Difficulties in understanding US politics

[MorkandMindy]

It is difficult to understand US politics without evaluating the amounts of bribery, corruption and ownership.

Ownership of the media is perfectly legal of course, but anyone who still pays attention to the mainstream media needs to remember that it is privately owned by a few syndicates and what they don't want in the news doesn't go into the news.

I don't read the MSM so I've had to ask around and it appears the MSM have forgotten to tell their readers:

1 the reason for the Vietnam War
2 ditto Iraq War, bombing Libya, starting a civil war in Syria
3 why Hillary lost and Donald won the 2016 Presidential election
4 how the US economy works
5 who owns Congress and both political parties
I'll stop here because no one ever replies to my threads anyway

 

[lasthero]

It is difficult to understand US politics without evaluating the amounts of bribery, corruption and ownership.

Ownership of the media is perfectly legal of course, but anyone who still pays attention to the mainstream media needs to remember that it is privately owned by a few syndicates and what they don't want in the news doesn't go into the news.

I don't read the MSM so I've had to ask around and it appears the MSM have forgotten to tell their readers:

1 the reason for the Vietnam War
2 ditto Iraq War, bombing Libya, starting a civil war in Syria
3 why Hillary lost and Donald won the 2016 Presidential election
4 how the US economy works
5 who owns Congress and both political parties
I'll stop here because no one ever replies to my threads anyway

I think it's less of the media not telling people these things and more people just not caring to know them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll stop here because no one ever replies to my threads anyway

Perhaps that's because most members, unlike me, avoid posts that are so obviously agenda driven.

 

[AlexDTX]

It is difficult to understand US politics without evaluating the amounts of bribery, corruption and ownership.

Ownership of the media is perfectly legal of course, but anyone who still pays attention to the mainstream media needs to remember that it is privately owned by a few syndicates and what they don't want in the news doesn't go into the news.

I don't read the MSM so I've had to ask around and it appears the MSM have forgotten to tell their readers:

1 the reason for the Vietnam War
2 ditto Iraq War, bombing Libya, starting a civil war in Syria
3 why Hillary lost and Donald won the 2016 Presidential election
4 how the US economy works
5 who owns Congress and both political parties
I'll stop here because no one ever replies to my threads anyway

It is not clear to me what you want to address. I agree the corporate media has their own agenda. Confusion goes beyond the news, tho. The schools don't teach the history of the pioneers who established the the new world. Christians who fled persecution in Europe, as well as the English proclivity to send their criminals to distant shores - the new world and Australia, for example.

As for the person who said that no one answers because of the obvious agenda, every post has an agenda. Otherwise there is no reason to post.

What do you want to speak specifically about?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think it's less of the media not telling people these things and more people just not caring to know them.

People are interested in things that are familiar so the most effective way to persuade people not to vote for someone or to change something is to give it the silent treatment. Or they cover it in lies like they do the US economy and US education.

I opened a thread on Polarization, that got zero replies, Neoliberalism has done a huge amount of damage to the US, one reply asking where the graph was, How has our version of Neoliberalism worked out? no replies.

You're ruining my almost perfect scorecard!

 

[MorkandMindy]

Perhaps that's because most members, unlike me, avoid posts that are so obviously agenda driven.

Would you spare a moment to tell me what my agenda is, and AlexDTX might also be interested

 

[SimplyMe]

I think it is interesting to note that there were once protections in law that were designed to keep companies from controlling too much of "the media." There were limits to how many stations a company could own, how many newspapers, etc. Of course, it is ironic that it was under Republicans that these protections were loosened; something they now complain against.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Someone on CF years ago linked to a quiz where we had to guess whether the blue team or red team had done this or that, and after failing that I've been a bit circumspect about the blue team/red team divide.

One example was how Tony Blair whom I was informed was way off at the left, and G W Bush way off at the right both worked together seamlessly to promote the Iraq War.

Another was Neoliberalism became US policy through promotion by Ronald Reagan red team, opposed by G H Bush red team, extended by W Clinton blue team using the NAFTA agreement, further extension proposed by H Clinton blue team through TPP, and opposed by D Trump red team.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It is not clear to me what you want to address. I agree the corporate media has their own agenda. Confusion goes beyond the news, tho. The schools don't teach the history of the pioneers who established the the new world. Christians who fled persecution in Europe, as well as the English proclivity to send their criminals to distant shores - the new world and Australia, for example.

As for the person who said that no one answers because of the obvious agenda, every post has an agenda. Otherwise there is no reason to post.

What do you want to speak specifically about?

I'm more interested in the methods for understanding political change than in the specifics of red/blue, this person that person.

And I've had several challenges, one is a confusion of the meanings of terms, another is concealment of actual motive, and another is the difficulty of producing useful descriptions.

The third really needs an example. Donald Trump gets some support from the elite, but mainly from the opposite end of the spectrum with promises to bring back jobs. I don't find broad brush descriptions of left v right in most cases to be all that helpful.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you spare a moment to tell me what my agenda is, and AlexDTX might also be interested

I identify the existence of agenda, not the content of agenda. In most matters I am a generalist. (On each of the five occasions I have had a gun pointed at me I recognised that was the case. In none of those instances did I identify the gun's manufacturer.)

Now, if you can tell me, briefly, the reason for the Vietnam War, I'll take a stab at telling you what I think your agenda is. (I presume you mean the one that directly involved the US, not the occupation by the Japanese in 1940, or the First Indo-China War, or the 1979 China-Vietnam War. )

Aside: If you ever thought Tony Blair was far left then you were not paying attention. The only significant difference between Blair and Thatcher was that at least Thatcher was sincere in her beliefs and not a cynical opportunist. .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'll stop here because no one ever replies to my threads anyway

Remember how he died ?
Perhaps it brings sad memories that people do not want to think about (and should not, mostly)....