15
   

Language and Propaganda - an example

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2016 04:07 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That is precisely the argument the Inqisition used against Gallileo.

Now there's a heck of an argument. You discover that you're suffering from a potentially fatal disease and you consult 10 experts in the relevant area of medicine. 8 agree on a course of treatment. 2 advise that there's nothing wrong with you and that any "treatment" can only do damage to you. You then rationally decide that the 2 must have it right because...Galileo.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2016 07:25 pm
@blatham,
Your numerical representation of the situation is inaccurate. In addition you failed to address any of the specific issues and contradictions in the arguments & positions of those whose opinions you wish to impose on us that I listed.

Again, more argument from carefully selected (an in this case unnamed) third party sources, and zero techncal fact or argument. In short, nothing of substance. Typical.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2016 11:12 pm
@georgeob1,
The below was quoted by blatham as being spoken by Trump spokesperson Scottie Nell Hughes:
Quote:
..On live radio Wednesday morning, Scottie Nell Hughes sounded breezy as she drove a stake into the heart of knowable reality:

“There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore, of facts,” she declared on “The Diane Rehm Show” on Wednesday.

Hughes, a frequent surrogate for President-elect Donald Trump and a paid commentator for CNN during the campaign, kept on defending that assertion at length, though not with much clarity of expression. Rehm had pressed her about Trump’s recent evidence-free assertion on Twitter that he, not Hillary Clinton, would have won the popular vote if millions of immigrants had not voted illegally.

...What matters now, Hughes argued, is not whether his fraud claim is true. No, what matters is who believes it.

“Mr. Trump’s tweet, amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up.” What matters now, Hughes argued, is not whether his fraud claim is true. No, what matters is who believes it.

“Mr. Trump’s tweet, amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up.”


To which georgeob1 answered:
Quote:
The "piece" you posted here was from a Washington Post reported (a famously dispassionate source). It claimed to be a report of Nell Hughes words, but that turns out to be a deception. It was instead Margaret Sullivan's partisan interpretation of Hughes' words,


Well,george, here is the interview on video,
from :08 seconds to :1.25, a little over a minute . You can skip the commentary afterward. Please listen to what Trump spokesperson Scottie Nell Hughes said:



Blatham's report is word for word what Scottie Nell Hughes said, yet you have been trained to reject it as being a deception even though the evidence is out there that what was reported was indeed what the Trump spokesperson said.

Shame on you.

blatham
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 07:53 am
@Blickers,
It is not a coincidence that this terrifying insistence by spokespersons for Trump and by key GOP figures (Ryan, Pence, etc) that truth and facts are unattainable or unrecognizable are being pushed out into the public sphere right now. What else can these people do given Trump's unprecedented level of blatant lies, spoken or written day after day? They are providing cover and doing so with a level of disregard for the the civic good that I've never seen before. This scares the hell out of me.

Part of the reason they are acting in this manner is because of how the media have recently begun treating Trump's deceits. What can these modern right wing politicos do in the face of avalanches of fact checkers and journalists raising the alarms about Trump? Try to invalidate the media, of course. That's a campaign going back three decades or so. But Trump is something new and this requires a new propaganda thrust - so Ryan says he doesn't know if 3 million fraudulent votes were cast. He's lying through his teeth and twisting any rational meaning of "know".

And because Trump is almost certain to continue fabricating a false reality for his own ends, those who wish to see him remain in power for the present and wish to see various extreme right wing policies put into place, they clearly believe they have to change the way citizens conceive of truth/facts rather than simply that any voices but right wing voices are credible.

There really isn't a precedent for all this. When Obama was about to take office, no media including right wing media set to challenging and derogating him as we see now. Likewise, when Bush was arriving in office, mainstream media did not have negative coverage of him, his statements or his appointments as we see now. This isn't a partisan matter. It is a matter of the abnormality of Trump and of the dangers that this man and his behavior represent to the nation.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 03:58 pm
I posted this in another thread involving the same topic, so I'm just repeating it in this thread.

I'm not going to try to find or reproduce it now, but I already made a long-ass post about a study done by 3 political science professors from different universities. Their data was taken from surveys conducted by about 40 universities working together in a government-funded project to investigate voting patterns.

That study related to elections in 2010 and 2012. Their data was taken from information given by non-citizens. They found that almost 15% of the non-citizens admitted to voting.

The figures from the last census "showed" (to the extent it was accurate) that there were about 11 million non-citizens living in the US. That figure is now estimated to be at least 20 million.

Some voting monitoring organization also claimed to have "verified" that over 3 million non-citizens voted in 2016, but has yet to release it's data, so there's "no evidence" which means IT'S ALL A BASELESS LIE!!!

PS: Although this is responding to Blathy, he won't see it because he has me on ignore. I don't blame him.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 04:03 pm
@layman,
I might add that I'm sure Trump is aware of this study. I believe he cited it during his campaign speeches. Of course no cheese-eater ever listened to a word of those, so as far as they are concerned, he just "made up a lie on the spot."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 04:44 pm
Trump asserted on twitter a statement to the effect that 'Millions of illegals voted in the last election'. Clearly that is not a statement of fact because there are no facts available on the question. Had he prefaced his statement with the clause "It is likely that...." or it is possible that..." , or "I suspect that..." then this somewhat tortured discussion would not have ovccurred. Did he have such a preface in mind when he typed ot said it? I certainly don't know. As a minimum, he was careless in expressing his thought. Perhaps it was a careless misstatement or even a deliberate lie.

However let's consider the underlying question. What are the plausible limits for the likely number of illegals who voted? Strict enforcement of voter eligibility by a number of states attempting to do so has been systematically blocked by Democrat activists on the questionable proposition that ID requirements and proof of citizenship "discriminate against minorities. I say questionable because such documentation is required to open a bank account, get a loan or mortgage or a large number of other official transactions in the this country -- does all that involve discrimination against minorities??

It seems very highly likely that some ineligible people did vote in the election. There is indeed a rich history ineligible voting in the country, particulalrly in big cities with entrenched local political machines. So I consider Trump's concern - if not his precise words, quite plausible and acceptable.

Blatham is above in a state of serious distress at "this terrifying insistence .....that facts are unattainable...." ; " Trump's unprecedented level of blatant lies ..." etc. Indeed Blatham goes on to castigate Rep Ryan, who evidently answered a question about the matter saying 'He didn't know if three million fraudulent voted were cast' ( a reasonable response by any standard), saying "He's lying through his teeth and twisting any rational meaning of "know" ".

I think the poor man is overexcited , or perhaps merely in one of his epistimological moments . We have all grown accustomed to the self serving lies told by politicians on serious matters some involving high legal risks. There's the famous Clinton statement, given in a sworn deposition, "It depends on the meaning of the word "is"". Then there are the many carefully worded lies and evasions Hillary put out to obscure the criminality of her use of a private server for some highly classified communications . Recall, "Nothing marked as classified was on the server" Or "we turned over all of our official e mail correspondence" or "all of the e mails on the server were screened individually to identify those invomlving official corrrespondence.." Each of these statements were proven to be false. Were they lies?? It seems likely given the stakes and what she very clearly was trying to hide.

I did like the story told by Bill Clinton and AG Lynch that they "accidentally"
discovered their private aircraft were parked on adjacent spots on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport one fine Friday ( he was on a flight from LA to New York. and she one from Washington DC to Aspen CO --- check a map). When asked about the conversation both said they has a pleasant conversation about their respective grandchildren.

Odd that Blatham didn't react to any of these events..

Nevertheless Blatham finds all Trump's hip shooting about public issues to involve something an order of magnitude worse than these lies told to avoid legal and /or public accountability for actions really taken.


You can't make this **** up.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 04:46 pm
Quote:
The preferred form of documentary identification in the United States is the drivers’ license. Drivers’ licenses are issued by the states, pursuant to a widely varying body of state-specific laws and regulations. Currently, twelve states and the District of Columbia allow illegal aliens to obtain a drivers’ license.

Congress attempted to address these issues with the Real ID Act, enacted May 11 2005, which established standards for state-issued licenses and other identity documents – including verification of immigration status. However, only 24 states and territories are currently compliant.

The intentions behind the Real ID Act also continue to be thwarted by certain provisions of the NVRA. These provisions, known as the “Motor-Voter Law,” require state departments of motor vehicles to act as voter registration proxies. The information supplied by license applicants doubles as voter registration information and the registration process has become nearly automatic.

Many politicians are taking firm stances on issues affecting migrants, including amnesty, entitlements and sanctuary city policies. This gives noncitizens a significant incentive to register as voters and cast a ballot. For example, in East Chicago, Indiana, a city with 30,000 residents, voting fraud was so systemic in 2003 that the State Supreme Court ordered a new election with heightened verification. When unlawful voters were prohibited from casting a ballot the outcome of the election changed.

The problem is not unique to Indiana. A 2013 National Hispanic Survey study by Republican pollster John McLaughlin asked a sample of 800 likely Hispanic voters if they were American citizens. 13 percent admitted they were not.

Due to the low risk of penalty, and the lack of effective controls, alien voting is easy. In states without ID requirements, the only check against noncitizens registering to vote is a box on the application form asking registrants to confirm they are U.S. citizens.

If the United States wants to eliminate the possible appearance of elections determined by fraudulent voting, procedures must be adopted to verify the eligibility of new voter registrants, and to verify the identity of voters when they cast ballots, with the application of penalties for those who register and/or vote fraudulently.


http://www.fairus.org/issue/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-u-s-elections
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 04:51 pm
@georgeob1,
"Odd that Blatham didn't react to any of these events."

Yeah, George, very strange, especially in light of the fact that he presents himself here as the standard bearer for truth and justice.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 05:16 pm
Quote:
Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.


Of course that means more electoral votes, too. No wonder California has significantly more electoral votes than any other state in the union, eh? Until California started being counted, Trump was winning the popular vote.

Slaves were only counted on a 3/5 basis. With illegal aliens its 100%.

All slaves entered this country legally. Go figure, eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:00 pm
@layman,
"Congress attempted to address these issues with the Real ID Act, enacted May 11 2005, which established standards for state-issued licenses and other identity documents – including verification of immigration status. However, only 24 states and territories are currently compliant."

Anyone taking bets on whether, as with immigration issues, Trump will also withhold federal funds from "sanctuary states" who refuse to comply with the Real ID Act?

That Trump, he ruthless, I tellzya! The Democrats don't know what to do the next time around as it is. What's gunna happen if they lose all their illegal voters!?

It aint gunna be nuthin nice.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:09 pm
@georgeob1,
The rules in California to vote.
"... Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters "have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That's arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury," Padilla said.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:16 pm
This could get ugly, ya know. After the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Brown case, ordered all states to desegregate their schools, a few southern states stalled for years.

Before it was over, the National Guard had to be called in to forcibly remove State Governors and their posse from standing in school doors to keep black students out.

Trump may have to declare martial law within days of being elected. The tanks could roll. Many SJW protesters could get overrun in the process, not to even mention all the hispanics.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The rules in California to vote.
"... Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September.


Hmm, is that the same Alex Padilla who has been sued mulitple times for voter fraud, including a suit filed by Bernie Sanders?

How would a birth certificate from Mexico prove "citizenship?" Why not just require ACTUAL proof of citizenship, rather than merely proof of age, I wonder?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 08:35 am
@georgeob1,
Have you figured out why you are now writing about me in the third person?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 10:12 am
@blatham,
I would have to look at individual cases, but normally my word choice is determined by whom I am addressing at the moment. In the case above I was not responding to you.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 10:18 am
@georgeob1,
Put your attention on this and see what you come up with.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 10:31 am
As we're talking here about propanda...
Quote:
Senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said in an interview Monday that she is considering leading a group being formed that will provide “a surround-sound super structure” to bolster the new administration’s political and policy goals.

The entity, whose legal structure has not yet been determined, will serve as the outside hub to support President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda. Discussions about the formation of the group have been underway for several weeks.
information control news from all over
Note the bolded bit and give her kudos for honesty. This operation, funded by the usual sources, will seek to maintain discipline on messaging and to drown out and smear any contradictory viewpoints. And given the complimentary contemporary moves by these people to deny objective facts and to justify blatant falsehoods, we're looking at something that is absolutely typical in authoritarian states.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 11:19 am
@blatham,
Quote:
“Trump has the ability to do Citizens for America on steroids through the Internet,” said Richard F. Hohlt, a Washington-based Republican consultant and lobbyist. “They're smart enough to know how to harness the movement to their advantage. This is going to be huge. Republicans have never had this before.”


Yeah, I'd be scared too, if I was a lefty.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 12:00 pm
@blatham,
What in the hell do you suppose has surrounded and protected our curent President for the past eight years and others of his ilk before him? The MSM has been serving precisely as a "surround sound superstructure" for Progressives & Democrats for the past five decades.

Trump is a bombast and something of a hip shoooter, but I am increasingly seeing method and purpose in all the madness. He has effectively bypassed the "Surround sound superstructure" that protected Obama through all his follies and Hillary through all her incompetence and lies. Now he intends to create his own. That is a perfectly rational response to what Americans of your political disposition have already done for Democrats.

I am truly amazed at your chronic unwillingness to see obvious reality. You appear to see everything through the tarnished and ageing, but fixed lens of outmoded progressive doctrine. That is the antithesis of the scholarship which you so hypocritically and falsely appear to claim. It is instead narrow-minded dogmatism and unthinking prejudice . Wake up !

Note all of this is in the first person case.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 12:47:46