|
I was less conflicted with seeing Trump defend PP and condemn the Iraq War because Jeb and Cruz are obviously dickheads too and I was enjoying the destruction of GOP. I think when it came to foreign leaders, the only real choices were Churchill, Gandhi, Mandela, and Pope Francis. It's harder to pander (or simply have an inoffensive, uninteresting choice) if you have to back it up with a history lecture. (I kind of wish one of them mentioned Toussaint Louverture...)
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Every progressive-sounding thing that Donald Trump believes in will be thrown out the window come the general election and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. Yes, that includes his belief that Canada might have a point with this whole single-payer healthcare thing. Not long ago he was saying that the rich need to pay more in taxes, but then he came up with a tax plan that would hilariously benefit the rich and add trillions to the deficit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
A nuvaring of bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
This is the best show on TV hosted by a Daily Show alum. I don't mean this as an insult to Colbert/Oliver/Noah/Wilmore. If I had to pick the most important elections of my lifetime based on what was known at the time and none of the hindsight stuff, being born in '87; I'd have to go with: 2004 - Chance to stop George Bush and indict a president for starting a war that should have never been fought. We obviously dropped the ball. 2008 - obvious reasons But Sam Bee did make a strong case that 2010 was more important, with the power of hindsight at least. Well I voted that year... that counts for something right? Edit: Considering how incisive this midterm bit was, I'm hoping we'll get a good historical context to explain why America is going insane in 2016. Oliver's bit about Trump went everywhere on social media, but I felt like it fell short being the needed takedown. Maybe Sam Bee can do better. Mr. Fowl posted:I voted in 2010. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
I remembered everyone on my Facebook had a meltdown following the 2010 election. Everyone was sharing that "WTF has Obama done?" meme. But I was like, "Do you not remember 2004?" It's part of the reason why I'm still slow in jumping on the Trump hate train, despite how reprehensible Trump is. 2004 was my huge "wow. our country is really hosed up" moment. Don't get me wrong; gently caress all the people who didn't vote in 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Typically when I understand examples of racism, I'm inclined to side with Team Evil over Team Stupid. On some level, there is malice involved, whether we're dealing with American heartland racists, Hollywood racists, or cosmopolitan racists. I often think the whole "they can't see pass their privilege" angle is played up too frequently to portray racists in a sympathetic light. People are smart enough to understand things like systemic racism, but they posture themselves and just choose not to engage the issue on those terms. They fully know the whole constructed narrative of colorblindness is load of willful ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
I like Sam Bee's show. I like John Oliver's show. I like Trevor Noah's show. I like Colbert's show. I even like Larry Wilmore's show. I think I'm doing it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Finger wagging is certainly a faux pas in 2010s America. It's enough of an issue that Bernie should have avoided it, since he should be aware that his progressive credentials will be scrutinized to hell by a hostile media ready discredit him on social issues (and of course the Berniebro narrative) He needs to find handlers to tell him what not to say and how not to say things, preferably ones as good as the staffers who coached Hillary. I do think it's unfortunate that the political center has able to posture themselves very well with some socially progressive causes. I have a hard time telling the difference between Silicon Valley libertarians and Silicon Valley liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Obama on the campaign trail doesn't sound too different from Obama today when it comes to his pattern of speech. I'm not sure if he used "let me be clear" that much yet; that was a response to the right contorting his agenda and words. In town halls, he would frequently restate the question he just received so he'll get more time to think of how to answer a question. In 08, there was obviously catch phrases that were downplayed in 2012 like "yes we can" and "fired up and ready to go". Hillary sounds a lot like how she sounded in '08, but with more coaching on social justice language. There was a lot of opposition research "you supported this or that in the Illinois senate". I distinctly remembered her taking flack for explicitly acknowledging her post-South Carolina defeat strategy was to rally white voters. And now her supporters are trying to pin that on Bernie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Oh god... that Trump bit. I say that was the best bit out of all the comedy shows regarding Trump so far, precisely because she cherrypicked the best and brightest of the pro-Trump camp. The nuanced idiots are always worse than the idiot idiots. When Trump was inflicting pain on Jeb and the old guard of the GOP, it was a guilty pleasure. And I see everything I hate about myself in these people. WHY AM I PERSECUTED? Edit: If Stephen, John, Larry, Trevor, and Samantha all cover a specific gaffe, I guess it's a Bingo? I think they all went after Hillary's AIDS comments. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
The thing about selectively informed people is you can see where they're coming from, but also where their rationality ends and irrationality begins. They're making excuses for Trump that Trump isn't even making himself. They assume some of the stuff he says is just pandering, and that he might he'll pull a 180 even though there's no real reason to believe so. It's kind of like seeing normal people join Cutco or a cult or something. Their blind spots are kind of both willful yet invisible to them. It's frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I always found the archetypal "educated conservative" way more insufferable than the stereotypical uneducated conservative. And guess what? They're typically either neocons or free market fetishists. "I hate Muslims for all the right reasons."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
I'm not too concerned about superdelegates, but I ultimately disapprove of them. Their role in 2008 was not too pivotal or controversial, but the media mostly uncritically included them in the head-to-head horse race. If it was common sense that the majority of so-called pledged delegates was the real magic number, rather than a majority of delegates including the supers (which is far from the case), then I'd disapprove of the idea of superdelegates less as the emergency power brokers. But even in that scenario, I think she's overplaying the role of super delegates as rational political actors. If I remember correctly, in 2008 Hillary's superdelegates (with few exceptions) only switched to Obama when Obama clinched the nomination and Hillary endorsed him; not unlike how many of Hillary's "pledged" delegates cast their convention vote for Obama as part of the whole "rally around the nominee" thing. And in theory, in the John Edwards scenario, Edwards' own delegates could also have dumped the presumed nominee if he became too big a liability. It doesn't have to be party insiders. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
But when super delegate endorsements are counted in the delegate horse race scoreboard, that kind of defeats the purpose of them acting as last minute power brokers in a tight nomination race, because they can just endorse early on. Any delegate can decide to change their vote at the convention.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
"Pledged" delegates aren't absolutely bound to vote for who they are pledged to vote for. They obviously were chosen to represent voters who have supported their candidate, but like I said they, like the supers, can break from who they are supporting. They don't even need to have their candidate "release" them. Yes it could be "chaos", but I believe there isn't a rule forbidding such chaos. Once again with the Edwards hypothetical; if the presumed nominee implodes from a scandal after securing a majority of delegates (let's say; it's a majority well above the number of supers) but before the convention, the super delegates won't be able to do much poo poo anyway. The pressure will be on the pledged delegates to either dump the presumed nominee or to go through with a suicide candidate. Granted, it doesn't have to be the all of the candidate's delegates, just enough of them to deny the nomination to the person they're pledged to. The whole entire point of the delegate horse race is to see who passes the majority threshold, to ensure that there is a general understanding that someone "won" the nomination already. If someone clinches the nomination before the convention; it's almost always the case that many of the delegates for the non-winner, both regular and super, vote for the winner on the official convention vote anyway. In that sense, super delegates are functionally not too different from pledged delegates. Their special ability to "stop" a Democratic version of Trump isn't special. But their existence always adds controversy and a slight whiff of questionable legitimacy to the nomination process. Edit: Also the "rule" that the supers should always vote for the winner of the majority of pledged delegates was largely an invention of the Sanders campaign so they can stay in the game. This unofficial social contract wasn't really spoken about in 2008; I don't remember it existing. Granted, it's a nice unofficial rule that I don't find disagreeable but it's largely untested since there hasn't been a nomination race that forced the question. The idea is far from settled as Sam Bee has suggested. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Democratic rule where a candidate can change a pledged delegate before the convention. But my main point is that the superdelegates aren't magical problem-solving delegates empowered somehow differently from pledged delegates. Sam Bee implies they're the people who'd resolve the chaos if the Democratic Convention suffered a hypothetical John Edwards or Donald Trump problem. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
She didn't go for the low hanging fruit with the bro angle. I'm not sure if we were supposed to laugh with or at the supporters. Or if the comedy angle was that those supporters were frustratingly not as unsympathetic as her persona wished they were. Or were they? I guess saying Hillary Clinton is corrupt or untrustworthy could be read as subtle sexism, but they seemed more pro-Bernie than anti-Hillary. Was the supporters uncritically repeating many of Sanders' talking points supposed to reveal something about them? Whatever. I didn't feel to strongly about it. Like, we knew what we were supposed to get out of Sam's talk with the educated Trump supporters. Seems like they were still trying to figure out the Sanders bit was both while filming it and editing it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I'm glad I'm not the only guy who remembers Harriet Christian or anything else about Hillary's 2008 campaign. She's dead now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I caught up with the last three episodes. Pleasantly surprised by the Kshama Sawant cameo. Can't wait for the show next week to play the clip of the guy at the Libertarian convention who stripped into his underwear while giving a speech explaining why he should be party chair. Ted Cruz is right. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Caught up on the last two episodes. Yeah, that was a glorious takedown of Paul Ryan. And I'm glad to see she's not giving Bill Clinton a pass, all without muddling the waters. It's kind of weird to see Sam Bee explain the 90s to me. I'm 29; and I still remember it, warts and all, pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Someone will defend this, and it's going to be as beautiful as it is wretch-inducing. I'd love to see Sam Bee do an in-depth review of the first two' political careers, assuming she hasn't. I missed a good amount of Frontal this year. Really, I just want more Chris Christie-bashing catharsis. Even if you ignore his Trump endorsement and Bridgegate, he's an unambiguously horrible human being who enjoyed bipartisan cheerleading. I'd like someone to remind everyone how Christie was able to climb into the national spotlight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Bill Maher regularly has terrible people on his show, incuding the host. I liked the bit on Russian trolls. I'm conflicted about my issues with FF; kind of don't want to contribute to the whatever toxic backlash against Bee that most certainly exists. Young people are the one age demo that overwhelmingly prefers Clinton over Trump, but I feel like they're the one group that will be scapegoated by liberal pundits if Trump wins. I'm getting pretty tired of it. Were young people blamed for Brexit?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
I'm just confused whether TV people are talking to me or talking around me. I'm getting annoyed at a lot of the "kids these days" rhetoric. I voted in every general election, including the dumb off-year elections, since turning 18. At 29, I can only be considered a young person if we're being generous. Yet I'm bothered by the "stop staring at your phones; election important; THE MORE YOU KNOW" messaging. Like I think about the election, the economy, and current events nonstop; I'm at the point I feel a sense of shame for having any opinion at all, because too many people on TV are contorting it and saying it's wrong. Alright, sorry for getting that off my chest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Good for you, so did I. We are pretty loving exceptional in that regard though. Did you not click the link I posted? Like, I fully understand why young people can be blamed for the rise of the alt right. But in general, it's not young people who might enable Trump this Tuesday. If Trump wins, I think it'd be more fair to say that a Trump presidency was forced on young people despite their wishes, rather than because of it. Young people's failure to vote is weighed more heavily as a moral failing than older people's proactive decision to vote for lovely people. Alright I'm being hyperbolic; Full Frontal had plenty of "interview on the street" bits at the expense of middle-aged voters.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Full Frontal has been very quiet on social media... God drat it. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
I have a lot of mixed feelings. I've been a fan of Samantha Bee since she first appeared on The Daily Show back in 2003. I'm an Asian male and I'm glad she hasn't had a "white feminist" backlash moment like Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer, or Tina Fey; and I sincerely dread if it happens. But I really don't think she "got" this election beyond recognizing that Trump was huge threat early on and that the standard bearers like Kasich were also terrible. There has been a lot of complaints about of how she handled Bernie Sanders, and I don't really want to regurgitate them. It felt like she was talking down to the progressive flank and young voters; even the ones who switched from Bernie to Hillary for the general, for not believing in Hillary hard enough. I really didn't want to be at odds with Bee. Yes, I do respect Hillary Clinton as a political survivor. She was lightning rod of misogyny in the sexist-as-gently caress 90s. She was a proto-"woke" feminist before she was a creature of the political class. As a senator, she was known for being excellent with constituents. I wished more young people appreciated this. And she would have been a way less reactionary commander in chief than Bill Clinton. But she didn't realize (or didn't want to realize) how much the electorate has changed during the Obama presidency. Bernie understood what was going on in the rust belt, and had the potential (though I don't want to overstate it) of bridging their anxieties with the radical politics of Occupy and BLM. Hillary Clinton, for both reasons within and outside of her control, was the wrong messenger with the wrong message. I graduated college back in 2009, and I still haven't found a decent full time job, and I don't like being told that things are fine and we need to stay the course. Nonetheless, young people did overwhelmingly prefer Clinton over Trump, but it wasn't enough. Clinton suffered a surprise backlash in Michigan in both the primary and the general. I wonder how many of those "invisible voters" would have supported Bernie over Trump. I'm inclined to think Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio might have stayed as blue states. And Sam Bee wanted me to believe I was working with misogynists (granted, there are real Berniebros and insufferable alt-left types) and naive freshmen poli-sci majors (granted, I have a political science degree). Also, that I'm supposedly white. Comedy wasn't cathartic in those bits where she weighed in on infighting in the left. I'm glad in her election autopsy, she didn't try to shift blame to the usual suspects the way many other liberals did; but pointed out that Trump would have won anyway if only white women voted. Most people have deflected blame to other [mostly young] people's SOCIAL MEDIA BUBBLES, but some self-awareness on Bee's part is encouraging. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Sam still hates Bernie?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
An overwhelming amount of people who voted for Bernie ended up voting for Hillary in the general. The real deficit came with people who typically vote in general elections but not primaries. The main similarity between the two is groups is that they both showed a lack of enthusiasm (which the polls were not able to quantify) for Clinton in the midwest. It's just going to be a thing from now on. Unless if Bernie really fucks up and says something tone-deaf, Sam Bee's not going to flat-out attack him. But we'll regularly see hints of her anger at Bernie Sanders and the Left. This will happen even if the U.S. ends up electing a dozen women presidents and unleashes a liberal/socialist utopia. It's not going away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I voted in every election. I voted for Buono when the loving New Jersey Democratic Party allowed Chris Christie cruise towards reelection. In that case, the path of least resistance (in a loving blue state) was no resistance. Yet I feel like I'm being blamed for causing Trump. My best defense for Bee is that "she's not the only one". Like other liberal comedians probably privately thought little of Bernie but didn't openly weigh in on the Democratic schism because it's easier to just denounce Trump and now Bee remains is a lightning rod of that criticism still because she spoke out about her preference. (But still, this feels like it goes against this idea I have that "if you're not going to help us, don't hurt us.") I remembered that interview with Sanders supporters when one of them said "the people will rise up", but it was largely played off as a naive belief, rather than a renewed focus on building the coalition at the grassroots. So I don't think it's really a matter of her annoyance with the cult of personality with Obama/Sanders. Politicians don't get things done with the force of their personality alone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I feel like if we lose elections because a bunch of people got offended by a late night comic on once a week on TBS than we're all good and hosed already.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:11
|
|