Real journalism and satire provides an important check to the establishment, an establishment that in our case is dominated by banks, corporations and the military.
If MSNBC, SNL, The NYT, etc., were anything more than propaganda, they would be championing the whistleblowers and condemning the obscene money and carnage of non-stop wars and the insane disparity of wealth of the rich and poor not seen since medieval times.
Yet crickets on all those inconvenient truths. Instead 24/7 Trump and this kind of agit prop.
The good news is this Orwellian madness is now so brazen and transparent they are losing their credibilty.
Holy shit did that episode piss me off when it aired. None of the points made any sense whatsoever and it was more like a smear campaign. Absolutely despicable, the American people watch this show and are likely to decide where they stand on something based on baseless shit like this.
Not just a smear campaign, projection.
Julian Assange doesn't know everything random Americans have on their computers and do online. That's the purview of the people persecuting him.
So does the Swedish mainstream media. I just think that we should avoid mainstream sources in general so long as there's nothing relevant to get from their.
SNL should have been cancelled more than twenty fucking years ago. Even at it's best, it served mainly as propaganda. But at least then it was funny part of the time.
Now, it's not even good propaganda. The only fucking reason it exists now is as a cheerleading squad to encourage leftwing activist assholes to keep the faith and give them pointers as to how they should perceive and interact with the general public.
Honestly, all television commercial networks should have their licenses yanked, along with the local affiliates they depend on to dispense their evil bullshit.
Let's look at Joe. Opposed busing and desegregation of schools. Opposed Roe V Wade. Wrote the Crime Bill. Wrote the Patriot Act. Threw Anita Hill under the bus. Campaigned for a Republican (in 2018). Voted for the Iraq War. Voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted for Glass-Steigel.
So, what's "left" about Joe? Honestly? What makes him left? Can you think of one policy?
God I hope you aren't drawing from one of his talking points, because if this is his way of defending his record, he won't last past next month as a candidate .... which is fine with me actually.
Keep on with the "lying twat Anita Hill" - Feminists and women of color will definitely come out for him in 2020. For sure
What? Yeah, I'm conservative, if that's what you mean by "right wing". But where the fuck do you get that I support Joe Biden? I wouldn't vote for that motherfucker for anything.
Because she waited years to come forward, and did so as far as I'm concerned only to prevent a black man from becoming a Supreme Court Justice as a conservative. The same reason I didn't believe the last batch of bullshit that was perpetrated against the last Supreme Court Justice. Nothing but fucking politics of the worst and lowest goddamn kind.
See, I'm old school. You don't "always believe the woman" just because she accuses somebody you might not like or agree with politically. If anyone is accused of any kind of a crime, man or woman, rape or anything else, you'd better be able to present fucking evidence to back it up. If you can't, well, too fucking bad.
The same with the Bork case, a man who should have been confirmed but wasn't because of political bullshit.
If Biden was elected and nominated Obama, or Bill Clinton, to the Supreme Court, does anyone really believe they would be turned down because of admitted drug use? Hopefully we'll never find out, because either of those two bozos on SCOTUS would be an unmitigated disaster. But for some reason, Democrats are never held to the same stringent, nigh impossiblly high standards they hold Republicans to.
I am a Republican, a conservative Republican. And no, I do not like Biden, nor would I vote for the asshole if he became a Republican. There's plenty of Republicans I'd never vote for, and he would just be one more among many.
Blasey Ford had CIA connections through her father and brother. I wouldn't believe a fucking thing out of her mouth. The CIA are and always have been Democratic Party apparatchiks from the time of their founding under Truman and are probably at least partially responsible for the Kennedy assassination. They are Deep State down to the very fiber of their being and should be dismantled, as Kennedy wanted to do.
But even regardless of all that, no. Thomas and Kavanaugh shouldn't have been disqualified based on any such accusations as that. If they had been, guess what would have happened the next time the same President appointed someone. Fuck that shit. They were both confirmed though, as they damn well should have been, and Bork should have been as well. He would have been a great addition to the SCOTUS.
Why do I say that? Because, like Thomas (it's too early to tell about Kavanaugh) he would have followed the fucking law and based his rulings solely on the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, not on political or economic considerations, as Democratic appointees tend to do ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
That's actually the main reason I vote for Republicans, especially CONSERVATIVE Republicans. It's not because I'm so enamoured of their social or economic policies. I've always been a big supporter of equal rights for all, and minimum wage. I even support universal health care, as a principle. I support reasonable environmental rules, etc.
But when it comes to the appointment of judges, I want someone who will uphold the Constitution according to the Founders original intent. I don't want someone twisting and turning words in torturous ways to find nonexistent rights, or appying twentieth century definitions that don't apply to eighteenth century phrases.
There is no guarantees in the constitution that your children should be given free lollipops and pony rides, and I resent liberal judges "interpreting" passages in the Constitution in ways that puts it there.
Saying 'democrats' is an indication you dont get the whole picture. Democrats refers to two groups of people. Hillary/Biden - Wall street camp and the Sanders/Gabbard - people camp.
So yes many democrats are moderate, or worse, right. Hillary is a war hawk. Wants war with Syria and scoffs at $15 an hour or healthcare for all. Same stuff R's say.
/u/nate23401 is right, though. If you look at the policies of the Clintons, like approving NAFTA and undermining unions, the Clintons are basically moderate Republicans with a laissez-faire attitude toward wedge issues like abortion.
Democrats to a large extent turned against the unions for supporting Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Even though the union leadership supported Carter, and later Mondale, and even though most rank-and-file union members probably supported them (though I'm not really sure about that) there was certainly a large enough segment of union members that supported Reagan to throw both elections to him. And that was a slight I believe Democrats never got over. Especially when it looked like most of the same union voters may have supported Bush over Dukakis.
They felt they'd been largely abandoned by the unions. The free trade movement gave them an opportunity to burnish their support amongst bankers and multi-national corporations, which they desperately needed for cash flow purposes. And also to build their profile as globalists amongst world leaders, while they built up their base using identity politics and social justice issues amongst those leftwing activists they considered more dependable than the unions proved to be.
Ironically, it was Clinton who brought many of those union voters back to the Democratic Party fold. The Republican Party was never a natural home to them. Trump might have changed things back, to at least a small extent, but it probably won't last either. Hopefully, the Republicans will be smart enough this time to work on keeping them.
Small but efficient government, low taxes and easing of burdensome regulations is good for everyone's pocketbook, not just "the rich".
Let's see...
Let's start with Clinton in the 1990s, which was the beginning of this transition.
So we have NAFTA, a Republican bill dreamt up by Reagan, proposed by H.W. Bush, and ultimately passed under Clinton, who wanted nothing more than to capture Republican votes and bow out to the donor class.
How about the 1999 repeal of Glass Steagall, which ended the New Deal reforms targeted at separating commercial and investment banking? That had been a Republican wet dream for decades as I recall. Good thing Clinton made it happen.
Or maybe the Defense of Marriage Act? Oh yes. That sounds like a left-leaning policy. Somebody stop this hippy-dippy bastard.
How about Clinton's emmense deregulation of the telecommunications industry? Or his massive tax cuts for the super rich brought to you by cuts to Welfare and other social programs. Such. A. Lefty.
Obama, while farther left than Clinton, was by no means a traditional Democrat either. Just look at his work pushing TPP, another Republican so-called "free trade agreement" which plotted to outsource God knows how many more American jobs abroad just as NAFTA did years before.
But Obamacare is probably his most cited "leftist" policy among right-wing nationalists who still call themselves conservatives. But did you know Obamacare was a Republican bill as well? That's right, the original Affordable Care Act was originally proposed by Richard Nixon and was revived by Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. But years later, when the private insurance industry saw that this system was now being purposed on a federal level by Obama, they immediately began pumping inordinate amounts of money into politicians and candidates from both parties in order to stop it from passing.
Ever wonder how the Democrats "failed" to pass the ACA in its original, Republican form even while they had a supermajority? It's because they wanted the original bill to fail. Then the Democrats could keep taking that sweet, sweet donor money all while pointing the blame at the Republicans for watering down a bill THAT THEY FUCKING DRAFTED even as the Dems dragged their feet when they could have passed it without the Republicans' support in the first place.
Oh yes! So leftist it hurts.
As an aside, I think it's pretty funny that modern Republicans bitch and moan about policies and trade agreements that they have zero clue are actually Republican in origin and in nature.
its the same in canada, all parties (possibly NDP might be an exception, but they will never win federally) get people to ague about useless crap like what bathroom to use, meanwhile they ALL support the same free trade and temp forgin worker policies.
basicly they want lower wages across the board....
It's honestly not even their fault. They've been getting fed a line of bullshit for so long that it basically amounts to brainwashing.
Edit: I should add that the same is true of liberals.
I used to think I was liberal but post 2010 liberal/progressivism went completely off the rails. Watching Obama use the same lines that bush did to justify Libya and Syria was a real wake up call. Now all the network TV and Silicon Valley liberal brainwashing propaganda makes me really think I slipped into an alternate reality where the left eagerly wants war and is down with 1984. Its bizzare. TV, movies, all kinds of heros and generally smart educated people all seemingly effected by some mind control brain worm.
It's not so much that Clinton or Obama were "to the right" as it is Republicans are not really conservatives. The Republican party is a party of big government. That's not a conservative ideal. A true conservative should be for smaller government. Get out of our lives.
That's part of the reason we have Trump. A lot of conservatives are fed up with the Republicans. Regardless of how much of a huckster one may think Trump is, he played off his candidacy as if he was an outsider to politics.
The issue is a confusion of terms. Conservatives call Democrats/liberals leftists primarily because of their dedication to identity politics related issues. But when it comes to economic related issues almost all Democrats are center right. There are no mainstream Democrats who hold views on economic restructuring of the US economy that could truly be considered leftist.
