|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Not exactly a cartoon but worth sharing: Why indeed.
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:So "laughing at him" is the same as being triggered now? In that case, I guess I'm *very triggered* by his obsession with manly, sexy Donald Trump. Conservatives have no idea what "triggered" means.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Grimdude posted:Did I miss something where this Harvey guy was a prominent liberal figure? Like, who the gently caress is he? Other than "Hollywood" I didn't know he existed until this. In Hollywood, he and his brother were enormously influential. You've definitely seen movies that he funded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
gowb posted:My bad, didn't realize I was posting in the dimension where HRC blamed herself alone for the loss and quietly left the public eye to do some serious introspection, must've left too many tabs open You either bear 100% responsibility for everything you’ve ever been involved with or else you are dodging responsibility and can’t admit to ever doing anything wrong. There is nothing in between those extremes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I think if it were anyone else besides Branco or maybe Garrison I'd believe the (((NEWS ALERT!))) echo was an accident or mistake Branco does that constantly. It’s not an accident.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Fish now drawing Undertale fanart.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:I'm curious if you counted up all the scandals that have occurred in just these first ten months of Trump's presidency would the total be larger than the combined total of scandals of all previous presidencies. A whole lot of poo poo had happened since Cheeto took office. "All previous presidencies?" Not even close. But probably more than any specific one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:Every single liberal cartoonist would be blaring "NIGER" until it was the next Benghazi, if the left had the same propaganda apparatus and lack of decency as the right. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with making a big issue of Niger right now, since there's a lot still unknown about what happened. The problem with "BENGHAZI" is that they continued to insist there was some nefarious conspiracy even after it had been repeatedly debunked. It's projection, isn't it? Conservatives forgive any horrible behavior from people on their side, so they assume liberals do the same for someone like Weinstein, no matter how much liberals shout that they're disgusted by Weinstein's behavior. It seems obvious, but I'm just now making the connection. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This coverage is pretty openly poo poo-stirring. Agreed. Using the word "purge" in the headline is deliberately provocative, as is most of the article I could bear to read. Shangri-Law School posted:I like how the map-territory relation has slid so far that loyalty to Bernie Sanders IS progressivism. Yep. Bernie Sanders didn't invent left-wing economics. He had good ideas, but also plenty of flaws, and if people care about the ideas then they should find someone who'll be younger than 79 in 2020 to carry them forward.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
loquacius posted:
Just because there's no obvious candidate doesn't mean none exists. People had barely heard of Barack Obama at this time in 2005. ryonguy posted:You couldn't even get Hillary to get behind raising the minimum wage or supporting single payer through the whole drat election, the most limpdick of marginally leftist ideology imaginable, and the rest of the DNC selectorate are the same. Well that's just a lie. Hillary Clinton did support raising the minimum wage. "I'm in favor of $12/hr with higher wage decisions to be made locally." "BERNIE SAID $15/HR AND ANY LESS MEANS YOU'RE NOT A TRUE PROGRESSIVE!" And you're required to agree with Sanders on health care or you're not a true liberal? These purity tests are silly. Clinton had been trying to improve health care since 1993. Basically Clinton had detailed plans that made sense but weren't as dramatic as what Sanders suggested, so she gets smeared as too cautious. Clinton could produce an in-depth policy proposal on how to achieve progressive goals, and all Sanders had to do was say "mine will be the same but better" and he was the progressive champion. Are we going to spend the next x number of years relitigating this debate? Clinton had a good record of supporting progressive causes. Of course she wasn't perfect, but this idea that she was a corporate shill because OMG BERNIE is driving me up the wall.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
loquacius posted:naw don't worry Horsey, it's cool, we got this all figured out This is a stupid idea that will never happen, but the rest of the text suggests Lessig knows that and isn't seriously pushing for this idea: Lawrence Lessig posted:Without doubt, if Ryan did the right thing, that would be the most extraordinary event in the history of America since the Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter. Gotta admit, that's a pretty funny slam on Ryan. Duke Igthorn posted:Yes. Nothing says "patience in dealing with someone" by calling them names. On Twitter, Kelly used the term "Odumbo" to refer to the previous president, thus forfeiting any claim to being the mature, responsible one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
