80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:46 am
What does "propaganda" look like?

Let's differentiate from "marketing" which we understand to mean forwarding the reputation of a service or product or brand - eg Honda advertising that the Accord and Civic win the lion's share of Best Of The Year awards. That statement is true and arrives without a motive to deceive or trick. People hearing or reading - and believing - the claim are not misinformed and therefore not disadvantaged as consumers.

But propaganda, as we would understand the term in a coherent manner, is something else. Here the goal is to use untruths or misleading information/clams to misinform and thereby disadvantage the consumer
(or the citizens).

Greg Sargent, quoting Krugman, properly notes examples and gets to the motivation in place...

Quote:
REPUBLICANS WRONG ABOUT OBAMA ECONOMY: Paul Krugman puts Obama’s actual job creation record in the context of repeated, widespread GOP predictions that his policies would all but destroy the American economy:

Quote:
What did Mr. Obama do that was supposed to kill jobs? Quite a lot, actually. He signed the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, which critics claimed would crush employment by starving businesses of capital. He raised taxes on high incomes, especially at the very top, where average tax rates rose by about six and a half percentage points after 2012, a step that critics claimed would destroy incentives. And he enacted a health reform that went into full effect in 2014, amid claims that it would have catastrophic effects on employment. Yet none of the dire predicted consequences of these policies have materialized.


But in the minds of many GOP base voters, of course, these dire predicted consequences have materialized. That’s the whole point!
http://wapo.st/1VZXV2J
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:37 am
@blatham,
Blatham you have illustrated your definition of propaganda very well in your highly selective and self-serving reporting of our economic performance. The facts you left out include the continuing decline in the median wage and the slowest GDP growth following a recession in the past several decades. Apart from the shale oil & gas boom business investment and the creation of new enterprises continues very low, and our recent GDP growth rate, though better than those of the sclerotic social democrat countries in Europe, is recently declining and has remained low by our historical standards for the past seven years.
Blickers
 
  5  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 02:31 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote georgeob1:
Quote:
Blatham you have illustrated your definition of propaganda very well in your highly selective and self-serving reporting of our economic performance. The facts you left out include the continuing decline in the median wage and the slowest GDP growth following a recession in the past several decades.


Sorry, George, you're way off. Here are the median weekly earnings for the past decade in 1982-84 dollars, which adjusts for inflation. As you can see, weekly earnings are not declining, they have gone UP since 2007, the year before the crash.
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah279/LeviStubbs/median%20weekly%20earnings%203rd%20quarter%202015_zps2w5ybpuc.jpg

As for GDP growth, once more you are far off the mark. Under Obama's stewardship, we have gone from DECLINING inflation-adjusted GDP per capita to the HIGHEST inflation-adjusted GDP per capita ever. Look at the mess Obama inherited, and see how high he has taken it-the highest in history.
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-per-capita.png?s=usanygdppcapkd&v=201601111603n

George, you have to stop paying attention to the right-wing "news" world-it is really throwing you off.
snood
 
  6  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 02:56 pm
@Blickers,
It's not hard to understand how those like george can have such wrong ideas about the effect the Obama presidency has had on our national financial health. All you have to do to be that consistently off is to start every discussion with the premise "Obama is wrong, and I will find a way to prove it." It's then an easy matter of dredging through the constant flow of Obama deranged "journalism" to find lies masquerading as facts that support your preconceived judgement.
Blickers
 
  4  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 03:04 pm
@snood,
That's basically true. In a world where the facts, once buried in libraries and special reports and volumes, are now available to everyone online, too many of us still rely on pre-digested info filtered through broadcasters and bloggers. Going right to the source to get the real story is much more illuminating.
Lash
 
  -2  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 04:52 pm
@blatham,
Certainly it's relevant. You seem to be contorting to make a needless accusation.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 04:54 pm
@Setanta,
When I mentioned the daughter of Planned Parenthood, I meant the daughter of the CEO, Cecile Richards.
cicerone imposter
 
  5  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 05:14 pm
@Blickers,
So true! There was a study done on people's memory that proves that people will retain lies even when they hear the truth.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 11 Jan, 2016 05:18 pm
@georgeob1,
Hi george
So, I gather then you aren't making the claim that Krugman's specific assertions (as quoted) are not false, rather that he has left some important and relevant indicators out of his piece?

