|
Christie was elected in 2009, not 2010. It was before the Tea Party wave. Corzine was unpopular. Corzine was unpopular for a lot of reasons. He was Democrat who embraced austerity measures and raised taxes. He also didn't have a good relationship with the Democrats in the legislature. Christie, to his credit, was able to maintain a facade of being a "Bipartisan Republican" despite not even making the traditional republican-in-a-blue-state concessions that Schwarzenegger, Whitman, or Romney made, mainly by giving good soundbites to the media "telling like it is" and being on MSNBC a lot. And people like Booker and Obama wanted a Republican "that they can work with", and Christie was willing to ride that narrative. And this was a time when attacking public teachers was popular on both sides of the aisle. It was only Bridgegate that broke that facade, which revealed the extremes Christie was willing to go to secure Democratic endorsements. Edit: Bill Baroni, the guy who ended up actually going to prison, was also another GOP rising star in NJ politics before he was tapped by Christie for the Port Authority. Unlike Christie, he actually had some moderate and socially liberal credentials. And many liberals in NJ liked him. But he turned out to be a literal criminal. This has nothing to do with anything; I just like pointing it out that I'm very skeptical of Republicans that establishment liberals like. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 03:56 on May 1, 2017 |
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
While Bridgegate definitely had a lot to do with I kind of feel like it was after Hurricane Sandy when all the Republicans got angry at him for making nice with Obama to get relief aid so he started to push back to show how truly Republican he really was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's easy to see how Kushner and Ivanka get mythologized, because they act like actual human beings next to this horrible weird orange goblin creature. Not like in a way that you actually empathize with, but the bare minimum facade that most politicians and businessmen do. The more I learn about Trump, the more human he seems to be honest. A deeply flawed, lovely human who really shouldn't be president but a human all the same. Conversely, the more I learn about Ivanka and Jared the less human, or at least humane they seem. The two of them seem almost like parasites circling Trump, and feeding off his (not particularly earned) success. At least Trump seems willing to learn, adapt and change dependent on circumstance. He'll never admit blame and still does awful things, but it's something. Ivanka and Jared put up a nice facade, but a facade is all it ever appears to be and the complete opaqueness of their actions makes it hard to discern anything human about them. I know they're as much a product of their environment as Trump, but Trump is so forthright and honest in his dickishness that it's easy to see him as human, where I don't really think that's true of the other two.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:While Bridgegate definitely had a lot to do with I kind of feel like it was after Hurricane Sandy when all the Republicans got angry at him for making nice with Obama to get relief aid so he started to push back to show how truly Republican he really was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:It's going to be pretty hard for him to do pretty much anything seeing as how heavily they lean on research and pre-produced stuff. I doubt the research is done by WGA members. Most likely it's interns, a separate research staff, or even more likely both. There will definitely be a hit to their standard method of production, since he won't have access to a room full of writers to compile it all into a tight product. However he does have options and work arounds, assuming he wants to use them and doesn't go dark in solidarity or something. Though doing so tends to screw over everyone on the staff who isn't a WGA member, which is why all the other late night shows ended up winging it last time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I doubt the research is done by WGA members. Most likely it's interns, a separate research staff, or even more likely both. There will definitely be a hit to their standard method of production, since he won't have access to a room full of writers to compile it all into a tight product. However he does have options and work arounds, assuming he wants to use them and doesn't go dark in solidarity or something. Though doing so tends to screw over everyone on the staff who isn't a WGA member, which is why all the other late night shows ended up winging it last time. They only started winging it after they'd all been dark for weeks. Letterman cut a deal with the WGA and the networks started threatening to fire (non writing) staff from the other late night shows if they didn't start making TV again. It did lead to some wonderful tv though like Conan's recurring 'how long can I spin this quarter for' segment. SNL did a live (non-televised) UCB show too to raise money for their non-writing staff.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Don't forget the Stewart/Colbert/Conan crossover trilogy. And the rules might be different for HBO shows since they don't have to directly worry about advertisers if there's not an episode soon in the pipeline. I can imagine Oliver being able to keep his program off the air in solidarity longer than his former TDS colleagues. Not sure what the exact terms of Oliver's contract are. He is a credited writer.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
LWT is going to be a lot more difficult to do without writers. It's no small feat to condense the research that's done into a tight 20 minute segment. TDS and Colbert had the advantage of already doing short segments based mainly on headlines. So, while they weren't as sharp without the writers, the content leant itself to being riffed freeform. LWT will have to change up the format to keep running without writers. Oliver likely isn't going to waste 9 months of research on a topic to fumble through the broadstokes in an ad hoc fashion. Already researched deep dive segments will probably be shelved in favor of commentary on current news. Also, as already mentioned, HBO may see it as wasteful to essentially burn off contracted episodes when they don't have advertisers to appease. It will be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
tsob posted:The more I learn about Trump, the more human he seems to be honest. A deeply flawed, lovely human who really shouldn't be president but a human all the same. Conversely, the more I learn about Ivanka and Jared the less human, or at least humane they seem. The two of them seem almost like parasites circling Trump, and feeding off his (not particularly earned) success. At least Trump seems willing to learn, adapt and change dependent on circumstance. He'll never admit blame and still does awful things, but it's something. Ivanka and Jared put up a nice facade, but a facade is all it ever appears to be and the complete opaqueness of their actions makes it hard to discern anything human about them. I know they're as much a product of their environment as Trump, but Trump is so forthright and honest in his dickishness that it's easy to see him as human, where I don't really think that's true of the other two. When has this ever happened? Had he learned anything he wouldn't keep tanking his popularity or sticking himself in between a hard place and a rock. Every time he walks back has been because everyone and their mother have screamed bloody murder as to how utterly bad his idea is. The only thing he has learned is to waste peoples time better, piss off even more people and be more openly corrupt. Trevor Noah will do fine as his improv is actually way better than his scripted segments if you ever was the behind the scenes videos. Colbert is not bad at improv either and his material isn't as deep as Oliver. Oliver is the one who will struggle the most as he leans on the staff more than anyone else. Oliver's team have probably have some second string segments in a cabinet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
They should just play one of Andy's live sets.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:When has this ever happened? Had he learned anything He changed his mind about how China could help against North Korea, then changed his mind about whether China was a currency manipulator, he's changed his mind about the export/import bank, he's changed his mind about pulling out of NAFTA, he's changed his mind about the role of NATO and it's relevance in the current climate and probably at least a couple of other things not immediately springing to mind. Several people have reported that it wasn't even that hard to change his mind (worrying in itself really), and that all it took was a few minutes and maybe some props to make him realize the complexity of the situation or how uninformed he actually was. He frames those incidents to make himself seem good when talking about them and doesn't admit any blame or lack of knowledge, but he's still changed his mind on several things. Whether he takes any lesson from those incidents is separate from whether he changes his mind about them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
It's easy to change Trump's opinions, on a lot of things, because he didn't actually form an opinion, just shouted the thing that he thought would get the most applause and ran with it. there are exceptions, like I think he really does think a dumb boondoggle like his wall would stop immigration and drug smuggling. But a lot of things he doesn't truly have a developed opinion on because he's dangerously unqualified.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Pretty much, but all of that is still understandable and even somewhat sympathetic human behavior. Horrifying in someone that holds his position, but still understandable. Ivanka and Jared on the other had appear much more distant and close minded, which makes them harder to read and seem less human.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
That's not learning. If he was interested in learning anything you would think he would at least try to find out how his part of government works rather than blast the first thing that skips off his membrane on twitter or an EO. He should be getting better at his job over time, not worse. He keeps walking back on everything because everyone else is dragging him back and manipulating him. The guy barely thinks let alone learn. He could have avoided every single walk back if he had just asked people whether it was a good idea, but he never does since he isn't interested in learning. There is no point humanising Trump, he doesn't deserve it. He doesn't give a poo poo about you and his entire history is about loving people over. gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Also, if he was interested in learning, he would surround himself with qualified people.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Well no, that's the Trump image, all bluster, always knowing more than you do, always having the best in the business, always knowing all the right moves. I definitely wouldn't say he's more human than the other two, he's just completely bought into his public persona at this point in his life. And gently caress, it made him a ton of money and made him President of the United States, so who's gonna tell him to stop pretending he knows everything? It works! It's easy to change his mind because no, he hasn't really considered all the implications, but the Trump image isn't going to go out there and say "We're still trying to figure out what to do," he's going to go out there and say "We've got all the best ideas and we're gonna solve it, believe me!" That's his whole brand -- project confidence and tell them you know everything there is to know and hope that they're so impressed that they don't ask for any more specifics because the Great Men have it well in hand.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:That's not learning. I never said it was. Changing your mind about something is not synonymous with learning something. Nor is learning information synonymous with learning a lesson. I'm not humanising Trump to try and make him appear better, he's becoming more human looking over time to me despite himself and I'm making no effort to do it. The man that emerges is terrible; he's a sad, small man desperate for attention and adulation with no sense of responsibility among many other faults, but he's still more human and more so than his daughter or her husband, who I find increasingly inhuman because they always put up a facade and don't say anything of consequence.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
tsob posted:He changed his mind about how China could help against North Korea, then changed his mind about whether China was a currency manipulator, he's changed his mind about the export/import bank, he's changed his mind about pulling out of NAFTA, he's changed his mind about the role of NATO and it's relevance in the current climate and probably at least a couple of other things not immediately springing to mind. Several people have reported that it wasn't even that hard to change his mind (worrying in itself really), and that all it took was a few minutes and maybe some props to make him realize the complexity of the situation or how uninformed he actually was. He frames those incidents to make himself seem good when talking about them and doesn't admit any blame or lack of knowledge, but he's still changed his mind on several things. Whether he takes any lesson from those incidents is separate from whether he changes his mind about them. Weird timing how his position on China did a 180 the moment his businesses got some sudden unexpected perks from China. I'm sure it's not connected.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
tsob posted:I never said it was. Changing your mind about something is not synonymous with learning something. Nor is learning information synonymous with learning a lesson. I'm not humanising Trump to try and make him appear better, he's becoming more human looking over time to me despite himself and I'm making no effort to do it. The man that emerges is terrible; he's a sad, small man desperate for attention and adulation with no sense of responsibility among many other faults, but he's still more human and more so than his daughter or her husband, who I find increasingly inhuman because they always put up a facade and don't say anything of consequence. So you are walking back on your initial statement?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:So you are walking back on your initial statement? Actually, yes. Having just double checked the statement I included the word learn when I really just meant change. 'Learn, adapt, change' was an over statement and hyperbole I guess on my part, flowery language to make the post seem more eloquent than it was. Scratch the learn part. The adapt part is basically meaningless as well, change was the only thing I meant in reality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Fair enough. It is rather disturbing everybody has to get on his case to make these "Changes". It might be preferable is someone straight up puppet him or push him around like a weekend at Bernie's.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
It depends on who's pushing him. Thankfully Bannon and Gorka, the worst puppermasters for him appear to be on the outs. Still, his lack of real will beyond wanting positive attention and knowledge will almost inevitably work out badly in the end, though it's not done any permanent damage yet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Weird timing how his position on China did a 180 the moment his businesses got some sudden unexpected perks from China. Their trademark protection applications just HAPPENED to go through while Trump and Jinping played missile buddies at mer a lago. What a coinkydink!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
I remember back in the Bush/Kerry days when the term 'flip-flopper' was bandied about. The implication being that once somebody picked a stance, they shouldn't ever change that stance, even if circumstances change, or new information comes to light, or anything. I always hated that term. Trump, however, is the very definition of a flip-flopper. He changes what he says, sometimes literally a few minutes later during the same interview, not because of new information, different circumstances, or a nuanced view of how superficially similar situations can still require radically different reactions. No, merely because he says the first thing that comes to mind, at all times.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
At this point, interviews with Trump are useless unless you are armed with an extensive video library showing that he said the thing he said. He just flats out denies the stuff he said. He's either lying or believes his internal narrative so hard it overrides his memory. Either should be disqualifying for the job. I would like to see, just once, a reporter confront him with video saying a thing that he is denying that he said. The word salad that would ensue would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:At this point, interviews with Trump are useless unless you are armed with an extensive video library showing that he said the thing he said. He just flats out denies the stuff he said. He's either lying or believes his internal narrative so hard it overrides his memory. Either should be disqualifying for the job. I doubt it would/will be as entertaining as you think it will be. Confronted with something like that, he'd just end the interview and walk out/have the reporter removed. He'd then tweet about the lying medias disgusting habit of asking him fake news questions and the need to be tough on them and his supporters will eat it the gently caress up. Then Sean Spicer will be tasked with explaining why whatever he said wasnt in fact what he said (think "wiretaps doesnt actuall mean wiretaps").
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Does it really count as changing his mind when he spews so much contradictory nonsense that it's hard to tell if he ever had an opinion in the first place? He's lived most of his life under one farce or another, relying on his reputation as a businessman to steal money from investors, licensing out his name/brand, and driving viewership for his reality show. Allegedly in his private life, he's a lot more subdued. Now he's adopted the persona that seemed the most appealing to his target demographic: a whiny baby full of bluster and blind aggression toward anything that moves, and it's really jarring to see that...thing walking around and dealing with people who are all civil and subdued because they're adults in some of the most powerful positions in the country. He learned how to play to a crowd on reality shows rather than in prepared speeches, and it shows. Although as I understand it, America's politicians are a lot more subdued than some other countries', especially England and its tradition of openly jeering in parliament. It's been a long time since there was a fistfight in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Although as I understand it, America's politicians are a lot more subdued than some other countries', especially England and its tradition of openly jeering in parliament. It's been a long time since there was a fistfight in the Senate. Yeah this is something odd about the US compared to the rest of the world. The amount of dignity and prestige given to the office of the president (or equivalent elected positions) is essentially "none" in most places. You wouldn't get a Prime Minister Trump in the U.K. because it is not a glamourous position to go for (that's what marrying into the royal family is for). Like, you still get idiots that want to be PM, but it's because of their lovely political ideas rather than because they think it would make them popular or respected.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Trump's pivots can be explained in three ways. I think all three are true: - Trump being lazy and a liar, and not being committed to the things he said he'll do. - Trump inheriting a disjunctive party that's in power but divided. He couldn't implement his specific agenda which is at odds with his party's previous orthodoxy. So he "fell back" on GOP orthodoxy on many things, if not bipartisan beltway orthodoxy. - The so-called "experts" on foreign policy, defense, trade, monetary policy, etc "overwhelmed" Trump. I think this slightly different than Trump being receptive to some advice and evidence. He set the ship on autopilot rather than resist the technocracy. He still largely plays lip service to most of his campaign's main promises. Only the courts stopped his travel bans. And it still seems like he'll be able to roll back on a fuckton of environmental regulations. But I don't disagree that Trump, because of thin-skin, highly visible id, and open prejudices seems "human" as described by people above; and that Jared Kushner seems like a Smithers-type figure. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Although as I understand it, America's politicians are a lot more subdued than some other countries', especially England and its tradition of openly jeering in parliament. It's been a long time since there was a fistfight in the Senate. Almost all acts of violence on the floor of the US Legislature involve an rear end in a top hat from South Carolina, the last being a fist fight over the annexation of the Philippines in 1902. I think the biggest reason for the lack of violence in the US political system is all the old fuckers we send to D.C. The average age of member of the House or Senator is around 60.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I forget where I read it but someone had an interesting point about fist fights breaking out during government meetings: You laugh, but those people clearly give a poo poo about what they're arguing about. Can you say the same about your representatives?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I forget where I read it but someone had an interesting point about fist fights breaking out during government meetings: You laugh, but those people clearly give a poo poo about what they're arguing about. Can you say the same about your representatives? Fights are very, very, rarely about a passionate disagreement over policy. They're almost always because one dude called another dude a name, impinging his honor or some similar form of fighting words. Most often stemming from party/power disagreements rather than actual policy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Fights are very, very, rarely about a passionate disagreement over policy. They're almost always because one dude called another dude a name, impinging his honor or some similar form of fighting words. Most often stemming from party/power disagreements rather than actual policy. So basically this is 100% accurate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Christie was elected in 2009, not 2010. It was before the Tea Party wave. Corzine was unpopular. Christie also had the Law and Order candidate thing to draw on which Jersey and NY voters always gobble up. But that also is what destroyed his future in Trumps administration, his most high profile case as a US Attorney was putting Jared Kushner's father in jail for two years and having him permanently disbarred in the tri-state area.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Jon talked about the FCC again. Hopefully it does some good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
No.1 Special posted:Jon talked about the FCC again. Hopefully it does some good. At the very least it crashed the FCC page. https://www.gofccyourself.com btw
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Unfortunately, unlike before, all of that is going to fall on deaf ears. Ajit Pai has absolutely no interest in hearing what anyone has to say and his only mandate is to line the pockets of telcos and cable companies. Inviting public comment in this case is just a dog and pony show. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 13:35 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Unfortunately, unlike before, all of that is going to fall on deaf ears. I hate to say it, but this is a point worth making. Pai was on the Commission during the last Net Neutrality go-round, and when the ruling came down, he wrote a 67 page dissent. Even in a best-case scenario, this is going to be an uphill slog.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
EasyEW posted:I hate to say it, but this is a point worth making. Pai was on the Commission during the last Net Neutrality go-round, and when the ruling came down, he wrote a 67 page dissent. Even in a best-case scenario, this is going to be an uphill slog. Does that contain anything of merit or is it complete garbage meant to throw mud into the water?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 09:48
|
|