|
Automation is advancing so rapidly we seriously need to start talking about what to do in a post-work society. Those jobs are gone. They will never ever return. Robots are cheaper and better than you. Burning the country and handing it to the Klan isn't going to change that. White nationalism is not an answer to anything.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Hillary largely hasn't helped Americans. Hell, between her and Bill's support of poo poo like NAFTA, tough on crime, and welfare reform, she's pretty much caused almost irrevocable harm to what's going to end up being generations of them. CHIP goes a long way in the "good things" column.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Let me put it another way. This is loving hilarious because the resounding narrative from Trump's base was "He tells the TRUTH!", when he does anything but, but when Hillary tells the truth, that those factory jobs are gone, that coal needs to follow, then she's the bad guy because it's a truth some people don't want to hear because change is scary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/9061c8/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-how-donald-trump-tapped-into-middle-america Ronnie tries his hand at polling. Of course the guy that falls for the free Hamilton tickets sign was white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Pastrymancy posted:http://www.cc.com/video-clips/9061c8/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-how-donald-trump-tapped-into-middle-america What does that have to do with anything? I imagine a few people did but he was the only one with a reaction funny enough to put on the show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Nobody mentioning "re-training" for these rust-belters mentions these people also may have to be willing to re-locate to more dynamic areas, which they appear to be unilaterally and strongly against. The younger ones have been leaving for years but not the older. They want the smoke factories returned back to their areas and that's it.  I'm still thankful my mother's parents decided to flee Buffalo, NY in 1961 for SoCal. I'm pretty sure they only went back once to visit and didn't miss it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
I work IT for a manufacturing company and our factory employees make between $25 and $35 /hr since they get paid piece rate. While they don't plan on shipping jobs overseas, that's big time pay for work that robots could do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I don't think a change of message would've won her the election. Trump won because of: racists, sexists, and people who just didn't like Hillary. In a lot of voters' minds, it didn't matter how bad Trump was if they thought Hillary was worse. This is because Hillary's team failed to shift the message from Trump Sucks to reasons to vote for Hillary. Yes, the media holds a large portion of the blame for refusing to cover anything about Hillary's campaign other than Emails and her attacks on Trump. Refusing to air her speeches on policy and goals while keeping the camera fixed on Trump's empty podium is completely and totally on their idiocy. Trump's attempts to curtail the media will be bad for the nation, but they will largely fall on those who richly deserve to suffer the sling and arrows of. However, it's the job of the messaging team to find a way to get her message out. Going with the easy path of sick burn ads didn't work to actually get people out to vote. Lots of blame to go around for the coming darkness, but Hillary's polling and ad teams are at the top of the list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Gyges posted:This is because Hillary's team failed to shift the message from Trump Sucks to reasons to vote for Hillary. Yes, the media holds a large portion of the blame for refusing to cover anything about Hillary's campaign other than Emails and her attacks on Trump. Refusing to air her speeches on policy and goals while keeping the camera fixed on Trump's empty podium is completely and totally on their idiocy. Trump's attempts to curtail the media will be bad for the nation, but they will largely fall on those who richly deserve to suffer the sling and arrows of. Just to put in in perspective how bad her ad team was: https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/797492671631790084?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Just to put in in perspective how bad her ad team was: Christ almighty
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Like to be absolutely fair, to my knowledge the LA buy actually extends into Nevada. But the real story is those Milwaukee (and to a slightly lesser extent, Madison) numbers. Those should, at minimum, match the republican spend. At minimum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:This is because Hillary's team failed to shift the message from Trump Sucks to reasons to vote for Hillary. Yes, the media holds a large portion of the blame for refusing to cover anything about Hillary's campaign other than Emails and her attacks on Trump. Refusing to air her speeches on policy and goals while keeping the camera fixed on Trump's empty podium is completely and totally on their idiocy. Trump's attempts to curtail the media will be bad for the nation, but they will largely fall on those who richly deserve to suffer the sling and arrows of. Trump's whole campaign should've been reason enough not to vote for him. No plans whatsoever plus horrible statements about every minority group. If people saw all that and still voted for him then it wasn't going to matter what any opponent said. He was publicly supported by the loving KKK and still got >57M votes. That tells you a lot about our society, unfortunately. Also, any "Trump sucks" messages from Clinton's campaign end up being reasons to vote for her by default, because a "Trump wants to start a trade war with China and Mexico" ad, for example, would tell you right there that Clinton doesn't want to start trade wars, otherwise there would be no point to the ad. "People are stupid" is the point, I guess.  