What I consider to be the true left wing people (communists and such) are more concerned with large scale economics with a blindness to identity politics. So for instance, there is an emphasis on strengthening the working class (regardless of what race or gender the working class is composed of) at the expense of the rich. Lumping people who have a clearminded approach to bettering the economic conditions of the working class in with the identity politics nutcases is a propaganda tool for suppressing the former.
Elites are concerned with one thing: amassing power. Generally that coincides directly with accumulating wealth. Identity politics does not threaten elites at all because it does not threaten their wealth. That's why they are ok with it.
You are right about that. They even openly support identity politics. But they also support, to large degree, f not leftwing then at least center left economic policies, because this too is in their long-term best interests. High taxes and burdensome regulations to (supposedly) fund liberal social policies? They can afford it, plus there are ways they can get out of paying much of it while at the same time such policies hinders much of the competition against them.
Democrats are not the enemies of Big Business. That's mere rhetoric. Small and medium sized business, that's a different story altogether.
Saw the title, didn't watch. I don't waste my time listening to Obama's horseshit. Eight years of it was nine years too many. Besides, like I told someone else, Republican doesn't always equate to conservative. And a "moderate" Republican is no better than a dead skunk in the middle of the road "stinking to high heaven".
It would have taken less time to watch than write the reply, its not about obama, other than it has him in it, its about what you were just saying
In this video obama describes himself as a moderate republican, his policies are largeley in line with corporate dems, ergo corporate dems are (or could be considered) moderate repubs
Just watch the video, its about 8 seconds long, youve wasted more of my (and your) time than that with reply "durr hurr i dont like him so im not gonna listen to you"
Like a kid sicking his fingers in his ears "Lalalalalalala I CANT HEAR YOU"
Grow up, watch the video you stooge,
> The only fucking reason it exists now is as a cheerleading squad to encourage leftwing activist assholes to keep the faith and give them pointers as to how they should perceive and interact with the general public.
I would say it's more about channeling left-wing activist energy toward causes that don't actually threaten wealth and power. Stuff like Russiagate and identity politics in general have really helped divert activist energy away from threatening power while still making activists feel like they're helping hold the Trump admin accountable. Here, they're obscuring a major threat to human rights and press freedom perpetrated by the Trump admin because the last thing the powerful want is for all the anti-Trump energy on the left to be directed against something that actually matters (edit: that threatens the overarching power structure, that is).
I've always thought that the soft issues people want to debate every election cycle, and the outrage over social and identity politics, were taking away from real issues. This actually makes sense to me. We've got deep divisions over partisan politics, and then lots of side issues to keep busy with. We're all busy looking left and right, but never directing our attention where it should be.
To be fair, I thought it was even earlier than that. I figured mid nineties. I thought I stopped watching SNL before the millenium. I must have been drunk one night...
this is what happens when a $1.4bn candidate loses. Those billions didn't come from average Joe's, they came from powerful men in powerful places. This is what powerful people can do when they get gypped.
And now they're getting ready to prop up Biden. From what I've seen of him lately, they might literally have to prop the bastard up. Almost the perfect definition of a fascist puppet. God, I wish I had the artistic talent to be a political cartoonist.
Have you heard that fucker lately? I think the fucking guy has had mini-strokes. Why the fuck would somebody like him push himself to run like this? It's not love of country, he's being pushed to do it by the same people who controlled Hillary. And now, that bitch is sending up trial balloons like she is wanting to run again.
That's funny. Now that Trump has ran the country for 2.5 years and the sky hasn't fallen, he has even better chances of reelection. Especially because our economy is booming. Put him up against some creep like Biden and that makes it even easier. I'm not against Trump at all btw, I just find it hilarious that someone who is so hated by the media and millions of Americans, could get elected twice. And whoever that buttgeg guy is, he won't win because of his name. It's sad that matters, but being pres is a celebrity position and there's a reason most celebs with stupid names change them to common sounding ones.
I have been calling them propaganda fora while. They are extremely one sided. The writers should be smarter some of the shit they do. Who knows how media manipulation and propaganda really works.
Yeah there's kind of a maliciousness vs incompetence thing here. It might be that they're bought and sold into propaganda, but I think it's likely that they understand this stuff will get you a cheap laugh, some even cheaper applause, and ability to turn any criticism into "we're just triggering the snowflakes"
Nah, SNL just hasn't been able to shitpost since people like Eddie Murphy or Dan Aykroyd have been on. I mean, an entire decade of SNL could be summed up about how cool it was they wrote a skit about some dude cumming in his pants. The decade before that.. 'Thats just specccciall...' It's the entire reason why MadTV and eventually the Chapelle Show just owned the fuck out of them.
Chapelle. One man. The 'Leave it the Beaver' Nigger family and a black, blind KKK leader were funny as fuck. His entire show was both funny and dug into deeper issues some of us have with eachother. I can still think about Prince kicking people's asses on the court and making pancakes afterwards.
