Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[Jack V Savage]

My issue is that I think both are smart dudes and what I believe I am seeing in this thread is right wingers line up for Jp Left wingers for NC and it seems a silly thing to do when both are great to listen to and have value and its not the ufc so you cant really rank em like that unless they fight

I dont have a problem with either guy my problem is how quickly people seem to be to dismiss one or the other

The thing is, though, what Peterson is saying is often good (occasionally nutty, though), but pretty much commonsense stuff that everyone knows. It's good that he can get people to listen to that stuff and he is very intelligent, but it's not groundbreaking. He's been successful in his own field, but he's not a titan like Chomsky is. It's not an insult to that he's not on Chomsky's level as a thinker.

And, yeah, there's no need to pick among them. You can listen to and enjoy both (or neither). I object to the idea that only bias leads one to have a higher regard for one of them than for the other, though.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Look at the betting odds. Bernie was a major longshot candidate from the start. After the field completely cleared, he had support from the anti-Clinton Democrats, but even then, he was way behind. IMO, any news organization that treated it as a neck-and-neck race would be doing a disservice to its readers/viewers/listeners. I actually think one of the annoying tendencies the media has (for obvious reasons) is to treat every race like Ali/Frazier I.

Also note that while Bernie was rightly treated as a longshot, the tone of the coverage he did receive was positive, while the tone of Clinton's coverage from the MSM was overwhelmingly negative.

Liberal media, like Maher, or MSNBC were a Hillary love fest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Liberal media, like Maher, or MSNBC were a Hillary love fest.

I don't know enough about MSNBC. Maher voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe, and supported him consistently, but he was definitely pro-Clinton as well.

 

[kpt018]

Nah dude. I distinctly remember CNN and MSNBC either downplaying is popularity or barely even reporting his insane speech attendences. CNN collusion with the DNC was documented in some leaked emails, it's why I didn't vote for Hillary.


Is this an attempt at humor?

From what I saw they had his popularity right. He’s a popular figure but not as popular as Hillary.

And that’s a terrible reason to vote for Trump or third party over Hillary btw.

 

[kpt018]

I don't know enough about MSNBC. Maher voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe, and supported him consistently, but he was definitely pro-Clinton as well.

Yup and even had Bernie on the show multiple times.

 

[Trotsky]

Wikileaks headlines framed normal media communication (with multiple outlets) or communication about the media as "collusion," which was convincing to rubes and people who wanted to be convinced. Like, "hey, we're doing a story on X. Would like to get your views." Or "we've had a good experience pitching stories to Y; let's try to tip him off on Z."

I think what gets forgotten a lot is that the race was never close, and Bernie wasn't even seen as the top contender until some time passed. I think the constant negative coverage that Clinton got was far more harmful to her than the limited but mostly positive coverage that Sanders got was to him.

I'm going to engage very tentatively, as I think your perspective on this issue is distorted for whatever reason.

The commentary on his not being the foremost challenger is just patently false. At the point of the first debate, O'Malley was at an all-time polling high of a whopping 2% and Sanders had staked out more than a fourth of the polls. O'Malley would never eclipse 4% at any point thereafter. By the point of the first primary vote, Sanders was within single digits of Clinton (about 49-40) in national polling.

I'm not going to sift back through Google to revive the undeniable fact that Sanders was unusually underreported until the primary had actually begun or that, for whatever reason, his media mentions were wildly disproportionate to his support both in polling and in information media. You'll say Clinton's negative coverage spilling over from the RNC Primary was more detrimental to her than Sanders' lack of recognition was to him, and I might tend to agree with you, but that is an entirely different analysis. I did absolutely find CNN's coverage in particular to be minimizing and negative of Sanders, but I don't impute that to all of corporate media.

Meanwhile, while I still wouldn't raise it to the point of "rigging," it is absolutely undeniable that there was some designed measures by the DNC to marginalize Sanders' primary challenge, even if they are understandable given Clinton's bankrolling of the party. Most egregious to me, from a democratic standpoint, was the atrocious handling of the DNC debate schedule in terms of when they were announced and where they were scheduled.

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm going to engage very tentatively, as I think your perspective on this issue is distorted for whatever reason.

The commentary on his not being the foremost challenger is just patently false. At the point of the first debate, O'Malley was at an all-time polling high of a whopping 2% and Sanders had staked out more than a fourth of the polls. O'Malley would never eclipse 4% at any point thereafter. By the point of the first primary vote, Sanders was within single digits of Clinton (about 49-40) in national polling.

I'm not going to sift back through Google to revive the undeniable fact that Sanders was unusually underreported until the primary had actually begun or that, for whatever reason, his media mentions were wildly disproportionate to his support both in polling and in information media. You'll say Clinton's negative coverage spilling over from the RNC Primary was more detrimental to her than Sanders' lack of recognition was to him, and I might tend to agree with you, but that is an entirely different analysis. I did absolutely find CNN's coverage in particular to be minimizing and negative of Sanders, but I don't impute that to all of corporate media.

Meanwhile, while I still wouldn't raise it to the point of "rigging," it is absolutely undeniable that there was some designed measures by the DNC to marginalize Sanders' primary challenge, even if they are understandable given Clinton's bankrolling of the party. Most egregious to me, from a democratic standpoint, was the atrocious handling of the DNC debate schedule in terms of when they were announced and where they were scheduled.

Liked.

 

[Trotsky]

Liberal media, like Maher, or MSNBC were a Hillary love fest.

I didn't think that was the case for Maher. I didn't hold much ill will toward MSNBC, but I also am like everyone else in that I have never watched much of it.

CNN was remarkably bad.

 

[Trotsky]

The issue is that I think Gutter is basically saying that it is impossible to think that one of Chomsky or Peterson is more insightful on the basis of an unbiased assessment. Disagreeing with him inherently implies bias.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of either, but I think both do valuable work. They aren't in the same league as intellectuals, though.

I didn't know that there was such thing as a smart person who wasn't a fan of Noam Chomsky.

Beyond being a brilliant theoretician and social commentator, he's also just ridiculously even keel and engaging with fans/critics. Heck, he even responded thoughtfully to an email question/concern I sent him many years ago when I was a young revolutionary socialist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm going to engage very tentatively, as I think your perspective on this issue is distorted for whatever reason.

The commentary on his not being the foremost challenger is just patently false. At the point of the first debate, O'Malley was at an all-time polling high of a whopping 2% and Sanders had staked out more than a fourth of the polls. O'Malley would never eclipse 4% at any point thereafter. By the point of the first primary vote, Sanders was within single digits of Clinton (about 49-40) in national polling.

I'm not going to sift back through Google to revive the undeniable fact that Sanders was unusually underreported until the primary had actually begun or that, for whatever reason, his media mentions were wildly disproportionate to his support both in polling and in information media. You'll say Clinton's negative coverage spilling over from the RNC Primary was more detrimental to her than Sanders' lack of recognition was to him, and I might tend to agree with you, but that is an entirely different analysis. I did absolutely find CNN's coverage in particular to be minimizing and negative of Sanders, but I don't impute that to all of corporate media.

Meanwhile, while I still wouldn't raise it to the point of "rigging," it is absolutely undeniable that there was some designed measures by the DNC to marginalize Sanders' primary challenge, even if they are understandable given Clinton's bankrolling of the party. Most egregious to me, from a democratic standpoint, was the atrocious handling of the DNC debate schedule in terms of when they were announced and where they were scheduled.

I don't actually disagree with much of this, though I didn't say anything false (Sanders didn't start the campaign as No. 2, but did become so some time into it), and I'd note that the debate schedule was changed to appease Sanders supporters after they complained, and I can't see anything else that would be described measures by the DNC to marginalize Sanders' challenge. Are you just referring to endorsements from other elected officials or pledged superdelegates?

I didn't know that there was such thing as a smart person who wasn't a fan of Noam Chomsky.

Beyond being a brilliant theoretician and social commentator, he's also just ridiculously even keel and engaging with fans/critics. Heck, he even responded thoughtfully to an email question/concern I sent him many years ago when I was a young revolutionary socialist.

