Specter, Lincoln, Michael Bennett and after a lot of confusion, I finally get it

[CreekDog]

They tell us whom to vote for, not the other way around.

I remember voting against that in 2008.

Oh well... :eyes:

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Michael Bennet is not going anywhere.

Andrew Romanoff will be your next U.S. Senator.

[sandnsea]

2. You join the Party to get Support

That's the point.

If you want to overthrow the leadership in your own party, you have to gain support and do it. That's how you gain the experience to overthrow the leadership in the other party and get elected to office.

If you don't like who is in office, you need to be able to beat them soundly to make sure you have what it takes to make it all the way.

Joe Sestak did it. It can be done.

It's the election process.

[PassingFair]

9. Hobson's Choice.

We thought we HAD a chance of "overthrowing the leadership",
that's why HRC is not in the oval office.

[iamthebandfanman]

12. id imagine there are many progressives like myself

who were angry they had to decide between a clinton and obama....

kinda forced us to one or the other, when neither was right for our beliefs...

[sandnsea]

13. Yeah well, I hoped we had too

But I'd still take the Clintons over McCain/Palin. Considering the number of Democrats who wanted Hillary, I can't understand why they're complaining because they're getting the exact policies she would have implemented.

[Jennicut]

3. Oh please. You can vote for who you want. The fact that some Americans are mindless idiots is

something we have not found a cure for yet. If you want real voter suppression, go to some other countries sometime. They literally tell you who to vote for...or else.

[Go2Peace]

4. Modern Propaganda is more powerful than you think

We need to recognize that people are not simply "stupid". We are in an extremely effective era of super-potent information manipulation that is making it difficult for people to make rational decisions.

There is an entire science about what happens when you play with language and the stories that people grow up with. It actually changes the way the brain thinks.

So to get to the point. While other countries may be physically more manipulative, that does not mean that we are nearly as free in our decisions as you might think. In fact, ballet busting in an unsophisticated society is much less a threat to Democracy than the highly charged "marketing" and information manipulation environment we are engaged in.

If someone throws an election through force and people can tell they will rebel and Democracy is able to make a comeback. But if people are numb and confused with information distortions they are actually less likely to react and mount a fight.

Which of those two groups is actually freer?

[annabanana]

5. +1000!. . . The science of propaganda is probably more fully

funded and researched than any other science on Earth.

[Jennicut]

6. How do you explain why some are able to see through the propaganda

and some are not? It is partly that these people do not want to take the time to research, be informed, actually pay attention. Honestly, I think many American's take their "freedom" for granted and have become intellectually lazy. Freedom is what you do with it, if you don't use it, it can easily be taken away.

[Go2Peace]

16. Read a book by a linguist. People are not as "Free" as you think. They are not completely rational

Republicans understand this. As anti-science as they are, they embrace "marketing" science, which is essentially the science behind propaganda. Why do you think our government spends billions every year on propaganda? Because it is innefective?

The deliberate attack on language (black is white, "framing") is having intended and unintended consequences.

As far as your observation that you feel free to make your own decisions:

1. you may not be as free as you think. All decision making is affected by embedded language and "stories" that have become part of who you are. The fact that most of us don't realize the effect of purposeful and constant messaging is a testamony that we are not as free from it as we think.

2. If you are freer from the influence of propaganda it is likely due to an upbringing or some component of your education that has assisted your mind in making judgements. That does not mean others have had the same opportunities or influences. In my case (I believe) science fiction authors taught me to think critically and reject authority, and a high school class that was very purposeful in pointing out that marketing is just a type of propaganda, and is essentially filled with white or black lies, was invaluable.

Genetics may play a part, but if you are like me you have siblings or other relatives who are quite intelligent, yet have very little ability to reject nonsense right wing talking points and things like that. How is it that people who can be so intelligent in other matters are so easily influenced by nonsense? Maybe propaganda is more powerful than we give it credit for?

As it turns out it is! It can fundamentally alter the way your mind thinks!

[Go2Peace]

18. By the way, the word "Freedom" is probably the most heavily propagandized in history

George Lakoff (a linguistic scientist and University professor) has an entire book on what has been done with the concept of "freedom".

What you think of "freedom" is heavily manipulated. Your ideas of it our not completely your own. And we are not as "free" to act around our ideas as you think. Every idea in your brain has a physical connection, and it is extremely difficult to "break" that connection, or "frame". Ever had an "epiphany"? You just replaced a learned "frame" and broke a synapsed connection and may have created another!

Here is a link to a youtube video of George Lakoff discussing the science. It's fascinating and if you watch it an listen you may likely "break some frames" and start to understand that people are not so free to make decisions as you might otherwise be led to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_CWBjyIERY&NR=1

You actually used (as we all do), without even knowing it, some Politically created "Frames" in your last post that Lakoff discusses the origins of in one of his books. Those thoughts were not your own!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

14. Of course I can

But Obama's campaign was practically predicated on the notion that we don't have to accept the presumptive nominee and that we should choose whom we think could win and best represent us.

To have the very same people say...we are supporting the incumbent and you are wasting your money and practically picking a fight with the party's strongest supporters --who were instrumental in getting Obama nominated...

It just leaves me shaking my head.

Cognitive dissonance.

[skipos]

8. When has a President supported the challenger to an incumbent Senator from their own party?

I'd like to know your answer to this question.

[Jennicut]

10. FDR, Woodrow Wilson. I am sure there are more.

For some Dems in Congress not supportive of the New Deal, FDR actively recruited a candidate against you.

[skipos]

11. Yes, right or wrong, it hasn't happened in many decades. nt

[bvar22]

15. Obama DID go to Ohio and run a negative campaign AGAINST ...

..Dennis Kucinich when he was holding out for a Public Option.

That counts in my book.

[CTLawGuy]

17. Tell me

is Specter going back to the US Senate next year.

Yeah that's what I thought.