Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

OTP 2018 May 28: Don’t turn down WH invitation: Former Nats manager on Powerhouse Politics podcast

“Baseball is not about politics, it’s just about going out and enjoying the game,” Johnson says of his experience managing a team in the nation’s capital in comparison with managing teams elsewhere, such as the New York Mets, Cincinnati Reds and the Philadelphia Phillies.

Games at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., are often a “who’s who” of the political world, including Supreme Court justices, leading Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and high-profile media figures. Johnson says when they come to the game, they put aside politics.

“You don’t think about politics you just think about baseball,” Johnson says about the unifying nature of professional baseball in the nation’s capital.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 29, 2018 at 07:50 AM | 1257 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, old man yells at cloud, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 > 
   1001. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5684475)
Some genius actor:
You’re right, they aren’t compatible. Samantha just said words. Words you may not like but harmless words.
Rosanne made a racist comment. A harmful tweet that hurts people.
I shouldn’t have to explain this to you Sean, you Dull ####.
Wait, tweets aren't words? Since when? I'm so confused.
I assume that this was some conservative trying to parody a SJW.
   1002. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 02, 2018 at 08:48 AM (#5684477)
I see your point David and don't disagree; my idea wasn't "see, Limbaugh isn't a very good comic." Just that there was good comedy available there, and it may be that he got to it (not sure, as I haven't seen the actual quote, and comedy is in the details).

People of whatever political stripe can be mock-worthy. But worthwhile mockery is always difficult to craft.
   1003. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 08:55 AM (#5684478)
Anyone see Limbaugh on Letterman way back when? Rush started doing this bit about how ugly Hillary Clinton was and Letterman let him finish before saying something like, “Well it’s almost unfair to make fun of someone’s looks when you’re such an Adonis.” And that’s when you could visibly see the flop sweat welling up on Limabugh’s fat face.

You aren’t really much of a comedian if you’ve been able to make hecklers disappear with the press of a button for your entire career.
   1004. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5684484)
I would disagree to the extent that Rush Limbaugh doesn't merely drop in the occasional wisecrack. Comedy has been a central and crucial part of his act for decades.

However, as the above example illustrates, virtually all of Limbaugh's humor is the emptiest, most insipid kind. It's "look what those ugly/stupid/crazy liberals are trying to foist on us now" invective that's only an about-face and an F-word away from Samantha Bee's greatest hits. In terms of cleverness, variety, surprise or subtlety, Limbaugh is, now how did it go again?
A talentless hack...who for some reason thinks that shouting sexist and homophobic slurs...or virtuesignallecturing his audience, is the height of comedy. Or he realizes it's not, and has simply stopped trying to be funny, because his audience is also so far gone that it no longer requires that from him. ...If that's all it takes to satisfy a foolish audience, anyone can do it.

Or at least he would be those things, if he made fun of Trump.

And of course putting Rush Limbaugh up against David Letterman was an act of child abuse.

Incidentally, Letterman was another talk show icon whose political gags were equal opportunity, and whose personal views were opaque for decades. Our resident comedy seer wrote last year of a 20-year-old telecast, "Could Letterman's banter possibly BE less funny?" He's probably more a discerning fan of Mike Douglas' comedy chops.
   1005. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:51 AM (#5684486)
Anyone see Limbaugh on Letterman way back when? Rush started doing this bit about how ugly Hillary Clinton was and Letterman let him finish before saying something like, “Well it’s almost unfair to make fun of someone’s looks when you’re such an Adonis.” And that’s when you could visibly see the flop sweat welling up on Limabugh’s fat face.

Here's a clip from that Letterman show with Rush, with the exchange you mention beginning around 3:10. Letterman describes Rush as "the finest looking human specimen on this planet".
   1006. greenback slays lewks Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5684488)
When Rush Limbaugh took down Georgetown student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke in 2012, he called her a “slut” in order to drive home his point about state-mandated birth control.

There's really no humor in calling someone a slut.

Post-Aykroyd, there is unintended irony.
   1007. greenback slays lewks Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5684491)
Following up a link JE provided a few days ago, the John Carreyrou book Bad Blood sounds both incredible and infuriating. The discussion seems to boil down to "What did Elizabeth Holmes have to do to get thrown in prison?"
   1008. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5684493)
There's really no humor in calling someone a slut.


Post-Aykroyd, there is unintended irony


Ah, the exception that proves me an idiot...

Or that demonstrates the point about comedy being in the details. Because the humor wasn't in Dan calling Jane a slut ("har, that's a real knee-slapper"); it was that the line so perfectly captured Kilpatrick's attitude toward "liberals."

As always, YMMV.
   1009. Greg K Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5684494)
And of course putting Rush Limbaugh up against David Letterman was an act of child abuse.


Nevermind the Buzzcocks does (or did?) this as part of its basic premise. Ostensibly it was a game show, but really it was just an excuse to bring musicians and celebrities on set and have comedians make fun of them. Some got upset and stormed off set (which was always fun), others realized the only way to "win" was to play along and make fun of themselves (Josh Groban was probably the most successful at this, he came off as genuinely funny).

Then there was Donny Tourette, some D-list punk rocker who thought it would be a good idea to try to give as good as he got.

The best exchange is between Donny and the somewhat scruffy comedian Bill Bailey:

Donny: You'd be quite happy at home on the streets. But then again not many people would take pity [maybe "a pee"?] on you, because you're pretty ugly.
Host: I should explain. Bill is a professional comedian. You won't win.

Edited bits of Donny's valiant struggle.
   1010. Greg K Posted: June 02, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5684499)
I don't know, I've taken to telling people my mom's kitchen is a real slut's corner.

I think it's hilarious!
   1011. Swoboda is freedom Posted: June 02, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5684509)
I think a better example that Ray could have given was Bill Maher. The guy isn't that funny, has an audience of sycophants, and a lot of his jokes are "boy conservatives/republicans are dumb" which gets a laugh. Add to this his bat #### crazy conspiracy theory ideas on medicine while attacking people for having other crazy theories is amazing.

John Oliver can be funny. Colbert, though I don't watch his show now, was good on John Stewart and Colbert Report.
   1012. Stormy JE Posted: June 02, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5684511)
Google won’t renew its military AI contract:
Google plans to discontinue a project through which it has been helping the US military use artificial intelligence to analyze drone footage. The contract, part of a Pentagon effort known as Project Maven, sparked a storm of internal unrest and media controversy over Google’s apparent role in weaponizing the use of AI.

Targets acquired: As first reported by Gizmodo, Google has been supplying technology and know-how to the US military for automating the analysis of drone footage. Defense is a huge potential market, but many Google employees were appalled that the company might be helping develop tech that could lead to automated drone strikes.
And yet, there's no indication this will be shut down too...

Opening the Google AI Center in China:
I believe AI and its benefits have no borders. Whether a breakthrough occurs in Silicon Valley, Beijing or anywhere else, it has the potential to make everyone’s life better for the entire world. As an AI first company, this is an important part of our collective mission. And we want to work with the best AI talent, wherever that talent is, to achieve it.

That’s why I am excited to launch the Google AI China Center, our first such center in Asia, at our Google Developer Days event in Shanghai today. This Center joins other AI research groups we have all over the world, including in New York, Toronto, London and Zurich, all contributing towards the same goal of finding ways to make AI work better for everyone.

Focused on basic AI research, the Center will consist of a team of AI researchers in Beijing, supported by Google China’s strong engineering teams. We’ve already hired some top experts, and will be working to build the team in the months ahead (check our jobs site for open roles!). Along with Dr. Jia Li, Head of Research and Development at Google Cloud AI, I’ll be leading and coordinating the research. Besides publishing its own work, the Google AI China Center will also support the AI research community by funding and sponsoring AI conferences and workshops, and working closely with the vibrant Chinese AI research community.
So... will the Google wokesters here in the States have anything to say about empowering the Chinese dictatorship...?
   1013. tshipman Posted: June 02, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5684545)
So... will the Google wokesters here in the States have anything to say about empowering the Chinese dictatorship...?


Wow, this is a transparent and desperate line from someone desperate to pretend his president isn't doing Beijing's work.
   1014. greenback slays lewks Posted: June 02, 2018 at 02:37 PM (#5684555)
Yeah, the obvious response is to say Google has a legal responsibility to its shareholders. It needs to sell its technology to Beijing before Trump trades it to the same government in exchange for a few trademarks for his feckless #### daughter.
   1015. BDC Posted: June 02, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5684556)
I dunno, maybe the time to get worried is when Google shuts down basic research in New York and starts programming Chinese drones.
   1016. Stormy JE Posted: June 02, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5684586)
Wow, this is a transparent and desperate line from someone desperate to pretend his president isn't doing Beijing's work.
Wait, five minutes ago you claimed he was doing Bibi's work. And before that it was Putin's? Hmmm, you really need to get your batshit crazy conspiracy theories in order.
   1017. Stormy JE Posted: June 02, 2018 at 04:58 PM (#5684589)
Continetti:
Google is afraid of left-wing criticism that it might be helping the U.S. military defend against terrorists, narco-traffickers, human smugglers.

What do they think the Chinese dictatorship is going to do with AI? Play Go?
   1018. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5684592)
Wow, this is a transparent and desperate line from someone desperate to pretend his president isn't doing Beijing's work.

Wait, five minutes ago you claimed he was doing Bibi's work. And before that it was Putin's? Hmmm, you really need to get your batshit crazy conspiracy theories in order


Lord knows it’s a hysterical overreach to think a principled paragon of virtue like Donald Trump would have more than one collaborator in his chicanery.

Now JUANABOUT Obama selling out to Iran, China, Durkadurakstan....and of course (((Soros)))
   1019. Stormy JE Posted: June 02, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5684593)
It appears even Director Comey's mouthpiece has got precious little to spin:
Prediction: The independent IG will slam the FBI for violating policies and procedures in handling the Clinton email investigation. The President will then find a way to make it about him and twist it into an attack on Mueller. Standby.
That's it? His major beef will be with how others respond to your the illegal and/or inappropriate actions of your boss and colleagues? LOL.
   1020. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: June 02, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5684598)
Well, cool. I see by FB that a friend of mine who's spent the last couple of years with IBM, first in Austin & then in Birmingham, is heading back to Montgomery to work as a designer for the SPLC. I'll refrain from telling her that it's a hate group.
   1021. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 02, 2018 at 05:53 PM (#5684607)
I'll refrain from telling her that it's a hate group.

They are sitting on a pile of money from their near-constant scare-mongering fund raising, so she should ask for a raise.
   1022. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 07:47 PM (#5684642)
I think a better example that Ray could have given was Bill Maher. The guy isn't that funny, has an audience of sycophants, and a lot of his jokes are "boy conservatives/republicans are dumb" which gets a laugh.
I forgot who said it -- hell, maybe it was someone here --, but someone noted that the problem with many liberal political comedians today -- like Maher or Samantha Bee -- is that they're going for applause rather than laughter. What Bee said about Ivanka is the perfect example; it's got some shock value, but it's not per se funny. But it wasn't designed to be; it was designed to get the people who agree with her to cheer her for saying it.
   1023. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5684646)

Prediction: Horowitz will not slam the FBI for violating policies or procedures in handling the Clinton email investigation, but people will claim he did. (He may, for instance, note that it is not SOP for the FBI to give a press conference to announce its non-findings, nor does it normally have the final say as to whether to prosecute -- which is true, but which breaks no laws.) And none of it will have anything to do with the investigation of Trump.
   1024. Greg K Posted: June 02, 2018 at 08:21 PM (#5684657)
I forgot who said it -- hell, maybe it was someone here --, but someone noted that the problem with many liberal political comedians today -- like Maher or Samantha Bee -- is that they're going for applause rather than laughter. What Bee said about Ivanka is the perfect example; it's got some shock value, but it's not per se funny. But it wasn't designed to be; it was designed to get the people who agree with her to cheer her for saying it.

Stewart Lee has a bit about that

-I saw Stewart Lee's act last night
-Was it funny?
-Not really, but I agreed the #### out of it!

Or as he puts it elsewhere: "I'm not interested in laughs: what I'm aiming for is a temporary mass liberal consensus that dissolves on contact with air".

Though it's Stewart Lee, so he's more making fun of his audience (and himself) while at the same time providing some self-reflection.
   1025. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 08:51 PM (#5684665)
I forgot who said it -- hell, maybe it was someone here --, but someone noted that the problem with many liberal political comedians today -- like Maher or Samantha Bee -- is that they're going for applause rather than laughter. What Bee said about Ivanka is the perfect example; it's got some shock value, but it's not per se funny. But it wasn't designed to be; it was designed to get the people who agree with her to cheer her for saying it.


Which is quintessential virtue signaling, not comedy. But she knows her silly audience.

The only thing that’s arguably new here is the left’s inarguable descent into homophobia and sexism as a reaction to Trump.
   1026. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:06 PM (#5684668)
The only thing that’s arguably new here is the left’s inarguable descent into homophobia and sexism as a reaction to Trump.


Now there's some virtue signaling.
   1027. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5684671)
Which is quintessential virtue signaling, not comedy.
No; that's not what virtue signaling is. Pandering and virtue signaling are different.
The only thing that’s arguably new here is the left’s inarguable descent into homophobia and sexism as a reaction to Trump.
That's virtue signaling.


EDIT: Coke to YR.
   1028. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:41 PM (#5684677)
All I know about Stewart Lee is that the mostly British members of the main FB group for The Fall think very, very little of his stylings, though he does get some credit for being devoted to the group & especially Mark E. Smith (RIP).
   1029. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 02, 2018 at 09:47 PM (#5684680)
Donald Trump, May 29:
Sorry, I’ve got to start focusing my energy on North Korea Nuclear, bad Trade Deals, VA Choice, the Economy, rebuilding the Military, and so much more, and not on the Rigged Russia Witch Hunt that should be investigating Clinton/Russia/FBI/Justice/Obama/Comey/Lynch etc.


Donald Trump, May 30 - June 2:
Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call?

Iger, where is my call of apology? You and ABC have offended millions of people, and they demand a response. How is Brian Ross doing? He tanked the market with an ABC lie, yet no apology. Double Standard!

Great meeting with @KimKardashian today, talked about prison reform and sentencing.

The soon to be released book, “The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton And Frame Donald Trump,” written by Gregg Jarrett, looks like a real deal big hit. The Phony Witch Hunt will be opened up for the world to see! Out in 5 weeks.

The Failing and Corrupt @nytimes estimated the crowd last night at “1000 people,” when in fact it was many times that number - and the arena was rockin’. This is the way they demean and disparage. They are very dishonest people who don’t “get” me, and never did!

Not that it matters but I never fired James Comey because of Russia! The Corrupt Mainstream Media loves to keep pushing that narrative, but they know it is not true!

A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!

Why aren’t they firing no talent Samantha Bee for the horrible language used on her low ratings show? A total double standard but that’s O.K., we are Winning, and will be doing so for a long time to come!

Real @FoxNews is doing great, Fake News CNN is dead!
   1030. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:01 PM (#5684685)
Now THAT’s funny. See if the Little Lord will bless this comedic effort.
   1031. Srul Itza Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5684686)
it was that the line so perfectly captured Kilpatrick's attitude toward "liberals."


No, it was the sudden shock value the first time. If you were not there, and did not experience both how big 60 minutes was, and how unique and subversive SNL was in the early days, you may not fully appreciate it.

   1032. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 02, 2018 at 10:10 PM (#5684688)
Oh my goodness - someone forward this to RDP.

If his erection lasts more than 4hours, he should go watch Frazier.
   1033. Lassus Posted: June 02, 2018 at 11:36 PM (#5684723)
That's some nice furniture.
   1034. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 02, 2018 at 11:52 PM (#5684740)
Redneck, #1030:
Now THAT’s funny. See if the Little Lord will bless this comedic effort.


I didn't write a word of it. As Will Rogers said, "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
   1035. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:58 AM (#5684762)
I forgot who said it -- hell, maybe it was someone here --, but someone noted that the problem with many liberal political comedians today -- like Maher or Samantha Bee -- is that they're going for applause rather than laughter.
Speaking.
   1036. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:43 AM (#5684764)
It's hardly a new observation, and it's not a uniquely liberal phenomenon.

Rush Limbaugh was already having national success cultivating his "dittoheads" who applauded his "monopoly on the truth" in the late 1980s. His exaggerated persona was taken at face value by many.

About seven years ago, Norm Macdonald said this about about the mid-to-late 1980s:
"When I first began in comedy, I would get people to clap, rather than actually laugh. You just say something that has no comedy in it at all but people agree with it. Like, if the point of your joke is, like, “Buchanan is a Nazi” — I could say that, and I guarantee that I could get people to clap, simply by saying that. But it’s not even true!

So I was getting people to clap, but I reached a point where I never wanted to get people to clap, because it was pandering. But there’s a difference between a clap and a laugh. A laugh is involuntary, but the crowd is in complete control when they’re clapping, they’re saying, “we agree with what you’re saying — proceed!” But when they’re laughing, they’re genuinely surprised. And when they’re not laughing, they’re really surprised. And sometimes I think, in my little head, that that’s the best comedy of all."

Here's Tina Fey from about a decade ago:
"Laughter [is better]. You can prompt applause with a sign. My friend, SNL writer Seth Meyers, coined the term 'clapter,' which is when you do a political joke and people go, "Woo-hoo." It means they sort of approve but didn't really like it that much."

Here's Steve Martin, talking about changing his stage act in the early 1970s:
"I cut every political reference out of my act, which was a staple for comedians at the time because it was such an easy laugh. You just mentioned the word Nixon or something - everybody would cheer, I mean, meaning because they didn't like him."
Martin ended up stepping away from his non-political standup act around 1979 in part for the same reason the Beatles stopped doing live shows. The audiences were disproportionately treating the concerts as pep rallies, overreacting to everything without regard for the quality of the content, and often drowning out the performers. Other comedians including Andrew "Dice" Clay and Sam Kinison also experienced heydays where their audiences would routinely roar, not with laughter but with sports arena approval noise, at whatever the performer said.
   1037. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:45 AM (#5684765)
Prediction: Horowitz will not slam the FBI for violating policies or procedures in handling the Clinton email investigation, but people will claim he did. (He may, for instance, note that it is not SOP for the FBI to give a press conference to announce its non-findings, nor does it normally have the final say as to whether to prosecute -- which is true, but which breaks no laws.)
Interesting, David. We'll see. IMHO, Campbell's doing his best to try to soften the blow that's coming.
And none of it will have anything to do with the investigation of Trump.
Agreed. All of that good stuff will be in subsequent reports.
   1038. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:08 AM (#5684768)
he audiences were disproportionately treating the concerts as pep rallies, overreacting to everything without regard for the quality of the content,


That's Bill Maher's show, Colbert's, Bee's, and - though he doesn't do it as often - Kimmel's.

Of the bunch Maher is the one who shows he actually thinks about the issues. He doesn't always end up on the same side.
   1039. strong silence Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:26 AM (#5684769)
Ray, how often do you watch The Bill Maher show?
   1040. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 03, 2018 at 05:39 AM (#5684771)
No, it was the sudden shock value the first time. If you were not there, and did not experience both how big 60 minutes was, and how unique and subversive SNL was in the early days, you may not fully appreciate it.


Those were the days when I watched SNL (and 60 Minutes), so I guess I can say I was there, and I stand by my assessment. But then, I've never thought of "slut" as a particularly shocking word (too much 15th-18th century literature?), the naughty factor may have been greater for others.
   1041. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 03, 2018 at 08:01 AM (#5684774)
It's hardly a new observation, and it's not a uniquely liberal phenomenon.

Rush Limbaugh was already having national success cultivating his "dittoheads" who applauded his "monopoly on the truth" in the late 1980s. His exaggerated persona was taken at face value by many.
Again, Limbaugh isn't a comedian. You've compared him to -- or at least referenced -- a series of stand up comics in your post. All of those quotes express very clearly why applause isn't really success for a comic. But Limbaugh is some combination of pundit/entertainer, and an entertainer who gets applause is on the right track.

EDIT: Obviously, comedians are subsets of entertainers, so for the pedants out there, I should say, "a non-comedian entertainer who gets applause."
   1042. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 08:07 AM (#5684776)
"When I first began in comedy, I would get people to clap, rather than actually laugh. You just say something that has no comedy in it at all but people agree with it. Like, if the point of your joke is, like, “Buchanan is a Nazi” — I could say that, and I guarantee that I could get people to clap, simply by saying that. But it’s not even true!


The first example I remember of that was sometime in the early 70's, when there was a special tribute to Groucho Marx at Carnegie Hall, when he was in his 80's and truthfully pretty feeble. Somewhere during the course of his usual stream of memorized one-liners he mentioned Richard Nixon, and when he said, "God, I hate him" he got his loudest and longest reaction of the night. It was one of those nights where Groucho could've gotten laughter and applause by just saying "I'm alive, folks", but that line about Nixon really brought down the house.
   1043. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 08:12 AM (#5684777)
Prediction: Horowitz will not slam the FBI for violating policies or procedures in handling the Clinton email investigation, but people will claim he did. (He may, for instance, note that it is not SOP for the FBI to give a press conference to announce its non-findings, nor does it normally have the final say as to whether to prosecute -- which is true, but which breaks no laws.)

Interesting, David. We'll see. IMHO, Campbell's doing his best to try to soften the blow that's coming.
And none of it will have anything to do with the investigation of Trump.

Agreed. All of that good stuff will be in subsequent reports.

Since no Republican associated with the Horowitz investigation would ever engage in the sordid practice of leaking, just where are you getting all this inside information from? You sure don't sound like a mere pundit when you use language like that.
   1044. Greg K Posted: June 03, 2018 at 08:51 AM (#5684780)
EDIT: Obviously, comedians are subsets of entertainers, so for the pedants out there, I should say, "a non-comedian entertainer who gets applause."


Stewart Lee's bit on season 4 of his show "Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle" on why a rival show won the award for best Comedy or Entertainment show, despite Lee's show obviously being superior comedy:

Lee: Comedy to me, is like, you know, it's a big subject, it's an art form. But if it's just for entertainment than fine. This isn't entertainment. No one would think that. No one's sitting at home watching this thinking - how entertaining. No one gets to the end of it and goes "well I've been royally entertained by that" do they? But they can't deny it's comedy, and the reason it's comedy is that it has...

Interviewer:...no entertainment value.
   1045. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 03, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5684784)
David N, #1041--
Again, Limbaugh isn't a comedian.


And again, anyone who overlooks the pivotal role of comedy in Rush Limbaugh's career is totally missing the boat on what made him so successful.

I'm not saying he's a great comedian or even an adequate one. I said matching him against David Letterman was child abuse. But I'm also saying that the one-note comedy he does is the kind of comedy his audience eats up, whether it's doing a spastic wiggle to mock Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's or calling a birth control advocate a slut or calling Chelsea Clinton a dog face or calling women's rights figures feminazis or playing a song parody about "Barack the Magic Negro" or playing a flushing toilet noise when he hangs up on callers or endlessly repeating cornball insult names like "Chuck You Schumer" and "Lindsey Grahamnesty" and "Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg" and "David Camera Hogg" or proclaiming that his talent is on loan from God. Except for word choice and targets, he does Samantha Bee's act, and vice versa.

Limbaugh inarguably pushes comic material to a degree that other "pundit/entertainers" working the same snide and superior beat like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity don't. The distinction you're drawing reflects your taste more than it does Limbaugh's body of work and actual appeal.


You've compared him to -- or at least referenced -- a series of stand up comics in your post.


I listed several comic performers-- both liberal and conservative, funny and crappy, standups and show hosts, political and apolitical-- to show that the comedic tension between "so true!" and "ha ha!" is widespread, and goes a lot further back than a mismatched quartet of current performers who happen to distress Trump lovers.
   1046. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 03, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5684791)
Liberal documentarian Michael Moore writes an extended, clear-eyed, compassionate Facebook entry about Roseanne Barr, reprinted here on Deadline Hollywood.
Roseanne seems to be suffering from some sort of madness. It’s more than just saying she’s a racist. She operates in the same sewer of lies, conspiracy theories and bigotry that’s been rising in America for years and that has now succeeded in electing our current president. Totally nuts.

...Roseanne, on the other hand, is a person who long ago broke through and brought an authentic voice of working women and men to television via one of the greatest TV series of all time. It was groundbreaking because the TV industry had historically either ignored, ridiculed or patronized those of us who grew up in the working class. Roseanne changed that.

But she is also a damaged soul. Most people don’t know that she has suffered her entire life from a massive head injury she received during a serious car accident when she was a child. Her brain injuries were immense and she spent months in the hospital struggling to recover.

...I guess there might be 20 million Americans (out of 320 million) who probably agree with her. She has thrown down with the lowest of the low, and who knows if she’ll ever recover from this descent into her own personal hell.

To close, I want to say just how great the new Roseanne show was. It was funny but brutal to watch because it showed how our system of greed has hurt millions of families like the Connors of Illinois. On the final episode last week, Roseanne was addicted to opioids because she couldn’t afford the knee surgery she needed, so she suffered along in agonizing pain. Dan, her husband, in order to raise money for her surgery, decided to take a non-union job — and Roseanne berates him for doing so and letting his union brothers and sisters down. There are a couple quick knocks on Trump, making it clear that the real Roseanne was not writing or running this show. For the past 9 weeks, the new Roseanne show has shined a powerful and necessary light on what it means to be working class in 2018. Her blended family on this new series was white and black and LGBTQ, and her generous neighbors next door were Muslims who forced her to confront her own bigotry.

If only her art could have helped her in her real life.
   1047. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 03, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5684805)
...Roseanne, on the other hand, is a person who long ago broke through and brought an authentic voice of working women and men to television via one of the greatest TV series of all time. It was groundbreaking because the TV industry had historically either ignored, ridiculed or patronized those of us who grew up in the working class. Roseanne changed that.


The American viewing audience had grown sick of fancy-pants snob shows like Archie Bunker, The Honeymooners, Good Times, or Alice.
   1048. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5684824)
   1049. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5684827)
Since no Republican associated with the Horowitz investigation would ever engage in the sordid practice of leaking, just where are you getting all this inside information from? You sure don't sound like a mere pundit when you use language like that.
Many folks here didn't see the McCabe report coming, no matter how many times I (and others) warned them.

Also, your beloved Gray Lady and WaPo aren't the only media outlets out there. Newsflash, Andy: Not every center-right outlet is Gateway Pundit. There has been solid investigative reporting and analysis based on open sources -- and the occasional leak.*

* I hope you would agree that the leaking of non-classified information may be problematic at times but is rarely outrageous.
   1050. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5684829)
I fail to see how it is anymore racist than virtually any other state, it just so happens to be the most populous state. And for all the talk of California being a liberal paradise there are still a bunch of GOP enclaves in CA. In 2010 44% of CA voters selected a right wing politician in the governor race. The election before that had Ahnold get over 55% of the vote as a Republican.
   1051. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5684832)
Off-duty FBI agent’s gun accidentally discharged at nightclub

Hmmm, what are the odds that this dude was drunk as a skunk? And if this dude hadn't been carrying a badge, isn't it safe to say he would have been arrested then and there?
   1052. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5684834)
I fail to see how it is anymore racist than virtually any other state,
Did you read the piece or was that a response to the headline? In any event, liberals lecture us that their paradises are way more tolerant than Red State Amerikkka.
The election before that had Ahnold get over 55% of the vote as a Republican.
He would've won as a Democrat too.
   1053. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5684835)
Let's hear from noted Trumpkin Maureen Dowd...

Obama -- Just Too Good For Us:
Hours after the globe-rattling election of a man whom Barack Obama has total disdain for, a toon who would take a chain saw to the former president’s legacy on policy and decency, Obama sent a message to his adviser Ben Rhodes: “There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the earth.”

Perhaps Obama should have used a different line with a celestial theme by Shakespeare: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

As president, Obama always found us wanting. We were constantly disappointing him. He would tell us the right thing to do and then sigh and purse his lips when his instructions were not followed.

It is stunning to me, having been on the road with Barack Obama in the giddy, evanescent days of 2008, that he does not understand his own historic rise to power, how he defied impossible odds and gracefully leapt over obstacles.

He did it by sparking hope in many Americans — after all the deceptions and squandered blood and money of the Bush-Cheney era — that he was going to give people a better future, something honest and cool and modern.

But by the end of his second term, he had lost the narrative about lifting up people, about buoying them on economic issues and soothing their jitters about globalization. They needed to know, what’s in it for them?

He pushed aside his loyal vice president, who was considered an unguided missile, and backed a woman who had no economic message and who almost used the slogan, “Because It’s Her Turn.” Then he put his own reputation for rectitude at risk by pre-emptively exonerating Hillary Clinton on the email issue, infuriating federal agents who were still investigating the case.[*]

The hunger for revolutionary change, the fear that some people were being left behind in America and that no one in Washington cared, was an animating force at the boisterous rallies for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Yet Obama, who had surfed a boisterous wave into the Oval, ignored the restiveness — here and around the world. He threw his weight behind the most status quo, elitist candidate.

“I couldn’t shake the feeling that I should have seen it coming,” Rhodes writes about the “darkness” that enveloped him when he saw the electoral map turn red. “Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to change.”

Bad time to figure that out.
* Obstruction, anyone? Or is that applicable only to the actions of orange clownfishes?
   1054. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5684837)
Yes. The rich are segregating themselves inside a paradise while the proles toil in poverty. How is that different than any other state or place in the world?

He would've won as a Democrat too.

And again, right wing candidates got 45% of the vote in an open governor's election in 2010 even though Jerry Brown was running.
   1055. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5684838)
All of that good stuff will be in subsequent reports.

Since no Republican associated with the Horowitz investigation would ever engage in the sordid practice of leaking, just where are you getting all this inside information from? You sure don't sound like a mere pundit when you use language like that.

Many folks here didn't see the McCabe report coming, no matter how many times I (and others) warned them.

Also, your beloved Gray Lady and WaPo aren't the only media outlets out there. Newsflash, Andy: Not every center-right outlet is Gateway Pundit. There has been solid investigative reporting and analysis based on open sources -- and the occasional leak.*

* I hope you would agree that the leaking of non-classified information may be problematic at times but is rarely outrageous.


All that's interesting, but it still doesn't answer the question of who has inside information about the "subsequent" findings of the Horowitz investigation, and who's been leaking it to those non-Gateway Pundit sources you're implying are The Ones in The Know. Because unless you're just blowing it through your butt, you're hardly basing your prediction solely upon "open sources". There's got to be someone inside that investigation who's either a Trump mole or at best one of his fellow travelers.
   1056. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5684839)
He pushed aside Biden? How did he do that?
   1057. Count Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:13 PM (#5684840)
A lot of people saw it coming that conservatives would pretend the McCabe report supported their deep state conspiracy theories because they are deeply invested in protecting the president and will go right along with him until the end. As with the other aspects of the anti-investigation theories it doesn’t matter that the IG report didn’t support the conservative theories at all (see Flynn sentencing delay, unmasking, FISA warrant, page/strzok texts, etc.), it just gets absorbed into the larger narrative as if it was true.
   1058. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:13 PM (#5684841)
Omri Ceren:
MSNBC: Sean Spicer misled reporters. How dare anyone even think of hiring him?!

Also MSNBC: Thrilled to announce we've hired the Obama echo chamber guy [Rhodes] who bragged about clowning idiot reporters for 8 years.
Lies for me, but not for thee.
   1059. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:15 PM (#5684843)
He pushed aside Biden? How did he do that?
Yeah, how on earth would Obama be able to do that? I mean, he was only the leader of the party.
   1060. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5684845)
Let's hear from noted Trumpkin Maureen Dowd...

AFAICT the only human being that Maureen Dowd hasn't trashed is her right wing Trump-loving brother.** Stephens and Douthat may be conservatives, but at least they've got something to offer besides snark and gossip.

** Though 25 years after he left office and he's on his death bed, she also has kind words for Bush 41 along with his late wife Barbara.
   1061. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5684846)
Yeah, how on earth would Obama do that? I mean, he was only the leader of the party.

Yes, how did he do that?
   1062. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5684848)
double post
   1063. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5684849)
All that's interesting, but it still doesn't answer the question of who has inside information about the "subsequent" findings of the Horowitz investigation, and who's been leaking it to those non-Gateway Pundit sources you're implying are The Ones in The Know. Because unless you're just blowing it through your butt, you're hardly basing your prediction solely upon "open sources". There's got to be someone inside that investigation who's either a Trump mole or at best one of his fellow travelers.
I didn't say that Horowitz's people are leaking anything. The reason why we're hearing rumblings now is that his draft report has been circulated to those who are mentioned inside.

As for center-right reporters/analysts, most have high regard for Horowitz's work, seeing him as a straight shooter who has access to the same info they've unearthed.
   1064. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:24 PM (#5684850)
He pushed aside Biden? How did he do that?


Yeah, how on earth would Obama be able to do that? I mean, he was only the leader of the party.

Yeah, just like the entire Republican establishment from the Bushes to Romney to McCain to McConnell to Ryan to the ghost of Ronald Reagan was able to #NeverTrump Trump back to the friendly confines of The Apprentice.
   1065. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5684851)
Yes, how did he do that?
FFS, do you really dispute the notion that the President of the United States has the ability to deprive someone in his party of the support needed to win the race to succeed him?
   1066. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5684852)
Yeah, just like the entire Republican establishment from the Bushes to Romney to McCain to McConnell to Ryan to the ghost of Ronald Reagan was able to #NeverTrump Trump back to the friendly confines of The Apprentice.
Wait, what? Everyone at the start of the campaign understood that, for the first time since 1952, there was no clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

EDIT: The most obvious example is how Reagan put his thumb on the scale, allowing Bush, not exactly Captain Excitement, to zoom past Dole during the primaries.
   1067. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5684853)
All that's interesting, but it still doesn't answer the question of who has inside information about the "subsequent" findings of the Horowitz investigation, and who's been leaking it to those non-Gateway Pundit sources you're implying are The Ones in The Know. Because unless you're just blowing it through your butt, you're hardly basing your prediction solely upon "open sources". There's got to be someone inside that investigation who's either a Trump mole or at best one of his fellow travelers.

I didn't say that Horowitz's people are leaking anything. The reason why we're hearing rumblings now is that his draft report has been circulated to those who are mentioned inside.

As for center-right reporters/analysts, most have high regard for Horowitz's work, seeing him as a straight shooter who has access to the same info they've unearthed.


IOW unless those leaks are coming from those who are themselves mentioned in the draft report, your original comment was pure speculation, based on your subjective interpretation of info that hasn't yet been made public.
   1068. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5684854)
FFS, do you really dispute the notion that the President of the United States has the ability to deprive someone in his party of the support needed to win the race to succeed him?

No. I'm asking specifically how OBAMA stopped BIDEN from running for President.
   1069. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5684855)
IOW unless those leaks are coming from those who are themselves mentioned in the draft report, your original comment was pure speculation, based on your subjective interpretation of info that hasn't yet been made public.
It's mostly speculation based on his prior work, most recently with the McCabe report,* and how the snakes have become so startled.

* Lefties and Comey sycophants for months were defending McCabe. Once the report got published, some, like our dear Count, elected to spin like a dreidel and claim that this constituted a victory for Hillary.

Funny. Too, too funny.
   1070. McCoy Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5684856)
Bush was always the frontrunner in 1988. link
   1071. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5684857)
Yeah, just like the entire Republican establishment from the Bushes to Romney to McCain to McConnell to Ryan to the ghost of Ronald Reagan was able to #NeverTrump Trump back to the friendly confines of The Apprentice.

Wait, what? Everyone at the start of the campaign understood that, for the first time since 1952, there was no clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination.


And you think that only Obama's secret intervention prevented Biden from winning the nomination, when (a) Sanders was wildly popular with the activist base of the party; (b) Hillary was the overwhelming choice among the rest of the Democrats' base; and (c) even more directly to the point, Obama had never been particularly interested in getting involved in his party's internal affairs, for the obvious reason that neither party's voters these days like to have their choices dictated from above. The age of Kingmakers is over, and this applies across the board, not just to the 2016 GOP.
   1072. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:38 PM (#5684859)
No. I'm asking specifically how OBAMA stopped BIDEN from running for President.
Joe Biden claims Barack Obama repeatedly discouraged him from running for US president

You're welcome.
   1073. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5684860)
And you think that only Obama's secret intervention prevented Biden from winning the nomination,
Here we go. "Only?" Sigh.

You had a busted hand, Andy. Maybe next time fold and move on?
   1074. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:42 PM (#5684861)
IOW unless those leaks are coming from those who are themselves mentioned in the draft report, your original comment was pure speculation, based on your subjective interpretation of info that hasn't yet been made public.

It's mostly speculation based on his prior work, most recently with the McCabe report,* and how the snakes have become so startled.


IOW it's mostly speculation. Pardon me if I take all speculation about the Horowitz report(s) with a grain of salt. You haven't seen me weighing in on that subject, and I'm perfectly willing to wait for those findings to be made public, as well as the far more important findings of the Mueller investigation.
   1075. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5684862)
The age of Kingmakers is over, and this applies across the board, not just to the 2016 GOP.
One data point? Come on...

Now read the Daily Telegraph piece, then try saying again with a straight face that Obama didn't have any real influence.
   1076. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5684866)
And you think that only Obama's secret intervention prevented Biden from winning the nomination,

Here we go. "Only?" Sigh.

You had a busted hand, Andy. Maybe next time fold and move on?


Fine, drop the "only", and tell us how Biden would've won the nomination under any set of circumstances short of a crash involving Hillary's and Bernie's charter planes. Would it have involved George Meany's ghost making a special appeal to Rust Belt primary voters, or what?
   1077. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:52 PM (#5684870)
Now read the Daily Telegraph piece, then try saying again with a straight face that Obama didn't have any real influence.

I read it, and it doesn't close the gap between Obama discouraging Biden from running and .....wait for it..... Biden being able to win the nomination.

And in fact Obama had it right: All Biden's entry would've done would've been to split the party even more than it already was. He would've been nothing but a high profile spoiler.

   1078. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:52 PM (#5684871)
Fine, drop the "only", and tell us how Biden would've won the nomination under any set of circumstances short of a crash involving Hillary's and Bernie's charter planes. Would it have involved George Meany's ghost making a special appeal to Rust Belt primary voters, or what?
You're being uncharacteristically simple-minded. Obama's decision to help Hillary secure the nomination took place long before the summer of 2015. Had he telegraphed his preference for Biden early on, as Reagan did with his Veep, Biden would have been in pretty good shape vis-a-vis Hillary, running as the "Obama third term" candidate.

EDIT: And kindly stop moving the goalposts. You and McCoy were challenging the notion that Obama had discouraged Biden from running.
   1079. zenbitz Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5684872)
It's not California that's (especially) racist, it's capitalism that is. Assuming, of course that disparite impact, is, in fact racism. Not something I would expect JE to argue.


Progressive local governments like San Francisco and Santa Monica block even those housing projects that comply with zoning laws progressives had agreed to;


Yeah this is a big deal. But again, it's not racist, it's capitalist. People who live here (SF) like it and don't care if others can live here. In fact, they'd prefer it if EVERYONE left, but they can't stop people with actual money from moving here. I think they should build GIGANTIC hi-rises with hanging gardens and rooftop parks... but I don't know how they would fix the public transportation system here. Maybe build a second level of streets above the first? It would cost a trillion dollars to dig up the city and build real subways. Maybe some sort of subsidized Uber system with AI cars?


This is really a super hilarious article for JE to link to, because the gist of it is -- California is not SOCIALIST ENOUGH.
   1080. zenbitz Posted: June 03, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5684875)
Is JE now claiming he'd have voted for Biden over Trump? If not STFU.
   1081. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5684876)
Fine, drop the "only", and tell us how Biden would've won the nomination under any set of circumstances short of a crash involving Hillary's and Bernie's charter planes. Would it have involved George Meany's ghost making a special appeal to Rust Belt primary voters, or what?

You're being uncharacteristically simple-minded. Obama's decision to help Hillary secure the nomination took place long before the summer of 2015. Had he telegraphed his preference for Biden early on, as Reagan did with his Veep, Biden would have been in pretty good shape vis-a-vis Hillary, running as the "Obama third term" candidate.


You're overrating Biden's appeal to the Democratic base, and underrating both Hillary's and that of a left wing insurgent, either Sanders or someone else who might have arisen. Obama didn't discourage Biden out of any love for Hillary; he did it because he knew what a disaster that sort of an intraparty battle would've been with two old white centrists fighting over the "legacy" claim, and women once again being felt they were being pushed aside.

EDIT: And kindly stop moving the goalposts. You and McCoy were challenging the notion that Obama had discouraged Biden from running.

I never said that. I only said that the age of Kingmakers was over, meaning that Obama's endorsement of Biden wouldn't have gotten him the nomination.
   1082. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5684877)
Is JE now claiming he'd have voted for Biden over Trump? If not STFU.

Well, he says he'd now vote for Trump over Kasich, so I think you can guess the answer to your question.
   1083. greenback slays lewks Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5684880)
But I'm also saying that the one-note comedy he does is the kind of comedy his audience eats up, whether it's doing a spastic wiggle to mock Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's or calling a birth control advocate a slut or calling Chelsea Clinton a dog face or calling women's rights figures feminazis or playing a song parody about "Barack the Magic Negro" or playing a flushing toilet noise when he hangs up on callers or endlessly repeating cornball insult names like "Chuck You Schumer" and "Lindsey Grahamnesty" and "Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg" and "David Camera Hogg" or proclaiming that his talent is on loan from God.

This is a disturbing volume of detailed knowledge of Rush Limbaugh's shtick.
   1084. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:28 PM (#5684886)
Biden was never going to win the nomination in 2016. One clue is how well he did all the other times looking for the nomination (spoiler, he did really poorly). He has no natural constituency in the Democratic base and no one was clamoring for him (except his inner voices). Obama was likely trying to save his friend, his grieving friend, from embarrassment.

But sure, pretend President Obama nefariously favored the person all the conservatives were calling his hated enemy. Remember all the suggestions how he would never campaign for Hillary? How much he disliked all the Clintons? I do enjoy how you guys abandon on made up reality for a completely opposite made up reality so easily. Makes supporting Trump easier I guess.
   1085. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5684894)
Is JE now claiming he'd have voted for Biden over Trump? If not STFU.
Ahem. I said that more than once during the campaign. Maybe you and Andy and others don't recall that because you were way too busy mocking the mere idea that Hillary was a bloody awful candidate who could lose to Trump.
   1086. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5684896)
Biden was never going to win the nomination in 2016. One clue is how well he did all the other times looking for the nomination (spoiler, he did really poorly). He has no natural constituency in the Democratic base and no one was clamoring for him (except his inner voices).
This is ridiculous talk. W dispatched McCain fairly easily in 2000, yet the Arizona senator, despite the chaos on his campaign, soon surged ahead of the field and never looked back. Romney underperformed in 2008, yet easily won the nomination in 2012.

As for Biden, there's a reason why Obama picked him as his running mate. He seemed to speak for the blue-collar Democrats, particularly in and around the Rust Belt, the ones Hillary shat all over during the last campaign.
Obama was likely trying to save his friend, his grieving friend, from embarrassment.
"Likely?" What are you basing this on, aside from lily-white cul-de-sac thinking?
But sure, pretend President Obama nefariously favored the person all the conservatives were calling his hated enemy.
"Nefariously?" Oh look, another straw man argument, this time from Mouse.
Remember all the suggestions how he would never campaign for Hillary? How much he disliked all the Clintons? I do enjoy how you guys abandon on made up reality for a completely opposite made up reality so easily. Makes supporting Trump easier I guess.
I was wrong. It turned out that he and Hillary, despite the absence of good vibes, had cut a deal pretty early on.
   1087. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5684897)
It's gonna be kinda fun watching you fellas next year try to evaluate the dozens of candidates and would-be POTUS candidates, particularly as each one tries like hell to be more batshit insane left-wing than the next.
   1088. zenbitz Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5684901)
Almost as batshit insane left-wing as that Forbes article you posted.

Ahem. I said that more than once during the campaign.


Yeah, easy to say now, Mr "Kasich is too liberal"
   1089. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5684902)
Is JE now claiming he'd have voted for Biden over Trump? If not STFU.

Ahem. I said that more than once during the campaign. Maybe you and Andy and others don't recall that because you were way too busy mocking the mere idea that Hillary was a bloody awful candidate who could lose to Trump.

Assuming that Biden represents the sort of Democrat you can live with, would you vote for him in 2020 if Trump is running for re-election? Assuming you didn't think Hillary killed Vince Foster or drowned Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, just what was it about Biden that made him more acceptable to you than Hillary?
   1090. zenbitz Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:11 PM (#5684905)
JE logic: Biden is like less corrupt version of Hillary, but he wasn't running so I guess I'll back the MORE corrupt MORE racist version of Hillary?

Especially since HRC is a well-known hawk on Israel. Biden would sell out to Iran in a new york minute.
   1091. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5684907)
Environmentalism is used to justify de facto racial segregation in California’s housing. Environmental lawsuits are a major reason for longer delays and higher costs of new housing. “The core legal structure of CEQA,” notes housing attorney Jennifer Hernandez, “protects the existing characteristics of those neighborhoods and thus perpetuates land use practices founded in race and class discrimination.”
Wow, zenbitz, that's so freaking socialist it hurts!
Consider:

In the name of helping the poor and protecting the environment, California has placed myriad restrictions and fees on building new housing units, driving up their price;

Progressive local governments like San Francisco and Santa Monica block even those housing projects that comply with zoning laws progressives had agreed to;

And the state’s progressive environmental law allows duplicative and anonymous lawsuits to block housing projects for often unethical and frivolous reasons.

Why haven’t lawmakers changed those laws? Because the progressive residents of Elysium don’t want them to.
Ouch!
“Progressive organizing,” lamented Benjamin Ross in the left-wing magazine Dissent, “evolves stealthily into a defense of the residential status quo. It is a status quo that Beverly Hills is happy to preserve.”
It BURNS!
The reason [for deteriorating performance among black and Latino eighth-graders] is a combination of factors, including lack of funding, lack of accountability, and a high rate of non-English speakers. When the cost of living is taken into account, California spends less on K-12 education than all but four other states.
So you're gonna crow about funding, but not accountability, or the issue of children not speaking English? Seriously?
Meanwhile, the amount California spends on prisons actually increased by a half billion dollars thanks to the influence of the state’s deeply corrupt prison guards union.
Look, there's accountability again!
While the state has the highest income tax rate for the top tier earners, California also has the nation’s highest sales tax, which is famously regressive.
A deep-blue state with the highest sales tax in the nation? Get out!!!
Meanwhile, two-thirds of the tax relief from Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that restricted property taxes, goes to homeowners with incomes above $120,000 annually.
I seem to recall wealthy liberals in California kvetching about the demise of the mortgage and property tax deductions for high-end properties.

Need I go on...?
   1092. DavidFoss Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5684908)
Assuming that Biden represents the sort of Democrat you can live with, would you vote for him in 2020 if Trump is running for re-election? Assuming you didn't think Hillary killed Vince Foster or drowned Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, just what was it about Biden that made him more acceptable to you than Hillary?

He only says he's appealing to him because he didn't run. If he had run, then he would be batshit insane left-wing and would also be under investigation for any number of crimes. Not to mention six-terms of senate votes to pick over, Anita Hill testimony to replay on a loop, past campaign speech plagiarism, and touchy-feely demeanor around younger women in public. But he didn't run, so he can claim to be a reasonable centrist by saying he would have voted for him if he could have.
   1093. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:18 PM (#5684909)
Assuming that Biden represents the sort of Democrat you can live with, would you vote for him in 2020 if Trump is running for re-election?
At this point, I would probably only give serious consideration to conservatives like Romney and Sasse.
   1094. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5684910)
Assuming that Biden represents the sort of Democrat you can live with, would you vote for him in 2020 if Trump is running for re-election? Assuming you didn't think Hillary killed Vince Foster or drowned Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, just what was it about Biden that made him more acceptable to you than Hillary?

He only says he's appealing to him because he didn't run. If he had run, then he would be batshit insane left-wing and would also be under investigation for any number of crimes. Not to mention six-terms of senate votes to pick over, Anita Hill testimony to replay on a loop, past campaign speech plagiarism, and touchy-feely demeanor around younger women in public. But he didn't run, so he can claim to be a reasonable centrist by saying he would have voted for him if he could.


The only thing there I'd disagree about would be the part about Anita Hill, unless JE was opposed to Long Dong Silver's nomination.
   1095. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5684912)
He only says he's appealing to him because he didn't run.
The obvious flaw in your supposedly solid reasoning is that, if party and say, the future of the Supreme Court meant everything, I would've voted for Trump.

But I didn't.
   1096. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5684913)
Assuming that Biden represents the sort of Democrat you can live with, would you vote for him in 2020 if Trump is running for re-election?

At this point, I would probably only give serious consideration to conservatives like Romney and Sasse.


Both of whom are Republicans with about as much chance of getting the nomination as Abraham Lincoln.

So now you're saying that you'd vote for Trump over Biden, but on what grounds? How has Biden changed since 2016?
   1097. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5684915)
Especially since HRC is a well-known hawk on Israel.
Well known to whom? A J Streeter? A NIAC staffer? A Ploughshares Fund director?
Biden would sell out to Iran in a new york minute.
Eventually, Biden probably would've broken with Obama on Iran. For example, note his conspicuous absence during the Iran nuke deal debate, never mind that he was once SFRC Chairman.
   1098. Stormy JE Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5684918)
Both of whom are Republicans with about as much chance of getting the nomination as Abraham Lincoln.
If that's your measurement, then Kasich as as much chance as Betsy Ross.
So now you're saying that you'd vote for Trump over Biden, but on what grounds? How has Biden changed since 2016?
As noted above, a candidate Biden will almost certainly have to tack way left. Trump is enacting conservative policies and less off-the-rocker than feared.
   1099. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:37 PM (#5684922)
So now you're saying that you'd vote for Trump over Biden, but on what grounds? How has Biden changed since 2016?

As noted above, a candidate Biden will almost certainly have to tack way left. Trump is enacting conservative policies and less off-the-rocker than feared.


Forgetting for a minute your definition of "way left", just how would Biden have been able to avoid that tacking in 2016, when by everyone's account the Democrats adopted the most liberal platform intheir history? Do you think he would've been able to win the Democratic nomination by campaigning to Hillary's right?
   1100. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 03, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5684924)
Here, I'll spare you the trouble: Natures
Page 11 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback slays lewks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB rumors: How Dodgers' Dave Roberts could replace Giants' Bruce Bochy
(7 - 1:30am, Nov 19)
Last: phredbird

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(53 - 12:38am, Nov 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(301 - 12:30am, Nov 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(374 - 10:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2314 - 10:54pm, Nov 18)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2530 - 10:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(456 - 9:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(10 - 9:30pm, Nov 18)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogHere's why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper
(64 - 9:14pm, Nov 18)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: Dodgers' Kenley Jansen to Undergo Heart Surgery, Expected to Return for Spring Training
(3 - 7:56pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(20 - 5:55pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1231 - 4:31pm, Nov 18)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogQ&A: Damon Minor on Giants' Steven Duggar, Chris Shaw, Aramis Garcia
(3 - 4:26pm, Nov 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(30 - 4:12pm, Nov 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(283 - 2:07pm, Nov 18)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Page rendered in 0.7543 seconds
46 querie(s) executed