US Politics VI

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.
Nah. This one will get pretty damn bad. Probably all the other countries will line up against us. That's all right. These things gotta happen every fifty, a hundred years or so. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been 70 years since the last trade war. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped China with Mao, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.

Don't worry. Trump will take a long vacation, and we'll catch all the hell.
 
Last edited:
Interesting read about the latest Roseanne episode (no, it's not hysterical):

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...ng-conservative-politics-darlene-harris-abuse

During its original run, Roseanne was a lightning rod for a multitude of reasons—not the least of which was Roseanne Conner’s parenting style. She was loud, crass, and more permissive than a traditional sitcom parent, a far cry from the squeaky-clean, 1950s sensibilities the series frequently mocked. One thing she never made a habit of, though, was spanking her children. And her reasoning was extremely well established: as the characters make clear through multiple seasons, Roseanne and her sister, Jackie, were abused by their father. The one time Roseanne was ever shown spanking one of her children, her outburst ended with a tearful apology—which is why the central plot of Tuesday’s installment of the rebooted series felt misguided at best, and like a forced expression of conservative talking points at worst. It’s further evidence that despite any protestations to the contrary, the new Roseanne has a distinct ideology—which is why it’s struck such a chord with right-leaning viewers.

..

“Your generation made everything so P.C.,” Roseanne gripes to Darlene. She’s incensed that Gen X parents won’t spank their kids; instead, she says, “you tell them to go over there and think about what they did wrong. You know what they’re thinking? I can’t believe this loser isn’t spanking me.”
“Let me tell you something,” Roseanne’s husband, Dan, adds. “I wrote a poem for my dad. Then he hit me with a broom. And then he said, ‘This broom will do more for you than any poem.’ And that was the greatest generation.” Eventually, Roseanne shoves her granddaughter’s head in the sink and sprays her with the faucet to teach her a lesson, while Darlene realizes that perhaps she’s given her daughter more leeway than she should have. Throughout all of this, nobody acknowledges the repeated trauma Roseanne and Jackie faced at the hands of their father, who used to discipline them with a belt. And no one mentions the fact that, at least as far as viewers of the original series saw, Roseanne never spanked any of her children, either—save for one incident that ended with an emotional apology from Roseanne to D.J.

..

But Tuesday’s discussion about parental discipline came with politically charged introduction from Barr. As Jen Chaney points out in Vulture, the show’s star introduced the episode on Twitter by saying this: “the next episode shows Harris (my tv granddaughter) calling me a stupid old hillbilly-watch how I handle her and her very liberal mother!” Based on that, it seems like this episode wasn’t meant to show Dan and Roseanne clashing with Darlene about the best way to discipline kids. Instead, it was a more cut-and-dry plot designed to show why Roseanne’s side is right—and why liberal parents aren’t.

If the new series were dedicated to keeping alive the spirit of the old Roseanne, one would think the episode would have played out differently—or at least with a little more nuance. As Chaney wrote, the episode seemed like an unambiguous retort to the “snowflakes” currently raising little snowflakes of their own. “So far, this is a show in which Roseanne never has to admit when she’s wrong, but everybody else does,” Chaney writes, “which makes it harder to believe the show’s end goal is to bridge the distances between decent people who disagree.”
 
The second episode was much weaker, and I agree with the Deplorable pandering.

I found it kind of depressing, which was kind of a good thing. Clearly, the Connors aren’t doing well and are living lives now filled with the consequences of obesity and economic insecurity in the shadows of the upward flow of capital since 1981. Bad decisions have beget bad decisions, and we’re getting a portrait of a family trapped in cycles of near poverty. The kids aren’t doing any better than their parents, maybe worse.

Likely not what Roseanne herself was going for. But whatevs.
 
I agree the third episode wasn't as funny as the first two. It was OK. I still don't think I'll stick with it though.