loquacius posted:the context is a Newsweek article entitled "HOW HILLARY CLINTON STILL CAN, AND SHOULD, BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION" I don't know the circumstances, obviously. Lessig is kind of a crackpot. Still, I could easily imagine him saying "here's a hypothetical out-there scenario that will probably never happen" and some overzealous reporter taking it out of context and making it sound like he's seriously calling for it. That's how a lot of clickbait titles come about. I think that's how the "Cabinet should remove Trump via the 25th amendment because he's crazy" idea got started. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:They'd just think your pronunciation was off. I heard someone say that the real reason Trump won't talk about the attack in Niger is because his speechwriters are worried he'll mispronounce the country's name.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:I love all these "wacky crazy senator Wilson making stuff up" cartoons because the widow now has come out and publically verified Wilson's account of the call while saying Trump is an rear end in a top hat Ahem, she’s in the House, not the Senate. Clearly you know nothing about this issue and your opinion can’t be trusted.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Fake account yo. I'm new to Twitter, so not surprising I'd fall for that. I've avoided Twitter for years, but since it now seems to be the origin of public policy for the federal government I felt I should pay attention. That was probably a mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:I think as the cartoons in this thread show, you can lay out all the fact about Clinton - what she's achieved, her high points, her blunders, what she's done well, where she's screwed up, her character, her temperment, whatever. Clinton made mistakes and also had a lot of unfair things happen to her that she couldn't control. It is possible to believe both of those things simultaneously. But that take's not hot enough to catch on, partly because it's exactly what she's said since the election ended. Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah...Trump can hint or say he's gonna do a lot of awful things but that's still a far cry from actually starting a bullshit war that kills millions and breaks a country for maybe ever. Give him time...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Childrens entertainment? Children love three hour movies with meandering subplots based on appendices.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:Also particularly great because while the rest of the world was focusing on Manafort, Fox News literally talked about a "controversy" involving what cheeseburger emojis should actually look like. Don't know if that's part of the reference or just a happy coincidence. Too good to be true. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:On you little Ben, I don't want wanna waste much time 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It's the villain's song from The Princess and the Frog and it's fantastic
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Pikavangelist posted:Trump got what he wanted, but he lost what he had. Song checks out. When do Obama's Friends drag him to hell? And who are his Friends? George Soros must be one of them, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Vib Rib posted:I understand this is a joke but I'm sure plenty of stand-up comics and political cartoonists really hate the "boy you're really gonna miss Bush/Trump/whoever when they're out, huh? So much funny material!" line. Jon Stewart said something like that right as Bush was leaving. Something like "yeah, he gave me a lot of material, but I'd rather not have to make jokes when people's lives are on the line."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Should have gone with duke of debt to keep the aliterations If he were making it up, sure, but “King of Debt” is a title Trump proudly claimed for himself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:gently caress you Tinsley, it's Republicans that have completely flipped their opinions on Mueller since spring, not democrats. This might be fair if they'd used Comey instead of Mueller.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's so rare to see actually arty stuff being used in these toons; so when suddenly there's something like this nice use of negative space, it's a bit of a shock. World seven of Super Mario Bros. 3 was pretty hard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
I was linked to an article about the fall of Dilbert and Scott Adams’s weird politics. Ben Garrison makes a cameo. https://www.theawl.com/2017/12/dilbert-a-reckoning/Starving Wolf posted:
And got the line wrong, though he’s hardly alone in that. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Yah with all the money he has left over from that new $50 a month he doesn't invest in things like NOT BEING IN BACK BREAKING DEBT UNTIL THE DAY YOU DIE I'm sure he'll run out and invest in one quarter of an XBox. If the man has over $20 million, the kid's going to get a nice present in the form of untaxed inheritance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Merry Christmas, ya miserable old thread! I think there should be a thread for "worst Twitter cartoon." Then again, the main problem with "he uses Twitter" cartoons is that they're all exactly the same, so maybe it would be too hard to pick a worst. Roland Jones posted:Technically, yes. I considered adding the acknowledgement that Pence probably wouldn't do things like, say, move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem on a whim, blowing up decades of peace talks and assuredly sparking a ton of unrest and violence. No, I think Pence would have done that because it's a dream of the religious right. Basically, on things that specifically deal with religious issues, Pence is a true believer, but Trump is an authoritarian who doesn't respect the rule of law. Trump is worse overall, but Pence is still bad. If we could actually get rid of Trump, though, it would certainly intimidate any other Republican, including Pence, from trying to push too hard. Alhazred posted:gently caress spineless opinion like these. Pence would gently caress over everyone that isn't white, male, straight and rich. Exactly when has Trump not done that? In 2016, there were all sorts of hot takes about how Trump was more moderate than other Republicans and maybe he wouldn't be so bad. He has 100% toed the GOP line, so I don't know how this idea that he's better than Pence is still alive. Cpt.Americant posted:So if you're not actually going to read what I wrote why quote it? I didn't say Pence isn't a monster, I literally call him lovely. I say nothing about "civil" discourse. But sure, I don't prefer Pence for any of the long list of reasons I listed out, it's just because he's soft spoken. That must be it. It has nothing to do with Trump's authoritarian instincts, or his cult of personality, or how he validates the previously fringe voices, it's just that he's a big old meany. This is right. The reason why Trump is different isn't about his "tone" or "incivility," it's that he has no respect for the rules of politics and obsessed fans who will never desert him. We can fight Pence just like we can fight any other Republican, but if we allow Trump to get away with political crimes then he will keep getting worse. Moreover, there have to be consequences for lawbreaking. Telling Trump "you can do whatever you want and we won't impeach you as long as you have a bad vice-president" is just giving him license to keep getting worse. There was an old joke that Dan Quayle was George Bush's "assassination insurance." Now it seems like Pence is Trump's "impeachment insurance." We can't get rid of Trump because then his replacement might be A REPUBLICAN. Well, no poo poo. Of course any modern Republican would be bad, and Pence would probably be worse in some areas, but that doesn't mean you let Trump run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law. Alhazred posted:When Mike Pence was asked if he wanted women to decide over their own body, if gays should have the civil rights that straight people enjoy or if people should have place they could check themselves for HIV he said "no". I couldn't give a gently caress about what he said about his experience at Hamilton. See, I more or less agree with this, but I'm not sure why it matters. "Which is worse" is academic at this point, because we have no power to get rid of Trump. What I want to know, though, is if we get in the position where impeaching Trump is possible, are you saying you wouldn't support it because Pence would be worse? If so, then how is it possible to stop Trump when he oversteps the boundaries of law? Are we just supposed to hope he doesn't do too much damage until we beat him in 2020? And if we do that, how do we know he'd respect the results of an election when we've already shown we won't impeach him? Jurgan fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Dec 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Ambitious Spider posted:It’s weird to me that the stance that pence is even slightly better than trump is getting so much friction. Pence is terrible but maybe not as apocalyptically terrible. It’s a matter of degrees, nobody (except prickly city) is saying pence is the solution all of our problems. I hope they both fall together. Roy Moore combined Pence's religious fanaticism with Trump's authoritarianism and skeevy personal life. So glad we beat that rear end in a top hat. The question of Trump v. Pence really depends on how this replacement takes place. If Trump has a heart attack, Pence takes over and things proceed more or less the same, but with less tweeting. If Trump is assassinated, then the shock probably gives the GOP a chance to shove through lots of unpopular poo poo while people are off-balance. So I hope no idiot decides they have to kill Trump to save democracy. That was the point made by staging Julius Caesar with the trappings of Donald Trump: that political violence to prevent tyranny just accelerates the rise of tyranny, and keyboard warriors like Ted Rall should think twice before calling for revolution. But impeachment is another matter because it would have lots of ripple effects that have to be considered. First, the Dems must have already taken the House. The chance of House Republicans impeaching Trump is pretty much nil. Taking the House will improve things on many fronts. But then the Senate has to hold trial on Trump and needs a 2/3 majority to remove. So, best case scenario, we'd need to flip at least 12-15 Republican senators. For that to happen, there would have to be a lot of evidence, either from Mueller or from a Democratic House committee subpoenaing administration officials. Alternatively/additionally, there would have to be a lot of pressure on middling senators like Collins, Murkowski, and whoever else we could peel off. The evidence would likely implicate Pence as well, and it might be possible to impeach him on the same charges. Failing that, it would hobble his presidency and he'd likely be seen as a lame duck, the political world focusing on the next election which would be only a year and a half away. Those dozen GOP senators would now be on record as making the most significant check on Republican ambitions since Nixon. The solid wall of Republican orthodoxy would be broken. It's possible that they'd say "now that we have Pence, everything's back to normal," but I think that once they had checked one Republican president and compromised with the opposition, they'd be more likely to do so again. They would have made themselves "moderates" irrevocably, and they'd be pressured to stand up against other extremist actions in the future. On the other side, the Democrats would have shown they were willing to take the ultimate step against Republican extremism. The impulse to go along and compromise with evil would be beaten. There'd be no going back from voting to remove a president. The Democrats would have cemented themselves as the party of progress and opposition to Republican extremism. There's a cynical view that everyone in the political world just wants to get rid of Trump and get back to "normal." I don't think that's true. I think removing a president, something that has never been done before in U.S. history (unless you count Nixon), would reshape the political landscape for good. Progressives would be emboldened by knowing they sometimes win, and they'd be more energized in fighting the Pence agenda. Trump fanatics would be enraged and possibly violent, but that's something you can fight legally- politically, their movement would be discredited and sent back to the fringe where it belongs. There are the swing voters who held their noses and picked Trump. I have to think, though, that they'd see the light. If they never liked Trump to begin with, they might not admit they made a mistake voting for him but they would not go down with the ship either. They might support a Pence presidency, but they'd be just as likely to turn against him, especially if he's implicated. We can debate all day whether Pence or Trump are worse in the abstract, but in the real world the process of removing Trump would strengthen the left and weaken the right overall, and I can't see any downside. And aside from all of the political concerns, it's just the right thing to do. I've believed for a while that impeachment has been underused in American history, and it's allowed the presidency to become more powerful than it should have been. Andrew Jackson overruled a Supreme Court order to commit genocide. Ronald Reagan sold weapons to terrorists against specific Congressional demands. George W. Bush lied to Congress to get approval for a war. These are all cases the Founders would certainly have considered impeachable, but Congress failed to act and the presidency grew stronger. On the other hand, Bill Clinton's impeachment was clearly a foregone conclusion that was based entirely on politics. Gingrich went on a fishing expedition and eventually found something, and whether Clinton deserved it or not it's clear the GOP were only acting politically and not based on the rule of law. If we then decide not to impeach a clearly guilty president over political calculation, we'd be guilty of the same crime, and future presidents would learn that they could get away with political crimes as long as they pick a VP who's even worse. Congress is supposed to be coequal to the presidency, but that's only true if they act like it. Ultimately, though, all of this is academic because we control nothing. We're in the minority, so we can't impeach the president without Republican help, and there's no way that's going to happen. So that's where our focus should be: winning some drat elections so we can get our agenda enacted- no matter what your specific concern, it will be better addressed with Democrats in control of Congress. So that's the takeaway: TL;DR: Unless your name is Robert Mueller, there's very little you can do to directly attack the Trump/Pence presidency. Winning the House is a necessary precursor to impeaching Trump and it also is the best way to protect LGBT rights, save healthcare, fight inequality, help the environment, or advance any other progressive cause. The best thing you can do is find a shaky Republican House member near you and work like hell to get them out in 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but there's no unringing the bell here. Those racists are already emboldened, they're not going to suddenly get less motivated just because their guy is out. Hell, if anything, they will be much more pissed off. Yes, but if Trump is impeached and becomes a disgraced former president, then they're no longer treated as a valid part of the political landscape. We'll get a lot fewer tedious articles about trying to understand these poor white people who are just suffering from economic anxiety.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