Could you please provide some link(s) to support what you claim. I would ask for links to economists of equal standing to Krugman, if you please.

Edit: I see blickers has linked in some relevant data above. That's the sort of information we'd like to see.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 05:34 am
@snood,
It presents the right with quite a problem, how do they enjoy the fruits of the Obama Presidency without having to admit to its existence.

They loved Bill Clinton's rebound, they deny Barack Obama's.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 06:13 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
When I mentioned the daughter of Planned Parenthood, I meant the daughter of the CEO, Cecile Richards.


OK, fine--that takes me back to my original question. What's your beef with Planned Parenthood? You have used it as though it were an epithet. You have also described yourself as socially liberal . . .

Lash wrote:
I was always more socially liberal than most people I know, so that part of me is the same.


If that is the case, why dump on Planned Parenthood? Saying that they endorsed the candidate who opposes the candidate you support hardly justifies acting as though Planned Parenthood is a limb of Satan. It is not consonant with being a social liberal. It certainly doesn't justify condemning the chairman of the Iowa DNC, who, surprise surprise, is entitled to her political opinions. Who her mother is is irrelevant. She is also the granddaughter of Ann Richards, former governor of Texas, who opposed George W. Bush in his bid to become governor of Texas, and who lost to him. Is that something else you hold against Miss Adams? This horseshit is straight out of a conservative Republican bash-Clinton playbook.
blatham
 
  6  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 06:56 am
@snood,
Quote:
All you have to do to be that consistently off is to start every discussion with the premise "Obama is wrong, and I will find a way to prove it."

Very early on in Obama's first term, Mitch McConnell was quite explicit as regards this political strategy. He explained that in order to differentiate the GOP from Dems, they would oppose Obama admin initiatives. He said that if they did not do this, then it would add validation to any notions that Dems had good or workable policy ideas. He and his party wanted to prevent any growing consensus on precisely on such notions. It makes a sort of sense IF your goal is power rather than effective goverenance that concerns itself with citizens' needs and wishes.

And that's not new (even if it is now taken to such extremes). Some of you will know of Bill Kristol's 1993 strategy memo to the GOP where he argued that the Clinton healthcare initiative (which they'd labeled "Hillarycare" as a means of personalizing the plan, that is, of suggesting it was autocratic and
anti-democratic even if majorities of citizens wanted such a thing and even though they'd voted in Bill Clinton. They coordinated a narrative that Hillary was unelected and therefore had no proper business acting politically in this fashion). In that '93 memo, Kristol advised that "Hillarycare" had to be crushed totally. Why? Here's what he said in the memo...

Quote:
"Unqualified political defeat of the Clinton health care proposal,would be a monumental setback for the president, and an incontestable piece of evidence that Democratic welfare-state liberalism remains firmly in retreat."
It's important to get that point. Kristol was aware that since Reagan, there had been a shift in American consensus about what government ought and ought not to be doing. Social programs were firmly in the "not" category, and particularly, new social programs. He saw it as necessary that anti-government ideology continue to be fostered. And he saw it as advantageous, politically for the GOP, if Clinton was to be seen as ineffective. Maximal obstructionism by the GOP has its genesis right here. In that memo, he also said...

Quote:
[Hillarycare's] success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas...the Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Clinton plan--and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose...."It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."
http://bit.ly/xUSGL0

If you read the whole memo (and you definitely should) you'll see that Kristol's strategies were duplicated quite exactly with Obamacare (and, let's note, with everything else Obama's administration has sought to achieve).

