maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
The target isn't Max. It is the middle crowd. The crowd they convinced that the ACA was evil and gave them an absurd landslide victory in the 2010 midterms. They failed in making an argument to those people that Clinton failed the nation.No, they did not fail in the eyes of their targeted audience.This is about 2016, and they failed to accomplish what they did with the ACA.Just look at maxie's response above yours. These asswipes are not targeting the undecided or democrats - they are playing to their base of tea parties, John Birchers, misogynists, right wing conservatives and the generally bat shit insane.
And it seems that both of you totally missed the point of my response. I said nothing about "an argument", I made fun of the entire concept of journalists and political junkies turning all public issues into a sport of "who wins" and of arbitrary scoring of 'the game' by the MSM. The thread OP is an unabashed celebration of "horse race politics"; where the only interest is not in an issue or truth, but in cheer-leading who shows the most talent at political dissembling and manipulation. Were American journalists actual historians, they would lead their "analysis" of the rise of Soviet communism with the title "Stalin Wins".
There seems to be little concern with truth or reality, but a love of expressing adulation for the acumen of its participants in dealing with the issue...almost as if they think that it is truth itself. It seems that truth, accuracy, and context are beside the point because those are just another way of doing politics; just as lies, distortions, and out of context analysis is an equally valid alternative to doing politics.
So the MSM declared Hillary the debate winner because, contrary to viewers impression that Bernie won, she was the most adept at doing politics. And then the MSM made the truth for the vast majority who did not see or hear the debates, or know the issues. In fact, the journalist observer is just playing politics too.
If Hillary "won" it is in not spilling the beans, in not losing her temper (such as "what does it matter") and waxing on about her innocent humanity; much like the fictional Don Corleone did (although he did one better by getting a witness to recant).
But it's not like we have not heard this on screen:
Michael Corleone: In the hopes of clearing my family name, and in the sincere desire to give my children the fair share of the American way of life, without a blemish on their name and background, I have appeared before this committee and given it all the cooperation in my power. I consider it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal. I wish to have the following noted for the record: that I served my country faithfully and honorably in World War II and was awarded the Navy Cross for actions in defense of my country; that I have never been arrested or indicted for any crime whatsoever; that no proof linking me to any criminal conspiracy whether it is called "Mafia" or "Cosa Nostra" or whatever other name you wish to give has ever been made public. I have not taken refuge behind the 5th amendment, though it is my right to do. I challenge this committee to produce any witness or evidence against me. And if they do not, I hope they will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which they now have besmirched it.
I'm sure Hillary has seen it, don't-cha think?