Political Cartoons 2017: Gotta go fasc

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Political Cartoons 2017: Gotta go fasc

«‹›6 »

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Excellent thanks to beating Roy Moore we're one step closer to our mandatory abortions policy coming to pass. Alabama fools!

# ¿ Dec 13, 2017 07:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 08:49

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Neodoomium posted:

And it took margins of 92 and 96 in Black Men and Women to get there.

White voters were completely fine with voting for a racist pedophile.

Well to be fair, looking at the numbers, a lot of them probably didn't vote at all.

I like to think that some of those were people that learned from voting for Trump that it was better to stay home and just not vote for anyone if you think your candidate is horrible but you just can't stand the idea of voting for a *gasp* Democrat.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2017 07:45

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:

90% of the people who voted for Hillary showed up for Jones, only 40% of the people who voted for Trump showed up for Moore. It was not a massive Democratic surge, it was an unwillingness among Republicans to vote for a horrible candidate. That and amazingly actually getting Democrats to show up in an off year election in December.

Just because the numbers are similar doesn't mean all the same voters came out and voted for the Democrat. There may have been crossover, and likely some new voters were motivated.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2017 19:38

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Scaramouche posted:

Based on what I read on 538 (I know I know) they seemed to think it was low turnout, and leading up to the election the characterized AL as being one of the most partisan, least crossover electorates in the US

I can buy that, I'm just saying I don't think you can quite reach that conclusion based entirely on the number of votes being similar.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2017 20:26

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Technowolf posted:

Glenn's the "better"* McCoy, right?

* For a certain value of "better".

Yes, and you know I actually think that one's better than usual for him too.

If it was Gary they would be unrecognizable without spelling it out in context, but Gary would never go for this gag because it's not spiteful enough.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2017 06:00

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

King Possum III posted:

3

Boy that Mueller probe sure is a mess! What a mess!

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 22:02

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Jedit posted:

Who was the one non-shithead GOP?

Corker, who has now said he will vote for the final bill.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 01:23

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

King Possum III posted:

4

I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 18:58

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Kaza42 posted:

The most rational argument I heard about it is this:
With Net Neutrality, ISPs cannot charge separately for access to certain websites. Let's say that under this system, All Access Internet costs $100 for ease of comparison.
Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will likely break out access or services into "optional" bundles. This could look something like this (again, numbers are just for comparison, and are not meant to be exact):
Basic Internet: $75
Fast Social Media: $10 per site
Fast Streaming: $15 per site

And so for people who don't use social media and maybe use 1 streaming site at most, this will be a price cut. After all, basically everyone complains that they have to get a big bundle when they get TV, so why shouldn't the same rules apply to Net Neutrality?

Now, I'm pretty sure that this is possibly right. Repealing Net Neutrality does have a potential upside in allowing ISPs to provide more customized - and possibly cheaper - services for people. However, A) they probably won't actually be cheaper and B) There are a fuckton of downsides to it as well. Something doesn't have to have literally no possible advantages in order to be Really Bad.

Well thanks! That's actually a reasonable if flawed premise.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 20:54

Murdstone: Jun 14, 2005; I'm feeling Jimmy

Zivilyn Bane posted:

Or do they just not care as Republicans and rich fucks win and make the GLOBALIST DEMONRAT LIBTARDS mad?

It's this, but I honestly think the reality of this one is messing with some of them. Once the initial "We beat the libs! Suck it, libs!" stuff is done and worn off, they are realizing they are getting exactly both jack and squat out of this, and that all this is literally the exact opposite of what they voted for and what they've been promised, and that is causing some of them some discomfort.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2017 05:15