>>15595006,215>I would look towards his dealings in South America that Chomsky sites quite expressly.Without a doubt, which is why I mentioned them to Yuibro. The Contras are just the most notorious example. As you mentioned with Ryoubro earlier, the US really is one of the world's largest weapons dealers, how much competition the USSR was we can never truly know.
>I was more speaking to monetizing politics and whatnotAh, my apologies. Then I do sincerely agree with you. The new mediums and methods allowed to reach the voters proved effective, so this style was continued in place of traditional politics. Which isn't to say that we didn't have a good amount of shitflinging before, the whole process just took on a different light.
>I'll cite Chomsky on this again in this video.I'll be sure to watch that in a minute, although I do agree. There was certainly a rise in doublespeak to use an Orwellian term. But of course, not everyone backed Reagan. He had a landslide victory, but there was still opposition. What do you think the explanation for this was? The actually informed?
>It gets to more people, but the information never gets to anyone. Especially considering there's not much information even presented in those forums to start with. The point of the debates isn't to argue why your point is better or why your solution for a problem is the less painful; it's to make it look good and theirs bad, no matter their objective value. As I said before, this encourages a sort of "feel-good" politics where people vote with their hearts, not with their brains. Which also just encourages diehard obstinance on the part of supporters, because we all know feelings are so much easier to argue than logic.