Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    ast election cycle, our political elites, oligarchs and the DNC decided another eight years of neoliberalism was just the medicine America needed, and they did everything in their power to ensure that it happened, regardless of what America really wanted.

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the elite oligarchs relied exclusively on the propaganda megaphones of the New York Times and the Huffington Post to broadcast her message. In fact, reporting on the 2016 election by the New York Times was so biased and deceitful that its owner issued subscribers a written apology promising change and an investigation.

    ELECTION 2016: A SURE THING OR WAS IT?

    Forecasters, pollsters and pundits, all “guaranteed” with a 99% probability that Hillary Clinton would be the victor in the US election, even though, a national poll reported only 6% of Americans viewed Hillary Clinton as honest and trustworthy.

    In spite of Hillary being in disrepute, America’s heavily biased media rallied around and parroted her highly negative, divisive and mean-spirited campaign “message”. Hillary’s message utilised a propaganda technique first championed by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi party’s head of enlightenment and propaganda—if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

    To be clear, Hillary Clinton and her cabal of complicit, corporate-owned, pay-to-play media spun a false narrative to misdirect and terrify voters, subliminally instilling a message of fear and hate. The indoctrination mantra crafted to deliver this payload of fear and hate went like this: Donald Trump is misogynistic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic and a serial liar. He’s the next Hitler and the most dangerous person to ever run for the presidency. And it didn’t stop there. By inference, all Trump voters, indeed all Republicans and Trump appointees, must share similar values.

    HILLARY CLINTON’S BASE

    Hillary supporters were composed of two main groups: the grassroots and her money base. The grassroots supporters were an entitled, indoctrinated and underemployed generation of precious snowflakes (aka millennial, social justice warriors) to whom Hillary’s campaign slanderously propagandized that Trump was Hitler and Putin’s puppet. The campaign went further and falsely claimed Trump had “declared a war on women”. Her money base consisted of pay-to-play financial elites, neoconservatives within the military industrial complex and left-leaning liberal consumers from New York and California. These liberal elites, sipping Dom Perignon in their hundred-million-dollar penthouses, sponsored “I’m with Her” fundraisers, while listening to Jay Z’s misogynistic rap and giggling with Hollywood A-listers.

    And all the while, Team Hillary (Robby Mook, John Podesta, Joel Benenson and Hillary Clinton) were tone-deaf to the economic plight of everyday America.

    DEATH OF *DEMOCRACY

    “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

    In a recent interview with the UK’s BBC, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai was asked “whether fake news might have swung enough votes toward Donald Trump to change the results”. His response: “Sure.” Pichai continued by saying that Google was taking steps to remove fake news sites and fake news stories. He added that, for the past year, Google has been looking at how to fact-check articles and work to promote “trusted journalism sources”.

    Pichai’s statements are enough to send chills down George Orwell’s spine given that the New York Times, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and NBC are not exactly pillars of journalistic integrity—in fact, they are sometimes worse than “fake news” websites. In addition to the more established media, along came Facebook, Twitter, and Google—companies that are already selling data to governments.

    Google and Facebook have been caught manipulating algorithms to make political candidates look more favourable. Twitter uses “shadow-blocking” and algorithm manipulation to “fix” which stories trend and which don’t. Frightened yet? You should be, because suppression of free speech is a fascist tactic. Should we worry? You bet. There are no checks and balances on Facebook, Twitter or Google.

    Additionally, Google and Facebook have recently admitted to arbitrarily manipulating news flows and have promised to “change” things. Matt Lieberman uncovered that Google was involved in actively altering search recommendations in favour of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    The media actually suppressed WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches. During these speeches, Hillary proved that her public and private positions were vastly different. When the DNC usurped democracy by disenfranchising Bernie Sanders, Clinton adopted Sanders’ populist messages stating, “I will fight hard to end the stranglehold that the wealthy and special interests have on so much of our government.” But if you read the speeches Hillary gave at Goldman Sachs, it is evident that the private Clinton is completely at odds with the public Clinton.

    What’s very scary about the situation our world finds itself in is how our political elites, in concert with their media propagandists, spin the idea that the public’s growing distrust is corrosive to government authority and democracy. This gives the elites the excuse to claim there is no other option but to censor the Internet—because if it’s not news for the elites, or news approved by the elites, it must be fake.

    GOOGLE ALPHABET’S PAY-TO-PLAY DC *CONNECTION

    Traditional media has ignored all conflicts, bias, or potential pay-to-play connections between Google/Alphabet and Hillary’s political campaign. During the past four years, Google/Alphabet employees visited the White House nearly once a week and spent more money lobbying in Washington than any other single company. In 2009, Jared Cohen, a Hillary Clinton staffer was hired by Google to head Google’s internal think tank. In 2015, Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired senior Google executive Stephanie Hannon as the presidential campaign’s chief technology officer. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, even started a company to manage Hillary Clinton’s digital campaign.

    In 2016, Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was appointed by Defense Secretary Ash Carter as chairman of the Pentagon advisory board.

    OBAMA & CLINTON ARE NOT LEADERS; THEY ARE POOR LOSERS

    In Germany, during President Barack Obama’s final European tour, instead of calling for unity and an end to the professionally organised, hate-filled, riotous protests against Trump’s election, Obama gave the protestors a green light by stating, “Don’t be silent.” The New York Times reported, “In Obama’s remarks to activists, Obama urged them to stop moping and ratchet up their opposition to Mr. Trump by Thanksgiving. He promised to join their cause soon after, telling them: ‘You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff to do’.”

    Hillary Clinton has not condemned these violent protests either. Even though before the election, Clinton said, “We’ve been around for 240 years. We have had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and anyone who doesn’t is an enemy of democracy.” Once again, liberals show that they believe in democracy as long as it goes their way.

    There is no calming voice of reason and as WikiLeaks points out, the violent protests have “mega-donor” George Soros’ fingerprints all over them—a fact that is not being reported in the media.

    FROM REPORTING NEWS TO EDITORIALISING

    Appearing on Stephen Colbert, just as Donald Trump won Florida and became a lock to win and become President-elect, Mark Halperin said, “Trump is on the doorstep of 270 electoral votes.” Colbert replied, “Wow, wow, that’s a horrifying prospect. I can’t put a happy face on that, and that’s my job.” Halperin said, “Outside of civil war, WWII, and including 911, Donald Trump being elected as President may be the most cataclysmic event this country has ever seen.” Mark Halperin is co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics and a senior political analyst for MSNBC and Bloomberg Television. MSNBC’s political commentator and host of The Rachel Maddow Show stated, “As Mr Trump edged towards victory, you are aware you are not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you are not dead, and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now; this is our election now; this is us; this is our country; this is real.” The left claim to be liberal and accepting—if you agree with them. Otherwise, liberals become a bunch of intolerant fascists.

    DEMOCRATIC *PROCESS HAS *SPOKEN

    In 2015, I told people Donald Trump would win this election. Well, he did. And now we need to come together and support our President-elect and the democratic process.

    Let’s look beyond the propaganda and be the progressive, tolerant, and inclusive country that we know as America—the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Our electoral process has spoken. It’s time for Americans to join together, to unify and rally behind President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  2. #2
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Here's the source, for those who are interested:

    http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/op...-and-democracy

  3. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Someguy, please be sure to include links to any quoted material, both because it is our rule and because it helps keep ODN out of trouble.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Here's the source, for those who are interested:

    http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/op...-and-democracy
    I tried to add that, for some reason, ODN wouldn't let me edit my post. Thanks, dio
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  6. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  7. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    I find this a very good example of the lack of professionalism in the field of journalism today. A lot of bombast with little substance.

