Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Winning

Buying coke and then buying Pepsi doesn’t really say much about your world view on beverages. It only means you buy what the store has on offer. The store only selling two brands of cola by design, that is.
Yes indeed, write in candidacies have happened before. That’s about the only comparison I see between Alaska’s and Buffalo’s. Unless the Democratic Party donors of Alaska helped with Murkowski’s campaign, the Republican Party threatened to do away with the position or both right wing factions voted for Murkowski’s candidacy. Is that what your saying happenned?
I understand the concept of confusing the ideas of left vs. right. Both parties are bought and beholden to corporate dominance. Hard to see any left aside from self-identifying and lip service.

There was a thread awhile ago titled ‘what left?’ or something like it. The upshot for me was most used identity via voting to understand what left was.

I’d say simply that left is universal and horizontal in organization and philosophy.

Right is exclusive and vertical in organization. You could start there and broaden out to more specifics. Calling one brand of soda left and another right when they have the same characteristics and funding source is.. well.. something I suppose. Brand identity? Most definitely. Accurate it ain’t though.

Very interesting. I've always said both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega individual money donors etc. It seems you agree with that.

By the way, I've always preferred RC Cola until it became unavailable. RC Cola and a Moonppie.

I think you're correct in that as I put it, the rhetoric is completely opposite most of the time between the two major parties. But both govern basically the same. At times one or the other throws a tid bit to the people. I've never got upset or riled by whoever won an election. You're just getting a Coke or a Pepsi.

I've always be amazed at the amount of people who think there's really a huge difference between the two major parties. But I suppose that's because they became a fan of the rhetoric and failed to watch how each governs. Each governs to please their donors as that is where they get their tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to run their campaigns and organizations. They're not about to bite the hand that feeds them. If either talks about about these moneyed elites, it's done with a wink and a nudge. Don't worry, I'm going to talk about about you, but I'll take care of all your wants. You can bet on that. Both use hot button issues which effect very little of us as a whole to get folks riled up and to prove the huge difference, then turn to governing basically the same as the other.

I remember Hunter Thompson’s last book of political journalism. Titled ‘Kingdom of Fear’. I’ve taken it out once in a while and find it more impressive for his ability to see where the country was heading long before we got here.
One of the biggest ingredients the Dem faction has used is fear. I guess you could make the case of this tactic going all the way back to Trueman and his decision to stampede Americans against communism to placate the war industries.
If either political faction doesn’t have an authentic threat they will make them.

Our politics of right wing extremism has created a landscape of suburban hysterics from the use of Putin, Defund the Police, CRT, gay marriage and on and on.

S’funny how that Russia gate thread dried up. Even funnier now that it’s leading back to HRC’s camp, The Brookings institute, the FBI, etc..

But the fear worked.

Here’s a fascinating interview with Ray McGovern on this topic:

‘ Many of the people most taken in by Russiagate were highly educated. I’m talking about lawyers. San Francisco criminal attorney; Wisconsin attorney, who is head at the University of Wisconsin. Very educated people. How can they believe this? John Pilger said the key is the word education, James. It’s easier to propagandize the educated.’





The guy that got Russiagate right’

Good stuff from a retired intelligence vet.

People believe what they want to believe. If it is lies and that what they want to beleive they'll believe it.

I like this guy Ray McGovern, he pretty much confirms what I knew and what I suspected without any proof.

Hunter Thompson - interesting. I keep seeing a documentary, something about his time as a sheriff. I have always wondered if I should get it or not. Got any thoughts on that one?

True up to a point. The point being the vast amounts of money that get poured into propaganda, be it media advertising, political advertising, cointel at home or abroad, etc, etc,

If people ‘believe what they want to believe’ wouldn’t that imply a lot of time, money and effort being wasted every year trying to affect people’s purchase decisions, political ideology, etc?

It would also be a bad defense for committing criminal fraud, I suspect.

I don’t know if it’s sad or funny but there’s gunna be millions of people who will go to their graves thinking Russia hacked our 2016 election in order to get Trump elected.

All that to misdirect away from a Wikileaks drop. It’s amazing what you can fall down when you stray from material politics.

Haven’t seen it, JGW, only read about it and some interviews of Thompson talking about it. I’ll have to look for the documentary now.. thanks!

Oh yeah.. I don’t think he was Sheriff, only that he ran for sheriff on the freak ticket. He sure sounded like he upended political framing in that race.

Here is a link..........

If the lies fit one's pre-conceived notions, if that's what they really want to believe, folks will believe it. I wonder if the Russia thing wasn't aimed at the Democratic base more than anyone else. If it was aimed at independents, it didn't work, Trump won them anyway and thus the White House.

Perhaps the millions spent on this was wasted. Independents aren't political junkies and a lot of them base their vote on who or which candidate they like the best or dislike the worst. 2016 that candidate was Hillary Clinton whom independents disliked the worst, Trump was really disliked worse in 2020. Looking at just how independents view the candidate, the percentage of like and dislike, usually comes within a few points of how they vote for that candidate. The question I follow is "Whether you agree or disagree with (Name) policies, do you like or dislike (name) as a person.

2016 that got messed up a bit, mainly because 54% of independents disliked both Trump and Clinton as a person. But in the end 27% liked Hillary as a person, 33% Trump. Trump won independents by 4 points 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. The 6 point difference ended up being 4 points in favor of Trump. But a lot of independents voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not win with the rest voting third party.

What I found interesting, being a numbers guy is 12% of independents voted third party in the presidential, 46-42-12 in 2016, but only 4% in the congressional elections. 51-47-4 in favor of the Republicans.

Heh! Exactly. All the propaganda arms do is reinforce those preconceived notions. Exaggerate them and broadcast them to the gullible masses.

The gullible masses of BOTH parties!