|
This show seems more interested in news events in general rather than the reporting of them. I feel like TDS has gone from Mock News Show to Cable News Critique sometime after Jon appeared on The First Crossfire and crapped on Begala/Carlson and their shtick. He made pretty much the only joke that was needed about Indian CNN's busy on screen graphics and moved on. Meanwhile, TDS promised a full Jason Jones In India segment about the same concept. It just feels like either Stewart was blown away by the viral success of his CNN appearance and made a new goal for the show to shame cable news into improving itsslf, or one of their people is angling for a job there or MSNBC. They still do cover some news stories, but compared to ten years ago when it was known as the only "news show" young people watched it is fewer and further between. LNT seems to neither be obsessed with cable news nor a Liberal Catharsis Hour. Of course, HBO doesn't need that because they have Real Time for that sort of thing.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
I like that this show isn't afraid to tackle a serious issue, have an opinion about it, and tell you that you're wrong if you disagree with it. Their ham-handed attempts at creating social media buzz leaves a bit to be desired, but at least in the gecko thing it was more about lightening the tone after talking about potential doomsdays. TDS used to do a lot of this, but since Crossfire it's apparent that Jon has become more media critic than political humorist and while he's still willing to cover some act of deregulation and corporate greed screwing people over like the toxic water story that happened in the last year, it's mostly a lot of "CNN sucks." Which is, okay fine, but he kind of won because now I get most my news circumventing the NYT paywall and NPR. And his audience has to slowly be trending toward online streamers who only pay cable for an internet connection and can't watch the News Channel Trio if they wanted to. But I also credit some of that with being on four times a week instead of once.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
At a certain point, a show like this has to tell the audience to turn on the loving news. Discussing human shields, blockades, and two sides blaming each other for the explosion at a refugee shelter is really not what celebrity guest cameos, punchlines, song parodies, etc are really for. Now if you find the content in that news to be rubbish, that's what TDS is for.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
rapeface posted:I was also under the impression that even though U.S. politicians don't discuss it, the general consensus of most educated people (especially the left leaning) is that Israel is the aggressor. Is this not the case? Israel is a specifically touchy issue for a few reasons: 1) there is an incredible amount of lobbying for letting Israel do their thing without obstruction and supporting them 100%. GOP overlord Sheldon Adelson is a one-issue guy, and guess what his issue is? He's got contemporaries in the other party, too. 2) The loudest and most commonly expressed criticism of Israel comes from crazy people. This also transcends parties. Ten years ago, the protest movement against Bush's wars often had a fringe element that was spreading angry rhetoric about Israel, and right wing blogs loved to take pictures of it. In 2010, an incumbent Republican thrown out by the Tea Party (I think it was Bob Bennett) described meeting with Tea Partiers and watching their racism quickly descend into Jewish conspiracy theories. So not only is there a lot of influence toward fully supporting Israel, but not supporting Israel can align you with crazies. So, mainstream opinion varies between a belief that Israel is fully justified, to disagreement with certain policies such as settlements but still believing they're defending themselves. I think few would call them the aggressor, because they fight like a modern military, while the other side is a guerilla army that does things considered amoral like putting civilians between themselves and Israel's guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I also didn't pay much attention to the long bit, and class probably makes a lot of sense. HBO is the most expensive cable channel there is, and they're talking about problems for people who, by nature of not being able to pay a speeding ticket, also can't afford HBO. On the other hand, the hawk thing seemed especially overwrought. The Planned Parenthood guy was an idiot, but when he was building it up I was hoping it would be argued/rejected.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
The idea that being drunk in public is illegal just seems odd to me. Evidence that ten years on Nevada will change a person, I suppose. That and even back when I lived in California, I saw a lot of drunk homeless/street people and nobody batted an eye.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I watched the most recent episode, and I guess I agree with most of it except this idea that not taking pictures of your genitals is somehow an unacceptable compromise, WE MUST PHOTOGRAPH OUR REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS. That last part is sarcasm, but an NPR show (I think On The Media) actually took a stance like that once, that pictures of your naked body are just the currency of basic relationship etiquette now, so society and law should just accept and adapt. The thing is, it's a great idea if your idea of being online started with Comcast, or I guess mid 90s AOL; both of which are big gigantic faceless corporations. If you've ever used a dial-up bulletin board back in the day, or a small ISP in the mid 90s instead of a gigantic million/billion dollar one like AOL/MSN/Prodigy/etc, you know how insecure your transmissions can be. I've read ISP admins and old timey SysOps swear that yes, they DO have the information to see what you're doing, but they don't care to read it. And trying to get a handle on how those things run, I once hosted my own board and could see people write posts and emails, letter by letter, even pull them away from their work to have a one-on-one with them. I have a view of unencrypted online traffic that I guess you could describe as being more paranoid than the average user; because all of this spun out of that old series of networks that people today would think was Orwellian. When you realize that a file send to someone travels through more hands than your own and the recipient's, you're less likely to create digital images of your private parts. People who take other people's photos and publish them without consent are dickbags. But there would be a lot fewer occasions of it happening if people just assumed the worst regarding the privacy of their broadband pipe, of their cloud account, etc. All it takes is one experience with some 15 year old SysAdmin ripping you out of your email screen to tell you that they think your message sucks, and you'll be a lot more hesitant to assume that you don't have a larger audience than you realize.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:That's the thing. Taking the pictures has a certain (frankly quite low) risk, the higher risk is dating someone who behaves like a poo poo when upset. But if you refuse to take pictures, it doesn't matter who you date. At least if this is the only thing that you're afraid of. I kind of wove last year's iCloud hack into there, too; because it was the first major time that a narrative began to be spun that you were a bad person if you looked at these photos since they were not intended for you. That was the focus of the On The Media episode I mentioned that basically told the audience that photos of genitalia are just part of common human understanding now and we should all learn to live with it. What needed to be understood by the public was that if these photos are intended for two people, the way they were transmitted invited other parties. When you upload anything to iCloud, you're giving at minimum the people who are authorized to access user data at Apple the chance that they might see it. And if it's not encrypted, it goes through more parties. And unfortunately the general public that has little else to hide BUT their boob/dick pictures isn't technically inclined enough to think this stuff through. They believe something is private because a marketing team told them it was, but at least the techies of the earlier internet admitted that they COULD snoop through all your stuff if they really wanted to. They don't do that anymore, and it then it shocks people when Microsoft used admin privileges and looked into an employee's Hotmail to bust their role in a Windows piracy ring. Communication in America is rapidly turning into a choice between a public-controlled system where it's illegal for anyone to look at what you're doing except for numerous layers of law enforcement and the security state who will over-analyze and store every little detail, or a private system that is less cooperative with government but willing to exploit your activity to the nth degree to achieve optimal profits. You either pick your poison between Minority Report or Google AdWords. And people who know this won't store their boobs'n'cocks on iCloud, or Google Drive, etc. One thing John Oliver has hammered on repeatedly is that women are disadvantaged in these situations when the people who control all the power are men. So maybe we need to start with men: Hey men, you won't have to worry about the women at the office laughing at your penis JPG if you never create a JPG to be spread around to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
This episode's issue segment was a real yawner. Yes, local governments set up committees of people that look like your neighbors and meet in sparsely attended rooms monthly to read an agenda and maybe vote on some procedural item. Of course every story of government waste is going to be met with the usual combination of enthusiasm and skepticism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
I just work under the belief that the government can crack everything already so I shouldn't make myself an enemy of the state. That's a pretty good way to get along in a world where the government potentially could crack anything; you won't get caught trying to hide something if you assume you're already in an Orwellian nightmare and can't hide anything and therefore shouldn't have anything worth hiding. Which is probably not far off from the truth. Working under that supposition, this case is bad because they want access in a way that anyone can use once they discover it. That's awful, because I don't want JEFFK tapping into my phone. Even in the Orwellian nightmare, at least only the "good guys" with the black helicopters and Roswell alien technology can break into a phone, the teenagers doing it like a 21st century version of blue-boxing the pay phone is a different matter entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I was actually thinking that this is exactly how the rest of the world should respond. I have nothing against the UK, but the situation should be dealt with harshly to communicate the gravity of the decision, and to discourage the rest of the EU members from precipitating a total dissolution. Politicians saying "the other countries are out to get us and extract their revenge on us and hold us back!" has been responsible for some pretty terrible atrocities in Europe before. Not that the British are going to go out and conquer Europe, there's too much stopping for tea to be able to do that effectively, but why even give them the posturing. It's not a chief concern for "the rest of the world" outside of the EU to give much of a poo poo if the EU continues to exist or not. The general idea is that if all these countries unite their economies that they'll punch with the weight of a Russia or US or China, but there's legitimate criticism with the way the organization is run and it's not like Americans (particularly the ones that have a John Bolton view of the UN) are sympathetic to the idea of a multi-national body anyways. All you have to do is say, "they're make you give permanent green card status to the entire populations of a dozen other countries, rendering borders meaningless" and most Americans would say nuts to that. I look forward to John's act of self-harm on air tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:He's right though? Read much on I&P? "Jews" and "Israelis" aren't the same exact thing. And even then there's a difference between I&P and people centuries ago blaming the plague on Jews because they didn't die in massive enough numbers to satisfy people. And besides, both sides are right to be scared as gently caress of our current assholes ascendant, who hate both of them because that means base voters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
John Oliver's thing is vigorously taking an opinion, and especially at first drat near calling the viewer if they didn't agree with him. Sam Bee seems less about evangelism and a little more smug, but also actually doing more real comedy. Stephen Colbert's strength was that he actually understood conservative arguments on topics, and mock-promoted them in a way that also pointed out any glaring logic flaws or deliberately ignored downsides. Both LNT and Full Frontal are like his unified approach to comedy and commentary was split in two and went their seperate ways.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
timp posted:I can't be arsed to dig up links right now, but Colbert was very, very, transparently clear about being anti-Trump well before the election. He was. It wasn't until Trump got elected that he also gave us Spicer press conferences and Kellyanne being on TV all the time and other comedy staples. There was all that Hunger Games crap and his appearances at the conventions. Trump stuff has given Colbert improved numbers, and the other week Letterman told an interviewer that if he still had the show he'd be talking about it every night and asking aloud if the world had gone mad. If the network wanted him to avoid Trump, that's gone now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Being anti-Trump is one thing, but not doing the Colbert dry decoding of red hypocrisy is another. People don't tune into the Late Show for detailed comparisons of health care policy over thirty years. Trump is already deeply unpopular even without comedians, and he seems more sensitive to criticism than, say, Paul Ryan. That's actually what makes this moment in history so weird, the most prominent guy in Washington is uniquely narcissistic and overly concerned with his own image. Far more than any real politician that would just shrug off the late night hosts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Liberals worry too much about normalizing. The point is John obviously doesn't want to make Trump the whole show but his obligatory Trump joke is about how tired he is of Trump jokes. He could open the show with "Welcome, I'm John Oliver, and gently caress Donald Trump." And it would be as obligatory, as (un)funny, and it would get the obvious out of the way and let him talk about the things he wants to talk about. The difference between being on HBO and hosting, say, The Tonight Show is not worrying about talking about what interests you instead of whatever is popular.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm a little worried of people overlooking the whole deal with allowing ISPs to sell private information just because Trump wasn't at the center of it Nothing changed. Everything remains how it's always been. The Republicans removed regulations the Democrats produced in an effort to bolster their support in the election, which had never come into effect yet. There's a lot of breathless reporting about this being a brave new word of online deregulation, yet everything remains as it did in 2016. It's similar to when Clinton lowered the tolerance of arsenic in drinking water just before leaving office, and Bush ate a news cycle of hand-wringing about poison water for putting it back to where it had always been all along. If anything, the Oliver piece would be about media FUD muddying the issue. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Baronash posted:It effectively destroyed the ability of the FCC to regulate Internet privacy, instead firmly establishing that as the domain of the FTC, which has literally no enforcement power (or interest) in the area. To say "everything is the same" is dishonest as gently caress. The FTC can't because of the common carrier designation, common carriers are supposed to be the domain of the FCC. As soon as that is rolled back, it all goes back to where things have been. Common carrier will be rolled back because it was intended to be the first phase toward net neutrality, and we all know that any hope of net neutrality died with this election.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Oh goody, we can go back to the heady days of Comcast extorting Netflix and companies being able to pay for prioritization. The government is actively and brazenly taking steps to gently caress over consumers in service of some of the largest companies in the world, but you're right, nothing has changed. When a plan to change a situation is axed before it comes into effect, nothing changed in real terms. But yes, I'd expect Trump's FCC chair to reverse the course of Obama's FCC chair and hand back control to the FTC and things will continue as they always have. The people writing scare stories about this being some bill to break open internet privacy are using the same false equivalency that conservatives use when they equate failing to pass a tax cut (or letting a timed tax cut sunset) with successfully passing a tax increase.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Trump thinks he's a sexual tyrannosaurus too. Rich old white conservative flesh golum-looking assholes always do. This started with Cosby, it's men of a certain age. I cringe at the precedent that settlement = guilty that's happening in the O'Reilly case in this chapter of "Our Woke Times." But that's because I defended Michael Jackson for paying out over having to live a repeat of his first protracted legal battle, this time with a family that blatantly 180'd from supporting him to accusing him when their son appeared on the Martin Bashir special and made them look especially naive. It's why I consider Bashir a terrible journalist and hated him getting a gig in the heady lefty days of MSNBC. On the other hand, I'm weirdly accepting all this because it's Bill O'Reilly, who is so hatable that it's either to abandon your own principles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Why is everyone piling on RT instead of asking why media critical of the Democratic party seems to end up there? I think there's more to this story than has been discussed. Both facts can be true. Cenk created TYT after he got kicked from MSNBC, which likely happened because the Democrats weren't happy with his attacking them from the left. However, that doesn't change that RT engages in Putin apologia. I've seen it myself. The Georgia border scuffle 8 or 9 years ago happened during a time when I was far into analyzing state-run media, and RT had a guy stammering and fist-pounding that Russia never attacks civilians while BBC World had actual video of a Russian jet buzzing over and firing at their crew. He later also got wound up watching the Georgian leader in the streets and, obviously wound up on adrenaline or something, began mocking the guy like a child ("Oh, I'm [name], I'm so corrupt, I claim Russia is bombing people from the sky but here I am in the streets.") I gave up on it after that, I know at some point they started buying a presence on US cable systems and hiring OWS protesters to try their hand at broadcasting and creating a Maddow clone. RT is not the only "news" stream engaging in English-language misinformation for a lovely government on the other side of the world, but it was more transparent than something like CCTV9 which simply avoids talking about anything which would make Beijing look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
You're pre-supposing that people ever look at the_donald or /pol/. It would be interesting if the right went from "we didn't need the fairness doctrine anyway" to "oh god we need prevent foreign meddling in our information mediums" and started supporting a regulation on media, at least broadcasting, because of this poo poo. But they won't, because it's just easier and constitutionally muddier to let people watch whatever and put them on a list of suspected dangerous persons if they look at the wrong news source because it's tied to people we consider 'bad'. I'm less scared of foreign governments pushing media at our people causing them to re-think their policies or voice an agenda, because god knows we do that to other countries and it's only our own bubble of self-importance and our national disinterest in anything foreign that kept them from gaining a foothold for decades. I'm more scared that some goon clicks a link to AlJazeera or whatever in a post here and consequently gets their bank accounts frozen and their name blacklisted from flying. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
empty baggie posted:TYT was around for almost 10 years before Cenk was on MSNBC. He ended up on Current TV after MSNBC replaced him with Reverend Al. I remember it as a radio show he ran with someone else on Sirius Left back in the 2003ish days. But in my mind I disconnect it from the video platform.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I don't know where the previous goon is from, but when they introduced these ads they said they were only airing in the DC area, so it's probably a regional ad purchased through RCN and costs no more than Bob's Chevrolet of Arlington or whatever spends on an advertisement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Solvent posted:You can't ignore president Snooki. The thing about Trump is there's so much boring disregard for rules or policy that it's hard to understand what you should be angry about if a comedian on a tight schedule gives everything equal weight. A good example in what's to come: Nothing involving Spicer's disdainful attitude to the press or Ivanka's broad daylight corruption with China is as ridiculous as Trump calling the newly minted Turkish dictator and congratulating him on setting up a dictatorship, undermining our State Department's unease with the whole event. It's not that Ivanka's profiting from government access wouldn't be worth talking about 9 times out of 10 in Washington, but this Turkey thing is the one in ten that deserves the whole spotlight. And on top of that it probably makes for better comedy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:So maybe I'm not getting what you're saying but as the winner of the popular vote can't we infer that her campaign wasn't at fault, our arcane electoral college system is? Like Hilary won, but then Trump got it due to slipshod mechanics from 100 years ago that haven't mattered since before women & minorities could vote. Her campaign was terrible. They basically wanted nothing the Sanders people had to offer, wrote off parts of the country Obama didn't do well in because they expected to rebuild the Obama coalition of