The reason I bring this up in response to your post, snood, was to make the case that though Obama has faced broad and sustained obstructionism along with a thousand and one character-assassination narratives (remember the terrorist fist bump) and even though racism has surely and inarguably been a factor in what we've seen on the right, my thinking is that this race factor isn't the key to GOP obstructionism. It is merely one more device or opportunity to facilitate obstructionism.

Another key political facet here (you can see it implicitly above) is the purposeful strategy to curb government effectiveness exactly and precisely because wherever government might establish a policy or institution which actually improves citizens' lives, then this in itself invalidates the modern conservative premise at the core of its ideology that government is the problem.

If there is any idea folks need to understand in all this, it is the one I've just bolded.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 07:20 am
Here's some more details on Jane Mayer's new book...

Quote:
The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.

The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors: among them Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and Harry and Lynde Bradley, brothers who became wealthy in part from military contracts but poured millions into anti-government philanthropy.

But the book is largely focused on the Koch family, stretching back to its involvement in the far-right John Birch Society and the political and business activities of the father, Fred C. Koch, who found some of his earliest business success overseas in the years leading up to World War II. One venture was a partnership with the American Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis, who, according to Ms. Mayer, hired Mr. Koch to help build the third-largest oil refinery in the Third Reich, a critical industrial cog in Hitler’s war machine.

Though I and many others have been aware for a long while of the activities of this class of rightwing millionaires and billionaires as key activists and funders of movement conservatism, there's a notion here I hadn't bumped into before. Mayer is one hell of a reporter. And she's fearless.
Quote:

The Kochs’ vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was “originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others” by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 08:01 am
Rand Paul gets demoted off the main stage. He's not happy about it.
Quote:
Asked if his own supporters or donors would react badly to the debate snub, Sen. Paul reiterated that the "arbitrary, capricious polling standard" had been a source of disgust for the grassroots, dubbing it a story of media political bias.

"It won't take much for our supporters to understand why we're doing this," Paul said. "You want war? We’ll give it to you."
http://wapo.st/1Q2lpE3
Hard to know whether the feverish devotion (and activism!) seen in the followers of dad's movement/campaign will reappear with son. But this certainly suggests a new fracturing in the GOP/libertarian universe.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 09:16 am
Re obstructionism as described above, let's note this Politico item appearing today...

Quote:
On Monday evening, something exceptional happened in the Senate: Lawmakers confirmed a Circuit Court judge nominated by President Barack Obama. Luis Felipe Restrepo of Pennsylvania became only the second Circuit Court judge approved in the past year, and the 12th federal judge overall, an approval rate slower than any time since 1969.
Now, conservatives are demanding that Restrepo — who had a critical booster in GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — be the last Obama nominee confirmed before the president leaves office.
http://politi.co/1Q2uRY3
This is now just standard operation procedure for the GOP. It's right across the boards and has been for a long while.

snood
 
  6  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 10:06 am
@blatham,
They've blocked every appointment Obama makes - sometimes even those they favored before they knew Obama wanted them. I guess they had to let one through so they can convince themselves they're somehow fair or sensible or just.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:12 pm
@snood,
It's too bad they're invisible when they look in the mirror.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 02:40 pm
@snood,
Quote:
They've blocked every appointment Obama makes - sometimes even those they favored before they knew Obama wanted them. I guess they had to let one through so they can convince themselves they're somehow fair or sensible or just.

Yes, the obstruction of appointments, judicial and otherwise, has been the rule. And I have no clue as to why this appointment was allowed to go through.
revelette2
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 02:49 pm
@blatham,
I think we shouldn't look gift horses in the mouth, at least this appointment is one appointed by a democrat. Hopefully, a democrat will president and democrats will get some Supreme Court Judges too, in the end, the most important reason to vote this year.
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jan, 2016 02:52 pm
@revelette2,
the future makeup of the SC will be highly consequential, I agree
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.33 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 09:04:02