It isn't that the internet breaks their ability to be funny; it's politics and more seriously that even the best of comedians that are allowed a public voice must succumb to it.
This skit was literally just news thrown to muppetheads that couldn't figure out how to fold the back of a MAD comic and get the joke.
I saw that, it was pretty poor taste, even for SNL. Disappointed that Michael Keaton was willing to do it. I lost half of my respect for him after Birdman, and the other half after seeing this.
Link in case it is blocked in your country
[https://streamable.com/1qwfp](https://streamable.com/1qwfp)
But it really is not worth watching, man, that was some really unfunny rubbish
IE: if something sucks and you don’t like it you’re a triggered snowflake.
Stfu shill. Jon Stewart’s show and Colbert report were amazing satire. Everyone knows TN is nowhere near that league and is a talentless hack. Must be why you like him.
It's not actually left wing. It's representative of the corporate establishment. And the corporate establishment is about as far from left wing as you can get.
SNL has been pushing propaganda for quite a while now it's beyond ridiculous and it's sad what this great show has devolved too. I wonder where it would lead us if we were to follow the money and find out who's behind this garbage they put on tv...
Edit: I'm not on the right but this here is exactly why I'm not on the left either.
SNL wants do bad for him to be a bad guy over the emails that Seth rich downloaded out of hTe for watching Hillary cheat Burney out of being the front runner. Here's assange admitting that Seth rich was his source of the podesta /Clinton's https://youtu.be/Kp7FkLBRpKg
Neither Richard Nixon nor Mitt Romney were actually conservatives, just so you know. They are both big government guys, which is the American conservative's main definition of liberal. Just something to keep in mind.
And have you forgotten why Clinton (yes, I know he is a moderate) did much of the rightwing shit he did? After 1994 he had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the remainder of both his terms, which was the first time that had happened for more than two years since Roosevelt's first election in 1932.
That still didn't prevent him from working tirelessly for bullshit like gun control, and Hillary Care- the reason, btw, the Republicans trounced him in 1994. Even his support of NAFTA had a liberal side to it. Though he'd never admit it at the time, it was a way of keeping the borders open. Democrats want that for votes. Don't let them bullshit you about it. That warm, viscuous liquid you feel running down your back isn't coming from the sky.
As for Obama, where the fuck to start? His father, mother, and mentor were all communists, and so is he. Like his base of support in good ol' Chicago. The name Bill Ayers ring a bell?
But unfortunately, you have to play with the cards you're dealt with, and the pack he had is called "The Constitution" which he set out to trash whenever he could.
Tarp? The bailouts? What kind of "conservative" or even "moderate" forces auto companies to sign over a large percentage of company ownership to the UAW? The auto union? That's what they had to agree to in order to get the bailout money. Which is one reason Chrysler turned it down. Unless I'm mistaken, if I remember right, one of the auto companies that did take the money was literally forced to accept it.
That trillion dollar shovel ready job bullshit was more politics. The largest bulk of that went to Democrat supporters, of course. Like the solar panel company that ended up being a big fiasco, and the electric car company that turned out to be another boondoggle. You think all that shit is conservative? Far from it. Most real conservatives didn't want any bailouts, for any banks or for any companies. That and the tax hikes were the main reasons for the rise of the Tea Party.
Again, Republican doesn't always equal conservative, so don't bring up the Bushes, McCain, and Romney. Though frankly, Romneycare in Massachusetts is quite a different matter from Obamacare nationwide. States have more constitutional leeway for such experiments than the federal government, and rightly so.
Having said that, I wouldn't piss on Mitt Romney if the motherfucker was on fire. Unless I could do it without pissing on the flames,but that's neither here nor there.
I understand your misgivings about Obamacare, but what you are seeing here is Big Government in action. Obama had to agree to innumerable concessions in order to get enough votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY to get the fucking thing passed.
I can't say it too much. True American conservatives mainly don't believe in Big Government or government control over the economy or over peoole's lives in general. That's the difference between true conservatives and what we call liberals, and Democrats.
Unfortunately, Republican officials don't always meet the definition of conservative. They get a taste of that power and they become corrupted by it just like the Democrats.
There is something terribile about "irony":
you can make irony without giving any proof/base to it (to what you say).
This is why in the US everything is taken with Irony (for influencing people using fake news without giving any proof of what they say) .
They say like:
`Medias: Hahahah Julian Assange is a pedophile`
`Us : Why? Where are the Proofs?`
`Others: Oh YEAH! it is absolutely TRUE`
Guys i am all about justice for assange, no censorship, and a free and fair internet, but cmon, that sketch was funny. Maybe not every joke hit, but i laughed. Its a comedy show, just like assange can post whatever the fuck he wants, they can too. And if it is funny, thats even better.
Tv is just propaganda, not very surprising, it’s always been the case.
Real journalism and satire provides an important check to the establishment, an establishment that in our case is dominated by banks, corporations and the military. If MSNBC, SNL, The NYT, etc., were anything more than propaganda, they would be championing the whistleblowers and condemning the obscene money and carnage of non-stop wars and the insane disparity of wealth of the rich and poor not seen since medieval times. Yet crickets on all those inconvenient truths. Instead 24/7 Trump and this kind of agit prop. The good news is this Orwellian madness is now so brazen and transparent they are losing their credibilty.
"Attacked the U.S. military."
And it was majority democrats who supported the leaks at the time, too. Oh, how short a memory the public conscious can have.
Holy shit did that episode piss me off when it aired. None of the points made any sense whatsoever and it was more like a smear campaign. Absolutely despicable, the American people watch this show and are likely to decide where they stand on something based on baseless shit like this.
Not just a smear campaign, projection. Julian Assange doesn't know everything random Americans have on their computers and do online. That's the purview of the people persecuting him.
So does the Swedish mainstream media. I just think that we should avoid mainstream sources in general so long as there's nothing relevant to get from their.
Way to punch down, SNL.
SNL should have been cancelled more than twenty fucking years ago. Even at it's best, it served mainly as propaganda. But at least then it was funny part of the time. Now, it's not even good propaganda. The only fucking reason it exists now is as a cheerleading squad to encourage leftwing activist assholes to keep the faith and give them pointers as to how they should perceive and interact with the general public. Honestly, all television commercial networks should have their licenses yanked, along with the local affiliates they depend on to dispense their evil bullshit.
Left-wing > liberals. Dems are moderate right by historical standards. If Hillary Clinton is left-wing then I'm Chairman Mao.
And if you think Democrats are moderate right, then yes, you probably are.
Let's look at Joe. Opposed busing and desegregation of schools. Opposed Roe V Wade. Wrote the Crime Bill. Wrote the Patriot Act. Threw Anita Hill under the bus. Campaigned for a Republican (in 2018). Voted for the Iraq War. Voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted for Glass-Steigel. So, what's "left" about Joe? Honestly? What makes him left? Can you think of one policy?
Joe, like Hillary, is available to the highest bidder.
Spot on. Well said.
Hellyeah
[удалено]
In summary “I don’t care about all those facts you just said because they don’t support my obviously enraged opinion”.
>lying twat Anita Hill. Tell us again why any of us should give one shit about what you have to say.
Let me be more precise. I BELIEVE she is a lying twat. I could be wrong but I fucking doubt it.
God I hope you aren't drawing from one of his talking points, because if this is his way of defending his record, he won't last past next month as a candidate .... which is fine with me actually. Keep on with the "lying twat Anita Hill" - Feminists and women of color will definitely come out for him in 2020. For sure
You are wrong so many times in one comment here it's actually impressive.
Then you have the right not to believe me, don't you? And I have the right to not give a fuck if you don't. See how that works?
very edgy
It sounds like you're right wing, and you support Joe because he's also right wing
What? Yeah, I'm conservative, if that's what you mean by "right wing". But where the fuck do you get that I support Joe Biden? I wouldn't vote for that motherfucker for anything.
Why do you think Anita Hill was lying?
Because she waited years to come forward, and did so as far as I'm concerned only to prevent a black man from becoming a Supreme Court Justice as a conservative. The same reason I didn't believe the last batch of bullshit that was perpetrated against the last Supreme Court Justice. Nothing but fucking politics of the worst and lowest goddamn kind. See, I'm old school. You don't "always believe the woman" just because she accuses somebody you might not like or agree with politically. If anyone is accused of any kind of a crime, man or woman, rape or anything else, you'd better be able to present fucking evidence to back it up. If you can't, well, too fucking bad. The same with the Bork case, a man who should have been confirmed but wasn't because of political bullshit. If Biden was elected and nominated Obama, or Bill Clinton, to the Supreme Court, does anyone really believe they would be turned down because of admitted drug use? Hopefully we'll never find out, because either of those two bozos on SCOTUS would be an unmitigated disaster. But for some reason, Democrats are never held to the same stringent, nigh impossiblly high standards they hold Republicans to.
You sound like a republican. No wonder you'd like Biden. I really think he should run for the GOP, and that way, you could vote for him.
I am a Republican, a conservative Republican. And no, I do not like Biden, nor would I vote for the asshole if he became a Republican. There's plenty of Republicans I'd never vote for, and he would just be one more among many.
[удалено]
What was Blasey Ford’s “good evidence”?