loquacius posted:The House is more valuable here, though (since control of the House gets you #2 in the line of succession) and it is particularly out of reach for us until at least 2020 due to gerrymandering.  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/ Harry Enten posted:First, Democrats are probably favorites to win the House. Their current advantage is larger than the lead Republicans had at this point in the 1994 cycle, the lead Democrats held at this point in the 2006 cycle or the lead Republicans had at this point in the 2010 cycle. Those were all years when the minority party won control of the House. And a 12 percentage point Democratic advantage in the national House vote come next November would likely be more than enough for the House to flip again. I’ve previously calculated that the Democrats need to win the national House vote by 5.5 to 8 points to win the House. Why do you think the House will get easier in 2020? Midterms are historically good for the out-of-power party, and there will be the same map in 2020 as 2018. "Gerrymandering" is not this unstoppable force that cannot be beaten, and Democrats are currently favored to win the House. It's also much easier this year than the Senate, just because of the map (a lot of vulnerable Democrats in the Senate are up for reelection). loquacius posted:in what way There is no way the GOP Congress removes Trump. If that is your prior, then fine, you can argue Pence would be worse, but that's as meaningful as debating which one would do a better job fighting an alien invasion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I'm not really confident in 538 being gospel after the last election, sorry. If the Dems manage to surprise me and take both houses in 2018 I will dance a little jig (no 538 were pretty good overall. They said over and over again that Trump had a real chance, and ultimately gave him a 1/3 chance of winning. There was no way anyone could say Trump was the favorite based on the polls, but they said Trump was "a normal polling error away from winning." They were far more accurate than the people who said Clinton had a 99% chance of winning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 17:14
|
|
though sorry) but I'm not holding my breath.
|
rydiafan posted:It's "more" as in "a greater quantity" not as in "additional". Predicting that there will be the exact same number next year as this year is actually pretty out there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:The first guy used as an example in the evolution of the pointy haired boss is simply not the pointy haired boss, but a different boss altogether. It's come to the point that I'm embarrassed own up to knowing this. A small blemish on an otherwise interesting opinion piece. Nah, Adams said Dilbert only had one boss, and his style of drawing him changed over time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
According to that globe, all vegetation on Earth has died, so maybe it really is that bad in the Prickly City timeline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 18:20
|
|
2
|
Lurdiak posted:That poo poo was pretty amazing at the time. Now it seems quaint. The sad thing is it's working. My wife still gets friends from South Carolina ranting about how Obamacare didn't do poo poo for them, and they have to patiently explain that it's because they're in the Medicaid gap and SC refused to expand.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Death Ray posted:(Is Jill Stein Jewish? I never even considered that. The "blood libels" made against her are for being a leftist, not a Hebrew.) "Blood libel" very specifically refers to the accusations that Jews kill Christian babies and use their blood in religious rituals. Essentially, whether you meant it or not you said that accusing Stein of being involved with the Russians is as bad as saying she eats babies. Maybe you should know what the words you use mean? ryonguy posted:Uh literally nobody except Hillary's diatribe where she wastes trees blaming everybody but herself ever thought this, and this is just the first paragraph. Hillary took a lot of blame on herself, in addition to rightly pointing out that others bore responsibility. Sir Tonk posted:lol at anyone posting their own articles in D&D in tyool 2017 Can anyone explain to me why "TYOOL" became a thing when "AD" is 40% the length and means the exact same thing?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2018 04:12
|
|