minority and under-reported voters. That didn't happen because, surprise, minorities and the 19-25 year olds who were voting for the first time in their lives for Obama aren't going to show in as massive numbers for a candidate with 30 years of broken promises and questionable ethics. (On top of that her campaign thought these voters would be equally enthusiastic about a white candidate as the first serious black candidacy.) She did basically no events in Wisconsin compared to Trump. My understanding is Mook & co wrote the state off as a lost cause due to the rightward shift since Walker came into office and tore up public unions, but that math suggests a typical Republican candidate and not a divisive naive buffoon running for dictator. Bill Clinton saw which way the political winds were blowing, and tried to hold events in these states and the campaign had this attitude of "okay fine whatever Bill you go grasp at straws". Basically if Hillary had listened to her husband more than her paid advisors she would have run a better campaign. The electoral system worked as designed, but the Clinton team was incredibly stupid and should be ashamed of themselves. They did the same sort of poo poo during the 08 primaries. There's other things that went wrong. Obama is partially to blame because he died on the hill of TPP, and Clinton couldn't politically oppose the President she was promoting herself as a follower of until months too late. They basically campaigned her as Barack Obama The Second to leverage his approval ratings and it didn't work mostly because people know by now that Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Baronash posted:TPP was a hill worth dying on, unless you seriously think ceding our international political influence to China is a good idea. Maybe a good idea but it definitely needed more work. The EFF was firing the old SOPA/PIPA alarm bells over what it meant for intellectual property.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Gyges posted:TPP standardization of dumb IP decisions wouldn't have actually changed much at all other than being another brick in the wall. It was so bad that even the loving weebs living in their attics were suddenly woke on the subject of foreign trade deals because the US law enforcement would be able to able to bust people for breaking Japanese copyright law (i.e. fan-translated anime torrents) and the other countries would have to make their IP laws more closely resemble the United States (i.e. porn manga featuring Magical Girl Lunar Princess instead of just straight up Sailor Moon Sucks Cock 18+). It was a horrible idea that was basically designed to allow Disney etc to start going after Asian piracy. It's death is the only bright spot on the Trump administration's dark cloud.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:When you take into account the tariffs and restrictions on US agricultural and industrial output as well as tying a block that accounts for 40% of world trade into a US friendly treaty, killing it was bad economically for the US. Plus the limited but real worker and environmental protections pushed the overall deal into ok territory. This sounds great for American corporations but not that great for Americans. American support for ending sweatshop conditions in China only extends as far as the American's ability to afford an ethical alternative. But we have had no appreciable increase in incomes in forty years, so gently caress 'em and work 'em to the bone. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Oh god this episode. Treating something as small as net neutrality and it's affects on your phone bill alongside a health care decision that means life or death for people is cringe-y. They should have split these rants into different episodes. Edit: oh god he just used Google Wallet as an example and that didn't even have anything to do with net neutrality and everything to do with carriers disabling NFC chips on the carrier branded/resold phones you bought on subsidized plans from the carrier. People with unlocked phones were using it fine but oh well don't let that accuracy slow you down, angry British man. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:And to tag along with this response: a carrier disabling an NFC chip in favor of their own competing method differs from a carrier disabling (normal, i.e.: full speed) access to a website how? It's a real world example of carrier fuckery. Only if you're required to use the carrier's phones. You can bring your own and do whatever on T-Mobile. You have the choice to go buy a phone, carriers and manufacturers can do whatever they want with the SKUs they agree upon and you have a right to not use them. I can't use NFC for anything but Apple Pay on my iPhone either and that's not even carrier fuckery.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Ali Aces posted:Net Neutrality isn't about money, it's about controlling what media the public at large accesses. Media drives public opinion. That's pretty goddamned important. Net neutrality is about my internet bill costing more and getting worse because a bunch of other people subscribe to Netflix, and the ISPs can't demand extra charges from them for their data binging. So they gouge everyone equally for their usage, including non-subscribers like me. At least go back to pre-2015 and and let the ISPs shake down Netflix instead of all the people who buy internet. Whether you make customers bribe ISPs to unlock Netflix, or shake down Netflix for costs that are reflected in the costs of Netflix, either option charges Netflix customers and that is preferable to the Obama compromise where Netflix and it's customers get a sweet deal and I pay more for the same or worse service. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Ali Aces posted:What you're referring to is bandwidth consumption, and net neutrality has nothing to do with that. You know this because the common carrier classification has not prevented ISPs from implementing data caps, which is exactly what they've been doing. There's also been disputes over peering and other infrastructure, particularly with Netflix and Google/YouTube because those two sources produce such an inordinate amount of volume. My ability to watch YouTube at night went to absolute poo poo a few years ago because my ISP and Google were having a peering dispute over who should pay for costs for more connections. It's inconvenient, but I accept it in the same way many Dish Network customers support (or at least tacitly accept) losing TV networks in the name of letting them play hardball in carriage negotiations. Does net neutrality have anything to do with that? I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
If you want to break it down, there were agreeable things said by almost any Republican in the days between Kennedy and Reagan. Goldwater was concerned about religious kooks taking over the party. Nixon enabled the religious people in a grasp for power, though he later regretted the beast he created, but he was open to a public health law that resembles Obamacare. Also, JFK was a big hawk.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Bush discreetly waged war on journalists. Bush called a reporter "a major league rear end in a top hat" while the mic was on, but he could at least fake an answer. But the press has kept an antagonistic stance with every President after JFK (who he could charm endlessly even while he was high off his rear end on painkillers and starting wars.) Keep in mind Trump ran on "nobody dies in the streets", "the war was a huge error" etc. He was running against a lot of Republican dogma going back to the shining city on the hill; the idea that we voluntarily cede power in leading the world, let them solve their problems with their own devices, and use the power of the economy to take care of our friends and loved ones. It just turns out that all of Trump's friends and loved ones are super wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Republicans have an inconsistent position because they've tied together two masters between the super-wealthy and the religious people. Elements of Catholicism especially preach this Cover The Earth mentality as if the world isn't overpopulated. But they also don't care about the human suffering the economic consequences of such a policy will bring about. This is a ripe audience for Republicans to pander to because "it's unfortunate people got hurt but at least I got my tax cuts" is the slogan for the past 40 years of GOP magic. Pro-life progressives who believe in contraception and free health care, treating addiction as a disease instead of a personal failing, etc, at least have a consistent moral platform to speak from.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
He hasn't really demonstrated evil as much as he's demonstrated severe ignorance and ineptitude. One of the amazing things about Bush-era Republicans was communication. They could convince 98% of the country to help the wealthiest 2% by calling something a Death Tax or something. They were masters at making a Society For The Preservation Of Nature that was actually clubbing baby seals or some poo poo. Almost everything people hate about this administration revolves around poor communication. Unable to handle secrets like secrets. Spouting nonsense spontaneously on Twitter. Actually yelling on Twitter about what Justice Dept should do at the Supreme Court when the man could just pick up a secure line and call Sessions directly. I'm less bothered by him than anyone who continues to support him now, just because they seem to be a fraction of Midwesterners who want the rest of the country to feel hot and bothered and annoyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Poorly informed young people's politics are as influenced by what their parents are and their relationship with them, or the people on their college campus, or whatever else. They're pretty fluid, but the consistent thing is that they don't vote so it won't matter. They'll probably change a little when they get old enough, because people hear new information and change. I know these boards have changed my view on a lot of things, and I'm sure some Bernie supporters scrunched up their nose at the mention of "Canadian-style healthcare" at some point in the 2000s until that Michael Moore film or someone else messaged it in a way where it sounded like something they want. Also, a lesson to learn is that if you elevate someone to The New Hitler there's going to be people who will support them just to strain their relationships and social ties. Human nature just really, really likes to advocate for the devil anywhere they can find it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:had the republicans put up someone normal like Rubio this would have been a blowout loss for the Dems, as shown by it still being a blowout loss downballot which means plenty of people voted R there but not for President. Yet the Republicans seem to not believe any of this because they continue to behave as a rubber-stamp for Trump since they want his supporters in the midterms. WampaLord posted:This attitude is why she lost, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
I vote in a swing state that actually has a "None of the above" option that is effectively the same thing as not voting but actually leaves a recorded count of your protest vote. I used it. Clinton won here anyway. And this poo poo still won't be fixed until states give their EVs proportionally to their popular vote instead of 100% of their EVs to a candidate with a tiny majority or even without a majority of votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2017 02:56
|
|