The Evidens
POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2022 07:11
VIEWED: 159178
PAGE 16 of 121
Quote:Noam Chomsky talks about this kind of stuff all the time. He even hangs out with low life reporters, but he does not give up his professorship to become a card-carrying proletarian. He is not sacrificing himself for the people.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, what are you doing here, SECOND? Slumming with the peons?
That's what privileged people used to do in my day. Go to the slums for fun.
I’ll paraphrase Noam Chomsky in a recent interview paraphrasing Marx: Society is turning into a sack of potatoes, just individuals, an amorphous mass that can’t act together. Trump made his fortune by skinning those human potatoes and making french fries. Chomsky blames the neoliberalism of the GOP and Democratic elite for the situation. I blame the potato-heads for being silly and voluntarily jumping into the deep-fat fryer because they were told by the GOP & Trump that hot grease is “Freedom”! Trump chuckles every time somebody dives into one of his hot promises and dies screaming because they believed in him.
www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democr
acy/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you just compare your poorsplaining of our lives to us with Noam Chomsky?
My god are you entitled.
Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Putin will explain it to you. Believe in him because what reason does he have to lie? Same as what reason does Trump have to lie? Russian President Vladimir Putin strongly denied he had any compromising material about U.S. President Donald Trump, in a televised interview broadcast on Sunday.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Did you just compare your poorsplaining of our lives to us with Noam Chomsky?
My god are you entitled.
"Well, this is just another load of nonsense," Putin said on NBC News' "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly," when asked whether he had any damaging information on the Republican president.
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-putin-idUSKBN18V16E
I should probably ram the point in, 1kiki, because you are a nut, but Putin and Trump have every reason to lie about everything. Chomsky pointed that out if you had bothered to listen to the audio. I know you did not.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, let's let CHOMSKY explain it TO YOU:
Noam Chomsky: Explaining the 'Collapse' That Gave Us Donald Trump
... what’s happening in Europe and the United States has certain similarities. It fundamentally traces back, I think, to the new liberal programs of the past generation which have just cast a huge number of people to the side. These programs have improved corporate profit, kept wages stagnant, and highly concentrated wealth and power. They’ve undermined democracy. People have no faith or trust in institutions in Europe—it’s actually worse than [in the United States]. Decisions are basically made in Brussels; people can elect whoever they like, but [the EU elections] have almost no implications for policy. As [economist and Columbia University professor] Joe Stiglitz pointed out, it’s basically one dollar, one vote, and one of the reactions is just anger at everything.
You see it in both the Trump and the Sanders phenomena—different ways of reacting to this collapse of functioning policies that [once existed] for the benefit of the population.
I think there’s a kind of a tacit recognition that people should be kept out of the democratic system. It’s not their area, so divert them with something else.
If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomsky-populism
Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now, let me bring it together for you, again, like I have in the past.
WHY DID WHITE MALES SUPPORT TRUMP? It was because everyone else has had decades - centuries - of learning to not expect fair treatment or well-earned reward. Only white males still expect in large numbers to be justly rewarded for their efforts, and are angry when it doesn't happen. And it hasn't happened for them.
WHY DID UNEDUCATED FEMALES SUPPORT TRUMP? It wasn't because they have some quaint vision of themselves wearing aprons while little Johnny and Janey Doe eat homemade chocolate chip cookies at the table. It's because they're smart enough to know that if the husband can't be the breadwinner, they won't be able to, either. It's either the husband, or ruin.
WHY DID DEMOCRATS SIT AT HOME? On the flip side, the party-line democrats - for all their sad faces and white boneless hands patting victims on the shoulder cooing poooooor yoouuuuuu - have not improved the futures of the disenfranchised. Are people better off than they were 8 years ago? 16 years ago? NO. People eventually figured out that the party wasn't walking the talk.
Trump won the republican nomination because republicans got tired of faux Tea-Party revolution that was just more of the same. Sanders got 43% of the democratic primary vote because many democrats had had it with their do-nothing party. BOTH OF THOSE signals should have been received as an indication the country was spoiling for a change. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_elec
tion_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
With her business as usual policies and her baggage of personal untrustworthiness, Hillary was already a crippled nag at the start of the race.
Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Did you just compare your poorsplaining of our lives to us with Noam Chomsky?
My god are you entitled.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re still on your Russian apologist kick. When the USSR vanished, its H-bombs and tanks stayed. That is why NATO continued.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
No, let's let CHOMSKY explain it TO YOU:
Noam Chomsky: Explaining the 'Collapse' That Gave Us Donald Trump
... what’s happening in Europe and the United States has certain similarities. It fundamentally traces back, I think, to the new liberal programs of the past generation which have just cast a huge number of people to the side. These programs have improved corporate profit, kept wages stagnant, and highly concentrated wealth and power. They’ve undermined democracy. People have no faith or trust in institutions in Europe—it’s actually worse than [in the United States]. Decisions are basically made in Brussels; people can elect whoever they like, but [the EU elections] have almost no implications for policy. As [economist and Columbia University professor] Joe Stiglitz pointed out, it’s basically one dollar, one vote, and one of the reactions is just anger at everything.
You see it in both the Trump and the Sanders phenomena—different ways of reacting to this collapse of functioning policies that [once existed] for the benefit of the population.
I think there’s a kind of a tacit recognition that people should be kept out of the democratic system. It’s not their area, so divert them with something else.
If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomsky-populism
There is no room in Chomsky's election explanations for randomness. As a professor, he thinks he lives in a deterministic world where he can explain what happened. He sees important decisions as rational. His is a very Ivory Tower viewpoint. I don’t think those decisions are made sensibly. The voters are guessing and hoping for the best. There is really a tremendous amount of noise in the signal and little to no careful rationality.
For an example of an election that looks to me more like a coin flip than a rational decision there is the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 election, which was 49.55% to 49.72%. American voters are always on a knife edge where they might pick a monster as the next President. 1960 is far enough back that you can't blame that decision on the middle class being unhappy about slow growth. There is enough history that you can't claim Nixon wasn't a monster. The vote was so close, you can't say that randomness had no effect. And there is doubt that Kennedy actually won the popular vote.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular
_vote_115833-2.html
I’d say that voters in 1960 were showing as much bad judgment as they showed in 1972 when they reelected Nixon or in 2016. The Constitution is set so that a decision will be made, but nothing about it being a good decision. That is left to the big three: luck or fate or god. Chomsky doesn’t believe in those three. His explanations for political decisions exclude all three. It must be his personal preference.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions.
Quote:That wasn't me you quoted, SECOND, it was Chomsky. Is HE on a Russian apologist kick?
You’re still on your Russian apologist kick. When the USSR vanished, its H-bombs and tanks stayed.
Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love how the Social Marxists on the left do whatever they can to distance themselves from Russia and call everybody else Russians.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I included some snippets here and there to tempt people into, hopefully, reading all the links. They're all pretty interesting.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who
-would-vote-for-trump/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-
divisions-by-race-gender-education/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/16/economic-marginalizat
ion-reality-check/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-hillary-clint
on-lost/507704/
Trump galvanized white voters without college degrees, particularly in the Rust Belt; Clinton’s team calculated that this bloc was a lost cause and could be ignored in favor of focusing on her base and trying to persuade white-collar voters she was the less risky choice.
Were these voters gettable? As Alec MacGillis reported, many blue-collar men voted for Barack Obama against John McCain and Mitt Romney because they thought he better related to their struggles. They did not think the same of Clinton, who spent the last eight years becoming synonymous with the global elite. The result was that, while Obama won union households by 18 points nationally, Clinton won them by just 8 points, and fared far worse in the midwestern states that decided the election. She lost rural voters by a 2-to-1 margin, again worse than Obama.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-loses-2
016-election-214439
Clinton and her operatives went into the race predicting her biggest problems would be inevitability and her age, trying to succeed a two-term president of her own party. But the mood of the country surprised them. They recognized that Sanders and Trump had correctly defined the problem—addressing anger about a rigged economy and government—and that Clinton already never authentically could. Worse still, her continuing email saga and extended revelations about the Clinton Foundation connections made any anti-establishment strategy completely impossible.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11631/5-reasons-hillary-clinton-lost-ele
ction-aaron-bandler
The Democrats continue to blame everything but themselves for Hillary Clinton losing the presidential election in November, with the latest excuse being that the Russians hacked the election, even though there is no evidence to support that assertion.
While there is no doubt that Russia was actively trying to influence the election, they are not to blame for Clinton's loss. The main person to blame is Clinton herself.
Here are five reasons why Clinton lost the election.
1. Clinton was a terrible candidate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-electi
on-president-loss
Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME