Lawrence O'Donnell tears GOP Congressman a new one. For real

[Vympel]

Dammmmmmn

(Video)

More of this please. This guy is just fantastic. He interviwed that idiotic woman (clip at the start of the video above) and was such a class act that he tore her to pieces without attacking her once (even though she deserved it, she was an ignoramus spouting nonsense) - but with this sleazeball, he just blew him apart with a bazooka. Classic.

Watch the guy squirm when he's asked if he would repeal Social Security, and then his outright denial that Social Security is socialism!

[Ritterin Sophia]

That was on MSNBC? Oh my god, they're corporate shills themselves but... oh Jesus! REALITY IS COMING APART ALL AROUND ME!

[FireNexus]

"This is why nobody watches MSNBC." What a petty bastard that guy became when O'Donnell didn't allow him to evade the question.

[salm]

One has to admit, though, that the news anchor is pretty annoying and doesn´t let him finish a single sentence.

[PeZook]

One has to admit, though, that the news anchor is pretty annoying and doesn´t let him finish a single sentence.

That's because the little cunt keeps avoiding the question. More news anchors should be like that.

[Vympel]

One has to admit, though, that the news anchor is pretty annoying and doesn´t let him finish a single sentence.

That's because his bullshit detector was operating at 100% efficiency. When you ask a really simple question that merits a positive/ negative response and the response starts with "Well what we've got to look at blah blah blah" any journalist should tell him to just answer the damn question. That sort of blah blah blah blah question dodging is endemic on US news, and it's really, really annoying. I would bet you $1,000,000 that the end game of each one of that guys stupid responses would've been going back to flouting his stupid, red herring legislation, like he did in his first monologue.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I watched his interview with that cunt in the clip. He asked her how she thought the Founding Fathers would expect Healthcare to be run, her response? That she thought the Founding Fathers would expect the people who can afford to help would help pay for the people who don't have healthcare.

[ray245]

I watched his interview with that cunt in the clip. He asked her how she thought the Founding Fathers would expect Healthcare to be run, her response? That she thought the Founding Fathers would expect the people who can afford to help would help pay for the people who don't have healthcare.

I hate people who supported an ideology over another just because of some buzzwords that somehow makes the entire argument valid.

Some people don't even have a freaking clue over what are they arguing for, and expects to win debates just because some random buzzword is being mentioned.

[Patrick Degan]

I watched his interview with that cunt in the clip. He asked her how she thought the Founding Fathers would expect Healthcare to be run, her response? That she thought the Founding Fathers would expect the people who can afford to help would help pay for the people who don't have healthcare.

You see —an endorsement for taxing the rich. Eventually, common sense would start filtering through.

[Simon_Jester]

More of this please. This guy is just fantastic. He interviwed that idiotic woman (clip at the start of the video above) and was such a class act that he tore her to pieces without attacking her once (even though she deserved it, she was an ignoramus spouting nonsense) - but with this sleazeball, he just blew him apart with a bazooka. Classic.

Do we have a clip of this guy interviewing the woman?

[Ritterin Sophia]

More of this please. This guy is just fantastic. He interviwed that idiotic woman (clip at the start of the video above) and was such a class act that he tore her to pieces without attacking her once (even though she deserved it, she was an ignoramus spouting nonsense) - but with this sleazeball, he just blew him apart with a bazooka. Classic.

Do we have a clip of this guy interviewing the woman?

Note her obvious attempt at 'i plead the fifth!'.

[Themightytom]

While it is REALLY gratifying to see someone who cuts through the bullshit, it isn't neccesarily the prudent approach. Democrats should emonstrate they CAN play hardball, but choose not to. Ultiamtely this INS'T about getting the last word, its about persuading people, including teh senator who is going to be voting on the bill. That guy has been set up so that there is no possible compromise that will get him to support the bill by a news personality with nothing to lose.

he shoul definitely get his own show, and i'd watch it, and welcome the inevitable showdowns with other network personalities, but this probably would not be an effective method for others to employ in support of healthcare.

[Vympel]

While it is REALLY gratifying to see someone who cuts through the bullshit, it isn't neccesarily the prudent approach. Democrats should emonstrate they CAN play hardball, but choose not to. Ultiamtely this INS'T about getting the last word, its about persuading people, including teh senator who is going to be voting on the bill. That guy has been set up so that there is no possible compromise that will get him to support the bill by a news personality with nothing to lose.

I don't think lambasting Republicans is going to have any effect on health care reform. They're quite simply the enemy, and need to be defeated. Fuck bipartisanship.

[Stark]

It's not prudent to expose massive falsehoods, errors and misrepresentations. I guess it's 'bipartisan' to indulge in lies, ignorance etc.

[Straha]

While it is REALLY gratifying to see someone who cuts through the bullshit, it isn't neccesarily the prudent approach. Democrats should emonstrate they CAN play hardball, but choose not to. Ultiamtely this INS'T about getting the last word, its about persuading people, including teh senator who is going to be voting on the bill. That guy has been set up so that there is no possible compromise that will get him to support the bill by a news personality with nothing to lose.

No.

Here's why: When you stand up there and try to persuade a republican to become a democrat, they won't understand you. Cognitively. Same if it's vice-versa. Irregardless, they won't understand you. Don't believe me? The brain rewards followers of political ideologies for ignoring contradictions in their candidate's statements and platforms.

So you can't win over a Republican, no more than a Republican can win over a democrat. What you can do is show the Republican position to be nothing but a tissue thin sheet of lies and falsehoods perpetrated in order to get that sweet sweet dopamine brain reward, and then win over all of the moderates in the middle and leave the Republicans out in the cold. That works just fine in politics.

[Themightytom]

No.

Here's why: When you stand up there and try to persuade a republican to become a democrat, they won't understand you. Cognitively. Same if it's vice-versa. Irregardless, they won't understand you. Don't believe me? The brain rewards followers of political ideologies for ignoring contradictions in their candidate's statements and platforms.

That study does not say they don't understand you cognitively, it says

The brain registers the conflict between data and desire and begins to search for ways to turn off the spigot of unpleasant emotion.

Its not referring to an inhibited cognition comprehension. Cognitive processes are taking place, but an emotional response is generating a defense mechanism. Rather than accept the defense mechanism as a given, DON'T TRIGGER IT and manipulate the innate desire a person has not to be wrong. In other words, be diplomatic. The actual report is cluttered with political commentary and suggestion for a very different situation than what we have today. When Kerry was running, it was an uncharismatic ponderous oaf against an agile and popular president, who had spent three years cultivating a fear based atmosphere under his central authoirty. It wasn't generally recognized that he was failing yet.

Now the cats out of the bag, the Democrats have majorities everywhere, they can still point at the previous administration for the mess we are in, at this moment, we still have the upper hand ideologically, and we have a VERY charismatic leader in Obama, where the Republicans are a disorgnized rabble outsourcing their nprotests to Birthers, Teaparty morons and the RTL movement. The reccomendations for political strategy aren't neccesarily valid anymore.

So you can't win over a Republican, no more than a Republican can win over a democrat. What you can do is show the Republican position to be nothing but a tissue thin sheet of lies and falsehoods perpetrated in order to get that sweet sweet dopamine brain reward, and then win over all of the moderates in the middle and leave the Republicans out in the cold. That works just fine in politics.

The study itself is based on presenting confrontational, and contradictory information as an argument. In clinical terms, it refers to acognitive intervention. Thats not the only approach. there is also "rolling with opposition", LETTING someone blather on, providing neutral validation to maintain repore and build alignment. Strategically choosing core issues and validating the sentiment while reframing the statement gets your opponent to begin verbalizing agreement with YOUR sentiments as though they were theirs. Lawrence was doing this fairly effectively with Katie, She wasn't even fighting him at the end, she was giving ground, which undermines the position she represents fantastically, in the eyes of both moderates AND in the people who tuned in to watch her make her points.

Universal healthcare is REALLY important for our country, we're idiots for not having adopted it sooner. Leftover propoganda from the cold war has innoculated us against any good ideas that involve socialism, don't you you cringe every time someone says "I don't want you turning our coutnry into RUssia" as if THATS a valid statement?

I don't think right wing conservatives are beyond reach, providing an apropriate strategy is used to address them. . Republicans are going to play political games no matter what we do, but if we shift the debate as far to the left as possible and cultivate an environment of thoughtful discussion, they're going to have to back up their "alternatives" to democratic proposals, which means they will have to actuaqlly think about them and present a rational case.

[Straha]

No.

Here's why: When you stand up there and try to persuade a republican to become a democrat, they won't understand you. Cognitively. Same if it's vice-versa. Irregardless, they won't understand you. Don't believe me? The brain rewards followers of political ideologies for ignoring contradictions in their candidate's statements and platforms.

That study does not say they don't understand you cognitively, it says

The brain registers the conflict between data and desire and begins to search for ways to turn off the spigot of unpleasant emotion.

Its not referring to an inhibited cognition comprehension. Cognitive processes are taking place, but an emotional response is generating a defense mechanism.

My gods you're dense, that sentence describes how the brain usually reacts. Read the very next fucking paragraph:

Not only did the brain manage to shut down distress through faulty reasoning, but it did so quickly—as best we could tell, usually before subjects even made it to the third slide. The neural circuits charged with regulation of emotional states seemed to recruit beliefs that eliminated the distress and conflict partisans had experienced when they confronted unpleasant realities. And this all seemed to happen with little involvement of the neural circuits normally involved in reasoning.

But the political brain also did something we didn’t predict. Once partisans had found a way to reason to false conclusions, not only did neural circuits involved in negative emotions turn off, but circuits involved in positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain didn’t seem satisfied in just feeling better. It worked overtime to feel good, activating reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased reasoning. These reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated when drug addicts get their “fix,” giving new meaning to the term political junkie.

In other words, twit, their brains fail to register any cognitive disconnect at the outset and then reward them for this failure. It doesn't matter if the response is emotional, the people in question cannot comprehend that they are wrong. It cannot be done.

Now the cats out of the bag, the Democrats have majorities everywhere, they can still point at the previous administration for the mess we are in, at this moment, we still have the upper hand ideologically, and we have a VERY charismatic leader in Obama, where the Republicans are a disorgnized rabble outsourcing their nprotests to Birthers, Teaparty morons and the RTL movement. The reccomendations for political strategy aren't neccesarily valid anymore.

YES! The Democrats have a massive majority everywhere you look and have (had) rock solid backing. SO WHY ARE YOU CATERING TO A MINORITY WHICH YOU CAN JUST AS EASILY IGNORE AND LEAVE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD LIKE ROAD KILL!? You don't need to win the Republicans over, there's nothing there that should make you want to win them over either. Instead of fighting for those morons ignore them, keep the "middle" in your camp by showing them to be a bunch of lying sons of bitches, and get this fucking bill passed. End of story.

The study itself is based on presenting confrontational, and contradictory information as an argument. In clinical terms, it refers to acognitive intervention. Thats not the only approach. there is also "rolling with opposition", LETTING someone blather on, providing neutral validation to maintain repore and build alignment.

Maintain a rapport?! Build alignment!? THE DIE HARD RIGHT ARE IDIOTS! NOTHING YOU DO WILL WIN THEM OVER! THE ONLY THING THAT WILL ALIGN YOU WITH THEM IS DROPPING HEALTHCARE! Any compromise is a failure to the American people, and an utterly unnecessary one because of the huge majority the Democrats have!

THIS is the reason why Democrats are such failures at government. Because when given a position of total control they immediately start compromising and trying to find a golden mean with all the opposition instead of telling them they're wrong and actually god damn legislating!

Strategically choosing core issues and validating the sentiment while reframing the statement gets your opponent to begin verbalizing agreement with YOUR sentiments as though they were theirs. Lawrence was doing this fairly effectively with Katie, She wasn't even fighting him at the end, she was giving ground, which undermines the position she represents fantastically, in the eyes of both moderates AND in the people who tuned in to watch her make her points.

Because she was a flipping retard and he had her on the defensive by being an aggressive questioner. But do you think any Republican was won over by that argument? You think she was won over to his side? No. The man in the middle saw she was a retard when he blew her position to smithereens in the opening of the interview. That's the man the Democrats have to keep in their corner.

Universal healthcare is REALLY important for our country, we're idiots for not having adopted it sooner. Leftover propoganda from the cold war has innoculated us against any good ideas that involve socialism, don't you you cringe every time someone says "I don't want you turning our coutnry into RUssia" as if THATS a valid statement?

Yes, that makes me cringe. But I've talked with these people. You can't win them over. But you know what the great thing is? You don't have to. Ignore them and move on. They'll get healthcare once it's over and then you just have to wait for it to become status quo and fight that battle. Pierre Trudeau did it in Canada, and Barack Obama can do that here.

I don't think right wing conservatives are beyond reach, providing an apropriate strategy is used to address them. . Republicans are going to play political games no matter what we do, but if we shift the debate as far to the left as possible and cultivate an environment of thoughtful discussion, they're going to have to back up their "alternatives" to democratic proposals, which means they will have to actuaqlly think about them and present a rational case.

SPELL CHECK BEFORE YOU POST! For fucks sake.

And before you were arguing that we should go to them and try to establish a "rapore", now you're saying shift the debate as far left as possible? Make up your mind and come back with a proper response.

[Gil Hamilton]

Putting aside that she CLEARLY didn't know what she was talking about on the issue and really didn't have anything from rhetoric that was feed to her, I find it entertaining she was defending her own healthplan that was clearly kind of a crummy one. The fact that people can so easily be trained to campaign against themselves is impressive.

[Next of Kin]

Yes, that was odd. I believe she said that she had a high deductible for her health insurance. However, it wasn't about that. It was about going back to the time of the founding fathers. Ah, such nostalgia!

[PeZook]

You know, that woman so obviously doesn't comprehend the topic...

"We don't want this country turning into Russia!"

Yeah, because all of Russia's problems come from its evil socialized health care system. Remember folks, keeping the population healthy leads to social collapse!

[ray245]

You know, that woman so obviously doesn't comprehend the topic...

"We don't want this country turning into Russia!"

Yeah, because all of Russia's problems come from its evil socialized health care system. Remember folks, keeping the population healthy leads to social collapse!

Well, for all we know, she's usually using a slippery slope fallacy. Although I high doubt that she even knows what the hell a logical fallacy is.

[Patrick Degan]

You know, that woman so obviously doesn't comprehend the topic...

"We don't want this country turning into Russia!"

Yeah, because all of Russia's problems come from its evil socialized health care system. Remember folks, keeping the population healthy leads to social collapse!

Well, for all we know, she's usually using a slippery slope fallacy. Although I high doubt that she even knows what the hell a logical fallacy is.

People like this believe Russia is STILL the Soviet Union, which is merely pretending to be capitalist for now to lull us into complacency until they can succeed in their grand Communist Conspiracy™ of world dominion.

[Thanas]

I really loved it when she complained about the healthcare system...and then didn't know how much money she made or how her healthcare plan is made up.

So either she is really dumb or she is lying in order to satisfy her partisan agenda. I'd suspect the latter except that some people really are stupid.

[ray245]

I really loved it when she complained about the healthcare system...and then didn't know how much money she made or how her healthcare plan is made up.

So either she is really dumb or she is lying in order to satisfy her partisan agenda. I'd suspect the latter except that some people really are stupid.

The majority of the population are dumb and no freaking clue about what the hell they are saying most of the time. Most people are never exposed to an environment where their personal belief is constantly being challenged.

[Aaron]

Yes, that makes me cringe. But I've talked with these people. You can't win them over. But you know what the great thing is? You don't have to. Ignore them and move on. They'll get healthcare once it's over and then you just have to wait for it to become status quo and fight that battle. Pierre Trudeau did it in Canada, and Barack Obama can do that here.

Actually Straha credit goes to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and Tommy Douglass in 1966, Trudeau didn't become PM until 1968.