The Intercept: Harvey Weinstein Urged Clinton Campaign To Silence Sanders's Black Lives Matter Message
"Hacked emails show that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a longtime ally of Hillary Clinton and a major fundraiser for her 2016 campaign, urged her campaign team to silence rival Bernie Sanders's message against police shootings of African Americans..."
Trump supporters are frantically trying to divert attention from the most pathetic and worst president in American history.
No doubt that if Trump starts a nuclear war with North Korea or Iran, NDPP and his fellow Russian Politburo posters will say it would have been so much worse if Clinton had done it.
JKR and Jerrym: This is so tired. I usually just skip your posts now. "Russian Politburo posters" and the Intercept are trump supporters. If this is what you think I'm not surprised you don't say anything substantial and stick to sniping from the sidelines.
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common people. No claim of anything 'Russian' can change these facts."
'Russia Interfered' - by Purchasing Anti-Trump Ads?
JKR and Jerrym: This is so tired. I usually just skip your posts now. "Russian Politburo posters" and the Intercept are trump supporters. If this is what you think I'm not surprised you don't say anything substantial and stick to sniping from the sidelines.
You think the obsession by some with Clinton is still "substantial" one year after she lost the election? Is Hillary "Emmanuel Goldstein" Clinton plotting yet another coup attempt?
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common people. No claim of anything 'Russian' can change these facts."
'Russia Interfered' - by Purchasing Anti-Trump Ads?
Not the issue. Although I'm sure it's the sole one Russia and its defenders want to be.
From article posted by NDPP:
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable..."
Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, of the three times that the popular vote leader had lost the US presidential election, she had the largest margin in her favour.
So you can lots of things, but you can't say people didn't want her to be president.
From article posted by NDPP:
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable..."
Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, of the three times that the popular vote leader had lost the US presidential election, she had the largest margin in her favour.
So you can lots of things, but you can't say people didn't want her to be president.
Agreed. Three million more people voted for her than Trump and if it wasn't for the intervention by the FBI one week before the election, many millions more would have voted for her. It would have been a huge landslide in her favour if the FBI had been neutral during the last two weeks of the election.
From article posted by NDPP:
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable..."
Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, of the three times that the popular vote leader had lost the US presidential election, she had the largest margin in her favour.
So you can lots of things, but you can't say people didn't want her to be president.
Agreed. Three million more people voted for her than Trump and if it wasn't for the intervention by the FBI one week before the election, many millions more would have voted for her. It would have been a huge landslide in her favour if the FBI had been neutral during the last two weeks of the election.
Just about any other Democrat would have won. To lose Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump, states that hadn't gone Republican since 1988, you had to be, by definition, a bad candidate.
From article posted by NDPP:
"Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable..."
Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, of the three times that the popular vote leader had lost the US presidential election, she had the largest margin in her favour.
So you can lots of things, but you can't say people didn't want her to be president.
Agreed. Three million more people voted for her than Trump and if it wasn't for the intervention by the FBI one week before the election, many millions more would have voted for her. It would have been a huge landslide in her favour if the FBI had been neutral during the last two weeks of the election.
Just about any other Democrat would have won. To lose Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump, states that hadn't gone Republican since 1988, you had to be, by definition, a bad candidate.
I agree that Clinton was a flawed candidate but I also think any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is thought to be under criminal investigation by the FBI would likely lose. I think even very popular candidates like Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan would have been in deep trouble if there had been an FBI investigation against them just before their elections. I think H.W.B., Bill Clinton, G.W.B and Obama would have lost if they had been under an FBI investigation.
I think Hillary would have handily won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, if Comey/FBI had not interfered in the election.
I don't agree. Polling, such as it was, showed those states not out of reach for Trump even before then, with a decent number of undecided. The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.
From Josh:
The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.
I don't really like harping on this, but Clinton won the popular vote. More people wanted her as president than wanted Trump, by quite a large margin. It wasn't her 'unelectability' that was responsible for her loss.
It was the Electoral College system in which states award Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis. There's no law that says they have to do that, and in fact some states don't. Individual states are allowed to decide which way they will award the Electoral College votes.
The reason Hilary Clinton lost the election had more to do with that quirk in the system than anything else.
JKR: There's no obsession on anyone's part here. She's a topic of conversation still because she is still in the political arena. She also has a huge warchest in her foundation, and will be active in the upcoming years. I'm not sure why other people talking about her, instead of the Donald, bothers you so much. It's not a zero sum game. There's enough contempt to go around.
Rev: Why do you see this as significant? The campaign strategies of both Clinton and Trump were shaped with the Electoral college rules in mind. The tradition that the winner takes all the EC votes from a state is well established, has there been a state that didn't award all its votes to the winner in modern times? (genuine question, I don't know)
Had the EC system not existed, and it was merely total votes that decided the presidency, they both would have campaigned much differently, and in different parts of the country, and its not at all obvious to me the vote totals would be the same.
To me it is more significant that 50% of Americans saw fit to not vote. More Americans preferred Hillary to Donald, yes, but the majority disapproved of both. One could say 75% of Americans didn't want Hillary as president (or don't care who is president). And 75% don't want Donald.
Also not obvious to me that there is any one reason she lost the election, but the (justified) apathy and contempt many Americans have for their political process has to be one of the biggest.
From Josh:
The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.
I don't really like harping on this, but Clinton won the popular vote. More people wanted her as president than wanted Trump, by quite a large margin. It wasn't her 'unelectability' that was responsible for her loss.
It was the Electoral College system in which states award Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis. There's no law that says they have to do that, and in fact some states don't. Individual states are allowed to decide which way they will award the Electoral College votes.
The reason Hilary Clinton lost the election had more to do with that quirk in the system than anything else.
And if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bus.
Those are the rules. She lost 3 states that had gone to the Democrat in the previous 6 presidential elections. That's on her.
[quote]The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.[/quote]
What do you mean by "... or wrongly"?
And didn't the most disruptive part of that investigation actually happen in the last weeks of the campaign? Because someone found some crap from Anthony Wiener just in time for a last-minute taint?
Let her run in Canada fell the disappointment of be winner the popular vote but losing total power to party thats majority in the house. Do expect any violens playing sad medolites because we get FPTP system here. We have crazy stuff like a party gets 38% of the vote and gets full power. Been there done that.
From josh:
And if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bus.
Those are the rules. She lost 3 states that had gone to the Democrat in the previous 6 presidential elections. That's on her.
And I've never said those weren't the rules. However, if I remember correctly, none of the remarks addressed to Hilary Clinton (unelectable, 'it's down to her', etc) were addressed to Al Gore when he lost in 2000, yet he had only 1/6th the margin of popular vote Clinton had.
Now why do you suppose that is?
The tradition that the winner takes all the EC votes from a state is well established, has there been a state that didn't award all its votes to the winner in modern times? (genuine question, I don't know)
There've been two (not counting faithless electors). For many years, Maine and Nebraska were the asterisks next to the winner-take-all EC system, awarding the two votes representing each state's senators to the overall state winner, and the remaining votes representing members of the House to the winner of each congressional district. This was almost never actually the case until Obama won Omaha's district in 2008, leading the Nebraska legislature to swiftly change the rules to winner-take-all, and leaving Maine as the only state with a provision to divide its electoral votes. That happened last November, with Trump taking one electoral vote and Clinton taking the other three.
Thanks cco!
There is also a clever effort to effectively abolish the E.C. without a constitutional amendment. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The idea is that a state pledges its electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. So far, states representing 30.7% of the E.C. have passed the enabling legislation, and another 18% have such legislation pending. If and when the total reaches 50% of the E.C. plus 1, these laws will all come into effect, and the E.C. will become irrelevant.
From josh:
And if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bus.
