|
For a while after the election I still had some pesky feelings of sympathy for Hillary because it seemed she couldn't get neutral, let alone positive, media coverage with policy stuff and had to resort to sensational attacks Trump. His empty podium got more coverage than her boring, non-ratings-grabbing policy speeches. So some people, me included, assumed she was campaigning and we're not seeing it reported. BTW, didja hear that multiple Trump offices quit en masse due to a lack of pay because he didn't pay them? Lol Then it comes out that we didn't see her campaign because she had the most expensive campaign apparatus ever assembled purposefully avoid doing its job, knowing she was in trouble in "Blue Wall" states, as some galaxy-brained trick.
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:They think he's successful because he's on TV and promotes his name in 3d rendered gold letters with a chrome photoshop filter. I mean, would you not?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Then it comes out that we didn't see her campaign because she had the most expensive campaign apparatus ever assembled purposefully avoid doing its job, knowing she was in trouble in "Blue Wall" states, as some galaxy-brained trick. This is why I am not the least bit scared of a conventional Trump victory in 2020. Hillary had to go out of her way to be terrible, to do as bad as she did.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Continuing on from my post a page back about how I'm increasingly troubled about how much I'm finding myself instantly stereotyping conservatives: Another thing I've noticed over time is their overall lack of a sense of humor. My boss is a MAGA dude and I swear to God I don't think I've ever heard him laugh once in 10-12 years. They come off as grumpy, hard and gruff most of the time and then project how all liberals do is whine, mope, call people names and find fault with everything. Motherfuckers, you pricks play victim 24/7 constantly, never stop bitching and only laugh when someone slips on a banana peel or some chinese guy can't pronounce a word. Is it me or do CHUDS gravitate towards things like slapstick, fish out of water racist bits and tired goofy one liners? They're either really loving miserable or view laughter as a sign of weakness. Then bitch that everything they think is funny us some poo poo you're "no longer allowed to say" because of PC culture running amok.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Putting dijon mustard on a burger or drinking a decent coffee is "Elitist" to these dummies. As is riding the subway and apparently even using food stamps.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Continuing on from my post a page back about how I'm increasingly troubled about how much I'm finding myself instantly stereotyping conservatives: I mean both of those things get back to the thing that makes them happy to see: someone else getting hurt.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was attacked a ton because Hillary didn't have any positive reason to give voters to vote for her. Uh.....no it wasn't. Not trying to re-litigate the election but I watched every debate and the bankruptcies were mentioned ONCE to my memory and the tax return issue was abandoned once Trump said "they're under audit". It should have been brought up constantly. "I've released my tax returns, every presidential candidate for the last 40 or 50 years has, and Donald is lying when he tells you he's unable to" As to your second point, you're WAY off. Every RWM pundit and talk show host hammered this "great business man/self made rich dude" thing constantly, 24/7, including Trump himself who used it to imply that he was above corruption, bribery and the influence of lobbyists. An absolute poo poo TON of voters touted this "awesome business man" idea front and center as the number one reason they voted for him.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Yeah, the attacks seemed to be more “Trump is an rear end in a top hat” than “Trump is bad at business”. How many times did you see that god drat clip of him mocking the disabled reporter? Probably more than you heard about his multiple bankruptcies. Commercials with traumatized little girls and stuff. But man, it’s getting farther and farther in the past, and harder to remember the contours of details like this, so maybe she did spend some significant time and money on it. All we know for sure is that she lost.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1126825665213476866 What is up with people doing zero research on hosts before they go on shows? It’s not even necessarily a right wing phenomenon, I’m just always shocked how often people who make a living espousing their views on air are constantly completely unprepared for what environment they’re putting themselves in. You’re taking the time to go on a person’s show, even if you’re totally jaded to the experience because you do it constantly wouldn’t you at least google the person for 5 mins to get a cliff notes idea of who they are?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
This is a total guess and yeah he should have at least googled who his interviewer was, but: he had nothing in that Vox one on pretty predictable questions, so wouldn't surprise me if he just planned to clutch his pearls and march out saying "The Liberal BBC" in the likely event that things went south again.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Her campaign was trash. She ran on being the establishment, having been the establishment for 30 years, and it being "her turn" (initially.) And this came after the Wall St bailouts, occupy, drone strikes, slow-grow economy (...spun hard as too slow), and both parties' favorability was at an all time low. 2016 was a referendum on "business as usual" and the status quo. The Republican "outsider" got their nomination, but the Democrats burnt theirs down, salted the earth, and leveraged Trump against their own interests. "Fall in line for Hillary or this outsider, not-politician who hates us almost as much as you do will be in charge!" E: I mean, gently caress. That's what you'd do if you're trying to lose, and they're poised to repeat it. moths fucked around with this message at 23:51 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
moths posted:Democrats burnt theirs down, salted the earth, and leveraged Trump against their own interests. "Fall in line for Hillary or this outsider, not-politician who hates us almost as much as you do will be in charge!"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, the attacks seemed to be more “Trump is an rear end in a top hat” than “Trump is bad at business”. How many times did you see that god drat clip of him mocking the disabled reporter? Probably more than you heard about his multiple bankruptcies. Commercials with traumatized little girls and stuff. The attack that Trump is bad at business misses what Trump supporters think Trump is. They all know he filed bankruptcy. They all know he's probably not as rich as he says he is. However, it's undeniable that Trump has access to lots of money and lives like a rich person and has rich person money issues. They don't have a problem with rich people being corrupt because they see it as shrewd and virtuous. Any attack on Trump's actual business acumen based on any of his business missteps will be met with, "lol, libs don't understand you gotta take risks to make money, what dopes. Of course rich people avoid taxes, everybody does it, only an idiot would pay more than they have to." Attacks on Trump would be more successful if they were able to be made along class lines, but many Dems, being upper-class assholes themselves, are not equipped to do it. The attack should be that the only reason Trump is rich is because the corrupt class system in America does not allow him to ever be poor. Unlike most everyone in the electorate he never has to face real consequences for his actions, and as president his conduct has shown he intends to never face consequences as president either. A better left party would also be able to connect all this back to the fact nobody went to jail for the rampant fraud during the 2008 crash or the ensuing foreclosure fuckery while banks were trying to clawback their balance sheets. Most Dem politicians can't do this because they're fundamentally complicit in this corrupt system, and they have no interest in fixing it. Instead, they keep trying to fight on optics against a guy who is way more media savvy than they are. The problem upper class Dems have with Trump is that they believe the upper class is some kind of meritocracy, and Trump is breaking the rules and making them look back by being able to remain so rich while being such a loving idiot. ErIog fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Attacks on Trump would be more successful if they were able to be made along class lines, but many Dems, being upper-class assholes themselves, are not equipped to do it. The attack should be that the only reason Trump is rich is because the corrupt class system in America does not allow him to ever be poor. Unlike most everyone in the electorate he never has to face real consequences for his actions, and as president his conduct has shown he intends to never face consequences as president either. A better left party would also be able to connect all this back to the fact nobody went to jail for the rampant fraud during the 2008 crash or the ensuing foreclosure fuckery while banks were trying to clawback their balance sheets. That would be nice but I think you're being optimistic about the results. Trump's base likes him because he says the quiet stuff out loud. His supporters would rather be broke so long as they can rail against evil minorities and women. They've voted against their own economic interests for decades. Why would it suddenly change?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
But they haven't voted against their own expected economic interests. They think their ideology will give them wealth.
Minenfeld! fucked around with this message at 00:39 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
The members of the demon-in-the-flesh party thought that there was a secret other food stamp system for minorities back in the eighties and now QANON is the default Republican position.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:What is up with people doing zero research on hosts before they go on shows? Like Ben Shapiro ever "researched" a loving thing in his life. It's also a "toss me softballs" or "be as dumb as I am so I can 'own' you" thing. Otherwise it's a gotcha question and slanted, one sided journalism with an agenda that permeates the persecution complex. Remember, these people don't like to be asked what they READ or to elaborate on statements we have them on video or in writing actually SAYING. They're idiots. And the ones that aren't are being willfully obtuse and intellectually dishonestin pursuit of money and internet fame, simple as that. People who start with the conclusion first and work backwards from there. Like televangelists and MLM people really whenyou get right down to it. Any "research" done by any of them is cherry picking statistics devoid of context or loving bible quotes that don't mean what they think they mean.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Shapiro will be more careful in the future. https://twitter.com/ProBirdRights/status/1126998435293360129?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:This is a total guess and yeah he should have at least googled who his interviewer was, but: he had nothing in that Vox one on pretty predictable questions, so wouldn't surprise me if he just planned to clutch his pearls and march out saying "The Liberal BBC" in the likely event that things went south again. I dunno about that. This guy is apparently a Tory, so even if they may technically be to the left of our Republicans, I don't think Ben would want to alienate a valuable European ally. More than likely it's just that Ben's a dipshit who just didn't bother to learn about this guy since he thought BBC = UK MSNBC.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:What is up with people doing zero research on hosts before they go on shows? It’s not even necessarily a right wing phenomenon, I’m just always shocked how often people who make a living espousing their views on air are constantly completely unprepared for what environment they’re putting themselves in. You’re taking the time to go on a person’s show, even if you’re totally jaded to the experience because you do it constantly wouldn’t you at least google the person for 5 mins to get a cliff notes idea of who they are? i'm glad they do it or else isaac chotiner would be out of a job. there's also the fact that even though a lot of it is a grift they do in fact drink the kool aid. shapiro doesn't realize how loving extreme the republican position on abortion is. these people are loving dumb. it's such an underused explanation but it's the truth. they're totally divorced from reality and cannot handle it when faced with someone that realizes how infected with brain worms they are. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I dunno about that. This guy is apparently a Tory, so even if they may technically be to the left of our Republicans, I don't think Ben would want to alienate a valuable European ally. More than likely it's just that Ben's a dipshit who just didn't bother to learn about this guy since he thought BBC = UK MSNBC. tories are basically mainstream democrats ukip is the closest republican equivalent
