HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,979

Journal Archives

He does that all the time?

Why is it the front page today?

Can you spell G-O-L-D, man? (Sorry if you're not a man, it's a joke.)

As in Goldman Sachs just agreed to a 5.1 billion dollar "settlement" with the Justice Deparment on allegations of far-reaching MBS fraud prior to the 2008 Wall Street crash.

Same Goldman Sachs that paid $225 K for a 1-hour appearance by HRC.

Sorry if the timing of this independent event doesn't suit you.

Anyway, whatever the metamorphoses of the jihadis...

and the many different foreign interventions that advanced them either intentionally or as blowback, the key reality here is that there would not be an "Islamic STATE" holding territory today without, first of all and most importantly, the U.S. decision to wage an unprovoked aggressive war against Iraq, breaking down that nation. The second most important factor is the Saudi role in promoting jihadism and jihadis. The third is the foreign interventions in Syria before and after the failed revolution, where otherwise there might only be a war between Assad and the homegrown revolutionary factions, if that. The Kurds are the only real domestic militia left holding territory, and the U.S. is keeping them out of the talks - why? - even though the Pentagon supported their offensives. Again, how the many jihadi militias broke up, refounded and recombined wouldn't matter. They would not hold anything approaching this kind of territory.

And the rise of the same phenomenon in Libya is on Clinton's ledger.

She did spearhead a new aggressive war that destroyed a nation.

And ran an independent communications platform for her team of admin insiders and outsiders while doing so. That's the "e-mail" scandal, why she was maintaining her own comm channels, not whether the servers met the level of security required to satisfy national security paranoids.

I wish I lived in a country where it was seen that way.

Time was the primary bias and there is no making up for 2015.

In 2015, TV news coverage of Trump:Clinton:Sanders was about 20:1 (where the 1 is rounding up from 0.4). This is why Trump is where he is today. This is why Sanders despite the enormous crowds he was attracting, the money he was raising, and his constant rise in the poll still had shockingly low name recognition as the campaigns started.

Even right now, the TV shows anything Trump does in full, and I can see right now how the NY media (it was obvious today on NY1, owned by Time-Warner) does not give the Sanders campaign coverage nearly equal in time to Clinton's, or allow Sanders or his surrogates the same time to speak.

The pretense of sophisticated analysis can hide the obvious. "Bias" is first of all structural, top-down, and ideological. Does Klein talk about ownership? Who gets hired? Who gets promoted? These affect ideological direction over the middle term at the latest. How are the terms and issues are defined in the first place? How did it turn out that status-quo conservatives like himself and M. Yglesias seriously get to be depicted as though they were on the liberal (i.e., left) side of the acceptable spectrum of discourse?

Sanders snap rally today in Flatbush?!


1 pm today - can't make it. Anyone going?! Pictures!

"Qualified" is now the D version of hand size

I have my own idea of what happened, but which one said it first or tricked the other into saying it is of less-than-zero concern to everyone outside this tiny bubble of yap-yap-yapping. This kind of politicians' personal comedy can only serve the status quo. Nobody you actually want to address in this campaign cares. The voters care about their own lives and the future. It's the Sanders supporters I'm disappointed in here. Don't fall for the daily distraction. Talk about issues, work to organize, push our own points of substance, do it mostly outside this forum, and we will win.

This is so going to work for Sanders.

What is she going to do, call him a carpetbagging profiteer warmonger? The one often effective dirty card to play in a presidential primary here would be to call him weak on Israel. Sanders is just the right guy to try that on. It will be fun.

You just don't get it.

If he says he roots for the Dodgers, it will be a NET WIN for him.

Two weeks of nothing but New York. People are going to adore this man, and he will win this city and this state. (It will be a huge margin for him upstate.)

He should work the tokens into his stump speech. Clinton was supposedly living here 13 years ago - you think she ever held a token in her mitt?

I don't know, have you ever been there?

It will be packed. Beautifully so. At full density I figure 30,000 fit, and all the side streets will be full too. Why can't Hillary Clinton do that? Since she's so popular and all?

And all you've established is a fantasy world. Sanders' crowds are obviously translating into votes, and he keeps winning. And they will be getting bigger from here on in.

Totally relevant. Everyone in town will know the size of the crowd. But...

First of all, I don't give a shit about polls.

I care about politics. I care about issues. I care about people. I don't care about for-profit polling companies and their modeling and the way they are used in attempts to manipulate and distract from people, issues and politics.

Isn't that beautifully retro? Like tokens!

Second, these polls look great!

Every primary outside the South has gone the same way. The polls have been consistently and radically wrong.

Early in the morning today, according to the laughably skewed-as-always polls, Sanders and Clinton were in a dead heat in Wisconsin. That is how I knew with certainty he was winning by 10%, minimum. (Currently: +12 with plenty of Madison to go.)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »