2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even Glenn Beck is reposting Oliver's clip. When Beck comes off as the reasonable one, you know you've fucked up. Barring any major event, it looks like Trump and his minions will have successfully destroyed the right, or even worse set the country on fire.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Something about John Oliver sits uncomfortably with me. I think it's just that every single time he does something it's a race between people desperate to fall over themselves to prove that they're so wonderfully progressive by sharing the video on facebook. I mean if this was just a dude without much backing ranting insightfully somewhere that would be great but I would wager a good amount of money that at least 95 per cent of what he says is written by the show's writers, and the whole thing just comes off a little disingenuous to me.

I don't find John Oliver to be all that, even when I broadly agree with him. He lays it on awfully thick, and some of his targets don't even seem to me to warrant the effort (not commenting on whatever that Trump clip is about). He had some bit about Johnny Depp's dogs that one time, and I'm like 'who the fuck cares?'

My problem with Oliver is on two points:

- 98 percent of the jokes are just similes.
- The marketing masquerading as activism. Getting a trending hashtag for a day every few weeks is great for getting people to watch Last Week Tonight videos, but it doesn't actually effect any change in the way people (including him) insist it does.

I liked what he was doing at the beginning when he was going into detail on stories people were unfamiliar with, but it's gotten formulaic. The Trump thing was fine because he's in the rare position where he can just sit there for 22 straight, uninterrupted minutes and get into detail about how badly Trump sucks, but it's not really all that notable beyond that.
 
Oh I see what you mean. We're in total agreeance. I'm just saying I don't get the endless praise every single time John Oliver so much as lifts a finger. I think Colbert's style of taking down right-wingers is/was much funnier and more effective.

I dunno, I've seen John Oliver's piece on Trump shared and enthusiastically approved by some very conservative family members (Ted Cruz and Ben Carson fans), so I don't think it's just "progressives masturbating progressives" as you say.
 
Oh, I still see much more paradise for Colbert or Stewart, but hey everyone has to bring their own style.

I don't know, man. When Stewart or Colbert would have a good bit, I'd see it reposted a couple of times, but it seems like every episode of Oliver's show warrants 5,000 different social media posts from my friends/reddit with, "YOU GOTTA SEE THIS!" type messages.
he even talking about fracking in North Dakota and until watching that video, I forgot about the existance of both Dakotas. and Dakota Johnson.

I wish more people would talk about fracking. I didn't know about it until I worked on a documentary television show about it for the Weather Channel. I was beyond disturbed at what I learned and I can't believe that we're sitting here ignoring this issue like man-made earthquakes aren't a thing.

My problem with Oliver is on two points:

- The marketing masquerading as activism. Getting a trending hashtag for a day every few weeks is great for getting people to watch Last Week Tonight videos, but it doesn't actually effect any change in the way people (including him) insist it does.

The first few times his videos were posted, and people were getting passionate about the topics he was shining light on, I was ecstatic. Things that NEEDED change were finally getting love, talked about in the media. How many times have we seen this, in this decade, where an issue no one was talking about finally comes to light, and we actually see change being made? I think the faster push to legalized marijuana with each passing year is a great example of this, where there's a way for people to be more vocal about the benefits, and how much money is being wasted, but I digress. My point is, somehow with Oliver, it seems like the buck stops with reposting his videos. I haven't seen them *actually* make an impact. When he pointed out the hypocrisy (and in my opinion evil) of Evangelicals, for example, with their mega-churches, and tax-exemption (I'm not against tax exemption for churches, but when a church is selling a product and turning a profit, it's time to take away that tax exemption), who take advantage of people like my aunt on a daily basis, I was thrilled. But nothing changed. It was an issue for a few days, but then it just went bye-bye.

I don't know why. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it's because it's a weekly program and he doesn't come back to topics once he's covered them?

It just feels hollow, so I've stopped paying him any attention because seeing him just makes me think of keyboard warriors.
 
In important news, the DNC Vice Chair that stepped down the other day to endorse Sanders is, umm, yeah.... :drool:


Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii. She's a bit of a renegade in her own party. Calling out Obama for Syria policy. Back in October she called out Debbie Wasserman Schultz for not having more debates, so DWS got mad and yanked her ticket to the DNC debate. Remember her name for big things later on. I find her quite dreamy myself.
ImageUploadedByU2 Interference1456853526.464141.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I wish more people would talk about fracking. I didn't know about it until I worked on a documentary television show about it for the Weather Channel. I was beyond disturbed at what I learned and I can't believe that we're sitting here ignoring this issue like man-made earthquakes aren't a thing.

Ironically,every time I watch youtube videos on iPad without any ad-blocking, I see so many ads about fracking sponsored by Exxon. they say it's future of energy or whatever, though.........i don't think it is.
 
My point is, somehow with Oliver, it seems like the buck stops with reposting his videos. I haven't seen them *actually* make an impact.

Maybe I'm missing something (admittedly I don't watch John Oliver except a few clips here and there) but is he not a comedian on cable television?

This whole line of criticism is kind of bizarre to me. Why would we expect comedians, even ones who are political satirists, to have some sort of responsibility to bring about policy or social change?
 
It's true. His first job is to be entertaining, which he does by being funny.

The fairest critique I've read is that his jokes are usually just similes. Very true.
 
Maybe I'm missing something (admittedly I don't watch John Oliver except a few clips here and there) but is he not a comedian on cable television?

This whole line of criticism is kind of bizarre to me. Why would we expect comedians, even ones who are political satirists, to have some sort of responsibility to bring about policy or social change?
It's an interesting question. It actually bothered me that Stewart was always so adamant that he shouldn't be looked at that way, that it seemed to me to be a cop out. I didn't like that he would duck legitimate questions by going "Hey, I'm just a comedian!"

Oliver's too far the other way. His presentation on the show and his pushes for nominal activism indicate that he holds himself in that regard, or at least wants to for the purposes of making his viewers feel better. As Ashley noted, it sure has worked. The combination of that and him only airing 40-something odd shows per year has made his shit much more prevalent online.

I think it has to end up somewhere in between. Oliver presents himself as an instrument of change when he's not. Stewart insisted he had nothing to do with it when he did. Neither was correct.
 
So today is our primary, and as a registered Independent i was able to vote for either the Dems or Independents (not the Republicans).

So i voted for Bernie over Hillary :)

The reason....ive seen enough TV ads lately to fill me for a lifetime. All of the Cruz and Rubio ads have been totally negative and bashing TRUMP! I don't think i have seen a TRUMP! ad even.

The Hillary ads were okay, nothing bashing anyone that i have seen. Still the email thing bugs me a bit though. Then there were the Bernie ads...very positive and informative...also a very nice Bernie supporter came to my door yesterday and asked for my vote. Nobody else did, although a Cruz supporter did call me last night around 8pm bitching about TRUMP and i basically told them to fuck off and hung up.

The Bernie person was very nice, very brief, and gave me a quick thing which i read. I realize there are annoying Bernie supporters out there i just haven't seen too many. Bernie seems kind of legit to me, even if i don't agree with everything he says or even think its even possible, he just seems like a genuine guy.

I don't know if he stands a chance in hell to get the nomination or not, we shall see, but keep in mind he just got a vote in the Oklahoma primary from someone who voted for Romney, McCain, and Bush in previous erections.
 
I think it has to end up somewhere in between. Oliver presents himself as an instrument of change when he's not.

In what sense? I'm honestly asking as I don't know enough about him or his show to have an idea of what he presents himself as.
 
Seemingly every time Oliver ends his big intro segment he does something like the Drumpf thing. A hashtag or something to get the message out. On the surface, it's a way for his viewers to feel invested in bringing an issue to light (people curious about the hashtag will find out about where it originated from and hopefully learn more about Trump) by spreading the word. There was some appeal to this when he was exclusively reporting on very underreported issues. But like I said, it feels to me like marketing for his show that's cloaked in minor activism. It's worked, in the sense that when he does one of these big things I see the video fucking everywhere for days, in a way that I never did with Stewart/Colbert stuff. But they haven't brought about change at all, and over a year later pretending like they still might feels a little disingenuous. Whatever his hopes were at the beginning, he has to be aware now that it does little more than get people to watch Last Week Tonight videos.
 
Seemingly every time Oliver ends his big intro segment he does something like the Drumpf thing. A hashtag or something to get the message out. On the surface, it's a way for his viewers to feel invested in bringing an issue to light (people curious about the hashtag will find out about where it originated from and hopefully learn more about Trump) by spreading the word. There was some appeal to this when he was exclusively reporting on very underreported issues. But like I said, it feels to me like marketing for his show that's cloaked in minor activism. It's worked, in the sense that when he does one of these big things I see the video fucking everywhere for days, in a way that I never did with Stewart/Colbert stuff. But they haven't brought about change at all, and over a year later pretending like they still might feels a little disingenuous. Whatever his hopes were at the beginning, he has to be aware now that it does little more than get people to watch Last Week Tonight videos.

I don't know, man. When Stewart or Colbert would have a good bit, I'd see it reposted a couple of times, but it seems like every episode of Oliver's show warrants 5,000 different social media posts from my friends/reddit with, "YOU GOTTA SEE THIS!" type messages.


I wish more people would talk about fracking. I didn't know about it until I worked on a documentary television show about it for the Weather Channel. I was beyond disturbed at what I learned and I can't believe that we're sitting here ignoring this issue like man-made earthquakes aren't a thing.



The first few times his videos were posted, and people were getting passionate about the topics he was shining light on, I was ecstatic. Things that NEEDED change were finally getting love, talked about in the media. How many times have we seen this, in this decade, where an issue no one was talking about finally comes to light, and we actually see change being made? I think the faster push to legalized marijuana with each passing year is a great example of this, where there's a way for people to be more vocal about the benefits, and how much money is being wasted, but I digress. My point is, somehow with Oliver, it seems like the buck stops with reposting his videos. I haven't seen them *actually* make an impact. When he pointed out the hypocrisy (and in my opinion evil) of Evangelicals, for example, with their mega-churches, and tax-exemption (I'm not against tax exemption for churches, but when a church is selling a product and turning a profit, it's time to take away that tax exemption), who take advantage of people like my aunt on a daily basis, I was thrilled. But nothing changed. It was an issue for a few days, but then it just went bye-bye.

I don't know why. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it's because it's a weekly program and he doesn't come back to topics once he's covered them?

It just feels hollow, so I've stopped paying him any attention because seeing him just makes me think of keyboard warriors.

My points exactly :up::up::up::up:
 
Over under on how much money Trump paid Chris Christie?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Christie looks like he's being held hostage. More awkward than Trump looked when Sarah Palin kept talking and talking on the podium.

So I'll say one thing - Trump certainly says some good things like "lowering taxes" and "increasing jobs" and "building the middle class" which obviously hits a mark with people. But does he ever actually say how he is going to do it in a concrete way? He's going to lower taxes and build a bigger military and a giant multi-billion dollar wall? And create jobs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom