• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greenwald and Taibbi are always getting shots for having changed and falling in with one team or another, betraying their past allies. But they're arguably two of the most consistent writers. Greenwald has always been significantly to the "left" of the Democratic Party. It's why the Journolist and young adult website Vox have never felt comfortable with either of them or Mickey Kaus or anyone who writes for Jacobin. I think it was Joe Klein who was whining to the Journolist about Greenwald's insistence on maintaining his ideological principles over the best interests of the Democratic Party. (IIRC, demanding a public option vs. Obamacare.)
The idea that Greenwald being contemptuous of mainstream Democrats is a new development is mind boggling to me. Especially when the evidence of the depths of his hatred is that he linked a video of Elizabeth Warren making Hillary look bad and he has an issue with the term Bernie bro. It's like you haven't read anything he's written before.
 
you have some amazing sex fantasies dont ya ;)

83082_wink-jujubee-rupauls-drag-u.gif


I always watch MSNBC. I need Chris Matthews sweet, soothing voice to get me through. I need Rachel's...Rachelness to get me through.

I'll flip to Fox if things are going the way I want them too. I love their meltdowns. Their tears are delicious to me.
 

Chichikov

Member
Anyway, the reason I'm actually posting is where do I go to the find the start of this whole discussion about destroying capitalism and the nexus of capital herself Hillary Clinton in order to end scarcity and bring about economic democracy whatever the fuck that means. I was told I'd find it very convincing and eye opening.
I'm right here, yo.
Don't need to destroy Hilary though, post-scarcity is coming one or another, and it ain't coming from politicians; you'll even be able to get your shitty anarchism there is you want.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The idea that Greenwald being contemptuous of mainstream Democrats is a new development is mind boggling to me. Especially when the evidence of the depths of his hatred is that he linked a video of Elizabeth Warren making Hillary look bad and he has an issue with the term Bernie bro. It's like you haven't read anything he's written before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpFOh-FZcpc
Glenn Greenwald said:
The idea of working to reform the Democratic Party by electing better Democrats or more progressive Democrats is something that I thought was a viable course of action even as recently as a few years ago is something that I have completely rejected.

And I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside that system to undermine and subvert it and weaken it and destroy it and not try to work within it to change it.

There have been lots of people who have made radical critiques of the government like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and others who have said that as horrible as the Democrats [are] the fact that they’re even a little better than the Republicans means that it is important that they win because with an entity as powerful as the U.S. government even small differences can make meaningful differences in the lives of millions of people.

And that to me was an argument that was persuasive for a while. (But) what I have actually concluded is that even if there are short term benefits to electing Democrats instead of Republican-you get Sonia Sotomayor instead of Antonin Scalia that’s a benefit that will sway cases in better directions-there’s also extreme costs to pledging your fealty to a political party.

Knowing as party leaders do that many people on the left are convinced by this reasoning they can continue to ignore people on the left, because they know that at the end of the day they’ll scare enough of them with scary images of Michelle Bachman or Newt Gingrich so that they’ll continue (their) support even though they’re ignored and get nothing and they’ll get nothing and be ignored forever, and that’s a huge cost.

Another huge cost is the opportunity cost of doing activism for a political party which doesn’t care at all about you instead of using your money and time on more meaningful changes. And so that is the ultimate formula which needs to be evaluated, the ultimate weighing of costs and benefits which needs to be assessed, not just that there are some benefits to Democrats therefore let’s vote for them. But what are the costs from continuing to support and prop up this party and having them know that they can take the support for granted and putting our time and energy into that rather than into something more significant that can achieve something more enduring and more fundamental and longer lasting benefits.

That’s the calculus which has swayed me away from that view.

https://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/03/does-us-use-terroris/
If all you ever do is complain about how horrible and abysmal the Democrats are, but at the end of the day, right before the election happens, you say, you know what, as much as I loathe you, and as disappointing as you’ve been, and as horrible as the things you have done, I’m going to give you my support because you’ve scared me that the other alternative is just a little bit worse … and therefore since I’ll never vote Republican, you have my unconditional undying support no matter how much how stmp on my values, no matter how horrible the things that you do … what you’re doing is you're guaranteeing that you’ll always be ignored.


And that’s the position that so many liberals and progressives have been in. Which is, you know, really finding Democratic policies to be repellent and yet at the same time, at the end of the day saying, well you’ve convinced me that they’re just a tiny, little bit worse. And the only way to break that is to say well, even though I know that by abstaining or supporting a third party, I’m going to be sacrificing some of my short term political interests; I’m going to be causing a few more Republicans to be elected than otherwise might be elected; on balance, I’m willing to sacrifice my short term interests in order to do something to subvert the stranglehold that these two parties have on the political process because electing more Democrats, even though it’s a little less scary, accomplishes nothing good. And everyone’s going to have to decide for themselves when they get to that point, and I think and hope that that point is pretty close. And if Obama does move to the center as the consensus is telling him that he should and starts doing things like cutting Social Security, which they’re revving up to do if they can get consensus on, in a very short period of time, I think you’re gonna see lots and lots of progressives and Democrats – even people who hated the Naderites for abandoning the party, start to entertain those options, and a lot sooner rather than later. And I hope that’s the case.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm right here, yo.
Don't need to destroy Hilary though, post-scarcity is coming one or another, and it ain't coming from politicians; you'll even be able to get your shitty anarchism there is you want.
You're not disastermouse, you still suffer from false consciousness.
 
Greenwald has been beating that drum for years. Honestly while I find some of his antics to be asinine I don't really blame him for being upset. I'd be upset too if my friends were being jailed or killed due to an out of control foreign policy that doesn't really change much regardless of which party is in charge. He's talking life and death, which separates him from the petty antics of most domestic bloggers/journalists.

His disdain for corporate beltway journalism seems to mirror the views of many people here, too.
 
Apparently Trump's campaign staff has admitted that it doesn't have much of a get out the vote ground game in Iowa but believes that the natural enthusiasm for him among voters will win him the primary. I'm starting to think Cruz will take first. i imagine a lot of Trump supporters are unlikely voters who maybe don't even caucus or haven't in the past.

Good, so long as Trump decisively wins New Hampshire and South Carolina l. I hope Cruz stays competitive for a long time.
 
Usually those types of shows get an hour, not three

I actually think he gets decent ratings among the old folks in the morning. I could be wrong, though. I'm usually not up early enough to watch it, except I never went to sleep last night. Been thinkig about the caucus all day (and how I have to spend 2 hours this morning letting IT people take over my computer so I can telecommute...)
 

benjipwns

Banned
Morning Joe is the third place rated morning program of the three 24/7 news (FOX/CNN/MSNBC) but it apparently has the highest viewership among politicos and is the most liked weekday morning show by politicians and politicos to appear on.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It averages 79,000 viewers 25-54. Fox and Friends gets double that. Morning Express With Robin Meade on HLN is actually the second highest rated. So that'd make Morning Joe third or fourth depending on CNN's rotating garbage of bad choices at morning programming.
 

CCS

Banned
While I disagree with Fox more, I think I find certain MSNBC presenters (Joe especially) to be considerably more infuriating.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I always watch MSNBC. I need Chris Matthews sweet, soothing voice to get me through.
My husband has a habit of signing songs while imitating Chris Matthews' unique voice/cadence. A few weeks ago, I awoke to the sound of him in the kitchen, imitating Matthews singing "Blame It On the Rain." Before that, it was a Black-Eyed Peas song about lady lumps(?).

His voice is something else. And his old movie references can be hysterical.

Edit:
My Election Day wake-up music for this morning? The same as it's been for about 15 years:
ELO's Mr Blue Sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjPqsDU0j2I
(Emphasis on Blue)
 
It averages 79,000 viewers 25-54. Fox and Friends gets double that. Morning Express With Robin Meade on HLN is actually the second highest rated. So that'd make Morning Joe third or fourth depending on CNN's rotating garbage of bad choices at morning programming.

I don't get it, the ratings are garbage, yet you give three hours to a guy who actively drives away the people who watch that channel
 
My husband has a habit of signing songs while imitating Chris Matthews' unique voice/cadence. A few weeks ago, I awoke to the sound of him in the kitchen, imitating Matthews singing "Blame It On the Rain." Before that, it was a Black-Eyed Peas song about lady lumps(?).

His voice is something else. And his old movie references can be hysterical.

He gets this weird little bit of spittle on his face when he's REALLY going at it. It's impossible not to notice once you see it. The dude can get on my nerves, but he's just so damn....I don't know what. He seems like a guy I'd lvoe to have a beer with and get into an argument over some obscure policy from the 1960s.

That's why you hit your head on the desk and he quickly resigns.

Hahahaha. That made me spit my hot chocolate.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Morning Joe is truly the dregs of the political newswire. I mean it's basically a TV version of Politico except the content is curated by Mika Boobzenski, When I Was a Congressman That One Time, and Uncomfortable Looking (and I guess they have the other guy who is named Barnacle that actually looks like a Barnacle). They have guests on who basically have spent the last two cycles destroying all of their credibility and becoming tabloid journalists like Mark Halperin and John Heilemanm.

MSNBC used to run ads on the PATH train for Rachel Maddow. I guess they got tired of trying to prop up Weekend at Rachel's so now they are advertising Morning Joe and have been for about six months or so. The "quotes" from the "media" about how wonderful Morning Joe is all come from Politico. LOL.

Edit: Also Joe hates the Clintons so much.
 
I kinda like Willie Geist, but only on the 3rd hour of Today when he's there with Tamron Hall.

Actually, I think I just like Tamron, and everyone is more acceptable because she's there. I have a girl crush on her.
 

kingkitty

Member
i love morning joe

i love willie geist

i love the old guy who talks about baseball

luckily for all of us, the show will soon be four hours long, instead of three
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I still think Trump has the potential to do worse than Cruz in the general.

I really disagree.

GOP establishment will eventually line up behind Trump. With so many people hating Cruz inside Washington, I honestly believe he wouldn't get much support from the party.

I think Trump can win a general election. I don't see how Cruz can. Trump can come back to the center during a GE. It will be extremely difficult for Cruz to do so because none of his policies remotely come close to moderate.
 
Morning Joe is truly the dregs of the political newswire. I mean it's basically a TV version of Politico except the content is curated by Mika Boobzenski,
I would have gone with brzerzezinski, so you get to goof on her name with the added benefit of plausible deniability. You on the other hand threw subtlety to the winds
 

Maledict

Member
Reading Politico's 'insiders view on Iowa' and one thing struck me.

The republicans really are screwed. It's not just their base which is devouring itself, but even their operatives and higher level folk have become so trapped in the fox news bubble they don't under stand what the rest of the country or world thinks.

One New Hampshire Republican cited the disclosure on Friday that the State Department won’t release 22 email messages on Clinton’s home-brew server in picking Sanders as the likely winner.
“Big Mo [is] going his way,” the Republican said, “and Hillary’s email issues are now firmly bipartisan.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-clinton-will-carry-iowa-218492#ixzz3yv8Lufly

It's exactly the same as Benghazi in 2012. The party has become so rapidly, instinctively against the other party that it makes governing impossible and compromise abhorant. I'm not sure what could possibly shock them out of this, but it does fill you with despair.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Reading Politico's 'insiders view on Iowa' and one thing struck me.

The republicans really are screwed. It's not just their base which is devouring itself, but even their operatives and higher level folk have become so trapped in the fox news bubble they don't under stand what the rest of the country or world thinks.



It's exactly the same as Benghazi in 2012. The party has become so rapidly, instinctively against the other party that it makes governing impossible and compromise abhorant. I'm not sure what could possibly shock them out of this, but it does fill you with despair.

Agreed. I'm sick of this country's politics because of it. I at least see democrats somewhat willing to work with republicans. I almost never see or hear that in reverse. We're totally screwed if republicans ever get complete control again. Look at states like Kansas, Michigan, etc. Nightmare.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Now that I think about it, I could see Christie being a Trump VP. He's loud, brash, and from the NY/NJ area, which I think Trump likes.
 
Now that I think about it, I could see Christie being a Trump VP. He's loud, brash, and from the NY/NJ area, which I think Trump likes.

Has Trump ever gone after Christie? I can't recall, but there's just been so damn many...

Ya'll making me glad I'm laying here listening to Panic at the Disco and watching HIllary townhalls.
 

CCS

Banned
Has Donald "Nobody builds walls better than me" Trump ever gone after Christie? I can't recall, but there's just been so damn many...

Ya'll making me glad I'm laying here listening to Panic at the Disco and watching HIllary townhalls.

My man.

It's really hard to predict who Trump might go for as his VP, just because of how against the rulebook his entire campaign has been so far. He might go for a sensible pick, or he might go for his daughter or something. Who knows? Certainly not me.
 

danm999

Member
Has Trump ever gone after Christie? I can't recall, but there's just been so damn many...

I've seen him talk about Bridgegate and say that if you truly believe that Christie had no idea what his aides were doing that day he has a bridge
gate
to sell you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom