Election 2016

[darth_vedder]

McCain's drift from "maverick" who isn't afraid to tell the rest of the GOP to eat shit to Republican shill has also kinda shaded my view of that event. As ST already mentioned, 2000 McCain would have told both those people to STFU.

If McCain would have got the nomination in 2000, I think I would have voted for him over Gore. I ended up voting for Gore despite Ed's best efforts to get Nader elected.

[darth_vedder]

That show is unwatchable.

If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.

That too.

I haven't watched either, well, a few Daily Shows, but are they really that bad? What is so bad about them? Did Stewart just leave too hard an act to follow?

[LoathedVermin72]

That show is unwatchable.

If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.

That too.

I haven't watched either, well, a few Daily Shows, but are they really that bad? What is so bad about them? Did Stewart just leave too hard an act to follow?

No, I hated Stewart. I just can't stand these kinds of political punditry/comedy shows. I've talked about this a lot already, but they're nothing but smug pandering, self-righteousness, and easy laughs. I find them shrill and insufferable.

[stip]

That show is unwatchable.

If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.

That too.

I haven't watched either, well, a few Daily Shows, but are they really that bad? What is so bad about them? Did Stewart just leave too hard an act to follow?

No, I hated Stewart. I just can't stand these kinds of political punditry/comedy shows. I've talked about this a lot already, but they're nothing but smug pandering, self-righteousness, and easy laughs. I find them shrill and insufferable.

I don't normally go in for these kinds of shows for that kind of reason. It's also why websites like the Daily Kos are practically unreadable. But the Daily Show under Stewart's run happened to be unusually insightful satire.

[LoathedVermin72]

That show is unwatchable.

If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.

That too.

I haven't watched either, well, a few Daily Shows, but are they really that bad? What is so bad about them? Did Stewart just leave too hard an act to follow?

No, I hated Stewart. I just can't stand these kinds of political punditry/comedy shows. I've talked about this a lot already, but they're nothing but smug pandering, self-righteousness, and easy laughs. I find them shrill and insufferable.

I don't normally go in for these kinds of shows for that kind of reason. It's also why websites like the Daily Kos are practically unreadable. But the Daily Show under Stewart's run happened to be unusually insightful satire.

Agree to disagree on that one.

The only such show I've ever enjoyed was The Colbert Report, and that was largely because I think Colbert playing a conservative character pushed it into some interesting, layered satire. And the writing was sharp as hell.

[darth_vedder]

That show is unwatchable.

If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.

That too.

I haven't watched either, well, a few Daily Shows, but are they really that bad? What is so bad about them? Did Stewart just leave too hard an act to follow?

No, I hated Stewart. I just can't stand these kinds of political punditry/comedy shows. I've talked about this a lot already, but they're nothing but smug pandering, self-righteousness, and easy laughs. I find them shrill and insufferable.

I don't normally go in for these kinds of shows for that kind of reason. It's also why websites like the Daily Kos are practically unreadable. But the Daily Show under Stewart's run happened to be unusually insightful satire.

I loved Stewart / Colbert, so I was just wondering of Sam Bee's show and the new DS are just step-downs from the higher standards set by Stewart / Colbert.

I have heard ok reviews on Sam's show, but I haven't heard much about the new DS. If you liked the old one, how does the new one with Trevor hold up?

[McParadigm]

Here's 70% of all the Daily Show jokes I ever heard:

(Clip of person x saying something is bad)

John S: Well, at least we know you have a clear stand against it. It's nice to see such certainty in-

(Clip of person x saying the opposite)

John S: WHAT (makes the same face as an 8 year old who just shit his pants while surrounded by friends at Chuck E Cheese)

Yeah, Colbert was smarter, funnier, and ultimately more biting.

[stip]

This was one of my favorite skits, a great example of what the show was capable of


http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ro5l52/th ... servatives


http://www.cc.com/video-clips/jfmt11/th ... de-is-over

[stip]

I rarely watched the Colbert report. It always felt like one joke on an endless loop (albiet a pretty good one)

[Jorge]

Even Stevphen was a fun segment.

[LoathedVermin72]

Here's 70% of all the Daily Show jokes I ever heard:

(Clip of person x saying something is bad)

John S: Well, at least we know you have a clear stand against it. It's nice to see such certainty in-

(Clip of person x saying the opposite)

John S: WHAT (makes the same face as an 8 year old who just shit his pants while surrounded by friends at Chuck E Cheese)

Yeah, Colbert was smarter, funnier, and ultimately more biting.

Ha, I made almost this exact same post a year or two ago.

[LoathedVermin72]

Here's 70% of all the Daily Show jokes I ever heard:

(Clip of person x saying something is bad)

John S: Well, at least we know you have a clear stand against it. It's nice to see such certainty in-

(Clip of person x saying the opposite)

John S: WHAT (makes the same face as an 8 year old who just shit his pants while surrounded by friends at Chuck E Cheese)

Yeah, Colbert was smarter, funnier, and ultimately more biting.

Ha, I made almost this exact same post a year or two ago.

Here it is:

I'm not into smug douchebags who pander to a built-in liberal audience and pass it off as comedy. At least The Colbert Report elevated its conservative-bashing to satirical performance art and had layered, substantive writing in its humor. Stewart's formula is basically the following:

-Play a clip of a conservative politician/pundit saying something dumb
-Cut to Stewart giving an exasperated look
-Cue a few unfunny jabs
-End with a preachy message the audience already agrees with

Yuck.

Not quite exactly the same, but pretty close.

[spike]

ST, when you are talking about hateful and destructive things your willingness to embrace it, even if you don't believe it, DOES say something about who you are.

It's complicated. The line I'm trying to draw is something like this: when Trump tailors his message so that it appeals to white nationalists and racists out of one side of his mouth, and then disavows them out of the other side, it does reveal something about who he is, but that doesn't mean that he's a racist (this is what b_i was getting at earlier, I think). But if you push this a little further, it certainly does sound like just the regular shit every politician does: carefully choose words and positions based on their audiences, even if one message slightly contradicts the other--all of the memes about Clinton asking voters, "What do you like? I like that, too!" basically work on the same principle. But I think where you want to draw the line, stip--and I'm fine with drawing it here, too--is that this kind of stuff is slimy when you're trying to draw in people who want slightly different tax codes, but deplorable when you're courting people who espouse genocide.

For another day, we could talk about this, too: how discussions of "Is Trump racist?" (and 97% of discussions on racism) focus on the good-ol'-boy style of racism and mostly ignore institutional racism.

I don't care if he's a racist or not. His entire worldview is basically "Me." And part of that...the part that really makes his presidency scary to me...is an attitude of nonconsequence.

[Simple Torture]

ST, when you are talking about hateful and destructive things your willingness to embrace it, even if you don't believe it, DOES say something about who you are.

It's complicated. The line I'm trying to draw is something like this: when Trump tailors his message so that it appeals to white nationalists and racists out of one side of his mouth, and then disavows them out of the other side, it does reveal something about who he is, but that doesn't mean that he's a racist (this is what b_i was getting at earlier, I think). But if you push this a little further, it certainly does sound like just the regular shit every politician does: carefully choose words and positions based on their audiences, even if one message slightly contradicts the other--all of the memes about Clinton asking voters, "What do you like? I like that, too!" basically work on the same principle. But I think where you want to draw the line, stip--and I'm fine with drawing it here, too--is that this kind of stuff is slimy when you're trying to draw in people who want slightly different tax codes, but deplorable when you're courting people who espouse genocide.

For another day, we could talk about this, too: how discussions of "Is Trump racist?" (and 97% of discussions on racism) focus on the good-ol'-boy style of racism and mostly ignore institutional racism.

I don't care if he's a racist or not. His entire worldview is basically "Me." And part of that...the part that really makes his presidency scary to me...is an attitude of nonconsequence.

The wall just got 10 feet higher, McP.

[Simple Torture]

http://www.theonion.com/video/brutal-an ... dida-52562

[Henery Hawk]

Liberal leaders are hoping to fire up voters through a “massive nonviolent mobilization” aimed at thwarting Donald Trump’s presidential hopes — writing a call-to-arms letter Tuesday demanding action.

More than 20 top officials from liberal-leaning groups like MoveOn.org, Services Employees International Union and the Sierra Club signed the searing letter, which was released Tuesday morning ahead of the primaries in five contested states.

“This is a five-alarm fire on our democracy,” said the letter, obtained by Politico. “A hate-peddling bigot who openly incites violence is the likely presidential nominee of one of our nation’s two major parties. It is alarming and dangerous.”

“Donald Trump’s candidacy is a threat to the America we love, and we must respond to him and what he is stoking as such,” the letter continued.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/15/top-libera ... est-trump/

These protests are a joke for a party that preaches tolerance liberals are the biggest hypocrites out there.

[Monkey_Driven]

I just voted. Open primaries are the best.

[stip]

Liberal leaders are hoping to fire up voters through a “massive nonviolent mobilization” aimed at thwarting Donald Trump’s presidential hopes — writing a call-to-arms letter Tuesday demanding action.

More than 20 top officials from liberal-leaning groups like MoveOn.org, Services Employees International Union and the Sierra Club signed the searing letter, which was released Tuesday morning ahead of the primaries in five contested states.

“This is a five-alarm fire on our democracy,” said the letter, obtained by Politico. “A hate-peddling bigot who openly incites violence is the likely presidential nominee of one of our nation’s two major parties. It is alarming and dangerous.”

“Donald Trump’s candidacy is a threat to the America we love, and we must respond to him and what he is stoking as such,” the letter continued.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/15/top-libera ... est-trump/

These protests are a joke for a party that preaches tolerance liberals are the biggest hypocrites out there.

What people often miss is that the philosophy that underpins and justifies tolerance is built on certain base assumptions that have to be defended. This isn't necessarily hypocritical.

[Mine]

ST, when you are talking about hateful and destructive things your willingness to embrace it, even if you don't believe it, DOES say something about who you are.

It's complicated. The line I'm trying to draw is something like this: when Trump tailors his message so that it appeals to white nationalists and racists out of one side of his mouth, and then disavows them out of the other side, it does reveal something about who he is, but that doesn't mean that he's a racist (this is what b_i was getting at earlier, I think). But if you push this a little further, it certainly does sound like just the regular shit every politician does: carefully choose words and positions based on their audiences, even if one message slightly contradicts the other--all of the memes about Clinton asking voters, "What do you like? I like that, too!" basically work on the same principle. But I think where you want to draw the line, stip--and I'm fine with drawing it here, too--is that this kind of stuff is slimy when you're trying to draw in people who want slightly different tax codes, but deplorable when you're courting people who espouse genocide.

For another day, we could talk about this, too: how discussions of "Is Trump racist?" (and 97% of discussions on racism) focus on the good-ol'-boy style of racism and mostly ignore institutional racism.

I think an aspect that makes discussions about whether someone is a racist, homophobic, white supremacist or of any other brand of discriminatory mentality is that they take on a wide range of forms from the barely concious to the most extreme. There is a threshold below which a type of discrimination isn't considered as such and it varies with time and for different individuals.
Sometimes i notice posts in comment sections that can be paraphrased to "i want to express my racist views without being called a racist". People who post things like this have set a very high threshold for what is racism.

When it comes to politicians, and taking into account their rhetoric is strategic, i don't think they have to run for office and go as far as proposing the reinstalment of slavery as a solution to fix the economy to be called racists.

[Mine]

There's no way that Trump becomes President.

It isn't, but someone like him getting close to it is worrying enough.

Trump's a singularity. If he didn't have his money, his profile and his weird charisma it would have been impossible for him to get this far. The election environment he's walked into has allowed him to flourish. It is hard to imagine this happening again.

I understand that. It's why i compared him to Berlusconi in an earlier post.

I think what is worrying is how much support he has. The people who are willing to vote for someone who is openly xenophobic, a white supremacists or however we want to define it, aren't going to disappear with him. Even if he gives up on his political ambitions after the GE someone else will purse those votes in likely a similar way unless there's a substantial enough shift in mentality and political discourse.

That's been about 15-25% of the American electorate for quite some time. What's been unusual about this cycle is that it's driving one of the two major parties, and that is really due to the peculiar alchemy of trump.

I realize it's part of the progressive playbook to call people you disagree with racist so you never have to confront their ideas, but come on. Opposing illegal immigration does not make you white supremacist, it means that you prefer poor people in your nation have the first shot at jobs created in their homeland vice people brought in via the new, non-Atlantic slave trade from Mexico. Spying on non-US citizens in the US does not make a you white supremacist, visa holders and tourists are not protected by the fourth amendment. Just because white supremacists groups tend to support these things does not make them inherently bad, nor does it make one of them. He is an spoiled, ignorant bully and he is unafraid of being judge by the people that got the world into it's present shitty state and that appeals to wide group of Americans.

It's really not that simple.
Someone in my country made the point how the poor people's well being here only became an issue for the right wingers here once the immigrants and refugees tuned up and it's true.

I think the fact that white supremacy groups support certain things should at least raise the question whether the other side has a point.