SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Source: The Intercept
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:00AM
Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
The worst I've ever heard anyone say about him is he's too moderate and too softspoken.
It's good to be softspoken, just as long as you have a big stick.
I think Johnson would make a great President. I'm afraid our country will once again prove it does not deserve a great President.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:04AM
I'm not too sure about this but I've heard that getting to a certain percent in one election cycle could help G. Johnson (or another third-party candidate) get onto more polls during the next one. Which could lead to him having a better chance of polling at 15% and being able to get on the debate stage. Is that about right?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:09AM
I started campaigning for the LP in '88 when Ron Paul made his first run for President, IIRC it ate over 95% of our resources SIMPLY TO GET ON THE BALLOT in all 50 states.
The rules are different in each state but generally speaking if you poll somewhere around 10 or 15% in one election, you get treated more like a real party for the next election. Less busy work just qualifying to put your candidate on the ballot, means more time and money to actually try to spread the message and turn out voters.
Even if he doesn't win a strong showing would help alternative candidates in many different areas next election.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:49AM
being able to get on the debate stage
I don't know about that. IIRC Nader polled above the required percentage, then the requirement was raised so he still couldn't participate.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:13AM
Yeah, it was raised from 5% to 15%. I know that Gary J needs 15%.
Would they raise it to 20% in a blatant show of corruption? Call me optimistic, but I'd have to believe there would be enough backlash to prop him up if Gary was polling 16% and they raised it to 20.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:23AM
but I'd have to believe there would be enough backlash to prop him up if Gary was polling 16% and they raised it to 20.
No there wouldn't be, because the media would completely ignore it, or paint it as a positive, and most people wouldn't care.
Those who go on about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have entirely missed the point.
The US system is set up to ensure the ruling class continues to rule.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:43AM
> The US system is set up to ensure the ruling class continues to rule.
As have been all "systems" in the history of mankind.
Really, your analysis is pretty banal.
Unless you support a 100% inheritance tax and raising all children in creches you support a system that ensures the ruling class continues to rule.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:28AM
G_D FUCKING DAMN IT you have triggered me.
How on earth does my determination to pass the tiny scraps I have managed to set aside while wasting my life trying to make the world a better place on to the heirs I designate give you any mistaken perception of a right to take those kids away and raise them on garbage?
Are you a man or an insect anonymous coward?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:52AM
He could very well be a lizard. I'll admit, I've toyed with notions about somehow taking parents out of the equation, but it either ends up at Brave New World or The Giver. It's a tantalizing idea that everybody is literally born equal.
I don't think it can work in practice. If we aren't scrimping and saving so that we might one day bestow on somebody from the next generation our own leg up, what's the point? I say that even as somebody who can't have kids. When the time comes, I'll find a way of choosing. I'd rather it be up to me than some corruptible bureaucracy.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:58AM
Equally rich or equally poor?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:50AM
I'll admit, I've toyed with notions about somehow taking parents out of the equation, but it either ends up at Brave New World or The Giver.
I admit I was intrigued (in a "that'd be a nifty trainwreck" way) by Newt Gingrich's proposal to emulate "Boystown" by sticking poor kids in orphanages, though I'm not sure what novel or film that would end up resembling in reality. (Probably something post–apocalyptic in the long run.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:14PM
If I'm not mistaken, Native Americans have already been there, done that. The results have been, at best, somewhat mixed. Not quite post-apocalyptic, but it just didn't go over too well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:26AM
Are you trying to Poe's Law me?
Look, if you don't believe in creches and inheritance tax, that's fine.
Most people don't.
Just don't be a hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:42PM
That is what I have been encouraging people to do. If there ever was an election to just say fuck-it screw these two this is it. If you lean more environmentally liberal vote Stein, if you lean more fiscally conservative vote Johnson. The best thing would be for the candidate from either of the major parties to be elected with like 27% of the vote so it is very clear that they don't have a mandate and that the majority of people don't want what they are selling. With the first debate coming and it likely that Johnson or Stein won't be in it I have joked that I would welcome some Russian intervention [wikipedia.org] in our election process.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:05AM
> The worst I've ever heard anyone say about him is he's too moderate and too softspoken.
The great thing about not being taken seriously is that no one bothers to do any investigative reporting on you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:12AM
> I'm afraid our country will once again prove it does not deserve a great President.
Since we still have work to fix the mess W left, I'll take "good enough" if I can't get Great.
Maybe I'm narrow-minded when I'm hiring someone to play around with my money, but: "former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed" is the best of the four resumés, and then some cover letters are better written than others.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:32AM
Uh... what? Are you kidding me? Did you miss the part where she supports mass surveillance, supports encryption backdoors, supports more war, supports (but is now pretending not to, as she simply won't do anything to stop it) the TPP, and is a typical politician who is pro-corporation? Will Clinton legitimately try to get rid of the TPP, abolish the TSA, stop mass surveillance, stop corporate bribery, avoid war, and just generally follow the Constitution? Because that sure doesn't seem to be the case. And Trump is no better.
You're only looking at job experience, and disregarding whether or not the candidate is a corrupt, authoritarian piece of shit. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:32AM
You are really a caricature. 30 years ago you could have made a ton of money in Hollywood playing the devil, but today, I fear, you are blasé and simply too tame to get a rise out of anyone but us old folks.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:07AM
> a bloodthirsty criminal who has demonstrated complete lack of regard for both US law and universal humanity in charge of the nation
Well, you do get the president you deserve: Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
I've observed a few years of a petty angry vindictive self-obsessed egomaniac with a Napoleon complex lead a major US ally. While I can't see Trump fucking up as badly as W, I also don't want the repeal-50-times-suggest-nothing gerrymandered idiots to go unchecked, and the supreme court to be filled with ayatollahs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:36PM
Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
And yet they have the two lowest opinion poll ratings of any US presidential candidates. Which probably tells you that you need a new way of selecting candidates.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:40AM
Really confuses me how someone who supported everything negative that W did can be trusted to fix what he broke.
Patriot Act
Iraq invasion
Poking the Russian bear
Insulting our European allies
Overspending
Hey its a good thing Hitler is gone, we really need to fix everything he did wrong, how about this Goring guy seems pretty qualifed, he has been there all along so he knows how to fix it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:11AM
I'm not a Clinton fan, but to be fair, keep in mind the social atmosphere during the Bush Administration — newsmedia was parroting the White House's claims as factual truth, and anyone that even questioned his policies was promptly attacked as a terrorist-loving anti-American by the "My President Right Or Wrong" bridgade. Unless virtually all of the Democrats had joined forces (unlikely given how many were/are conservative), refusing to support things like the Patriot Act was political suicide.
Which is likely why we also didn't see Donald Trump using some of his money, power & influence to combat the fascistic policies & bullshit propaganda. It wouldn't have wrecked his career like it would a politician, but the reaction would've been bad enough that his businesses would've likely suffered.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:03AM
Committing trea,, acting against the American people because you are afraid how it will effect your chances of being re-elected is no excuse. This is not the Wilson administration where you could and would be locked up for going against the administration. They knew what they were doing.
Example from a state I am familiar with is representative Peter Defazio. He tried to fight the patriot act and failed, but he tried. He is still in congress today and has never faced a serious opponent.
She was not just a bystander who stood by and let it pass. She argued that it was necessary and helped bolster Democratic support for it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:12PM
A friend of mine's daughter said she liked Trump because he wore a suit, so she'd vote for him because he looks good in a suit.
She's six years old. For some reason, your arguments are just as valid to me. The fact you site no actual job requirements or skills, and only previously held titles without any discussion as to why Hillary was good in these positions--it leads me to believe you are not clear on the concept that it takes more than adornment, via a suit or a resume heading, to effectively lead. You cited no reasons as to what makes her better. Why not tell us she is presently unemployed considering her campaign pursuits? When she loses, we can deny her a position based on the unfeasible reason for the gap in her resume, rather than what she was doing during that time.
Or perhaps you're just in the echo chamber. Soylent may have some that are ignorant, but this isn't Cosmo where our heads need to be filled with simple descriptions because complexity is too hard.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:36PM
If I quoted articles claiming she was regarded as a decent senator, or a good Secretary of State, you'd reply with some that say the opposite, and we'd just spend the day arguing about who's biased.
But you got to hand her the fact that other world leaders do not feel the need to voice their negative opinion of her, and over a dozen bitch-hunt investigations from the Republicans have only turned up mishandling of classified information (which is bad, but nowhere near as world-ending as they try to make it sound, since they haven't successfully connected it to any actual negative effects). She's got skeletons in her closet, but she's president-grade good at hiding them.
Also, the last time the whole world, including our best allies, tried to tell Americans who not to vote for, and we ignored them (ish), we ended up with W. I think we should have learnt to listen.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:22AM
> Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
USA 2016: if we set the bar as high for the Olympics as we do for the Presidential election, we wouldn't bring home much gold.
Not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Can we lend the nukes to Switzerland for the next 4 years?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:53AM
All we expect of athletes is that they entertain us, whereas the President...OH!
(Score: 4, Informative) by el_oscuro on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:36AM
I'm voting for him. Both Johnson and Weld were popular moderate Republican governors in Democratic states. They turned to the 3rd party because both the Republicans and Democrats went batshit insane.
Today on the Grant and Danny sports talk radio show, I literally heard my first political ad - for Johnson (the few TV shows I watch are DVRd). The ad basically boiled down to this:
<HHGTTG>"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"We're not lizards. Vote for us.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:36AM
Should that still not taste, the reader (or eater) is advised to wrap the thing in an old sock, and let it age for a week. The result is sweet and sultry and never fails to please the palate, however tart the initial product might have been.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:05AM
Take a look at my most recent journal entry (just finished it), watch that video, ignore the commentator if you have to (angry northern British English can put people off but I don't mind), just listen to Gary Johnson rip into that journalist.
Gary Johnson is not a libertarian in my opinion. Not anywhere close.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:39AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:21AM
It's good to be softspoken, just as long as you have a big stick.
With a name like Johnson I think the big stick is implied.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:24AM
This explains how Gary Johnson lost my support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLeleSWBKRU [youtube.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:53PM
Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
Trump raped and murdered a girl in 1991?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"