The media giving Trump a billion dollars or whatever in free air time is another issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Trump's whole campaign should've been reason enough not to vote for him. No plans whatsoever plus horrible statements about every minority group. If people saw all that and still voted for him then it wasn't going to matter what any opponent said. He was publicly supported by the loving KKK and still got >57M votes. That tells you a lot about our society, unfortunately. The message of Trump Sucks doesn't get you anything though. People who are voting for the guy are fine with all the stuff you're showing. People who aren't fine with it are aware of it. There's a certain low level and constant background she needed to do of Trump Sucks, but the focus of her ads should have been vastly more in the Hillary Is Awesome category. Not heavy on the biography of why Hillary was good in the past either. She's being contrasted with the avatar of bigotry, we don't need to hear about what a great girl she was in the 70s. You've also got to be explicit. Trump wants a nuclear arms race does imply that Hillary doesn't, but you need more than implication in your ads. The American Electorate, as a whole, isn't great at picking up on the implication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that the people who voted for Trump did it anyway regardless of any ads. Positive Hillary ads wouldn't have made a difference. Part of that is because some people (white supremacists, anarchists, etc.) went with Trump because he was more of a "fit" for their [deplorable] ideology, and part is because others may not have been in love with Trump but were very suspicious of Hillary. They weren't going to suddenly fall in love with Hillary because, even though the e-mail nonsense was a distraction, at the end of the day she's still an untrustworthy candidate to them. Trump is duplicitous, and I'm thinking that some people actually voted for him because of that; they went with the wild card over the known quantity, a career politician with a questionable background, even if much of the controversy may have been undeserved (e-mail, Benghazi, etc.) Right now I can't tell you what Trump is going to do. Obviously we're months away from inauguration but he's already backed down from his "repeal 'Obamacare'" rhetoric. You literally cannot trust a word he says, and to some people that means he's willing to change his mind, that he's going to be open to suggestions, reasonable, and otherwise not a terrible President, despite being completely unqualified. Again, people voted for him despite him being unqualified, being a pathological liar, wanting to bang his daughter, etc. All of the positive ads in the world weren't going to sway that kind of voter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
It's not about swaying people voting for Trump. It's about getting people who sat this election out to actually show up. This election had the lowest turnout in two decades. That's a whole shitload of people who voted for Obama in 08 and 12 who just didn't show up this time. There's a whole host of reasons why, many of which Hillary and her team couldn't have done anything about. However, presenting a positive reason to vote for Hillary other than 1st Lady President, also isn't Trump, would have been a way to get to a chunk of those voters who didn't show up to show up. Even if it wasn't enough to put Hillary over the top, it would have probably picked up a couple more seats in the Senate. The narrative of the election was that it was a depressing mud slinging contest between two horrible candidates. There's a lot wrong with that narrative, but running a predominantly negative ad campaign didn't help to dispel that notion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:I work IT for a manufacturing company and our factory employees make between $25 and $35 /hr since they get paid piece rate. While they don't plan on shipping jobs overseas, that's big time pay for work that robots could do. Raising the minimum wage to a realistic living wage of at least $15-$20/hr would theoretically be a fantastic way to alleviate the job problem in towns that rely on factory work, because when everyone in town, from the clerk at the gas station to the stock guy at Wal-Mart, is making decent money, the town sustains itself more easily. Unfortunately, the reality of places like that is at the whim of executives of large corporations and to what extent they're willing to spread their profit expectations to "cover" for less traditionally "profitable" areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The message of Drumpf Sucks doesn't get you anything though. People who are voting for the guy are fine with all the stuff you're showing. People who aren't fine with it are aware of it. Are they, though? There are people who still believe somehow that Drumpf's campaign was not racist or sexist in any way, and think he is a good businessman. There's a reason there are still ads for Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds, although everyone knows what those are. Also, as someone who is in central PA and had ad breaks saturated with this poo poo constantly, I can assure you she had some positive ads, although there were more of the "look at this fuckin' guy" type. But I still maintain nobody actually gave a poo poo about any of that, because emails emails emails. Atomizer posted:What I'm saying is that the people who voted for Drumpf did it anyway regardless of any ads. Positive Hillary ads wouldn't have made a difference. Part of that is because some people (white supremacists, anarchists, etc.) went with Drumpf because he was more of a "fit" for their [deplorable] ideology, and part is because others may not have been in love with Drumpf but were very suspicious of Hillary. They weren't going to suddenly fall in love with Hillary because, even though the e-mail nonsense was a distraction, at the end of the day she's still an untrustworthy candidate to them.  with pretty much all of this.
raditts fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Abysmal voter turnout is unfortunately a recurring theme in US elections. Better turnout certainly could've swayed elections nationwide in the Democrats' direction, since die-hard Republicans vote consistently so the no-shows could potentially be convinced to vote Democratic. Hopefully this election will serve as the catalyst for future elections so this poo poo doesn't happen again. (And again, LOL at the electoral college not serving its one purpose by preventing this guy from actually entering office.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
raditts posted:Are they, though? There are people who still believe somehow that Drumpf's campaign was not racist or sexist in any way, and think he is a good businessman. There's a reason there are still ads for Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds, although everyone knows what those are. The This Fuckin' Guy ads were good, but they were the focus of the campaign. The focus should have been on Check Out This Lady. Negative campaigning is effective, but it is also corrosive to turnout, which is something the Democrats really need in order to win. This is especially true when the opponent is building a coalition of white nationalists and white guys too dumb or too racist to acknowledge the air-horn racism. See he never said the N-Word, and he has women in his employ, where's the racism and sexism? The news media's obsession with the drat emails is their greatest sin in the general. Other mortal sins are hanging on every Trump appearance for ratings, holding Trump and Hillary to different standards, and continuing with the talking head bullshit even after they realized they had to go find crazy people with no credentials to spin for Trump. The false equivocism was god drat brutal this cycle. Hillary lays out just how Trump is being racist, Trump retaliatory calls her the real racist, headline: "Both sides call names". Nothing mattered because it was important to seem "objective" and "balanced", even when one guy is an obvious idiot with mental health issues who is encouraging nuclear proliferation while chit chatting with the klan, assaulting women, and bringing antisemitism back to the forefront.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
It's maddening because I actually went to journalism school and the best teacher I had was a former investigative journalist who hammered in that balanced reporting is a bullshit blind alley, or at least, in the way that it's practised it is. It SHOULD mean you give proportional weight to different sides, but most often these days means that every side gets equal weight regardless of how fringe or how little backing for their side there is. There's also the line I feel like every journalist should be made to recite like a mantra: There are NOT two sides to every story. Sometimes if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and tastes like a duck, you can skip the "Duck: Yes or No?" headlines and call it a loving duck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Nothing mattered because it was important to seem "objective" and "balanced", even when one guy is an obvious idiot with mental health issues who is encouraging nuclear proliferation while chit chatting with the klan, assaulting women, and bringing antisemitism back to the forefront. And that, my friend, is the legacy of Fox News. I wish I could remember what the documentary I saw years ago was called, which basically spelled out Fox News's mission as destroying objectivity in news by putting forth this idea that "both sides are equally valid" and making it mainstream. It might have been Outfoxed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
raditts posted:And that, my friend, is the legacy of Fox News. I wish I could remember what the documentary I saw years ago was called, which basically spelled out Fox News's mission as destroying objectivity in news by putting forth this idea that "both sides are equally valid" and making it mainstream. It might have been Outfoxed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
This is the best article I've read that tries to explain the election's autopsy: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/ TLDR: The Democrats tried to shed their pro-labor class-struggle core and still consider themselves 'left', and it bit them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's not about swaying people voting for Trump. It's about getting people who sat this election out to actually show up. This election had the lowest turnout in two decades. That's a whole shitload of people who voted for Obama in 08 and 12 who just didn't show up this time. There's a whole host of reasons why, many of which Hillary and her team couldn't have done anything about. However, presenting a positive reason to vote for Hillary other than 1st Lady President, also isn't Trump, would have been a way to get to a chunk of those voters who didn't show up to show up. Even if it wasn't enough to put Hillary over the top, it would have probably picked up a couple more seats in the Senate. Hillary gave plenty of positive reasons though. But for some reason it didn't break through and get heard by the voters. Maybe people's views of Hillary were so fixed that no amount of policy and messaging could change it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Hillary gave plenty of positive reasons though. But for some reason it didn't break through and get heard by the voters. She should have had them scroll across an LCD screen cleverly placed on the front of one of Trump's many empty podiums. Yes, she actually did have a positive message that she sporadically tried to get to be the news cycle. However between EMAILS and Trump's podiums, that message kept being ignored. Her team doesn't bear sole responsibility for the election having nothing to do with policy, but it is their job to keep trying different ways to get that message out. Instead they'd give a speech, maybe drop an ad, and hope that changed things. Our media definitely betrayed Democracy for a buck, but Hillary's team should have tried other means to get the message out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Automation is advancing so rapidly we seriously need to start talking about what to do in a post-work society. Those jobs are gone. They will never ever return. Robots are cheaper and better than you. Burning the country and handing it to the Klan isn't going to change that. White nationalism is not an answer to anything. raditts posted:CHIP goes a long way in the "good things" column. GreenNight posted:I work IT for a manufacturing company and our factory employees make between $25 and $35 /hr since they get paid piece rate. While they don't plan on shipping jobs overseas, that's big time pay for work that robots could do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:...California Highway Patrol? Children's Health Insurance Program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Not a lot of interest in the daily show these days, huh? what are the viewer numbers like these days?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I'm still watching. I don't have much to comment on. Trevor's trying his best to have a fresh take on Trump. But I think the problem is everyone is trying to have a fresh take on Trump after talking about him for so long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
There's also the miserable spectre of a Dogshit Administration that makes it continually disheartening and nauseating to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Yeah, President Trump For Realsies is just not a funny concept. Plus we're stuck in a sort of purgatory where he hasn't actually done anything yet but the entire left sphere (which includes virtually all comedy) is continuously panicking over possibilities and implications, which is also not funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
I'm still watching too but there's just not much to say. There's not a lot that's funny going on right now in the world things have gone so to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Steve Vader posted:There's also the miserable spectre of a Dogshit Administration that makes it continually disheartening and nauseating to discuss. Over Thanksgiving my mom insisted on watching the news every night when they were discussing appointees and such, and it reminded me of when we had to evacuate back in 2000 from a forest fire that burned half the town. Just staring in shock as the same damage was repeated, hoping something new would be mentioned even though there was nothing to do about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I haven't watched any of the funny news shows since the election
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Regy Rusty posted:I haven't watched any of the funny news shows since the election TDS literally kind of starts every episode with a shellshocked reminder that Trump is president. I've been skipping Colbert lately and I guess Sam Bee, Bill Maher, and John Oliver are done with their seasons. We are in strange times, Trump hasn't actually done anything to get Jon Stewart angry about, but everything looks like we're approaching the top of a roller coaster drop where the bottom is a flaming pile of tires, broken glass, and hubris and there's nothing really funny to be made of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Tomi Lahren is apparently on TDS tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
I really appreciated the opening segment on last night's daily show (29Nov16). For those that haven't seen it Trevor likens Drumpf's tweeting to arguing with a toddler. News agency's wouldn't argue with a toddler therefore they shouldn't indulge in Drumpf's nonsense tweets and should instead pound him on specifics regarding the issues. I've been hoping for this since the beginning of Trump's run and i'm glad it's starting to sink in. I just hope that TDS takes their own advice and stays away from justifying the nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Steve Vader posted:Tomi Lahren is apparently on TDS tonight. It was great BTW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:It was great BTW. There was actual blood in Trevor's eyes. My god. What an episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
I see the breeding program to replace Ann Coulter has been a success. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:12
|
|