That said, I don't think it's a big deal that her character may have changed her views on "parental discipline". People's views change. If Roseanne Barr's views on this subject changed, it's entirely possible that Roseanne Connor's views changed as well. People can get crankier as they age. It happens.

With regards to the whole "snowflake" thing, I don't think the suggestion that the current young generation is perceived that way is limited to illiterate Trump voters...there's actually a lot of talk about that here in the UK across class and political affiliation. People call them the "participation trophy generation" here. Besides, every generation of adults thinks the upcoming generation of young people is somehow soft and spoiled, just as every generation of teenagers thinks they know better than the stupid adults, and have it all figured out (e.g. David Hogg, et. al.). There's zero new about this.

Anyway, that Variety article is just another example of the media's obsession with this show because one of the characters is Trump supporter who thinks and lives nothing like the people writing about it. If anything, it's a reminder that there's so little of that point of view on network TV that when it does happen, the press treats it like a sociology experiment. Just hilarious.

I will say that, much like they did with Trump, I think it's foolish for conservatives to so readily hitch their wagon to Roseanne. Also like Trump, she's wacked and unstable, and just b/c she's saying stuff they like now doesn't mean she can't (and probably will) turn on a dime.
 
Last edited:
The second episode was much weaker, and I agree with the Deplorable pandering.

I found it kind of depressing, which was kind of a good thing. Clearly, the Connors aren’t doing well and are living lives now filled with the consequences of obesity and economic insecurity in the shadows of the upward flow of capital since 1981. Bad decisions have beget bad decisions, and we’re getting a portrait of a family trapped in cycles of near poverty. The kids aren’t doing any better than their parents, maybe worse.

Likely not what Roseanne herself was going for. But whatevs.

When I watched the first episode (dual episode?) after hearing positive reviews (my initial thought was that this is more stupidity ans abject lack of creativity by network TV... aka more of the same) I was pleasantly surprised.

I actually thought that the show could take on almost a modern day All In The Family vibe, with Roseanne on the Archie Bunker role. Difference of course being that Carrol O'Connor was a staunch liberal and was truly playing a role, whereas Roseanne is a moron.
 
With regards to the whole "snowflake" thing, I don't think the suggestion that the current young generation is perceived that way is limited to illiterate Trump voters...there's actually a lot of talk about that here in the UK across class and political affiliation. People call them the "participation trophy generation" here.

On that note, I have to say, I've never understood why adults seem to blame the kids for the whole "participation trophy" thing, 'cause the kids aren't the ones demanding the trophies, or giving themselves the trophies. That's the adults' decision, because they're the ones who are afraid of leaving any child out, or fearing their kid wouldn't feel like they were special or important (or they're a parent who absolutely REFUSES to believe their child is anything less that perfect and deserving of all the awards). So why are the kids always blamed and mocked for that, I wonder? Why not the adults, for fostering that attitude to begin with?

In fact, I've seen many millennials say they hated the whole participation trophy thing because it made it harder for them to tell genuine praise and recognition for their talents/hard work from patronizing "Oh, you're just as special as everyone else" comments.
 
what happens when poorly-trained national guard troops inevitably end up shooting a bunch of unarmed peasant farmers in the middle of the east texas desert?
 
They won’t, they’ll still blame the black guy or theorize what it would have been if Clinton won
 
Snowflake49_1_1Orange.png
 
I don't think he'd get any traction for even a "thank you for donating" ambassador position , thanks to all of this Facebook fuckery.
 
The Orange Snowflake is skipping the WH correspondence dinner again, surprise surprise.

They said Sarah Huckabee Sanders is going to be there. Is there a more thankless job in the universe than her job? Probably not. Maybe cleaning Trump's toilet at Mar A Lago? :wink:

I'll give her credit, she's always very professionally dressed on camera. She's got it down-simple, monochromatic, strand of pearls. I always notice what she's wearing, I never pay attention to anything she's saying...because it's gobbledygook bs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom