehner) to seize control of the party. In the general, he riled up racial anxieties among white middle class voters in the Midwest who were uneasy with Black Lives Matter and Latino immigration but weren't necessarily going to vote along those lines until Trump told them a story of how great America was when minorities had no power, and told them he'd take them back there. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton put forth a narrative about how multiculturalism strengthens America, which led Obama to success twice, but couldn't get away from a mostly unfair but deeply pervasive narrative that she was untrustworthy, rooted partly but not entirely in sexism, which seemingly every media report wanted to reinforce. Couple that with the mobilization of white voters who stood up to actively reject her embrace of Black Lives Matter and basic civil rights for Muslim immigrants, lack of enthusiasm for her from younger people of color, active demonization of her by Bernie and his followers (despite his later endorsement) that poisoned her in the minds of many liberal voters, and all of the external forces working against her (FBI, Wikileaks, the Russians), and it's not hard to see where we ultimately ended up.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
So far, I've only read the
So far, I've only read the original post and reviewed the link.
I have to admit that I don't remember reading about any of the stories listed below.
Does this mean that I'm in the wrong bubble?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
Oh wait: Is the "Clinton
Oh wait: Is the "Clinton Foundation pedophila" the Pizzagate thing? If so, I HAVE heard of that one (thanks Lava and that dude who investigated with his firearm).
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
I do not see the world as you
I do not see the world as you do, Sam. And you write with a lot of loaded language.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
man, people like uncle sam
man, people like uncle sam are a huge problem. not a change election? jesus fucking christ man. get your head out of your ass.
"active demonization by bernie"? that's just insane man. so many alternative facts, amazing. you're just as bad as people like seadog. congratulations.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ...
Johnny you are in the correct
Johnny you are in the correct bubble if you missed the fake news
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: charmskooldropout
Is this thread even real?
Is this thread even real?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> I do not see the world as
>>> I do not see the world as you do, Sam. And you write with a lot of loaded language.
Show me where I'm wrong. Happy to engage. I call them as I see them.
>>> you're just as bad as people like seadog.
Yeah, fuck that though. We're interpreting facts, here. Don't lump me in with the paranoid racist mouthbreathers.
And you want to tell me Bernie didn't spend his entire campaign trying to tear down Hillary? You may think his criticism was deserved and appropriate, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Recognize your own biases before you come at me.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qu...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/bernie-sanders-hill...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/10/bernie-s...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282261-sanders-cl...
Bernie had no plans for a serious campaign. He entered the race to elevate his message about the 1% (which I agree with by the way) and help push Hillary to the left as she coasted to the nomination. But when it turned out he could get some real support, his ego got the best of him and he decided to start attacking Hillary with a narrative that she was a corrupt tool of Wall Street who couldn't be trusted. That played right into Trump's crooked Hillary message, and she never recovered:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-hillary-clint...
http://nypost.com/2016/05/28/trump-thanks-bernie-sanders-for-the-anti-hi...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
no plans for a serious
no plans for a serious campaign. gold.
^you're insane man. seek help.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
Is uncle sam seadog's sock
Is uncle sam seadog's sock puppet? They seem a lot alike.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Phil M.
It looks to me like Uncle Sam
It looks to me like Uncle Sam is actually making a pretty rational argument that you all just don't agree with. I definitely think the Seadog comparisons and allegations of insanity are a bit unfounded, and a lot less convincing than the argument he's presenting.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Again, spare me the
Again, spare me the comparisons with the troglodyte white nationalist element. I would have excitedly supported Bernie if he were the nominee and I agreed strongly with most of his message. But I'm frustrated with how he conducted himself during the primary and with his tepid and weak endorsement of Hillary once he lost. And I'm angry at the Bernie supporters who were so proud of their purity that they didn't go to the polls to vote for the thoroughly moderate if somewhat hawkish and finance-linked candidate, if only to stop the rise of the dangerous and radical pile of human garbage that's now sitting in the Oval Office.
To be clear, I think Hillary fucked up BADLY by giving speeches to Goldman Sachs. I think she fucked up BADLY by using the private email server. And it was a colossal and foreseeable strategic failure not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. But that doesn't change the unreasonable opposition she faced from those who should've known better.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
^hahahahahahah. keep it
^hahahahahahah. keep it coming man.
so you aren't angry at the dnc, but you are frustrated w/ how bernie conducted himself during the primary.
that's some twisted logic right there.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
Jeez the more nonsense he
The more nonsense he posts the more I think he's seadog trolling. Desperate for attention much?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
Chin up, Uncle Sam. the
Chin up, Uncle Sam. the Hillary Haters and Conspiracy nuts are well, nuts.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Of course I'm angry at the
Of course I'm angry at the DNC, but mostly for being painfully mediocre and showing terrible judgment. They were overly complacent in assuming Hillary would coast to victory in the primary and should never have even allowed the appearance of any bias. It's also institutionally boneheaded to have a sitting member of Congress as the chair, especially the tone-deaf Hillary ally Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who should've been gone before the cycle started. There were failures up and down the board.
The more nonsense you all post in response, especially comparing me to the dictionary definition of right-wing nutjob, the more I think you're just trolling to piss me off. I'm not desperate for attention, I've just been stewing over this crap for two months and all of the wrongheaded discussion here has given me an outlet.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
you're coming off like seadog
you're coming off like seadog, fake and divisive..but that's jmo, carry on with your impotent ravings by all means
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
Of course you're being
Of course you're being trolled here.
but if you can survive a good Willows trolling, you can survive anything.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
Nah he just comes off as a
Nah, he just comes off as a fake handle for spewing, like seadog does. I never see him post about anything other than politics.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Old Fart Message Board
The media played everybody.
The media played everybody. They wanted trump. For the next four years they will have endless trump headlines and a bunch of braim warped Americans who just can't look away. The real business involving blood guns and oil will take place behind the scenes as usual.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dave
There R lots of reasons why
There R lots of reasons why Hillary lost.
IMHO, neither Bernie or Deborah Wasserman Schultz are among them.
As 4 who's trolling who or why, who even cares?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
What a weird definition of
What a weird definition of benefited.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Not really, Tim, when all
Not really, Tim, when all they are saying is their reading of the study leads them to believe she got more votes from fake news stories than Donald did. In that way, she benefited. Obviously the end result wasn't in her favor, due to many other factors being debated here.
and shit, I misspelled " benefited" in the thread title.
I knew that looked wrong.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: felina
Some good points Sam.
Some good points Sam.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
The 'study' = someone else
The 'study' = someone else trying to justify why it wasn't their fault that Trump was elected. It's already been covered. The groups creating the fake news, basically progoganda on Facebook, admitted that the right were far better suckers than the left. It's assinine to even print or promote that 'fake news' had anything but negative effects on Hillary's campaign.
Comparing Uncle Sam to Seadouche??? Really....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
It's just, I don't think I've
Jonas...I don't think I've ever seen uncle spam participate in anything but acrimonious political threads. He's a neolib version of seadog - there's a remarkably strong similarity in their extreme partisan narrative style, but that's just my opinion, man.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
...there's plenty of people
...there's plenty of people here I disagree strongly with regarding politics, but I don't get that bating seadog vibe from them like uncle sam. Either way it's all good, whoever he is. I don't hate seadog either, I just recognize when a person is over the top and probably not worth trying to have a discussion with.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
from the Stanford study on
from the Stanford study on the effects of Fake News.....
"Not only did the average American remember no more than one fake story, but even smaller fractions of them actually believed it. To sway a voter under these circumstances, the academics estimate that the story would need to be as persuasive as 36 campaign ads. "
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: felina
To me, comparing Sam to
To me, comparing Sam to Seadog is beyond ridiculous.
If anyone is coming off like Seadog, it's the folks arguing with him.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
I don't agree with everything
I don't agree with everything that Uncle Sam says, and honestly I don't remember how much or how little he visits non political threads, but unlike Seadouche, Sam sticks around and responds. Seadouche's style is plainly hit, run and sit back.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dave
>> I don't agree with
>> I don't agree with everything that Uncle Sam says.
I agree.
Uncle Sam does make some legitimate points.
He has taken the time 2 address this in a rational way.
For that he deserves credit.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ParadiseWaits
Meh. I don't discuss politics
Meh. I don't discuss politics with you either, felina. uncle spam is just as extremist as seadog is, only neoliberal and dogmatic As far as your judgments of seadog coloring what I said, that's on you. I have no bad feelings towards the guy, buy I'm not going to discuss politics with the nut, he's way too immersed in his own beliefs and bias. lol
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
Stanford and 'the academics'
Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: felina
>>>he's way too immersed in
>>>he's way too immersed in his own beliefs and bias.
lol
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Stanford and 'the
<<<Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter
Yeah! Stupid elite college boys working with math and facts and analysis of the data. get 'em!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Stanford and 'the
<<<Stanford and 'the academics'(translation = no real world/main st america point of view taken into account) are overestimating the intelligence and how modern social media affected attention span works for the average voter
Yeah! Stupid elite college boys working with math and facts and analysis of the data. get 'em!
better to stick with your own *feelings* about this.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
<<<>>>If anyone is coming off
<<<>>>If anyone is coming off like Seadog, it's the folks arguing with him.
lol, says the elitist.
i compared seadog to uncle sam b/c of their blatant disregard for facts, it's quite obvious.
<<<>>>I never really bought the story about the DNC's systemic efforts to undermine Bernie.
yeah, you don't have to buy it.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
I think Uncle Sam is very
I think Uncle Sam is very astute in his points. If you go back and listen to his posts in a quiet voice, and not be on the defensive, he is clear and polite with his message. I wouldn't be surprised if he has had some forensics experience. He stayed on point, directly and cogently presented his case, and supported his argument with good sources. He also sounds like he is well informed and has given the issue much thought. Frankly, I find his posts in this thread refreshing. I feel he is the direct opposite of seadog and his ilk. Notice how he did not resort to name calling? He asked for clarification rather than throwing around snark and assumption. He kept emotion out of it despite direct attacks from the peanut gallery. I hope the good uncle keeps it up. well done sir/madam.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: felina
>>>lol, says the elitist.
>>>lol, says the elitist.
Ok Seadoggie. That makes sense.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
^perfect.
^perfect.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: felina
Thanks man.
Thanks man.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
https://www.washingtonpost
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/24/real-research-sug...
"Real research suggests we should stop freaking out over fake news"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
Stupid elite college boys
Stupid elite college boys called who for the election?
For shit & giggles I'll answer. Clinton. T
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
I'm assuming this analysis
I'm assuming this analysis doesn't count the 20+ years of Fake News about HC prior to this election.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
That's a good call, BK. No
That's a good call, Bluest. No doubt that laid the groundwork of preexisting conditions in the minds of many.
...and when combined with real news like dodging sniper fire (or not) it probably wasn't a bridge to far for some to abandon her.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
Everything is rigged but then
Everything is rigged but then it isn't
logic
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Aw, I started a nice little
Aw, I started a nice little debate.
I don't hang around here as much as I used to for some personal reasons, not that I was ever a terribly active member, and also because the quality of the community has gone downhill over the last 12-18 months, though I'm glad we've continued over here on the new domain, thanks to the hard work of some dedicated folks. I post mostly in threads about shows, setlists, and great moments in Dead history, but sadly there are fewer and fewer of those nowadays. The politics threads are, like I said, a venue to get some anger out, and maybe open some eyes and change a few minds as the progressive movement tries to gather itself up for the next battle. As some have noted, I always try to back up my claims with facts and links and to consider my own biases and the shortcomings in my arguments, which apparently is shocking and threatening to some. As I've said, I'm happy to engage if you think my interpretations are wrong and can explain why, but if you resort to name calling and accusations of mental instability, be aware that that reflects on you more than it does your target.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Oh, it's rigged.
Oh, it's rigged, Broch.
Anyone hear the new Delicate Steve?
They continue to impress.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<Aw, I started a nice little
<<Aw, I started a nice little debate
ahem.
I hope you consider me in the former category rather than the latter. I always try to keep it to the subject and related facts and opinions.
I happen to see it differently, but I think you made a good case.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Oh yes, sorry to take credit
Oh yes, didn't mean to take credit for your thread 73 -- I meant I somehow started a debate on whether I'm a real person or not. You of course opened the actual discussion.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
here ya go uncle sam...
here ya go uncle sam...
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill have been doing some tremendous reporting this entire cycle, holding both side of the aisle's feet to the fire.
The Intercept is a great Independent news organization.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: makaha
Bernie had no plans for a
this statement is not aligned with facts, sam.
bernies campaign was more than a presidential campaign, it was an attempt to save the democratic party by taking it over and realigning it with the changing demographics and emerging majority minorities in this country. the establishment fought our efforts tooth and nail – i recall office chatter about a hrc mole in the campaign – and bernies campaign lost when the establishment played dirty and selfishly doubled-down on a milquetoast candidate who wasn't going to win the general. since then, the bernie brain trust has divided itself into two symbiotic apparatuses: one focuses on the federal arena and the dp itself, while the other focuses on state and down-ballot races and initiatives. if everything goes as planned perez will lose, ellis will win, the establishment will recognize it's failures, or not, and the efforts to revitalize the dp will finally prevail paving the way for a take over in 2018, and win in 2020.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
I'm pretty much done engaging
I'm pretty much done engaging here, but I'll say two things:
1. Glenn Greenwald is immensely biased by his bizarre and almost pathological fixation on attacking the Democratic Party. He is not a journalist; he's an aggressive opinion writer who occasionally does some reporting. You're welcome to read his editorials, but it's incredibly shortsighted to take his opinions as facts or fair characterizations without reading other sources. All you're doing is confirming your own existing perceptions. You're perfectly entitled to do that, of course, but it's important to be aware of it. If you are at all interested in an alternative opinion perspective, I'd recommend reading some of the writing by the pseudonymous Propane Jane: https://storify.com/docrocktex26
2. >>> bernies campaign was more than a presidential campaign, it was an attempt to save the democratic party by taking it over and realigning it with the changing demographics and emerging majority minorities in this country.
This is just false. Hillary Clinton campaigned in and won the great majority of the diverse states in the primary. Bernie's victories were mostly in heavily white states:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-...
The Democratic Party as it is, with its base of minority voters, selected Hillary. Bernie, meanwhile, dismissed the votes of the South (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/18/why-ber... -- opinion but with quotes that speak for themselves). Relatedly, by asserting that "the establishment playing dirty" is what led to Bernie's loss, rather than minority voters simply choosing a different candidate, you're robbing the Democrats who voted for Hillary of their ability to make a reasoned and informed decision. Black voters were not going to come to Bernie by hearing his ideas in one more debate. They heard his platform, and selected another candidate. I'd recommend taking a look at this piece, which is an op-ed, but I think captures well the implications of the racial split in the 2016 primary: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hilla.... Here also are two relevant pieces from Propane Jane (these don't speak directly to these questions but provide some opinionated but strong analysis, in my view): https://storify.com/docrocktex26/when-racism-gets-in-socialism; https://storify.com/docrocktex26/how-bernie-sanders (again, very much opinion, but I've found her persuasive).
Finally, I didn't say Bernie's campaign didn't become something serious, I said it didn't start that way. I look forward to seeing what kinds of organizing and mobilization efforts they're able to put together for 2018 and 2020.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
^haha. jesus.
^haha. jesus.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<almost pathological
<<<almost pathological fixation on attacking the Democratic Party.
Maybe if there wasn't so much to go after, he wouldn't have the daylight....like I said does a great job of holding BOTH sides to the fire.
<<<He is not a journalist
I vehemently disagree.
He's one of the truly independent journalists investigating issues outside of keeping up with the day to day hamster wheel.
Well aware of biases and as well as Propane Jane. I don't find her very persuasive. I do appreciate your subtle Civics lessons throughout the the thread, though. I'm sure some people never learned that stuff.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
I guess it depends how you
I guess it depends how you define journalist. To me, it means a reporter who pursues the truth without a guiding ideological framework. That's of course an ideal, not a fully attainable reality, but it's the right goal to be pursuing, in my mind. If you define journalist as a writer with a very clear and overt ideological bent and agenda who digs up stories that fit that agenda and provides his opinions to bolster that connection, then sure, Greenwald is a journalist. I would love to see clips of him holding the right's feet to the fire, at least recently, but they seem to be few and far between (though I haven't looked that hard). Instead, what I find easily is this kind of thing, holding up the Republican Party as a model the Democrats should be copying: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Okay, one more link from my
Okay, one more link from my search for Glenn Greenwald criticizing Republicans: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centris...
If you agree with this, that's fine, but anyone writing that piece is not a straight-ahead journalist.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Glenn definitely doesnt
Yes, Glenn definitely doesnt follow the corporatist model of journalism.
if being an activist journalism brings out these types of stories, I'm all for more Grenwalds.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
No. A journalist must pick
No. A journalist must pick sides, but stay fair.
I think that last article was wonderfully argued. I'm not sure if it's totally correct, but overall, I agree.
Also, it's in the Opinion section.
Try again, Sam.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
opinionated, but like I said, holding both side to the fire...
"At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jeff
lava, nice little synopsis.
lava, nice little synopsis.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> No. A journalist must
>>> No. A journalist must pick sides, but stay fair. I think that last article was wonderfully argued. I'm not sure if it's totally correct, but overall, I agree. Also, it's in the Opinion section.
Journalists don't pick sides, by nature. They're supposed to report facts and events and leave "sides" to the people on each one. More importantly, you can't be a journalist if you're publishing pieces in opinion sections; newspapers have firewalls between their news and editorial sections for a reason. You can be a columnist or an analyst or a writer or what have you, but publishing opinion pieces means you're not a journalist in the normal meaning of the word. Also, the fact that you agree with a piece and find its arguments persuasive doesn't make it journalism. This is semantics a bit, but I think it's an important distinction.
On the links, that piece is from 2010. I noted I haven't seen anything recent from him that suggests he still turns his fire equally on both sides. It seems like sometime around 2011 Greenwald pretty much clammed up about Republicans and started attacking Obama and the institutional Democratic Party, but I could be wrong. Also, important to note again that's an opinion piece, and not journalism.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> If being an activist
>>> If being an activist journalism brings out these types of stories, I'm all for more Grenwalds. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news...
Boy, that article is quite a hack job. Greenwald goes from claiming Clinton allies propagated a "deliberate disinformation campaign," and reciting the definition of a lie to describe their behavior, to eventually mocking them for being fooled by fake news, which is pretty clearly what actually happened, based on the report from the guy who created the fake transcript (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/21/i-ve-been-making-viral-...). That's quite a jump in five hundred words, and majorly dishonest. This is what I'm talking about -- he has an agenda, he makes frenzied accusations to support it, and then glosses over what actually happened when it doesn't fit the headline. That's activist attack writing, not journalism.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
opinionated, but like I said definitely holding both sideside to the fire....
"At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Greenwald goes from
<<<Greenwald goes from claiming Clinton allies propagated a "deliberate disinformation campaign
well, we know that's true now.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<that piece is from 2010. I
<<<that piece is from 2010. I noted I haven't seen anything recent from him that suggests he still turns his fire equally on both sides. It seems like sometime around 2011 Greenwald pretty much clammed up about Republicans and started attacking Obama
I knew that was coming after I only supplied the one piece.
All you have to do if you are actually curious is to peek at his Twitter and you find links and ongoing arguments with the Republican establishment, GOP supporters and Trumpies. I know, it's not a peer reviewed journal, but he is extremely active and currently critical of the Republicans in power.
He speaks truth to power, and maybe he switched to criticism of Obama because Obama was in power? Makes sense to me.
Like I said, extremely opinionated, but critical of both sides.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Across
I haven't clicked on any
I haven't clicked on any links posted in this thread and feel pretty good about it.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Asscheeks, you really don't
Asscheeks, you really don't seem to enjoy your time here judging from your posts.
Why do you do it to yourself?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> All you have to do if you
>>> All you have to do if you are actually curious is to peek at his Twitter and you find links and ongoing arguments with the Republican establishment, GOP supporters and Trumpies
I don't really want to take your word for it, but it's not a point that seems worth focusing on much. The fact that Republicans are in power now but he still appears to be only attacking Democrats in his writing seems to cut against your suggestion that he targets the current regime, though. I do spend a lot of time on Twitter, and the only people I tend to see him tangling with are members of the hated Democratic establishment, but I'll look out for his criticism of the other side also.
>>> well, we know that's true now.
No we don't? What are you talking about?
>>> "At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now. With Donald Trump and his cronies consolidating power, we’ve launched a weekly podcast: Intercepted".
A mission statement does not a fact make. That's also Scahill's project, not Greenwald's.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Toe that line, Sam.
Toe that line, Sam.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Across
Would clicking the links in
Would clicking the links in this thread be enjoyable?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
I was just in CNN and they
I was just in CNN and they begrudgingly quoted a senators tweet, saying " it's the platform of politics now."
Grenwalds is absolutely tangling with the GOP there and your ignorance of it does make my assertion false.
<<<A mission statement does not a fact make. That's also Scahill's project, not Greenwald's
Right, and if you are following along, we started this part of the discussion with me acknowledging Scahill. and The Intercept.
but it's also Greenwald'S project, too, so I'm guessing he is a part of that podcast aimed at "Trump and his cronies". That partisan shill!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>>> Grenwalds is absolutely
>>> Grenwalds is absolutely tangling with the GOP there and your ignorance of it does make my assertion false.
Didn't say it did, I said I haven't seen it but I'll look out for it. Still not the primary point, which is that in his published writings for the last 6-7 years he seems to have laid off the GOP.
>> but it's also Greenwald'S project, too, so I'm guessing he is a part of that podcast aimed at "Trump and his cronies". That partisan shill!
Talking about the podcast, not the Intercept generally -- the podcast appears to be all Scahill, at least so far. Hopefully Greenwald will join him some time.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<Still not the primary
<<<Still not the primary point, which is that in his published writings for the last 6-7 years he seems to have laid off the GOP.
as someone who speaks truth to power, wouldn't that make complete sense?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
>> as someone who speaks
>> as someone who speaks truth to power, wouldn't that make complete sense?
We're really splitting hairs here, but I'd say speaking truth to power doesn't mean just criticizing the head of one branch of government, important as the President is. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Boehner before him) have wielded immense power at least since 2010.