|
Decius posted:As far as we know. He did party hard in the Eighties... Trump partied hard with teenage girls though.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:Trump partied hard with teenage girls though. Maybe he'll pull a "Wag the Dog" with a Girl Scout and we can have a nice fake war instead of a real one this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Sure you do, Pence is just as much as an emotional gently caress up as Trump. I mean at least Trump never caused an HIV outbreak and refused to do anything to fix it. Mike didn't do that out of an emotional freak out due to being a thin skinned wimp. Mike Pence caused an HIV outbreak out of a dispassionate desire to serve his psychopathic version of Christianity where we must ensure the sinner is punished. He'll definitely go through all the channels and methodically build toward a war with East Gaysia, not just demand the generals nuke China because the President called Trump a foul name for trying to grab his wife's pussy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Wish he'd kept celebrities out of that ending segment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
John Oliver didn't mention the Muslim Legal Fund of America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Wish he'd kept celebrities out of that ending segment. I think a few well-placed celebrities can add a bit of kick to it. I have no problem with it because it wasn't all celebrities. In particular, I loved the surprise "gently caress you, John Oliver!" I expected it to shift to that kind of thing, but no, it was a one-off. Nicely done. My favorite was Weird Al, because for those of you who don't know, he doesn't cuss. He doesn't even pretend to cuss--when he did an episode of "Drunk History," he told them that he wouldn't even lip-sync to it. So I honestly didn't know what to expect when he said, "2016 Ffffffff... falls well below my standards of quality!" I thought that was a nice little gag, something that people who don't know about his profanity abstinence might giggle at because oh, it's Weird Al being different, that's kind-of funny. But fans like me... well, I'm pretty sure that if he'd dropped an F-bomb right there, a lot of heads would have exploded at that very moment. And poor Larry Wilmore...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I feel like at least someone should have mentioned the attacks by cops and attacks of cops. Both of those were huge and absolutely played a role in the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Old boy sure answered the questioned 'how the gently caress did we get here' amazingly accurately by not mentioning Bernie Sanders the entire segment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Space Pussy posted:Old boy sure answered the questioned 'how the gently caress did we get here' amazingly accurately by not mentioning Bernie Sanders the entire segment. Not mentioning things that were irrelevant checks out in that instance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
No, it's very important that we finally hash out this Bernie vs Hillary thing that we never had a chance to run into the ground for a year or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Oliver should've emphasized how much disproportionately more they covered the trump campaign. If they went into the precise numbers, it's pretty galling stuff. Facebook echo chambers is probably the press trying to deflect blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Oliver should've emphasized how much disproportionately more they covered the trump campaign. If they went into the precise numbers, it's pretty galling stuff. Facebook echo chambers is probably the press trying to deflect blame. He did a bit, with that clip of Jeff "Dumb Fucker" Zucker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Yeah I think there's an effect where television media coverage of a certain presidential candidate helps produce this idea that their nomination is inevitable. In the case of Trump, it's the rare instance where the inevitable was not his or her party's standard bearer. Like, the GOP's standard bearers for 2016, Bush and Rubio, weren't even 2nd or 3rd place in terms of air time and coverage. Carson and Cruz got even more coverage and scrutiny than those two. (I haven't compared the Hillary vs. Obama 2007-2008 airtimes, and now that I think about it Howard Dean got a lot coverage back in 2003, but Kerry was certainly 2nd in airtime, so maybe this theory falls flat.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
raditts posted:He did a bit, with that clip of Jeff "Dumb Fucker" Zucker. Yeah, but even that dumb fucker only goes so far to say that they put on too many of Trump's clips, which has a distinctly different meaning than unequal coverage relative to the other candidates. If anything, we can trust the media to deflect blame, and not fully admit their complicity in the trumpening. If we go further into why they gave him so much coverage, it's obvious that it was because he was a huge ratings cash cow, and it's another example of the corporate media dicking over the public in pursuit of profits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Yeah, but even that dumb fucker only goes so far to say that they put on too many of Drumpf's clips, which has a distinctly different meaning than unequal coverage relative to the other candidates. If anything, we can trust the media to deflect blame, and not fully admit their complicity in the trumpening. If we go further into why they gave him so much coverage, it's obvious that it was because he was a huge ratings cash cow, and it's another example of the corporate media dicking over the public in pursuit of profits. Yeah, probably could have helped to re-air the bit where Les Moonves straight up admitted he didn't give a gently caress because it got ratings. Murica.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:was because he was a huge ratings cash cow, and it's another example of the corporate media dicking over the public in pursuit of profits. That's really the crux of it. Trump coverage should have been "These are the things he said in his rally and they are false because of x,y,z." Instead, they didn't do any fact checking or any actual reporting other then turning the camera on him and watching the train wreck. No one tunes in for "he said he was going to deport x people in a year but we don't actually have enough planes to do that so it's impossible" but they do tune in for Trump acting like a jackass in front of a crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
I liked the fact that Oliver acknowledges that his videos/segments bounce around their own echo chamber as well. Hopefully his critics don't continue to point this out like it's his fault and that his work somehow has less merit because of it.Rated PG-34 posted:Yeah, but even that dumb fucker only goes so far to say that they put on too many of Trump's clips, which has a distinctly different meaning than unequal coverage relative to the other candidates. If anything, we can trust the media to deflect blame, and not fully admit their complicity in the trumpening. If we go further into why they gave him so much coverage, it's obvious that it was because he was a huge ratings cash cow, and it's another example of the corporate media dicking over the public in pursuit of profits. They mentioned more than once about airing his speeches unedited and in full. That whole portion of the show was aimed at pointing out the uneven coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:They mentioned more than once about airing his speeches unedited and in full. That whole portion of the show was aimed at pointing out the uneven coverage. I actually don't have any problem with them airing his speeches in their entirety if it means that they also air in their entirety the speeches of Bernie Sanders and other hopefuls. Again, Oliver doesn't stress the inequity of the coverage. Here's an old but relevant video: https://amp.twimg.com/v/c64cc845-3688-4589-9988-37ff8b4dad5e
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Jimmy Fallon deserved all the poo poo he got for softballing Trump. But I'm still surprised how there were still not that much consequences for NBC turning one episode of SNL into a Trump infomercial. They virtually fell on the bare minimum technicality in the equal airtime doctrine (being a network using public airwaves) by giving a few free commercials to Jim Gilmore. Like, SNL only got limited flack from its comedy colleagues. And of course as we all know, that didn't stop Trump from later ominously going after SNL for mocking him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Seriously gently caress 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I'm the guy who repeatedly talked about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact long before this election, and I find the fact that people are only complaining about the Electoral College now when Trump won to be very off-putting, and it kills any remote chance that Republicans might support the bill in the states it needs to get passed in. I had absolutely no clue about the Electoral College until the day before the election, but I'm not american so I guess there was never really a situation where it came up. Actually, now that I do know I am just loving confused by it. Can anyone help me understand? So the electors are really unlikely to change their vote for Hillary, but why do people say that it would be a bad thing if they did? As far as I can tell the entire reason it exists that way is so that they can do this. The original point of the electors being that if someone gets elected by the populace who is completely unsuited to being president, the electors can discuss it and choose not to vote for them for the sake of the country. Specifically, so that nobody gets elected who is adverse to the rights of other citizens or "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications", both of which describe Trump. Probably not the right place to ask here, but eh. also gently caress 2016 (but it's not over yet so it still has a chance to kick us while we're down)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Because today doing so would destabilize the democracy (well, more than this election already did and is currently in the process of doing.) Yes, its stated reason is more or less this exact situation, but the last time a faithless elector had ANY effect of the outcome of a race was over 150 years ago (and it wasn't even for president). It just wouldn't fly today. It would be looked upon as a subversion of the popular will and any faith left in the system would collapse. Also, the possibility that you could get ENOUGH faithless electors to change the outcome of this election is remote so as to not have a mention. This is especially true since in 29 states (many of which decided the outcome of this election) have laws that make voting against the popular vote in the state illegal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Laverna posted:I had absolutely no clue about the Electoral College until the day before the election, but I'm not american so I guess there was never really a situation where it came up. Oh, it came up. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Laverna posted:I had absolutely no clue about the Electoral College until the day before the election, but I'm not american so I guess there was never really a situation where it came up. Sure. The What: The Electoral College is a group of electors who officially elect the President of the United States of America. These electors are chosen by voters (commoners like myself) during the general election. Each state gets as many electors as it has congressmen (2 from the Senate for all states, and 1 - 53 in the House depending largely on the relative population of the state). The District of Columbia has a separate formula, but let's just keep it simple and say they get 3 electoral votes. So, the actual Presidential election is handled by 538 electors chosen by the 50 states and DC. These electors are chosen based on what party they will vote for. In most states, the party that gets the most votes gets all of a state's electors. In Maine and Nebraska, the winner gets two electors automatically, and then each congressional voting district's elector votes for whoever won in that district. This scenario almost always leads to the winner of the popular vote winning the actual vote. But, five times, the winner of the popular vote lost the election due to the Electoral College: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. Hilariously, it is possible, though extremely unlikely, to win the election while garnering 22% of the popular vote. Now, the Why: for various and sundry reasons, the Founding Fathers didn't want a directly popular vote, but they also didn't like the idea of having Congress choose a President, because among other things, that might affect how independent the executive was from the legislature. Also, people aren't so well informed today; imagine what a clusterfuck it was in the 1780s... oh, and slavery was also an issue. Yes, even back then. So, they needed some kind of insulation between the masses and the leaders, and the Electoral College was the best they could come up with. It lets the people choose the President... kinda-sorta. Laverna posted:So the electors are really unlikely to change their vote for Hillary, but why do people say that it would be a bad thing if they did? As far as I can tell the entire reason it exists that way is so that they can do this. The original point of the electors being that if someone gets elected by the populace who is completely unsuited to being president, the electors can discuss it and choose not to vote for them for the sake of the country. Specifically, so that nobody gets elected who is adverse to the rights of other citizens or "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications", both of which describe Trump. There's supposed to vote for the guy or gal who the people who voted for them voted for. Some states, if not all states, have laws requiring them to do so. But, breaking those laws isn't exactly treason, and it also doesn't disqualify the vote cast by the elector. While many people would love to see the electors do this, especially in a case like this where the popular vote winner isn't going to win the actual election, you have two problems. Problem 1: let's say some of the electors vote Hillary when they should vote Donald. But, not enough of them do, and neither Donald nor Hillary get 270 electoral votes. Now, the election goes to the House of Representatives and, if some of the idiots on my Facebook timeline are correct, they will elect Bernie Sanders because those idiots live in a fantasy world. In reality, they'll put Trump in office. Problem 2: let's say they do it en masse. Now you have a real problem, because that is simply not the way the EC was built to work. Lawsuits will be filed and people will go nuts. This would constitute a crisis that might not be settled by Inauguration Day, and if the question of who was in charge was still up in the air at that point, we'd have a bona fide constitutional crisis on our hands. Then Obama would do what the conspiracy nuts have been claiming all along: he'd declare Martial Law in September 2016, use Jade Helm to retroactively take over the entire Southwest, close a whole bunch of Walmart stores, turn those closed stores into FEMA camps, and then take all the guns. Is that what you want? You want to see Americans stripped of their guns, put into camps run by the people who give you money to rebuild your flooded-out house, and said camps are shuttered big-box stores, and Jade Helm became a thing, and Martial Law were declared? Because that's not what I want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:
Well, I do like to accessorize...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Oh, it came up. I do remember people ridiculing him/America a lot though, so the 8 year olds of today have that to look forward to. bull3964 posted:Because today doing so would destabilize the democracy (well, more than this election already did and is currently in the process of doing.) It seems like people already have not much faith in the system. I was really confused as to why so many americans were threatening not to vote because there was no point, and now I kind of see where they were coming from. Surely it would make more sense for the states to give out the electorate votes based on the percentage of votes a candidate got? Then it would be at least slightly democratic without upending the whole system (as far as I can tell). tarlibone posted:Then Obama would do what the conspiracy nuts have been claiming all along: he'd declare Martial Law in September 2016, use Jade Helm to retroactively take over the entire Southwest, close a whole bunch of Walmart stores, turn those closed stores into FEMA camps, and then take all the guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Laverna posted:I dunno, I'm not seeing a problem here. Somewhere, the head of a neocon alt-right tin-foil-hatter just spontaneously combusted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Somewhere, the head of a neocon alt-right tin-foil-hatter just spontaneously combusted. Somehow I think we could solve this Second Amendment thing the first time a "militia" platoon gets turned into blood balloons by a Fed'rul N-model Hellfire. "I'unno, Zeke, suddenly this assault raifle duzzn't feel laiken extension'a mah dick no more. Ah'm goin' hohme."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
The electoral college can also serve as a theoretical emergency break in case something came up between election day and the vote being ratified by congress. Like the death or incapacitation of a candidate, being charged with a high crime, blatantly gross acts of corruption and bribery to win the election, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Laverna posted:I had absolutely no clue about the Electoral College until the day before the election, but I'm not american so I guess there was never really a situation where it came up. This pretty much covers it: https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Somehow I think we could solve this Second Amendment thing the first time a "militia" platoon gets turned into blood balloons by a Fed'rul N-model Hellfire. As much as I would love to indulge this fantasy, the militias have been prepping for martyrdom a la Waco II: A Rubier Ridge for about 20 years now. Hell, Waco is half the reason they exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:It would be looked upon as a subversion of the popular will and any faith left in the system would collapse. Voting for the populous winner would be seen as a subversion of the popular will? God bless America 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
If you want to portray the framers' intentions with the EC in the most sympathetic light, the EC was set up as a compromise between the framers who believed voters should pick the executive and those who wanted to avoid mob rule (saucer that cools the tea and all that). This was before mass media was pervasive, so it makes sense that ordinary (white, male, land-owning) people in New Hampshire aren't aware of who's qualified to run the federal government in Georgia, let's say. It's a system that allows each state on its own to decide how it's best to pick the leader. The federal government wasn't envisioned at the time being a democratic body, save for the House of Representatives. But realistically, by the eve of the Civil War, every US state save one deferred the choice of President to voters anyway, making the system worthless. This (rather needlessly sympathetic) depiction of the Constitution's framers' intentions obviously downplays the role of slavery and how women and poor people couldn't vote, and all that. The EC could easily implement a popular vote for President and Vice President if enough states adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but recent history has shown Republicans have much reason to not do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
I'm just wanting a GIF of that dog barking with the subtitles "gently caress 2016! gently caress it!", but that video-to-GIF thing on IMGUR is too finicky to get the time range right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:I'm just wanting a GIF of that dog barking with the subtitles "gently caress 2016! gently caress it!", but that video-to-GIF thing on IMGUR is too finicky to get the time range right. https://sourceforge.net/projects/gooncam/
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Yeah, a project with no documentation is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
One thing nobody mentioned yet on the subject of Electoral College is that it's literally where the "3/5ths clause" which said blacks would be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determine population and how many state Representatives each state gets past their 2 senators. This was a big deal because the slave owning states were wealthy and elite but had a proportionately small number of people who could vote. Without this compromise the slave owning states were balking at the whole thing. Once this was put into the constitution though it gave slave owners incentives to both accumulate more slaves so their own political voice was amplified, as well as making them less inclined to free any blacks because they might move to the northern states and then add votes for them by proxy. You might note that our first like 12 presidents came out of those slave owning states. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Just like most of the constitution, it was made during a time where you had horse and buggy and everyone was a rural farmer in the boonies. It needs to be updated for modern times but we've gotten to a point that we think the constitution is a sacred document that should not be touched like the 10 commandments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Just like most of the constitution, it was made during a time where you had horse and buggy and everyone was a rural farmer in the boonies. It needs to be updated for modern times but we've gotten to a point that we think the constitution is a sacred document that should not be touched like the 10 commandments. And unlike the 10 Commandments which, by and large work whether you're religious or not because they boil down to "DON'T BE AN rear end in a top hat STOP BEING AN rear end in a top hat FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST DON'T KILL PEOPLE YOU rear end in a top hat" the Constitution isn't nearly as straight forward. You know, the whole reason why amendments were added...nearly day goddamn one by the same people who came up with the loving thing. The 3/5ths thing is such an utter double edged sword too. Originally it was done as a compromise because before that point, slaves weren't treated as people at ALL and were completely unrecognized. This was the first national attempt to try and rectify that, as despite the easy black and white way to present it not all of the founding fathers owned slaves, and a good number that did wanted to abolish slavery. Washington is the easy one to pick from that bunch. It's just that it led to more terrible poo poo as you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
IMO there's also no good reason why we need a senate. It's almost as archaic as the EC in practice. Or at least no reason for a legislative body where every state has equal representation in spite of population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:14
|
|