Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than once we have seen Trump change his mind at the very last minute based on criticism from the likes of Ann Coulter. Clearly it is a big reason why he refuses to give ground on the Wall. My question is, who are Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh anyway and why does anyone give a rat's patoot what they think?
I don't see the same phenomenon on the left. I don't think Pelosi is saying "I gotta fight this wall, or Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow will be upset".
More than once we have seen Trump change his mind at the very last minute based on criticism from the likes of Ann Coulter. Clearly it is a big reason why he refuses to give ground on the Wall. My question is, who are Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh anyway and why does anyone give a rat's patoot what they think?
I don't see the same phenomenon on the left. I don't think Pelosi is saying "I gotta fight this wall, or Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow will be upset".
They are carnival barkers. They make their audience feel good. Just like Trump. MAGA means giving those people their imaginary world.
I want to challenge this assertion. Since you made the assertion, the burden of proof lies on you.
So here's the challenge - find any 5 things Coulter, Hannity or Limbaugh have stated as fact since Jan 2017, and prove that 4 of those 5 things are clearly misleading or outright lies.
Provide links for all proofs.
Until then, wildly subjective, unfounded assertion is wildly subjective and unfounded.
Coulter is not important enough to have someone fact checking her.
Honestly though, you can listen to ANY episode of Hannity or Limbaugh (don't know why but I often do) and there is almost always a leap in their logic when making a point. Any critical listener notices it but their base does not.
You might be on to something there. One wonders: given the various issues of our times - healthcare, taxes, decline of smaller-cities/towns, demographics, retirement, taxes, job-retraining, automation, energy, the environment,... why would immigration become the #1 issue?
I’m going to attempt to answer my own question. First, “liberalism” in American politics is fractured between the traditional interests of the lower classes, and those of the upper. By “lower” I mean, oddly enough, both workers in occupations toward the lower end of skill-set, education, prestige and remuneration; and non-workers, which is to say person who rely primarily on public funds. By “upper” I mean highly compensated professionals, investors and persons who regard themselves as being of a trans-national, post-nationalist bent. Fusion of these two groups is largely accidental, and is in response to a much more monolithic “right wing”. These are’t natural allies, but instead, are allies of convenience against a common opponent.
I disagree but I also note that I can only disagree with my opinion as unfortunately, today we do classify groups as you note. The second group is only after increasing their own financial bottom line. Someone like Bloomberg is only interested in money, power and controlling people. He would get labelled a liberal.
Quote:
Second, recent rumors notwithstanding, doctrinaire classical socialism never had much appeal in America, and never will. A rousing chorus of “workers of the world, unite!” sounds somewhere between silly and dangerous. Truly leftist voices would enjoy little audience, outside of a few (and only a few) universities or “fringe” towns such as our local Yellow Springs, Ohio.
In part you are correct but Bernie would have won in 2016. No, I can not prove that now but I can make an extremely strong argument. The thing the DNC refuses to learn is (D)'s will overwhelming vote for the (D) candidate no matter who they are. People like myself will not vote for a (D) that comes from the corporate wing of the party no matter what.
Are we outnumbered? Yes, largely. But the (D)'s need us to win. Obama won running on many "liberal" positions. It's just too bad that wasn't who he actually was.
Quote:
Third, the sort of person inclined towards what might be termed upper-class liberalism, is unimpressed by shrill posturing of any flavor, even by ideological allies. A fast-talking, excessively dramatic delivery would be viewed as buffoonery and dumb cant – and wouldn’t attract good ratings. Instead, such listeners have their radio-dial almost permanently tuned to the local classical music station.
I agree it does little to forward any agenda. I agree that the tact that Ocasio-Cortez takes is not going to get the kind of support Bernie did. You do need to have a few willing to throw rocks here and there though. If she ran for president I would not vote for her today even though I support many of her ideas. She's still immature. (not that being immature didn't work for Trump) but I don't support that.
As long as the (D)'s turn to people like Nancy Pelosi, I'm going to encourage the Ocasio-Cortez's though.
Quote:
Fourth, liberal punditry did itself a disservice, and a devastating one, via “political correctness”. However well-intentioned, the idea is antithetical to sharp and incendiary discourse – that is, the sort that garners attention. It’s necessarily milquetoast and boring. Self-censorship in effort to avoid offense or controversy has resulted in lack of voices of consequence.
This one is difficult to argue. I completely disagree with censorship. There is no censorship of this kind in Liberalism. You allow dissenting opinions no matter how wrong they are. Did many who latched onto the ideas of Sanders support this censorship? Unfortunately so. It does hurt.
Because you give it to them. Nobody is forcing you to watch. You could say the same about "left wing pundits."
I call it the clown show cuz it's for clowns and I ain't interested in the circus.
No. No, you can’t. Obama didn’t spend his time trying to please Andersen Cooper and Rachel Maddow.
The reason those conservative pundits have so much power is because America elected a weak, ignorant, selfish moron as POTUS. This moron spends his days plopped in front of the TV instead of reading intelligence reports that would make him somewhat informed. All of this leads to a [so called] leader with the mental fortitude of a gnat.
That's how I see it also, but the question is why? I know those pundits have large audiences of followers. Is it because their followers can't think for themselves and so vote however the pundits tell them?
Coulter is not important enough to have someone fact checking her.
Honestly though, you can listen to ANY episode of Hannity or Limbaugh (don't know why but I often do) and there is almost always a leap in their logic when making a point. Any critical listener notices it but their base does not.
Taking the Hannity and Limbaugh lists you provided:
Do the 7 statements by Hannity, made between 2009 and 2018, represent 80% of all the statements he has made that would be considered assertions of fact?
Do the 39 statements by Limbaugh, made between 2009 and 2018, represent 80% of all the statements he has made that would be considered assertions of fact?
I asked for 80% representation to back your claim. You have provided a number of false/misleading assertions, but have not provided any of the factual assertions made by either such that we can determine whether 80% of what they say is false or misleading. In Hannity's case, if you have 7 false statements, I need find only 2 true statemets since 2009 for your 80% assertion to be false. In Limbaugh's case, I need to find 10 true statements since 2009.
What do you think the odds are of your scurrilous 80% claim holding up under scrutiny?
No. No, you can’t. Obama didn’t spend his time trying to please Andersen Cooper and Rachel Maddow.
He knew he did not have to as they would support nearly anything he did and did do just that.
Quote:
The reason those conservative pundits have so much power is because America elected a weak, ignorant, selfish moron as POTUS. This moron spends his days plopped in front of the TV instead of reading intelligence reports that would make him somewhat informed. All of this leads to a [so called] leader with the mental fortitude of a gnat.
The "left" has been complaining about Rush for what now? 30 years?
That's how I see it also, but the question is why? I know those pundits have large audiences of followers. Is it because their followers can't think for themselves and so vote however the pundits tell them?
ding ding ding!
"Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