I think he too often fails to see shades of gray and is too quick to ascribe bad motives to people (and often ascribes implausible bad motives). We've gone over this directly (that is, without it being a discussion about Chomsky--remember our discussion about Ryan's motives?).

 

[splendica]

Hokey overrated batman.


- says Russia didn't affect the elections

- talked about money affecting elections; didn't highlight the heavy and illegal funding the of Democrat party (particularly the Clintons) except in defeating Sanders. Didn't mention Sanders sketchy financial dealings (his wife's).

- didn't get into specifics on almost anything else except his foot in mouth consistency of saying that America is behind everything bad while at the same time saying It's basically free, democratic and amazing

- to end with such a ridiculous statement of the Republican administration "the most dangerous organization in human history" before saying it won't end life on earth but be a footnote in the history books as such. Really Noam? Anyone who takes that as anything but baseless hyperbole is bonkers.

That nothingburger piece got you lefties all frothing at the mouth over nothing. Typical.

But the big takeaway is that NC even knows Russia did nothing to affect the outcome of the election. Props to the obvious. Thanks Noam.

 

[ironfist05]

Hokey overrated batman.


- says Russia didn't affect the elections

- talked about money affecting elections; didn't highlight the heavy and illegal funding the of Democrat party (particularly the Clintons) except in defeating Sanders. Didn't mention Sanders sketchy financial dealings (his wife's).

- didn't get into specifics on almost anything else except his foot in mouth consistency of saying that America is behind everything bad while at the same time saying It's basically free, democratic and amazing

- to end with such a ridiculous statement of the Republican administration "the most dangerous organization in human history" before saying it won't end life on earth but be a footnote in the history books as such. Really Noam? Anyone who takes that as anything but baseless hyperbole is bonkers.

That nothingburger piece got you lefties all frothing at the mouth over nothing. Typical.

But the big takeaway is that NC even knows Russia did nothing to affect the outcome of the election. Props to the obvious. Thanks Noam.

He's not wrong about the Republican party. To intentionally move away from climate based regulation is spitting in the face of the world. The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real. I'm only 22 and I can already feel the change in tempteratures and the increasingly erratic weather patterns. That's not to defend hte dems, they're pretty shitty about climate policy too, but holy shit this is not going to end well, everybody knows it and they're just burying their head in the sand. As amny people as Hitler killed, many millions more will die if climate change is left unchecked. That's not a threat to just America, it's a threat to the world.

Not only that, but they're a bunch of warmongerers. Now, I didn't like Obama, Bush or any of them because they were all warmongerers too (the dems are warmongerers, they're just better at hiding it), but aggressively going after a nuclear state is a surefire disaster in hte making. Maybe not for America, but certainly for other states in Asia.

 

[ironfist05]

To give a concrete example:

Bangladesh is an impoversihed nation of rougly 160 million (give or take a few). It's also very low lying. If water levels continue to raise the way the will, Bangladesh will be more or less entirely underwater in a decade or two. What are you going to do with 160 million bangladeshis people? India and maybe Myanmar will likely have to take in some as their immediate neighbors, but those aren't exactly wealthy nations themselves and it's unlikely they'll take in more thna a few million. The rest of the world is likely to do little about it. Basically you're going to have possibly hundreds of millions of Bangladashis drowning and living in horrific conditions.

Bangladesh will be first to go, but certainly not the last.

 

[splendica]

He's not wrong about the Republican party. To intentionally move away from climate based regulation is spitting in the face of the world. The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real. I'm only 22 and I can already feel the change in tempteratures and the increasingly erratic weather patterns. That's not to defend hte dems, they're pretty shitty about climate policy too, but holy shit this is not going to end well, everybody knows it and they're just burying their head in the sand. As amny people as Hitler killed, many millions more will die if climate change is left unchecked. That's not a threat to just America, it's a threat to the world.

Not only that, but they're a bunch of warmongerers. Now, I didn't like Obama, Bush or any of them because they were all warmongerers too, but aggressively going after a nuclear state is a surefire disaster in hte making. Maybe not for America, but certainly for other states in Asia.

It's a scam. Communist propaganda to tax the wealthy countries and inhibit their economies, while at the same time bolstering third world economies with massive populations so they can be taxed exhorbitantly too.

If the world banks believed that water levels were to rise even at best 10 feet (for Global Warming proponents), they wouldn't be issuing 30, 40 and 50 year mortgages for most of Europe, the Southern US and thousands of other lowland scapes throughout the world.

Meanwhile, due to the business of fear mongering by Deep State, Al Gore (and others like him) became an exceedingly wealthy man.

 

[ironfist05]

It's a scam. Communist propaganda to tax the wealthy countries and inhibit their economies, while at the same time bolstering third world economies with massive populations so they can be taxed exhorbitantly too.

If the world banks believed that water levels were to rise even at best 10 feet (for Global Warming proponents), they wouldn't be issuing 30, 40 and 50 year mortgages for most of Europe, the Southern US and thousands of other lowland scapes throughout the world.

Meanwhile, due to the business of fear mongering by Deep State, Al Gore (and others like him) became an exceedingly wealthy man.

yeah I think the holocaust was made up too /s

you don't know better than scientists and no, the world banks (and will still collect on their debt for houses that are underwater) are not pro-climate change and most communist countries are pretty heavily polluting too, they denied it for the longest time and now started investing in green energy. This isn't somethign done to inhibit western economies, it's hte truth.

 

[Fawlty]

She was working as a "contributor," like Jeffrey Lord or Corey Lewandowski. I agree that contributors who are brought on specifically because they are supporting someone will try to support that person. But that's hardly the same thing as saying that the media was colluding.

Good point. If Lewandowski had given Trump questions, zero people would be crying about CNN colluding with Trump.

 

[splendica]

yeah I think the holocaust was made up too /s

you don't know better than scientists and no, the world banks are not pro-climate change and most communist countries are pretty heavily polluting too, they denied it for the longest time and now started investing in green energy. This isn't somethign done to inhibit western economies, it's hte truth.

Ice core samples at Antartica show temperatures world wide were higher at various points through ancient history.

The media is bought and paid for by the world banks/deep state. They will pound their their agendas endlessly.

Look, Noam Chomsky just said Russia didn't influence the election, yet CNN has been on it nearly 24/7 for 15 months telling the public it is so. Most other MSM is doing the same except for Fox.

There are stories being pedaled continuously to disarm America.

Divide, loan mortgages that take a lifetime to pay off, then reverse mortgage back to the banks lol. Almost everything is a scam.

 

[Fawlty]

measures by the DNC to marginalize Sanders' primary challenge, even if they are understandable given Clinton's bankrolling of the party.

Which is not only their legal right, but their moral right in terms of partisanship. As if a political party should have some obligation to bend over for an outsider like the Republicans ended up doing for Trump. I'm glad this is paired with recognition of Clinton's FUNDRAISING (not bankrolling) though, because that's a very legitimate reason for them to have supported her.

 

[ironfist05]

Ice core samples at Antartica show temperatures world wide were higher at various points through ancient history.

The media is bought and paid for by the world banks/deep state. They will pound their their agendas endlessly.

Look, Noam Chomsky just said Russia didn't influence the election, yet CNN has been on it nearly 24/7 for 15 months telling the public it is so. Most other MSM is doing the same except for Fox.

There are stories being pedaled continuously to disarm America.

Divide, loan mortgages that take a lifetime to pay off, then reverse mortgage back to the banks lol. Almost everything is a scam.

yeah I'm not gonna get anything out of talking to you, you're delusional and just making all these things up in your head so that you can feel smart and important. It's been real talking to you.

 

[splendica]

yeah I'm not gonna get anything out of talking to you, you're delusional and just making all these things up in your head so that you can feel smart and important. It's been real talking to you.

Don't worry about it. A lot of people think I'm wacked in here. I might be wrong on some things but I'm right on a lot. Chow for now.