MovieChat Forums > Game Change (2012) Discussion > The saddest thing about this film

The saddest thing about this film

posted 10 years ago by dirussel
7 replies | jump to latest

After watching this film again it is clear that Palin was just the start of thing to come from the GOP, which has pretty much gone Full Monty at this point. Gloves are off, no pretense or filtering required. To date no lessons have been learned, nor have we seen a stop to the slide towards anti-government, anti-intellectual, pro oligarchy, anti-environment dogma. What's worse is such a large enough portion of the public finds this attractive to keep the bus rolling. The left is by no means clean here either. They must operate in the principle crushing environment of Washington just like everyone else. Things will get worse for sure. Just wonder if the general rules physics of the universe take hold at some point and things snap back in the other direction at some point.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

You can trace this all back to 1987, when Saint Reagan eliminated the FCC "Fairness Doctrine," which required equal time for both sides. Limbaugh came a year later, and then Fox, a propaganda empire controlled by a power mad oligarch right winger (Murdoch) and managed in the U.S. by a member of the criminal Nixon administration (Ailes), which falsely calls itself "news," thus brainwashing at least 25% of the U.S. population.

Sarah Palin would not even have been a serious contender had she not been blessed by the Ailes machine. Same can be said for Cruz, Walker, Santorum, Romney, Ryan, and the U.S. Congress would not have been taken over by radical anti science, anti environment, anti progressive Dominionists / Rapturists like Ernst and Inhofe.....had the Fairness Doctrine not been eliminated.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] tedmccarron 10 years ago

What a bunch of laughable garbage you spew. The Fairness Doctrine was an awful, unconstitutional piece of legislation that kept the leftist media in charge, unopposed for decades. When FINALLY Fox News and talk radio broke the leftist monopoly on news and tortured stories that the rest of the MSM refused to, liberals threw a fit over it and still do to this day. And if you want to accuse anyone of being anti-science just look at your own leftist comrades. They call delusional men "women" simply because these men say they are, despite clear science showing that they're men.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

Oh, look what we have here, someone applying Rush and Fox logic to the Fairness Doctrine.

The definition not through the Murdoch/Ailes filter:

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

The truth has a liberal bias. If Fox "News" and other corporate and special interest controlled media had been around in 1973, Nixon would have never resigned. And you know it.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] MortimerSpice 10 years ago

Left, right.....they're all full of *beep* Does really even matter anymore who wins?

[–] balthazar_bee 9 years ago

In the days prior to the 2008 election, Chomsky said it better than I could:

Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference over time. You don't see it in any particular moment, but over time the general population, the large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than under Republican administrations. And the reason is sort of what you said: they reflect different elite constituencies, and the differences are quite striking and very noticeable. So if that's what matters to you, you know, that's usually a pretty good [guide] if you're voting. It's not that the Democrats represent public opinion. They don't. In fact, like the Republicans, they're pretty relatively right of public opinion on a host of major issues, including those of most importance to the public. [...]

Well, to say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, 'cause it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct: the two parties are effectively factions of one party, the business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there's a difference. It's a narrow difference, and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion, and certainly the public is well aware of it. So 80 percent of the population say that the government is run by, I'm quoting, "a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population." And they can argue about the details, but the picture's essentially correct, and they don't like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference and you have to make a choice. If you're in a swing state, you have to ask: is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils? And there's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of the two evils. The cliché makes it sound like you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that? Or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right-wing orientation of both parties by not voting, let's say? Or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? Okay. That's a decision people have to make.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2593

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Left, right.....they're all full of *beep* Does really even matter anymore who wins?

Just give Donald Bully Trump five minutes in the oval office to get into a dick measuring contest with Putin or Kim Jong Un and start a nuclear war and we'll talk about it some more.

I'm not a Democrat. I don't even like Clinton but yeah, when the choice is between corrupt and insane, I'll take corrupt, thanks.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] MortimerSpice 9 years ago

it doesn't matter because neither president since the 2000's gives a damn about Middle America. One side cares about the rich getting richer and the other tries to figure out how to keep handing out government assistance to people that CHOOSE not to even try to help themselves. So no, as someone who falls into Middle America, it does not matter.

This race is nothing more than two people standing up there who would rather insult the other candidate rather than tell the audience how they can make a difference