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Shapiro's being self-deprecating about this, which is admittedly a bit refreshing after conservatives never apologizing for stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Shapiro's being self-deprecating about this, which is admittedly a bit refreshing after conservatives never apologizing for stuff. he does that pretty much every time he's owned and then doesn't change anything.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Oh, he does that a lot? Well poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:What is up with people doing zero research on hosts before they go on shows? It’s not even necessarily a right wing phenomenon, I’m just always shocked how often people who make a living espousing their views on air are constantly completely unprepared for what environment they’re putting themselves in. You’re taking the time to go on a person’s show, even if you’re totally jaded to the experience because you do it constantly wouldn’t you at least google the person for 5 mins to get a cliff notes idea of who they are? arrogance, reinforced by always playing to safe audiences and surrounding yourself with unquestioning loyal servants Groovelord Neato posted:these people are loving dumb. also a big factor.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Shapiro could just post the video of his tantrum with a title saying he CRUSHED HIM, SAW HIM DRIVEN BEFORE HIM, AND HEARD THE LAMENTATIONS OF HIS WOMEN and his audience would believe that’s what happened.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I dunno about that. This guy is apparently a Tory, so even if they may technically be to the left of our Republicans, I don't think Ben would want to alienate a valuable European ally. More than likely it's just that Ben's a dipshit who just didn't bother to learn about this guy since he thought BBC = UK MSNBC.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Shapiro will be more careful in the future. I'm glad the comments have Kung Fu Hustle gifs because that's what I thought of as soon as I saw that tweet.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
It took me awhile to get the BBC political interview style. I used to hear BBC World News coming home from work every night on NPR and at first I would get upset at the interviewers because they essentially would get a political figure or commentator on the show and ask them the rudest questions. At first I thought it had to be really intentionally antagonistic. Eventually I realized what I was hearing. They would bring people on and accuse them of the worst poo poo their opponents are saying about them. The reason this is actually a very good thing is that when the worst poo poo is all made up BS like "socialism doesn't work ever" the person can lay out a succinct answer and if they are right, then that is good. Of course, if the worst poo poo is actually true then the person has to try to deflect, change the subject, trot out some tired talking point, etc. Then the interviewer can point out that this bullshit has been debunked, and experts/scientists/people who were there say this about it. It's really effective and I wish all interviewers did it to guests who are working some agenda, for good or ill. I know I haven't explained this very well because I don't really have an example to share. But when they bring a guest on they seem to be perfectly aware of what their guests are up against and they make those people defend themselves from it. If they can, that's great and we learn things. And if they can't, well that's great too.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:It took me awhile to get the BBC political interview style. I used to hear BBC World News coming home from work every night on NPR and at first I would get upset at the interviewers because they essentially would get a political figure or commentator on the show and ask them the rudest questions. It's nice to hear after you have to suffer through an NPR interviewer asking some weak poo poo and then allowing an actual bad faith schill to not only not answer the question, but then hijack the rest of the conversation while the interviewer completely fails to challenge them on blatant false statements. NPR is loving frustrating.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
Literally Esoteric posted:It's nice to hear after you have to suffer through an NPR interviewer asking some weak poo poo and then allowing an actual bad faith schill to not only not answer the question, but then hijack the rest of the conversation while the interviewer completely fails to challenge them on blatant false statements. It's doubly frustrating when on the same network you have people who will just straight-up laugh in someone's face when presented with bullshit. Steve Innskeep did this one time back with a GOP rep talking about, I think, the Mueller Report. GOP rep says that it hasn't brought up anything viable, and he laughs, says 'come on', and starts listing off names. GOP was fumbling and fuming after that, and he still pressed. Joshua Johnson is another great source for someone who will push back against hosts. But, yeah, NPR can get frustrating when other voices don't show that sort of backbone.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:For a while after the election I still had some pesky feelings of sympathy for Hillary because it seemed she couldn't get neutral, let alone positive, media coverage with policy stuff and had to resort to sensational attacks Trump. His empty podium got more coverage than her boring, non-ratings-grabbing policy speeches. So some people, me included, assumed she was campaigning and we're not seeing it reported. BTW, didja hear that multiple Trump offices quit en masse due to a lack of pay because he didn't pay them? Lol Hillary's campaign was just terrible for so many reasons. Apparently one of the expenses was to hire a bunch of code nerds to crunch the numbers and do some data science to figure out how best to mathematically spend her time. That sounds great but it screams to me "I don't actually care about you unless you benefit me." One criticism I've had for her for a pretty long time is that she's a pretty hardcore machine politician. Granted some of that was also not her specifically but what I think is really a massive failure of the left right now; a lot of them have totally written off red or purple blocs entirely as a bunch of racist hicks that don't know how good they have it. While Trump and Bernie were actually talking to the working class Hillary wrote off some big voting demographics in ways she really shouldn't have. Then it came out that she was referring to groups of people as "a basket of deplorables" with some rather disturbing disdain. Meanwhile it was coming out that the DNC was actively promoting Hillary in a pretty undemocratic way. It was clearly "you're getting Hillary whether you want it or not." She did win the popular anyway but even that was pretty tainted. One thing I've brought up a few times here is rural white people. A lot of people just go "lol stupid conservative white trash, gently caress 'em." Except that a lot of them are disillusioned Democrats that are disillusioned because the supposed hero of the people party has be a gargantuan failure at preventing the erosion of unions. Union members are heavily Democrat (I think like 2/3 of them overall are D voters) regardless of race or gender. Lose the unions, lose a lot of voters. The worst parts of the Rust Belt are also pretty heavily white; like >95% white in some places and they've been watching where they live completely burn down for decades. I'm going to focus on PA for the moment because, well, that's what I know best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_County,_Pennsylvania Forest County is the 7th poorest county in the country as of the last check. That entire region has been utterly in the shitter for a very long time. Trump and Bernie were talking to them and saying "we're putting you people back to work." Hillary's attitude was "lol gently caress 'em." That's why a hell of a lot of them were Trump voters and ultimately still are; the left keeps going on about how we need to fix the problems of not white poverty while a hell of a lot of white people are dealing with precisely the same poverty-related issues. The message is very clearly "we don't care about poor white people." Meth and temporary meth labs are a gigantic epidemic in rural Pennsylvania right now because of the absolute desperation in the area. Pretty much nothing is happening in the area economically while a hell of a lot of people are trapped due to being unable to afford moving. Meanwhile the places where the jobs actually are cost prohibitive for them to even think about. This is ultimately a good chunk of why Pennsylvania went for Trump; he was the one saying "I'm bringing jobs back." There were a ton of Bernie bumper stickers but not a lot of Hillary ones. Then when it was clear Hillary was going to be the nom everything swung hard for Trump. That very much shouldn't be ignored. Trust me they'd swing to left real god damned hard if a politician made some promises to help them and actually followed through for once. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 13:13 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Yeah she should have realized that much more of Trump's voters are those deplorables and instead worked on getting the left to vote.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:It took me awhile to get the BBC political interview style. I used to hear BBC World News coming home from work every night on NPR and at first I would get upset at the interviewers because they essentially would get a political figure or commentator on the show and ask them the rudest questions. The interview style is the evolved 'Paxman'. BBC used to have a politics interviewer called Jeremy Paxman in the late 90s/2000s who decimated politicans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI This is one of his famous videos, he ruined Michael Howard in 8 minutes. Edit: And the US style of interview is poo poo frankly. Its 'Why is the opposite side so poo poo, please expand' type questions. And they ignore if they go off on a tangent or start making GBS threads on someone else. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 13:24 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Trust me they'd swing to left real god damned hard if a politician made some promises to help them and actually followed through for once.  this is why Bernie Will Win:Bernie's Plan to Invest in Rural America
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
i wish mehdi hasan was hired by every american network to do their interviews.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:The interview style is the evolved 'Paxman'. "Have you ever lied in any public statement?" is such a biting question in its simplicity.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i wish mehdi hasan was hired by every american network to do their interviews. This is problematic for the American media establishment for two reasons: 1) He challenges power structures and narratives, and 2) he's a well-spoken Muslim. The only viable question in this context is: which one do they hate more?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:It took me awhile to get the BBC political interview style. I used to hear BBC World News coming home from work every night on NPR and at first I would get upset at the interviewers because they essentially would get a political figure or commentator on the show and ask them the rudest questions. I think this is just what journalism actually is, where in the US we blend entertainment with the most shameless bootlicking imaginable and call it News.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
quote:Shapiro was minimised and made to look a fool, but he managed not to substantively answer any of they questions he was asked, about his stance on abortion, Arabs or Palestinians. This is not because Neil is a bad interviewer, but because there is no way to effectively nail someone like Shapiro whose argumentative tactics are about aggression, evasion, rhetorical bluster and dissimulation. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/12/ben-shapiro-far-right-andrew-neil?CMP=share_btn_tw
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 22:00
|
|