Unfunny Poster posted:

Can someone explain why America needed a 70 year old woman running for President rather than someone from a younger generation?

Unfunny Poster posted:

Can someone explain why America needed a 70 year old woman running for President rather than someone from a younger generation?

punk rebel ecks posted:

Hey guys, remember how Wyatt Cenic and Jason Jones displayed serious bad blood during Jason's interview with him? I think I'm putting the pieces together.

Nichael posted:

If you dig into people's beliefs or histories, you're bound to find really lovely things. Samantha Bee is 100% wrong on that issue but it doesn't stop me from watching her show. Donald Trump is about to be our president. Nationalism is on the rise globally. The world's a grim and lovely place. Sometimes it's nice to just let people you look up to go on a few things for your own sanity. Or at least it is for me.

Nichael posted:

It's good to have young people involved but I really hate the casual ageism people seem to have. 70 is not that old in 2016.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

ah i asked because they had the guy that played damar in deep space 9 drink maple syrup as a prop for kanar

quote:

Jones has three children with former "Daily Show" correspondent Samantha Bee. He went on to complain about what he called "rhetoric" from some parents that, he thought, suggested those opposing the move are "terrified" of having their school relocate to a building near a housing project. He called that characterization, "dishonest at best and slanderous at worst."

"So I urge you A, to stop talking to the press," he continued. "This is a private matter, I think, from our community. This story doesn't exist without your quotes."

Jones would know a thing or two about using quotes. His segments on "The Daily Show" often skewered regular folks and politicians by catching them making hypocritical statements, especially when the subject was gay marriage or defenders of the Washington Redskins' team name.

Jones complained about another quote by a parent who suggested their high-performing school would change if it moved near the housing project. He said that showed little respect for the teachers.

"So just be mindful of when you speak, if you're going to speak to the press, because slandering or saying anything negative about this teaching staff is wrong," he added. "Conversely, painting any opposition as classist or racist is about as bad as it can get."

Nichael posted:

You're not wrong, but the things she says on her show are still factual, funny, and persuasive. She's a hypocrite, but she's useful overall. I guess what I'm saying is, let people watch her for 22 minutes a week, and come away thinking "gently caress Trump."

She was bad in the sense that she didn't have the charismatic, manic energy that is required of a campaign in this nation. Her own beliefs, history, "scandals", and ideology would've been largely irrelevant if she had been able to lie better. Even with her bad campaigning, she did drat good considering her emails were put on the same level of outrage as Trump literally raping a thirteen year old.

Nichael posted:

Voters have been primed to dislike Clinton since the 80s or so, and the media (and the Russians and FBI) constantly harping on non-issue stories about her gave those voters just the excuse they wanted to hate her. Clinton, herself, was not equipped to deal with these scandals, because despite thirty years of constant vitriol being hurled at her, she did not have an adequate ability to deal with these "problems" and "scandals". She never seemed honest, either though she was. Perception is everything, and people like Biden and Sanders are better able to shape how people think.

Nichael posted:

There's no doubt of this. Obama can campaign. Biden can, Sanders can, and Trump definitely can. Clinton can't. I'm sure she would've been a fine president, but if you can't connect with people (and actually, that's not true since she won the popular vote by quite a bit) you can't be president.

Fulchrum posted:

No, they were the only thing that people said about Hillary the entire election. But they were the only thing anyone was talking about, period, at only two points in the election. The first half of July, and the fortnight before the election. During both of these periods, Trump pulled even in polling.

Nichael posted:

It's good to have young people involved but I really hate the casual ageism people seem to have. 70 is not that old in 2016.

I think it had to do with how Cenac was in a feud of sorts with Jon Stewart before Cenac left.

Not a Step posted:

Those people would have pulled the lever for an avocado painted blue.

Rand alPaul posted:

The best part was him telling people not to talk to the press, when both of their careers were made from people saying racist poo poo to them on camera.

Unfunny Poster posted:

Also getting an Iranian journalist arrested.

Nichael posted:

Samantha Bee has a lovely opinion about school integration in her area, but there are no perfect people, much less so perfect people involved in politics or the media. She's funny, and she provides a valuable service to her viewers by pointing out how drat awful the right is. I do think she's absolutely wrong on the school issue but it doesn't make me write her off completely.

UHD posted:

like who

punk rebel ecks posted:

Well this is revisionism. Quite literally every single poll but 2 showed Clinton with a strong victory.

On top of that, people were ALWAYS talking about them with her period throughout the entire election. (the closing near the end is only due to those two polls).

Nevermind the fact that if bringing up the emails again were all it took for Clinton to lose to Trump than lol bad candidate.

Yinlock posted:

don't disagree with your overall sentiment but i'm pretty sure this type of thought process is what got us into the "ignore the safe states lol" mindset that totally didn't backfire.

Fulchrum posted:

Oh look, a bunch of polls all showing a massive diminishing in Clintons lead from October. Wonder if something could have affected that. Nah, surely not.

And the difference is that the press went from "it was a nasty email thing" to "Clinton will be indicted literally days after the election."

And yeah, I'm sure anyone else would be able to easily brush off the loving FBI head directly intervening against them. It's just something that happens in all elections.

punk rebel ecks posted:

Did you even read my post that said that that was solely caused by two polls that were outliers? Mind you that they always were outliers and didn't fluctuate much since last time they were posted, they just happened to be posted during that last week. Not to mention that the polls only got closer for like 2 days and then started going back again.

OhFunny posted:

Gonna be great to see his reaction when it's Trump.

Vlad Peeps posted:

I don't understand why this is even a question. Person of the Year has gone to the US Presidential winner every election year since 2000.

poo poo, even if Trump had lost, he'd still be That Guy Who hosed Up All The Things And Was In Every News Story All Year.

punk rebel ecks posted:

Well this is revisionism. Quite literally every single poll but 2 showed Clinton with a strong victory.

quote:

Nevermind the fact that if bringing up the emails again were all it took for Clinton to lose to Trump than lol bad candidate.

Not a Step posted:

Is this some new definition of 'drat good'? She lost to Donald Trump. The second most disliked candidate of all time somehow managed to lose to the most disliked candidate of all time, mainly because people unable to comprehend existence outside of their own bubble thought somehow 30 years of baggage and the charisma of a ham sandwich miraculously wouldn't matter.

Seriously, how do you reconcile this:


with the claims that Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever?

Not a Step posted:

You have to drop this talking point. The popular vote does not matter. Running up the score in coastal blue states is not a winning strategy and it doesn't count as 'connecting with people'. Those people would have pulled the lever for an avocado painted blue. If we abandoned a million of them to gain fifty thousand votes in middle America it would be a net gain for the party. We need some state legislatures and some senators back in blue to start making things happen at a national scale. gently caress the coasts.

Unfunny Poster posted:

What aspects of Samantha Bee's life do you look up to?

Breakfast All Day posted:

shes in the "the left is racist because they dont understand intersectionality, its not about economics" camp, then immediately turns around and exercises class privilege to oppress minorities

e: nm i was a page behind and see youve responded to this already, namaste

punk rebel ecks posted:

This was suspected, but didn't turn out to be true. Him and Jon were in good terms.

Crowsbeak posted:

@nichael our ageism is due to the boomers having too much influence.

Vlad Peeps posted:

source: Nate "Told You" Silver

Fulchrum posted:

Did you even look at your source? Check the numbers against where they were mid October. Fox has her drop 4. Bloomberg and Monmouth have her dropping 6. CBS has her down 7. You cannot possibly say this had no effects.

Vlad Peeps posted:

source: Nate "Told You" Silver

Nichael posted:

I don't have to drop any talking point. Honestly, the left should adopt the barrage of bullshit approach that the right has. The fact is, the electoral college is a system designed to disenfranchise minority voters. I can bring that up as much as I want. The right said for eight years Obama was a secret Muslim and it paid off after all.

Fulchrum posted:

And yeah, I'm sure anyone else would be able to easily brush off the loving FBI head directly intervening against them. It's just something that happens in all elections.

Yinlock posted:

pedant point: the electoral college was actually designed to stop a donald j trump situation from going forward.

it definitely became a minority-disenfranchisement machine later but that applies to basically anything republicans get their hands on

Baloogan posted:

that graph brings back memories. I remember thinking "no way trump is going to win " and now im all

Vlad Peeps posted:

Turns out 29% is different from 0%. It's exactly 29% higher.

Nichael posted:

I don't necessarily disagree, I just still dislike it because of my upbringing. I was raised by very progressive and intelligent grandparents, in addition to my parents.

Shinjobi posted:

Old people are complete garbage unless they're related to you. This is nothing new. That's just the way the world works.


I lost the last of my grandparents in 2009, and I've spent the last seven years just hating every single old person who wasn't them. I can count the number of decent old people I've met in that time on one hand. Otherwise they're all whining babies that can drink, drive and smoke. All they do is bitch and injure themselves, and somehow blame you for it.

Baloogan posted:

Nichael posted:

She's funny and works in an industry I'd like to. And ageism isn't just something I see in political discussions, it's kind constant in explicit and implicit ways. It just depresses me as someone who's always had a lot of older role models, such as my grandparents.

punk rebel ecks posted:

Interesting, but it was already on a downward spiral before hand, so in reality it likely cost her even less than suspected.

Nichael posted:

I guarantee that if people are not constantly reminded of poo poo, the anger and energy wears off. Echo chambers work and can be harnessed for good. Don't disparage them thinking people on the left are too good for them, we're not.