Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[kpt018]

CNN and MSNBC avoiding Bernie's success like a drunk thot with the clap.

I don't think that was true. They were also reporting Hillary's server bullshit as if it was on par with the Trump scandals.

Regardless of positive/negative proportions (that tired graph is silly and spurious) he still got far less coverage (positive or otherwise) relative to his polling support than any other candidate.

And then when Democracy Spring protested CNN for that (and NaDPL) the story was likewise blacked out.

In the context of what Chomsky is saying (Bernie didn't get the coverage he deserved) I don't think it makes any sense to include negative coverage of Hillary.

BTW, I personally think the way the media covered the election was disgraceful. But I don't think Bernie got shafted like he's claiming.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't think that was true. They were also reporting Hillary's server bullshit as if it was on par with the Trump scandals.



In the context of what Chomsky is saying (Bernie didn't get the coverage he deserved) I don't think it makes any sense to include negative coverage of Hillary.

BTW, I personally think the way the media covered the election was disgraceful. But I don't think Bernie got shafted like he's claiming.

Hillary had a, supposedly, higher rate of negative coverage. True. Also obvious given she was the presumed nominee and entrenched in some controversy.

But like i said, regardless of that proprtion, she still received exponentially more positive coverage than Sanders. I did the math relative to polling in a previous post. I'll see if I can find it later tn.

 

[salamander]

Exactly

That's why I had to satisfy my hankering for crab rangoon before posting in the Xi Jinping thread.

you should avoid seafood

the point i failed to make was comparing them in terms of the adulation they got from their distinct fandom.

 

[Falsedawn]

Like a succulent chinese meal?

This is Democracy manifest...

 

[nostradumbass]

Lol sure you didn’t vote for trump.

No one believes you

I could give a good god damn what you believe. I was living in Hawaii so why the fuck would I vote?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I could give a good god damn what you believe. I was living in Hawaii so why the fuck would I vote?

So you didn’t vote for him but you just hang on his every word or action. No belives you.

Also Hawaii is part of the United States so you can vote there. Don’t know if you knew that or not.

 

[nostradumbass]

So you didn’t vote for him but you just hang on his every word or action. No belives you.

Also Hawaii is part of the United States so you can vote there. Don’t know if you knew that or not.

I've made threads bashing Trump, I'm just not one of you retards who care about his 2nd scoop of ice cream or what some anonymous source thinks he might want to do but somehow never does. Hawaii has never voted red and was 32 points in favor of Hillary. Glad that "no believes me" on that.

 

[The ScorpioN]

He said the money was for his children and his grandchildren,

This white privilege is sickening.

Chomsky outed as far-right.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol at "libertarian socialism". I'm a vegan carnivore.

It's more like a vegan vegetarian. Libertarianism is socialist by implication (no state=no private property).

 

[nostradumbass]

Chomsky is a real intellectual while the right loves Jordan “the can” Peterson.

They’ve always loved cans as their intellectuals. William Buckley Jr was another fake intellectual they loved for decades. Peterson is the newest one

Yeah, a guy who gives actual wise advice based on human psychology, telling people to take responsibility for their own lives is clearly the inferior to the senile old man with a cushy professor job who thinks the country he's yet to leave is the root of all evil.

 

[Trotsky]

I've made threads bashing Trump, I'm just not one of you retards who care about his 2nd scoop of ice cream or what some anonymous source thinks he might want to do but somehow never does. Hawaii has never voted red and was 32 points in favor of Hillary. Glad that "no believes me" on that.

Like the anonymous source that said he tried to fire Mueller - which was later verified on Fox News?

Or the anonymous source that said he wanted to fire Tillerson - which he did?

Or the anonymous source that said Kushner had contact with the Kremlin - which was later proven?

Or the anonymous source that said he referred to certain countries as "shit holes" - which was corroborated by the White House?

Or what about that lol-worthy time when he was the anonymous source he was deriding?



Honestly, I would be way more sympathetic to Trump/his defenders' gripes about anonymous sources, given that they are harder to defend against and Trump can't just insult them or try to enjoin them, if Trump and his ilk didn't constantly use anonymous sources when it suited their (often ludicrous) narrative. Like the anonymous sources about Hillary's terminal illness, Obama's Kenyan birth, etc. Hell, Trump has retweeted anonymous-sourced reports from far less credible outlets than actual professional journalism organizations like NYT, WashPo, or CNN.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Yeah, a guy who gives actual wise advice based on human psychology, telling people to take responsibility for their own lives is clearly the inferior to the senile old man with a cushy professor job who thinks the country he's yet to leave is the root of all evil.

Lol a fake intellectual vs a real one. Of course you pick the fake

 

[Gutter Chris]

Lol a fake intellectual vs a real one. Of course you pick the fake

I pick both Chomsky and Peterson it shouldnt be some kinda team sport . I wouldnt call either a fake both are accredited and both are worth listening to weather you agree with them or not

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I pick both Chomsky and Peterson it shouldnt be some kinda team sport . I wouldnt call either a fake both are accredited and both are worth listening to weather you agree with them or not

One deserves the adulation he receives the other doesn’t.

 

[nostradumbass]

It's more like a vegan vegetarian. Libertarianism is socialist by implication (no state=no private property).

Nothing screams liberty quite like being minority partner in all your own financial decisions.

One deserves the adulation he receives the other doesn’t.

Or you could just listen to both instead of sitting around admiring a 90 year old man who made a career out complaining about a country he's voluntarily lived in for all 90 years. How many people has Noam Chomsky helped in any way?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nothing screams liberty quite like being minority partner in all your own financial decisions.

Non sequitur.

Even right-wing libertarians with some knowledge of the history of libertarian thought acknowledge at least that libertarianism started on the left. If you're ignorant enough about how the gov't works, you can sort of fit support for capitalism with libertarianism.

 

[nostradumbass]

Like the anonymous source that said he tried to fire Mueller - which was later verified on Fox News?

Or the anonymous source that said he wanted to fire Tillerson - which he did?

Or the anonymous source that said Kushner had contact with the Kremlin - which was later proven?

Or the anonymous source that said he referred to certain countries as "shit holes" - which was corroborated by the White House?

Or what about that lol-worthy time when he was the anonymous source he was deriding?



Honestly, I would be way more sympathetic to Trump/his defenders' gripes about anonymous sources, given that they are harder to defend against and Trump can't just insult them or try to enjoin them, if Trump and his ilk didn't constantly use anonymous sources when it suited their (often ludicrous) narrative. Like the anonymous sources about Hillary's terminal illness, Obama's Kenyan birth, etc. Hell, Trump has retweeted anonymous-sourced reports from far less credible outlets than actual professional journalism organizations like NYT, WashPo, or CNN.

There are several threads and headlines daily and you just named 4 things that came true in 16 months, and none of them have anything to do with policy. There were no anonymous sources for the other things, he fucking told you exactly where the information came from. Some of it wasn't credible, but under no circumstances was it "anonymous".

 

[nostradumbass]

If it's purely because of her appearance, then no.

If it's because she is a murder, then yes.

Try rubbing one out to this picture. If you can't complete, then you're probably okay.

Spoiler

Wanted to photoshop Casey Anthony's head on there and put, "wood", but I'm not good with photoshop, so can we just pretend I did that?

 

[AgonyandIrony]

I don't think that was true. They were also reporting Hillary's server bullshit as if it was on par with the Trump scandals.



In the context of what Chomsky is saying (Bernie didn't get the coverage he deserved) I don't think it makes any sense to include negative coverage of Hillary.

BTW, I personally think the way the media covered the election was disgraceful. But I don't think Bernie got shafted like he's claiming.

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.

This white privilege is sickening.

Chomsky outed as far-right.

Is this an attempt at humor?

 

[Trotsky]

There are several threads and headlines daily and you just named 4 things that came true in 16 months, and none of them have anything to do with policy. There were no anonymous sources for the other things, he fucking told you exactly where the information came from. Some of it wasn't credible, but under no circumstances was it "anonymous".

A lot of those shit sites cited to anonymous sources.