Those are the rules. She lost 3 states that had gone to the Democrat in the previous 6 presidential elections. That's on her.
And I've never said those weren't the rules. However, if I remember correctly, none of the remarks addressed to Hilary Clinton (unelectable, 'it's down to her', etc) were addressed to Al Gore when he lost in 2000, yet he had only 1/6th the margin of popular vote Clinton had.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Because he didn't have her baggage. He had her husband's.
The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.[/quote]What do you mean by "... or wrongly"?
And didn't the most disruptive part of that investigation actually happen in the last weeks of the campaign? Because someone found some crap from Anthony Wiener just in time for a last-minute taint?
Rightly or wrongly under investigation.
From josh:
Because he didn't have her baggage. He had her husband's.
For those who haven't read up to this point, josh is referring to Al Gore having Bill Clinton's baggage, while Hilary only had her own baggage (going into the election).
Of course Hilary also had Bill's baggage, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Al Gore had a much smaller margin in the popular vote, but no one blamed him for the election outcome.
From josh:
Because he didn't have her baggage. He had her husband's.
For those who haven't read up to this point, josh is referring to Al Gore having Bill Clinton's baggage, while Hilary only had her own baggage (going into the election).
Of course Hilary also had Bill's baggage, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Al Gore had a much smaller margin in the popular vote, but no one blamed him for the election outcome.
Sure they did. A lot of people couldn't understand how he managed not to win with a great economy,, and said so. He was called stiff and boring.
As I recall it, most Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in 2000.
And a lot blame Jill Stein this time around.
JKR: There's no obsession on anyone's part here. She's a topic of conversation still because she is still in the political arena. She also has a huge warchest in her foundation, and will be active in the upcoming years. I'm not sure why other people talking about her, instead of the Donald, bothers you so much. It's not a zero sum game. There's enough contempt to go around.
I hope she does continue to support many important issues such as improving public healthcare, protecting the environment, increasing taxes on the wealthy, growing economic opportunity for everyone, increasing access to education, reducing sexism, reducing racism, and reducing homophobia. I also hope she continues to advocate for the people of Puerto Rico against the Trump Administration's pathetic response to the devastation there. I think it would be great if she could help America during these dark times of the Trump presidency. Luckily people like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren will be working together to help Americans regroup from this downturn in American history.
Trump supporters are frantically trying to divert attention from the most pathetic and worst president in American history.
Laughable. Similar in depth to the "Saddam-lover" smear for opposing the Iraq war at the time.
The main source of "divert[ing] attention from" the vile Trump winning (in reality, the crown for the lesser-despised-candidate-at that-time, gerrymandering aside) is Clinton herself and the corrupt DNC.
She may not have won but she still makes a big news splash for her current continent-wide popular finger-pointing book tour which lets both herself and the DNC off the hook for the loss, thus preparing the way for a repeat loss should we make it to another election.
You will find few Trump promoters here. To see the most important scheming promoters of Trump before the election you need look no further than Clinton/DNC camapaign which plotted to "elevate" Trump in the media as a credible candidate (someone so vile that the unpopular Hillary might beat):
They Always Wanted Trump
Inside Team Clinton’s year-long struggle to find a strategy against the opponent they were most eager to face.
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI November 07, 2016
....
So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo:
“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-dona...
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
An email released by WikiLeaks shows how the Democratic Party purposefully “elevated” Trump to “leader of the pack”
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentiona...
If Sanders had not been scuttled by the DNC's documented collusion with the Clinton campaign we would very likely not have Trump now according to most polls.
The chances of a reformed DNC, one not beholden to lobbyists and managed by Superdeleagates, remains practicaly zero.
As disgraced DNC plotter Debbie Wasserman Shultz, (who was immediately, after her resignation, was appointed by Clinton as campaign chair put it:
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”
This sentiment is in line with what DNC Attorneys argued in a federal court earlier this year that the Democratic Party is well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.”
The DNC’s Superdelegate Problem
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/28/the-dncs-superdelegate-problem/
People did not abandon the shrinking Democratic Party because they love Trump:
10 reasons why #DemExit is serious: Getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not enough
The DNC canned its chair, but it has done little to address the grave concerns raised by its membersby Sophia A. McClennen
07.29.20161. Superdelegates...
2. The Debate Schedule...
3. Campaign finance...
4. Refusal to Address Claims of Election Fraud...
5. The Democratic Party Platform...
6. Documented Attempts to Discredit / Dismiss Sanders...
7. DNC Collusion with Media...
8. False Claims of Neutrality...
9. Failure to Protect Donor Information...
10. The DNC Has Not Taken the Leaks Seriously....
See article here:
https://www.salon.com/2016/07/29/10_reasons_why_demexit_is_serious_getti...
Of course none of this appears in Clinton's self-serving book's long list of reasons for losing, none of which includes herself (though she does regret not attacking Sanders more).
======
As an aside, the most amusing part of Hillary's book (besides comparing herself to an abused Cercei Lannister from the Game of Thrones) is her Orwellian interpretation of Orwell's 1984:
“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.”
HILLARY CLINTON THINKS ORWELL’S 1984 WAS ABOUT THE NEED TO TRUST AUTHORITY:
https://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-thinks-orwells-1984-was-about-t...
From josh:
He was called stiff and boring.
He wasn't called 'unelectable'.
Frankly, contrarianna, anyone who posts a rant by Paul Joseph Watson as reasonable argument is beyond the pale. Having watched a few of his screeds I can say that there is literally nothing there. I think he just likes hearing the sound of his own voice.
However, it's not necessary to believe me. Anyone can search YouTube for Paul Joseph Watson and see (hear) what I'm talking about.
Frankly, contrarianna, anyone who posts a rant by Paul Joseph Watson as reasonable argument is beyond the pale. Having watched a few of his screeds I can say that there is literally nothing there. I think he just likes hearing the sound of his own voice.
However, it's not necessary to believe me. Anyone can search YouTube for Paul Joseph Watson and see (hear) what I'm talking about.
I trust your word at face value that Paul Joseph Watson is dismal since I havn't heard of him before.
I chose it for the headline which accurately reproduces the Clinton interpretation from the exact quote from her book.
If you want a source more acceptable to you, search in brackets in Google for:
"exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves."
If you choose to dismiss my post on my source selection, or because you find Clinton's interpretation of 1984 other than appalling, be my guest.
Clinton Encouraged Trump To Run For President
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Clinton-Encouraged-Trump-to-R...
"Bill Clinton encouraged Donald Trump to run for President during a phone call before he decided to run for president. Steve Handelsman reports..."
WaPo Editor Marty Baron: Media Not 'Cozy' With Obama
From contrarianna:
I trust your word at face value that Paul Joseph Watson is dismal since I havn't heard of him before.
I chose it for the headline which accurately reproduces the Clinton interpretation from the exact quote from her book.
You certainly don't have to trust my take on Paul Joseph Watson. As in my post above, I encourage you, and any other interested parties to search him out on YouTube, and see how much you can take.
Are you telling me (via the second part of the quote above) that you didn't actually listen to the PJW rant before you posted it to this thread?
Fruther from contrarianna:
If you want a source more acceptable to you, search in brackets in Google for:
"exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves."
If you choose to dismiss my post on my source selection, or because you find Clinton's interpretation of 1984 other than appalling, be my guest.
Well, we don't need Paul Joseph Watson, because we have George Orwell himself. He wrote an essay called "Why I Write" in which he said:
The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
Now, I don't see anything in what Clinton says that makes a mockery of someone writing in favour of democratic socialism. We should be able to rely on our elected leaders, we should be able to rely on a free press, we should be able to rely on evidence based opinion. If we can't, then where are we?
In fact we are then exactly where we are right now, where, as has been pointed out in another thread, there is no agreement on what reality is.
