Themis wrote:He made a promise to drain the swamp but only made it worse by being the most corrupt president. That shouldn't be a surprise by knowing just a little about the man before he decided to run.
Any who still don't realize or acknowledge that Trump is the most corrupt and pathologically dishonest President in living memory is either hopelessly naïve and under or misinformed, or are incorrigibly dishonest or corrupt themselves.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:Any who still don't realize or acknowledge that Trump is the most corrupt and pathologically dishonest President in living memory is either hopelessly naïve and under or misinformed, or are incorrigibly dishonest or corrupt themselves.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
The Atlantic article embedded in the link is a valuable read itself.
From the link:
One day last fall, I sat down to create a new Facebook account. I picked a forgettable name, snapped a profile pic with my face obscured, and clicked “Like” on the official pages of Donald Trump and his reelection campaign. Facebook’s algorithm prodded me to follow Ann Coulter, Fox Business, and a variety of fan pages with names like “In Trump We Trust.” I complied. I also gave my cellphone number to the Trump campaign, and joined a handful of private Facebook groups for MAGA diehards, one of which required an application that seemed designed to screen out interlopers. ...
The story that unfurled in my Facebook feed over the next several weeks was, at times, disorienting. There were days when I would watch, live on TV, an impeachment hearing filled with damning testimony about the president’s conduct, only to look at my phone later and find a slickly edited video—served up by the Trump campaign—that used out-of-context clips to recast the same testimony as an exoneration. Wait, I caught myself wondering more than once, is that what happened today?
As I swiped at my phone, a stream of pro-Trump propaganda filled the screen: “That’s right, the whistleblower’s own lawyer said, ‘The coup has started …’ ” Swipe. “Democrats are doing Putin’s bidding …” Swipe. “The only message these radical socialists and extremists will understand is a crushing …” Swipe. “Only one man can stop this chaos …” Swipe, swipe, swipe.
I was surprised by the effect it had on me. I’d assumed that my skepticism and media literacy would inoculate me against such distortions. But I soon found myself reflexively questioning every headline. It wasn’t that I believed Trump and his boosters were telling the truth. It was that, in this state of heightened suspicion, truth itself—about Ukraine, impeachment, or anything else—felt more and more difficult to locate. With each swipe, the notion of observable reality drifted further out of reach.
What I was seeing was a strategy that has been deployed by illiberal political leaders around the world. Rather than shutting down dissenting voices, these leaders have learned to harness the democratizing power of social media for their own purposes—jamming the signals, sowing confusion. They no longer need to silence the dissident shouting in the streets; they can use a megaphone to drown him out. Scholars have a name for this: censorship through noise.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Gunnar wrote:Any who still don't realize or acknowledge that Trump is the most corrupt and pathologically dishonest President in living memory is either hopelessly naïve and under or misinformed, or are incorrigibly dishonest or corrupt themselves.
Bush was very bad and started two wars.
Also true!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
EAllusion wrote: Did you see Matthews' "executed in central park" comments earlier this month? It's hard to read those as strategic worry that socialism won't play well in the sticks.
I hadn't seen that. Yeah, that's pretty damning and to your point.
To be a bit more accurate he said: I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”
Castro and the reds is a different category than socialism. Perhaps Mr Matthews is overly fearful in his desire to have Bernie clarify where he stands in the difference.However perhaps because I am only three years younger than Matthews I too find my suspicions about Bernie pricked. Sure he is not a true Bolshevik but he may want to use more pressure for further socialist programs than I approve of.
And I am fairly sure I am more tolerant of socialist ideas than the majority of American voters (unless I Rip Van Winkled it a spell)
huckelberry wrote: To be a bit more accurate he said: I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”
Castro and the reds is a different category than socialism. Perhaps Mr Matthews is overly fearful in his desire to have Bernie clarify where he stands in the difference.However perhaps because I am only three years younger than Matthews I too find my suspicions about Bernie pricked. Sure he is not a true Bolshevik but he may want to use more pressure for further socialist programs than I approve of.
And I am fairly sure I am more tolerant of socialist ideas than the majority of American voters (unless I Rip Van Winkled it a spell)
Your interpretation doesn't make sense in the full context of the comments. You took out his lead up to this. He's not asking for Sanders to clarify his views on Castro in his comments. He's explaining his views on socialism, which he just equates to revolutionary communism. He throws innuendo that "certain people" would cheer on the evils of communism. This is in a monologue reaction to a Democratic primary debate. Not a lot of nuance there.
I think this does show some of the superficiality of political labels used by cable pundits. Donald Trump has been engaging in aggressive socialist actions over and over, yet it doesn't produce anything like this because of a quirk in how labels get assigned.
huckelberry wrote: To be a bit more accurate he said: I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”
Castro and the reds is a different category than socialism. Perhaps Mr Matthews is overly fearful in his desire to have Bernie clarify where he stands in the difference.However perhaps because I am only three years younger than Matthews I too find my suspicions about Bernie pricked. Sure he is not a true Bolshevik but he may want to use more pressure for further socialist programs than I approve of.
And I am fairly sure I am more tolerant of socialist ideas than the majority of American voters (unless I Rip Van Winkled it a spell)
Your interpretation doesn't make sense in the full context of the comments. You took out his lead up to this. He's not asking for Sanders to clarify his views on Castro in his comments. He's explaining his views on socialism, which he just equates to revolutionary communism. He throws innuendo that "certain people" would cheer on the evils of communism. This is in a monologue reaction to a Democratic primary debate. Not a lot of nuance there.
I think this does show some of the superficiality of political labels used by cable pundits. Donald Trump has been engaging in aggressive socialist actions over and over, yet it doesn't produce anything like this because of a quirk in how labels get assigned.
EAllusion, I think you are certainly correct about there being serious problems with labels. The ambiguities of the label socialism is large enough to be open to a good deal of manipulation. I see what you mean ab out Trump's actions but that will hardly prevent him from paining himself the savior from the socialist invasion of the democrats. I knew a person who voted Trump whose stated reason was they suffered eight years of Obama socialism and that had to stop.
Clearly my comments about Matthews views focused not on that opening comment about socialism but the desctintion made about Denmark whose socialism Matthews said was fine with him. He wanted to know how Bernie relates to Castro's version.
The few years age difference between myself and Matthews do represent a significant shift in attitudes in the democratic party. Matthews closer to Kennedy style cold war warrior. With the problems in Viet Nam more nuanced relations to the cold war were required. I doubt that those have resolved into a stable view.