    Someguy, why should anyone take this seriously--i.e. why should I trust that any of the claims the author makes throughout the piece are true?

  8. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    The left claim to be liberal and accepting—if you agree with them. Otherwise, liberals become a bunch of intolerant fascists.
    Only in america is stupidity not only considered a right but one that some americans want to push to an extreme. Being liberal and accepting does not mean that they need go along with every stupid idea that comes along. In some instance demonstrating distaste is the better part of valor.

  9. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    I find this a very good example of the lack of professionalism in the field of journalism today. A lot of bombast with little substance.

    Someguy, why should anyone take this seriously--i.e. why should I trust that any of the claims the author makes throughout the piece are true?
    And let's note that this is from the editorial page, not the news page. This is basically some guy telling us what he thinks as opposed to a piece of actual journalism. So I would say that if you already agree with this kind of mind-set, then you have more fodder for your bias. And if you don't agree with this kind of mind-set, then you can ignore it. Since the material did not originate from an ODN debater, the author won't be available to address any challenges that are presented.

    But I suppose we can debate any particular claim that we agree or disagree with.

  10. #8
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Yeah, this article - and articles like it - really highlights the reason ODN used to have a policy of only debate-forum posts appearing on the front page of the site. Anyone can post whatever mindless drivel they like, and they're not compelled by any particular rule to support, defend, or otherwise associate with, the very thing they thrust upon the front page.

    Why that policy changed, I'll never understand.

  11. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Feel free to challenge any part of this opinion piece. I tend to agree with the analysis for the most part.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  12. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Feel free to challenge any part of this opinion piece. I tend to agree with the analysis for the most part.
    I'll restate: Someguy, why should anyone take this seriously--i.e. why should I trust that any of the claims the author makes throughout the piece are true?

  13. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Feel free to challenge any part of this opinion piece. I tend to agree with the analysis for the most part.
    If you are forwarding that any of the editorial is factually correct, present that portion in a debate thread so debate rules apply if one challenges it.

  14. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    I'll restate: Someguy, why should anyone take this seriously--i.e. why should I trust that any of the claims the author makes throughout the piece are true?
    It's an opinion piece, it's one man's view on the state of liberalism, the election, the biased media etc. It being an opinion piece doesn't make it false, necessarily. I happen to agree with much of what is written. Are you declaring the whole bit false?

    ---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are forwarding that any of the editorial is factually correct, present that portion in a debate thread so debate rules apply if one challenges it.
    So you can do your typical challenge train ad nauseum and unilaterally declare victory on certain points without actually forwarding an argument? No thanks

    I prefer informal discussion
    Last edited by Someguy; December 5th, 2016 at 02:05 PM.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  15. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Gents if there is no healthy discussion coming from the thread I'm tempted to lock it down. Let's not have it turn personal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are forwarding that any of the editorial is factually correct, present that portion in a debate thread so debate rules apply if one challenges it.
    If you would like to have a discussion on any part of the article that you believe is factually incorrect, I would discuss those parts with you. I'm not going through the typical challenge trains though
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    If you would like to have a discussion on any part of the article that you believe is factually incorrect, I would discuss those parts with you.
    No thanks. I view the article as pretty much liberal-bashing without a whole lot of concern for accuracy or fairness - just get something "anti-liberal" out there and let the biased eat it up and make some money for publishing it.

    So I don't think the article itself is really worth taking seriously and examining. If one enjoys it for the sake of confirmation bias, then enjoy.

    Now, if you want to discuss certain topics the article raises, I'm willing to discuss certain issues with you. But as far as my comment regarding the article itself, I've made it. And since in this thread one doesn't really have to back up their claims (no "support" needed), I'll probably just leave it at that.

  18. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No thanks. I view the article as pretty much liberal-bashing without a whole lot of concern for accuracy or fairness - just get something "anti-liberal" out there and let the biased eat it up and make some money for publishing it.

    So I don't think the article itself is really worth taking seriously and examining. If one enjoys it for the sake of confirmation bias, then enjoy.

    Now, if you want to discuss certain topics the article raises, I'm willing to discuss certain issues with you. But as far as my comment regarding the article itself, I've made it. And since in this thread one doesn't really have to back up their claims (no "support" needed), I'll probably just leave it at that.
    That's fine. I view the article as an opinion piece that more or less accurately evaluates numerous aspects of liberalism. I'm willing to discuss those aspects specifically and in greater detail, if you wish otherwise, it can be left to stand as it is
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  19. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Obviously, I'm being critical of the article so I'll provide an example of the article's dishonesty (or inaccuracy or whatever).

    "Appearing on Stephen Colbert, just as Donald Trump won Florida and became a lock to win and become President-elect, Mark Halperin said, “Trump is on the doorstep of 270 electoral votes.” Colbert replied, “Wow, wow, that’s a horrifying prospect. I can’t put a happy face on that, and that’s my job.” Halperin said, “Outside of civil war, WWII, and including 911, Donald Trump being elected as President may be the most cataclysmic event this country has ever seen.” Mark Halperin is co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics and a senior political analyst for MSNBC and Bloomberg Television. MSNBC’s political commentator and host of The Rachel Maddow Show stated, “As Mr Trump edged towards victory, you are aware you are not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you are not dead, and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now; this is our election now; this is us; this is our country; this is real.” The left claim to be liberal and accepting—if you agree with them. Otherwise, liberals become a bunch of intolerant fascists."

    Now, I read the comments from Colbert and others as genuine dismay over the Trump election and I know from talking to other liberals that such a thing is genuine. So we have liberals basically saying "Oh no! Trump won! This is going to be bad."

    And the articles conclusion is: "The left claim to be liberal and accepting—if you agree with them. Otherwise, liberals become a bunch of intolerant fascists"

    That is not a reasonable conclusion to draw from what came before. None of the examples had these people smearing those who happened to disagree with them. So either the writer let his own bias lead him to such a conclusion or, more likely, he intentionally drew a false conclusion in order to smear liberals. I obviously can't read the author's mind but that criticism sounds genuniely dishonest to me.
    Last edited by mican333; December 5th, 2016 at 04:00 PM.

  20. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    I looked through for the first factual claims...

    "Forecasters, pollsters and pundits, all “guaranteed” with a 99% probability that Hillary Clinton would be the victor in the US election, even though, a national poll reported only 6% of Americans viewed Hillary Clinton as honest and trustworthy."

    #1 claim: Everyone said Hillary would win with 99% probability.
    538 is arguably the most influential of the prognosticators. You can see their predictions over time here http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/ At no time did they have Hillary up 99%. 87.5 was the peak, and at one point trump was as high as 50.1%. This statement is not fact, it is hyperbole.

    #2 claim: 6% of Americans view hillary as trustworthy
    This august Fox pll had her at 36% http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...ll-aug-3-2016/
    ThiNBC poll in october had trustworthy between 40 and 51% http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
    Basically this is a bald faced lie

    So when the first two factual claims are a gross exageration and aon out and out lie, he has no credability what so ever with me. The author is a bald faced busllshitter.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes CowboyX, mican333 liked this post
  22. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Neoliberalism: The Obama-Clinton war on liberty and democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    I tend to agree with the analysis for the most part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    I view the article as an opinion piece that more or less accurately evaluates numerous aspects of liberalism.
    Could you highlight the parts which you don't agree with or think less accurately evaluate liberalism? It would be helpful to know the extent to which you accept what the author wrote.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 61
    Last Post: January 9th, 2012, 05:37 AM
  2. Obama vs Clinton: Who's smarter?
    By Trendem in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 27th, 2008, 05:48 PM
  3. Clinton-Obama '08: Castro gives thumbs up.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 31st, 2007, 02:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •