|
coyo7e posted:I was listening to a recording of a bernie rally from the other day, and his supporters can be heard referring to each other as bernie bros. I didn't realize every Bernie supporter was present at this particular rally and able to be heard on this recording. coyo7e posted:She's a handsome woman, but that underbite is pretty hardcore, makes her look like she just stepped out of the boxing ring and hasn't spit out her mouthguard yet. Ugh.
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:...because all of that means jack poo poo when the nominee won't actually do anything about the issues Sanders made central to his platform, at all, when she's elected president. And if you think Sanders' surprisingly strong showing means he'll effect any positive change at all within the people truly in power in either the DNC, the Democratic party in general, or the people who collectively made Clinton the nominee above the whims of the electorate you're more delusional than Bernie supporters. Support means nothing without power. Bernie has no power. The disenfranchised continue to be disenfranchised. ... you know there's a lot more to American politics than "every 4 years a king is elected", right?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:I didn't realize every Bernie supporter was present at this particular rally and able to be heard on this recording.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Being an insufferable Bernie supporter is your posting gimmick, or your actual fursona? I think that was my first post ever about Bernie Sanders. Not sure where you're getting that from.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cosby-arrives-pennsylvania-sexual-assault-case_us_57446ad3e4b045cc9a71f336 Paging Larry Wilmore, please report to the "Haven't forgot you motherfucker" and "Got you, motherfucker!" adjacent.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Making fun of Bernie and his supporters is a punch down, especially considering everyone with eyes and ears knows that Hillary's the candidate and everyone's gonna vote for her, mostly grudgingly because wowzers she's a terrible loving candidate. Making fun of Hillary is a punch up considering she's the odds-on favorite hand-picked by the oligarchy and the literal rich cabal of people in power to be one of the two candidates we'll be allowed to vote for that have a realistic shot at winning the election. Yes, making fun of angry white male progressives who verbally abuse women and the candidate who enables them is truly punching down. White male progressives have it so hard these days. Poor them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I think the backlash against the Bernie campaign, in some ways, resembles the backlash against BLM or OWS where it's difficult for members of the movement to distinguish between good faith critiques and bad faith concern trolling, especially from liberals claiming to be at least sympathetic. For some of Bernie's supporters, they see malice in the mockery and don't feel the need to play the respectability card yet. Not necessarily defending them; but the current anger from the left is coming from a place of despair. I'm not happy with Bernie's likely loss of the nomination, but I didn't take Bush's reelection in 2004 well at all; and I considered that election to be the moment where I built a lot of political disappointment antibodies.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Haha his name is word filtered now.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Looks like we got election word filters. Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Gary Johnson edit: election choice justified
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:the Bernie campaign This is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Donald Trump is John Miller now, too. EFB
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Did not know people don't like Michelle Wolf. Her bit on presidental spouses was outstanding. Her humor kinda works as a broader variant of the sort of chemistry Schaal used to bring. She's easily the best addition to the cast since Roy Wood. Cheng is still nigh unwatchable, and I hate that they're giving him great topics for field pieces (contested conventions!) and then they're just trickled out into nothingness.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:Did not know people don't like Michelle Wolf. Her bit on presidental spouses was outstanding. I think she's fine as a Schaal replacement (although less charming IMO). But the 'Wolf There It Is' segment was painful (as was the title). It was just her constantly going off-topic to force in dated stand-up jokes. The only way it works is a some kind of retrospective meta-joke about how trite 90's comedy was, and Sam Bee did that kind of meta-humor way better.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
This Nightly panel is once again frustrating. Ricky is painful. Francesca is once again the agreeable one. 1. Rutgers did not "disinvite" Rice. Rice dropped out after seeing the controversy that was happening. 2. The leaders of the "No Rice" protest said they were fully okay with Rice lecturing at Rutgers. Just not speaking at commencement and getting an honorary degree. A commencement isn't a time to have a "meaningful debate" on Rice's legacy. 3. The invasion of Iraq was really hosed up, thousands of people died and are still dying, and we have no business whitewashing it. The graduating students in 2014 were probably around 11 years old when Bush started dropping bombs and I'm glad they had some perspective on it a decade later. I was a student at Rutgers from 2005-2009; Bush's unpopular years, and I still remember how hostile the campus community was to the campus' anti-war movement. Obama's speech was nice, but his denunciation of #NoRice was not. He was not on campus when it happened. Being a university employee, I was. But I get it Obama, you're transitioning to the role of Elder Statesman. You want to be the peacemaker. You get to be above the conversation if you want to. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 14:52 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:Did not know people don't like Michelle Wolf. Her bit on presidental spouses was outstanding. Her delivery is some open mic night caliber terribad poo poo, and that's before you even get into her actual material for that segment.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Yeah, Michelle Wolfe didn't turn it around in this segment either. She just lacks the bite behind her words that Sam Bee has. It still feels too much like reading a script.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
raditts posted:Her delivery is some open mic night caliber terribad poo poo, and that's before you even get into her actual material for that segment. "Hillary seems to have broken the law? Just ignore it!"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Maybe it's because I'm a white dude and I don't have to deal with the actual, physical violence that they've inflicted, but the non-frothing lunatics who support Trump freak me out so much more. Hillary is dishonest? Has he said a single thing in the last year that hasn't contradicted basic reality or something he belched earlier?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
She's dishonest and she's a woman. So much worse when you're a misogynist shitface.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
I don't get why people don't think Bernie should be the nominee. Trump is going to crush Hillary. Bernie is the best bet for the Democrats. How the gently caress has it come to this?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Not sure how you figure that. Trump has zero women and minorities.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
SyRauk posted:I don't get why people don't think Bernie should be the nominee. Trump is going to crush Hillary. Bernie is the best bet for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
SyRauk posted:I don't get why people don't think Bernie should be the nominee. Trump is going to crush Hillary. Bernie is the best bet for the Democrats. I love Bernie and I think he's the realest motherfucker on the campaign trail, but I'm kind of baffled by the popular narrative of "nobody likes Hillary" when she seems to be pulling in the wins everywhere that matters. As much as I'd like that to not be the case, who are all these people voting for her if nobody likes her? Also, lol if you think she won't smear trump all over the pavement once he has to venture out of his small pond of racist Walmart shoppers. Unless she utterly shits the bed in the general, there is nothing he's got on her that she can't hit back with ten times as hard.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
raditts posted:
Trump's populist anti-establishment message is how he gained the hardcore and impassioned fanbase that he has (and it's how he gained the nomination while running in a party who utterly despised him from beginning to when he clinched it), alongside a boatload of charisma and fascist/racist/xenophobic statements that give the hateful in this country a voice. It isn't just racist hicks, although that's a large part of who votes for him. It's that he's framed himself as an outsider willing to challenge the status quo (on top of the crazy racism and fascism and xenophobia), and this has translated into a LOT of people who truly believe in his message. And, basically, Hillary's the ur example of the establishment and continuation of the status quo, on top of the fact that she's a charismaless void of personality whose entire outward-facing persona is very clearly manufactured and malleable. So, basically, to Trump's platform Hillary's the exact candidate he wanted to face off against, because she represents everything he's campaigned against, just like Cruz and Bush before her. I mean, she's probably gonna win. Let's make that clear. But it won't be easy and probably won't be definitive considering how terrible she was at fending off the socialist Jew who ran that same populist campaign, while having many times more funding than he did and the same foregone conclusion campaign in the primary since the Dem nom was supposed to be a glorified coronation, and she won't have the benefit of a literal cabal of highly-paid Democrats who handpicked her over the whims of the electorate in the general. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I mean, she's probably gonna win. Let's make that clear. But it won't be easy and probably won't be definitive considering how terrible she was at fending off the socialist Jew who ran that same populist campaign, while having many times more funding than he did and the same foregone conclusion campaign in the primary since the Dem nom was supposed to be a glorified coronation, and she won't have the benefit of a literal cabal of highly-paid Democrats who handpicked her over the whims of the electorate in the general. Really, Sanders' campaign is like a masterclass on how not to run a populist campaign for Democrats. Don't lose African Americans and other minorities, and certainly not in those numbers. Mars4523 fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
It's scary that Trump is leading in any demographic, and that one demographic makes him competitive in the race. Cmon, my fellow white dudes. You should know better 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:Mind you, the idea that Hillary is having trouble defeating Sanders is a myth, constructed by the media who bandy around M word "momentum" like that is a thing that exists. Sanders has been benefiting from the calendar giving him lots of small, predominantly white states and caucus states, which he excels at winning. But in states with a large populations, lots of minorities, and primaries of any kind, Clinton has been stomping all over Sanders. Her delegate lead became insurmountable when Sanders failed to win over Southern African American democrats, and it's only gotten worse since. Sanders massively overperformed and we would have had a genuinely competitive race if superdelegates didn't exist, and it extra stings considering that superdelegates were literally invented to prevent populist campaigns from getting the Democratic nomination. And, yeah, this wasn't exactly a steamroll win for Hillary - she ran the primary campaign with her main platform essentially being "I'm gonna win anyways so you mine as well vote for me". She should've locked up the nomination many months beforehand, she didn't, and she's limping her way to a convention where she'll end up the handpicked appointee by the DNC. Her winning the nomination was never in doubt but she didn't exactly coast to a victory, despite running her campaign as if it were a coast. I mean, we shouldn't be surprised considering she ran the exact same campaign in 2016 that she ran in 2008, down to the massive war chest and funding a campaign that attempted to delegitimize the populist outsider candidate campaigning on a platform of change, with the same "It's a foregone conclusion so you mine as well vote for me" attitude, and she very nearly lost it. Again.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Sanders massively overperformed and we would have had a genuinely competitive race if superdelegates didn't exist, and it extra stings considering that superdelegates were literally invented to prevent populist campaigns from getting the Democratic nomination. And, yeah, this wasn't exactly a steamroll win for Hillary - she ran the primary campaign with her main platform essentially being "I'm gonna win anyways so you mine as well vote for me". She should've locked up the nomination many months beforehand, she didn't, and she's limping her way to a convention where she'll end up the handpicked appointee by the DNC. Her winning the nomination was never in doubt but she didn't exactly coast to a victory, despite running her campaign as if it were a coast. And yeah, the funny thing is that Clinton's 2016 coalition encompasses large parts of Obama's 2008 coalition, while Sanders is winning over Clinton's 2008 coalition.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:And yeah, the funny thing is that Clinton's 2016 coalition encompasses large parts of Obama's 2008 coalition, while Sanders is winning over Clinton's 2008 coalition.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:down to the massive war chest Sanders has raised more money than Clinton. Clinton currently has more money than the Sanders, but that is because Sanders has outspent Clinton by over $27 million. Sanders (04/30/16):
Clinton (04/30/16):
Source: FEC 2016 Presidential Campaign Finance
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
MrPablo posted:Sanders has raised more money than Clinton. Clinton currently has more money than the Sanders, but that is because Sanders has outspent Clinton by over $27 million. That's not really the point he was making there. When did Sanders actually start raking in comparable money to put him in league with Clinton in funds? Clinton absolutely started with, as Toxx noted, a considerable warchest, including the overall fundraising network she inherited from Obama's campaign. That Sanders managed to match and even ultimately pull in more money through small donations of all things is nothing short of a miracle.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:It's scary that Trump is leading in any demographic, and that one demographic makes him competitive in the race. It's OK, white dudes haven't voted Democratic by much more than 30% or so since the 80s. Our flailing temper tantrum will be yet another tempest in a tea pot. White Dudes are just the worst.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:down to the massive war chest Toxxupation posted:while having many times more funding than he did Oh Snapple! posted:That's not really the point he was making there. One claim (based on the quotes above) seemed to be that Clinton has a large fundraising lead over Sanders. The FEC filings (to date) do not support that claim. I agree that the Clinton campaign has had many advantages over the Sanders campaign. Off the top of my head:
Oh Snapple! posted:When did Sanders actually start raking in comparable money to put him in league with Clinton in funds? Q4, 2015, according to this CNN article: quote:But the Sanders campaign slowly and steadily eroded the former secretary of state's fundraising advantage. Sanders slightly edged Clinton in contributions in 2015's fourth quarter, but his fundraising operation didn't kick into high gear until 2016. His campaign has outraised Clinton's every month this year by at least 50%. In March alone, "Bernie 2016" received $44.7 million in contributions, compared to $26.3 million for "Hillary for America." Oh Snapple! posted:Clinton absolutely started with, as Toxx noted, a considerable warchest, including the overall fundraising network she inherited from Obama's campaign. Clinton did start with more money and with an initial fundraising advantage. Oh Snapple! posted:That Sanders managed to match and even ultimately pull in more money through small donations of all things is nothing short of a miracle. That is certainly true: Donations of $200 or less, according to the FEC:
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
It gets pretty exhausting seeing every talk show host do the "I know you already heard this speech" speech, but Trevor's response was still pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
I like Larry last night, he legit argued with the dude he had on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Two interview segments, and one of them is Eddie Huang. Barf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Larry Wilmore doesn't have a lot of defenders here but as long as he's banned from CNN for hurting their feelings, he has my goodwill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Larry Wilmore doesn't have a lot of defenders here but as long as he's banned from CNN for hurting their feelings, he has my goodwill. How'd he manage that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
He pretty much called Wolf Blitzer a joke and said CNN sucks at the WHCD. He was later scheduled to appear on Don Lemon, but the higher ups at the network said no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:40
|
|