Speaking of George Orwell and 1984, Hillary Clinton is a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein. The huge crowds of people screaming "lock her up" was a low point in US political history. The anti-Hillary tirade and the Trump presidency are powered by political opportunism, sexism and racism.
I trust your word at face value that Paul Joseph Watson is dismal since I havn't heard of him before.
Have you heard of infowars and Alex Jones?
'We Are Living Through An All-Out Assault on Truth and Reason,' Hillary Clinton Warns Adoring Toronto Crowd
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2017/09/28/hillary-clinton-shares-c...
"From the back of the room, one woman called out: 'We love you!' The comment echoed through the room. Clinton beamed, telling the crowd her family had vacationed in Quebec just last year. Veering into politics, she singled out Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as 'charismatic and compassionate'.
She was ready, she said, for the 'hard questions.' But the questions posed to Clinton were adoring..."
Orwell must be spinning...
Well, in fairness, I don't think anyone was prevented from asking hard questions; it's just no one wanted to. So comparisons with Airstrip One are a little far-fetched.
What I thought was a bit more eyebrow-raising was her observation that the problem with the American system of government is that "anyone can run for president". Partly, because it's the kind of statement that can come back to haunt you(or your party) politically, and also because I think it overstates the extent to which the actual electoral system influences political choices. I hardly think that were Canada to switch to the American system of elections, that we'd just overnight become exactly like the US. We'd still need an electorate that leans substantially further to the right than it does now.
Canada doesn't have dixie. For that, it should be eternally grateful.
It's not as simple as the U.S. having "Dixie". Canada also doesn't have the tradition "white ethnic" politics in the Northeast and upper Midwest-the tradition of Slavic, Italian, and Irish immigrants embracing white supremacism as part of their "American" identity-OR the anti-Latino immmigrant/anti-indigenous xenophobia in the Mountain West and the Southwest. It's not as though the U.S. would be a multicultural paradise if only the Confederacy had prevailed.
I hope she does continue to support many important issues such as improving public healthcare, protecting the environment, increasing taxes on the wealthy, growing economic opportunity for everyone, increasing access to education, reducing sexism, reducing racism, and reducing homophobia. I also hope she continues to advocate for the people of Puerto Rico against the Trump Administration's pathetic response to the devastation there.
I think that's a very good point. It's not like she has the nuke codes, or is the Commander-in-Chief, or sets monetary policy, or whatever. She lacks the Presidential powers to do evil.
HILLARY CLINTON THINKS ORWELL’S 1984 WAS ABOUT THE NEED TO TRUST AUTHORITY:https://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-thinks-orwells-1984-was-about-t...
Orwell was almost certainly not the radical, anti-authority, hyper-libertarian that Alex Jones would want him to be. As a life-time socialist, he definitely saw a role for an educated bureaucracy posessing particular skills in the administration of government.
But it's still the case that Clinton's interpretation of that passage is rather odd. The point of that particular scene is not(as she seems to think) that we should place our trust in experts, since we don't need experts to determine how many fingers someone is holding up. Rather, the point is that we should not abandon what we already know to be true in order to acquiesence to authority.
If Orwell were making a point about the need to trust experts, he would have had O'Brien try to do something like convince Smith that the Earth is the closest planet to the Sun, since "Earth is third from the Sun" is something that the vast majority of people only believe because professional astronomers have told them so.
You certainly don't have to trust my take on Paul Joseph Watson. As in my post above, I encourage you, and any other interested parties to search him out on YouTube, and see how much you can take.
Are you telling me (via the second part of the quote above) that you didn't actually listen to the PJW rant before you posted it to this thread? ,,,
No, I didn't quote PJW or vet his article or watch his video. As I said, I linked it because it was the source of Clinton's exact text in text form rather than just an image, easily cut and pasted (besides the accurate headline). To avoid your rather irrelevant "gotcha" I should have looked elsewhere for the text format source, or typed it out myself.
No, I am not much interested in pursuing the rants of PJW.
If you want to see an article that excoriates both Clinton and PJM look here:
TAKING ORWELL’S NAME IN VAIN
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/taking-orwells-name-in-vain
[Aside to bekayne --- I had heard of Alex Jones and Infowars, I confess my ignorance in not putting the two together, and lazyness in linking to the site, having just looked at the site now--it is substantially right-wing crap.
As a general habit I read various sources dissident, left, right and mainstream. If there is a story I wish to comment on I look further for confirmation if it involves alleged facts.
But in the instance of the Clinton quote, the quote spoke for itself and needed no further confirmation from anyone but itself. Only a knowledge of 1984 is required (I had falsely assumed this to be a given). ]
Rev Pesky:
It's hard to know if are just throwing out red herrings but a reasonable reading of 1984 does not require Lit 101 levels of comprehension.
It is not "Why I Write" that Clinton is explaining the meaning of, it is "1984"
,,,,We should be able to rely on our elected leaders, we should be able to rely on a free press, we should be able to rely on evidence based opinion. If we can't, then where are we? ....
If Clinton said what you allege she meant, it would not be noticed, but it would not be "1984", or Orwell (who would consider your added modal auxillary word "should" in the realm of fantasy expectations). But she did nor say that.
If you have read 1984 you will know it is a totalitarian state with every aspect of society tightly controlled by media and leaders. It was Winston's deviating from trust in the absolute power of media and leaders that resulted in his torture.
Thus, for Clinton to say the function of his torture was: "to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy..." is the opposite of what Orwell is talking about, and why Winston is being tortured.
How the 'Fake News' Scare is Marginalizing the Left
"Mainstream media's message remains clear: Only the corporate-sponsored center can be trusted."
What George Orwell really said about the left:
I grew up in an atmosphere tinged with militarism, and afterwards I spent five boring years within the sound of bugles. To this day it gives me a faint feeling of sacrilege not to stand to attention during ‘God save the King’. That is childish, of course, but I would sooner have had that kind of upbringing than be like the left-wing intellectuals who are so ‘enlightened’ that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions.
It is exactly the people whose hearts have never leapt at the sight of a Union Jack who will flinch from revolution when the moment comes. Let anyone compare the poem John Cornford wrote not long before he was killed (‘Before the Storming of Huesca’) with Sir Henry Newbolt's ‘There's a breathless hush in the close tonight’. Put aside the technical differences, which are merely a matter of period, and it will be seen that the emotional content of the two poems is almost exactly the same. The young Communist who died heroically in the International Brigade was public school to the core. He had changed his allegiance but not his emotions. What does that prove? Merely the possibility of building a Socialist on the bones of a Blimp, the power of one kind of loyalty to transmute itself into another, the spiritual need for patriotism and the military virtues, for which, however little the boiled rabbits of the Left may like them, no substitute has yet been found.
And yes, I have read a fair bit of Orwell, and believe I understand him as well as anyone. Nick Slater's view of Orwell, as in the article posted by contrarianna, tries to present Orwell as kind of a bare-knuckle brawler, but any reading of the various other books by Orwell (other than 1984 and Animal Farm, that is) creates a much more nuanced picture.
One of Orwell's favourite authors was W. Somerset Maugham, and a more reactionary writer would be hard to find, yet there it is. Obviously Orwell's own ideas were in sharp contrast to Maugham's, but that didn't stop Orwell from admiring him as a writer, which suggest his world view was a bit more liberal than the views of the 'boiled rabbits of the left'.
Another 'spin' on Orwell.
George Orwell Was A Reactionary Snitch Who Made A Blacklist Of Leftists For The British Government
https://bennorton.com/george-orwell-list-leftists-snitch-british-governm...
"If any other postwar left intellectual was suddenly found to have written mini-diatribes about blacks, homosexuals and Jews, we can safely assume that subsequent commentary would not have been forgiving. Here there's barely a word..."
No wonder Hillary cites him
Note to NDPP: If every piece of worthwhile writing required the author not to have feet of clay, there would be very little to read.
------------
To give credit when it is due, Clinton's position on the Agent Orange, King of Chaos, tearing up the Iran deal is entirely superior.
NDPP wrote:
No wonder Hillary cites him
You were on pretty firm ground pointing out that Orwell compiled that list of supposedly suspect left-wingers for the British government. Not so much in arguing that the list is the reason Clinton cited the passage from 1984. In all likelihood, she just quoted 1984 because, for better or worse, it's the fallback book that everyone cites in discussions about political propaganda and whatnot.
I'm sure NDPP wasn't grinding any partisan axe. He was just pointing out that Hillary Clinton is also recognized as hating Blacks, homosexuals and Jews.
Right, NDPP? It wasn't just a random drive-by, right??
[quote=voice of the damned]
NDPP wrote:
No wonder Hillary cites him
In all likelihood, she just quoted 1984 because, for better or worse, it's the fallback book that everyone cites in discussions about political propaganda and whatnot.
[/quote=NDPP]
Probably.
Poor George Orwell. From a revolutionary saint (Nick Slater):
Indeed, the more you read of Orwell, the more he transforms from a cuddly, bipartisan grandpa into a bare-knuckled revolutionary. He is withering in his criticism of global capitalism and liberal impotence: “We all live by robbing Asian coolies, and those of us who are ‘enlightened’ all maintain that all these coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our ‘enlightenment,’ demands that the robbery shall continue.”
To a reactionary sinner (Ben Norton):
It is fascinating seeing people — especially leftists — in the 21st century still lionizing George Orwell, the worst kind of reactionary turncoat.
For years, the cat has been out of the bag: George Orwell secretly worked for the UK’s Foreign Office. At the end of his life, he was an outright counter-revolutionary snitch, spying on leftists on behalf of the imperialist British government.
All in the space of a few posts, and all to the same purpose. That is, to show that Hilary Clinton is bad, bad, bad.
What strikes me is that those who support Donald Trump have no where else to turn. There is nothing supportable in Donald Trump, narcissist extraordinaire, so the only way to defend him is to attack the person who had the effrontery to run against him in an election. Which attacks don't have to have any basis in reality.
'Cold Creepiness' - Assange on Clinton After She Calls WikiLeaks 'Russian Intelligence Subsidiary'
"It turns out that Hillary Clinton was partly correct: President Trump is a 'puppet'. But his puppetmaster isn't Russian President Putin but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, reports Robert Parry..."
How Netanyahu Pulls Trump's Strings
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48027.htm
....
All in the space of a few posts, and all to the same purpose. That is, to show that Hilary Clinton is bad, bad, bad.
What strikes me is that those who support Donald Trump have no where else to turn. There is nothing supportable in Donald Trump, narcissist extraordinaire, so the only way to defend him is to attack the person who had the effrontery to run against him in an election. Which attacks don't have to have any basis in reality.
This statement is indeed Orwellian, in the bad sense, unless you actually believe your own BS about "supporters of Trump"--then it is merely stupidity.
If Clinton had faded from the scene and no longer represented core Democratric Party orientation, there would be less talk here of her pernicious legacy of war crimes, aggression and sowing chaos worldwide as Sercretary of State.
Clinton is still very active as a political spokesperson, making statements as if she and the Democratic Party were political saviours rather than the main reason the demagogue Trump gained power.
Though she is not likely to run again, she is still the media go to person for political opposition to the vile Trump. They could do much better.
If the DNC, represented by its (documented) corrupt selection of Clinton, remains basically unchanged, as it appears to be the case, the Democratic Party will continue to shrink as it has been and if there is another election Trump or another extreme right from the Republican rat-bag will win again.
It is the "shut up about Clinton" Democratic Party supporters that are helping this happen.