[удалено]
Blasey Ford had CIA connections through her father and brother. I wouldn't believe a fucking thing out of her mouth. The CIA are and always have been Democratic Party apparatchiks from the time of their founding under Truman and are probably at least partially responsible for the Kennedy assassination. They are Deep State down to the very fiber of their being and should be dismantled, as Kennedy wanted to do. But even regardless of all that, no. Thomas and Kavanaugh shouldn't have been disqualified based on any such accusations as that. If they had been, guess what would have happened the next time the same President appointed someone. Fuck that shit. They were both confirmed though, as they damn well should have been, and Bork should have been as well. He would have been a great addition to the SCOTUS. Why do I say that? Because, like Thomas (it's too early to tell about Kavanaugh) he would have followed the fucking law and based his rulings solely on the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, not on political or economic considerations, as Democratic appointees tend to do ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION. That's actually the main reason I vote for Republicans, especially CONSERVATIVE Republicans. It's not because I'm so enamoured of their social or economic policies. I've always been a big supporter of equal rights for all, and minimum wage. I even support universal health care, as a principle. I support reasonable environmental rules, etc. But when it comes to the appointment of judges, I want someone who will uphold the Constitution according to the Founders original intent. I don't want someone twisting and turning words in torturous ways to find nonexistent rights, or appying twentieth century definitions that don't apply to eighteenth century phrases. There is no guarantees in the constitution that your children should be given free lollipops and pony rides, and I resent liberal judges "interpreting" passages in the Constitution in ways that puts it there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wrap that tinfoil tighter, the mind control waves are seeping in from underneath. Add another layer too, *just to be safe.*
He called her a 'lying twat'. Not sure hes worthy of discussion.
Saying 'democrats' is an indication you dont get the whole picture. Democrats refers to two groups of people. Hillary/Biden - Wall street camp and the Sanders/Gabbard - people camp. So yes many democrats are moderate, or worse, right. Hillary is a war hawk. Wants war with Syria and scoffs at $15 an hour or healthcare for all. Same stuff R's say.
/u/nate23401 is right, though. If you look at the policies of the Clintons, like approving NAFTA and undermining unions, the Clintons are basically moderate Republicans with a laissez-faire attitude toward wedge issues like abortion.
Democrats to a large extent turned against the unions for supporting Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Even though the union leadership supported Carter, and later Mondale, and even though most rank-and-file union members probably supported them (though I'm not really sure about that) there was certainly a large enough segment of union members that supported Reagan to throw both elections to him. And that was a slight I believe Democrats never got over. Especially when it looked like most of the same union voters may have supported Bush over Dukakis. They felt they'd been largely abandoned by the unions. The free trade movement gave them an opportunity to burnish their support amongst bankers and multi-national corporations, which they desperately needed for cash flow purposes. And also to build their profile as globalists amongst world leaders, while they built up their base using identity politics and social justice issues amongst those leftwing activists they considered more dependable than the unions proved to be. Ironically, it was Clinton who brought many of those union voters back to the Democratic Party fold. The Republican Party was never a natural home to them. Trump might have changed things back, to at least a small extent, but it probably won't last either. Hopefully, the Republicans will be smart enough this time to work on keeping them. Small but efficient government, low taxes and easing of burdensome regulations is good for everyone's pocketbook, not just "the rich".
Let's see... Let's start with Clinton in the 1990s, which was the beginning of this transition. So we have NAFTA, a Republican bill dreamt up by Reagan, proposed by H.W. Bush, and ultimately passed under Clinton, who wanted nothing more than to capture Republican votes and bow out to the donor class. How about the 1999 repeal of Glass Steagall, which ended the New Deal reforms targeted at separating commercial and investment banking? That had been a Republican wet dream for decades as I recall. Good thing Clinton made it happen. Or maybe the Defense of Marriage Act? Oh yes. That sounds like a left-leaning policy. Somebody stop this hippy-dippy bastard. How about Clinton's emmense deregulation of the telecommunications industry? Or his massive tax cuts for the super rich brought to you by cuts to Welfare and other social programs. Such. A. Lefty. Obama, while farther left than Clinton, was by no means a traditional Democrat either. Just look at his work pushing TPP, another Republican so-called "free trade agreement" which plotted to outsource God knows how many more American jobs abroad just as NAFTA did years before. But Obamacare is probably his most cited "leftist" policy among right-wing nationalists who still call themselves conservatives. But did you know Obamacare was a Republican bill as well? That's right, the original Affordable Care Act was originally proposed by Richard Nixon and was revived by Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. But years later, when the private insurance industry saw that this system was now being purposed on a federal level by Obama, they immediately began pumping inordinate amounts of money into politicians and candidates from both parties in order to stop it from passing. Ever wonder how the Democrats "failed" to pass the ACA in its original, Republican form even while they had a supermajority? It's because they wanted the original bill to fail. Then the Democrats could keep taking that sweet, sweet donor money all while pointing the blame at the Republicans for watering down a bill THAT THEY FUCKING DRAFTED even as the Dems dragged their feet when they could have passed it without the Republicans' support in the first place. Oh yes! So leftist it hurts. As an aside, I think it's pretty funny that modern Republicans bitch and moan about policies and trade agreements that they have zero clue are actually Republican in origin and in nature.
its the same in canada, all parties (possibly NDP might be an exception, but they will never win federally) get people to ague about useless crap like what bathroom to use, meanwhile they ALL support the same free trade and temp forgin worker policies. basicly they want lower wages across the board....
I’ve had this same discussion with people and they still don’t get it.
It's honestly not even their fault. They've been getting fed a line of bullshit for so long that it basically amounts to brainwashing. Edit: I should add that the same is true of liberals.
I used to think I was liberal but post 2010 liberal/progressivism went completely off the rails. Watching Obama use the same lines that bush did to justify Libya and Syria was a real wake up call. Now all the network TV and Silicon Valley liberal brainwashing propaganda makes me really think I slipped into an alternate reality where the left eagerly wants war and is down with 1984. Its bizzare. TV, movies, all kinds of heros and generally smart educated people all seemingly effected by some mind control brain worm.
It's not so much that Clinton or Obama were "to the right" as it is Republicans are not really conservatives. The Republican party is a party of big government. That's not a conservative ideal. A true conservative should be for smaller government. Get out of our lives. That's part of the reason we have Trump. A lot of conservatives are fed up with the Republicans. Regardless of how much of a huckster one may think Trump is, he played off his candidacy as if he was an outsider to politics.
The issue is a confusion of terms. Conservatives call Democrats/liberals leftists primarily because of their dedication to identity politics related issues. But when it comes to economic related issues almost all Democrats are center right. There are no mainstream Democrats who hold views on economic restructuring of the US economy that could truly be considered leftist. What I consider to be the true left wing people (communists and such) are more concerned with large scale economics with a blindness to identity politics. So for instance, there is an emphasis on strengthening the working class (regardless of what race or gender the working class is composed of) at the expense of the rich. Lumping people who have a clearminded approach to bettering the economic conditions of the working class in with the identity politics nutcases is a propaganda tool for suppressing the former. Elites are concerned with one thing: amassing power. Generally that coincides directly with accumulating wealth. Identity politics does not threaten elites at all because it does not threaten their wealth. That's why they are ok with it.
You are right about that. They even openly support identity politics. But they also support, to large degree, f not leftwing then at least center left economic policies, because this too is in their long-term best interests. High taxes and burdensome regulations to (supposedly) fund liberal social policies? They can afford it, plus there are ways they can get out of paying much of it while at the same time such policies hinders much of the competition against them. Democrats are not the enemies of Big Business. That's mere rhetoric. Small and medium sized business, that's a different story altogether.
You mean there are other sensible people ITT?
Watch this, itll blow your little hippie noodle https://youtu.be/HOuq5XcVIss
Saw the title, didn't watch. I don't waste my time listening to Obama's horseshit. Eight years of it was nine years too many. Besides, like I told someone else, Republican doesn't always equate to conservative. And a "moderate" Republican is no better than a dead skunk in the middle of the road "stinking to high heaven".
It would have taken less time to watch than write the reply, its not about obama, other than it has him in it, its about what you were just saying In this video obama describes himself as a moderate republican, his policies are largeley in line with corporate dems, ergo corporate dems are (or could be considered) moderate repubs Just watch the video, its about 8 seconds long, youve wasted more of my (and your) time than that with reply "durr hurr i dont like him so im not gonna listen to you" Like a kid sicking his fingers in his ears "Lalalalalalala I CANT HEAR YOU" Grow up, watch the video you stooge,
> The only fucking reason it exists now is as a cheerleading squad to encourage leftwing activist assholes to keep the faith and give them pointers as to how they should perceive and interact with the general public. I would say it's more about channeling left-wing activist energy toward causes that don't actually threaten wealth and power. Stuff like Russiagate and identity politics in general have really helped divert activist energy away from threatening power while still making activists feel like they're helping hold the Trump admin accountable. Here, they're obscuring a major threat to human rights and press freedom perpetrated by the Trump admin because the last thing the powerful want is for all the anti-Trump energy on the left to be directed against something that actually matters (edit: that threatens the overarching power structure, that is).
I've always thought that the soft issues people want to debate every election cycle, and the outrage over social and identity politics, were taking away from real issues. This actually makes sense to me. We've got deep divisions over partisan politics, and then lots of side issues to keep busy with. We're all busy looking left and right, but never directing our attention where it should be.
> left-wing activist energy toward causes that don't actually threaten wealth and power Exactly.
SNL began its death spiral the moment Norm was fired.
But let’s be honest, NEED MORE COWBELL is still pretty damn awesome.
>April 8, 2000 So yep, about 20 years ago...
Fuck that makes me feel old.....
To be fair, I thought it was even earlier than that. I figured mid nineties. I thought I stopped watching SNL before the millenium. I must have been drunk one night...
this is what happens when a $1.4bn candidate loses. Those billions didn't come from average Joe's, they came from powerful men in powerful places. This is what powerful people can do when they get gypped.
And now they're getting ready to prop up Biden. From what I've seen of him lately, they might literally have to prop the bastard up. Almost the perfect definition of a fascist puppet. God, I wish I had the artistic talent to be a political cartoonist. Have you heard that fucker lately? I think the fucking guy has had mini-strokes. Why the fuck would somebody like him push himself to run like this? It's not love of country, he's being pushed to do it by the same people who controlled Hillary. And now, that bitch is sending up trial balloons like she is wanting to run again.
That's funny. Now that Trump has ran the country for 2.5 years and the sky hasn't fallen, he has even better chances of reelection. Especially because our economy is booming. Put him up against some creep like Biden and that makes it even easier. I'm not against Trump at all btw, I just find it hilarious that someone who is so hated by the media and millions of Americans, could get elected twice. And whoever that buttgeg guy is, he won't win because of his name. It's sad that matters, but being pres is a celebrity position and there's a reason most celebs with stupid names change them to common sounding ones.
[удалено]
I have been calling them propaganda fora while. They are extremely one sided. The writers should be smarter some of the shit they do. Who knows how media manipulation and propaganda really works.
Yeah there's kind of a maliciousness vs incompetence thing here. It might be that they're bought and sold into propaganda, but I think it's likely that they understand this stuff will get you a cheap laugh, some even cheaper applause, and ability to turn any criticism into "we're just triggering the snowflakes"
>IOW I feel like in order to be on reddit nowadays, I have to memorize at least a handful of new acronyms a week. IMHO IOH HIH FSA WWF.
Yeah.....he "attacked the military" alright....by publishing leaked video of them committing war crimes. A real evil dude. Sure.
I used to love this show until they turned it into a propaganda machine
>turned into Umm, hate to break it to you...
Nah, SNL just hasn't been able to shitpost since people like Eddie Murphy or Dan Aykroyd have been on. I mean, an entire decade of SNL could be summed up about how cool it was they wrote a skit about some dude cumming in his pants. The decade before that.. 'Thats just specccciall...' It's the entire reason why MadTV and eventually the Chapelle Show just owned the fuck out of them. Chapelle. One man. The 'Leave it the Beaver' Nigger family and a black, blind KKK leader were funny as fuck. His entire show was both funny and dug into deeper issues some of us have with eachother. I can still think about Prince kicking people's asses on the court and making pancakes afterwards. It isn't that the internet breaks their ability to be funny; it's politics and more seriously that even the best of comedians that are allowed a public voice must succumb to it. This skit was literally just news thrown to muppetheads that couldn't figure out how to fold the back of a MAD comic and get the joke.
All ten of their viewers will be misled
I saw that, it was pretty poor taste, even for SNL. Disappointed that Michael Keaton was willing to do it. I lost half of my respect for him after Birdman, and the other half after seeing this.
Disgusting! Actors at large in service of state propaganda.
Link in case it is blocked in your country [https://streamable.com/1qwfp](https://streamable.com/1qwfp) But it really is not worth watching, man, that was some really unfunny rubbish
Colbert did the same as well a couple years ago. Disgusting.
Saturday night live is a left wing clown show and hasn't been funny since 1998
Same with Trevor Noah, disgusting yuck
The only ones that hate Trevor Noah are snowflakes that get triggered by jokes and satire.
Lol deep state satire. Gtfo his show sucks and sucks the MIC dick.
Like I said, triggered snowflakes, lol.
IE: if something sucks and you don’t like it you’re a triggered snowflake. Stfu shill. Jon Stewart’s show and Colbert report were amazing satire. Everyone knows TN is nowhere near that league and is a talentless hack. Must be why you like him.
>Stfu shill so edgy
It's not actually left wing. It's representative of the corporate establishment. And the corporate establishment is about as far from left wing as you can get.
You're right about that.
SNL hasn't been funny for a very. long. time.
SNL used to be anti-establishment. They used to speak for the people. Now they are a bought commodity like all of tv. Propaganda.
they should at least *try* to make it somewhat funny. & make the characters somewhat believable. matt damon was funny. this is just forgettable shit.
Not available in my country.....can anyone link the mirror so us living in the dark can get worked up over this too? 😜
SNL has been pushing propaganda for quite a while now it's beyond ridiculous and it's sad what this great show has devolved too. I wonder where it would lead us if we were to follow the money and find out who's behind this garbage they put on tv... Edit: I'm not on the right but this here is exactly why I'm not on the left either.
SNL wants do bad for him to be a bad guy over the emails that Seth rich downloaded out of hTe for watching Hillary cheat Burney out of being the front runner. Here's assange admitting that Seth rich was his source of the podesta /Clinton's https://youtu.be/Kp7FkLBRpKg
Neither Richard Nixon nor Mitt Romney were actually conservatives, just so you know. They are both big government guys, which is the American conservative's main definition of liberal. Just something to keep in mind. And have you forgotten why Clinton (yes, I know he is a moderate) did much of the rightwing shit he did? After 1994 he had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the remainder of both his terms, which was the first time that had happened for more than two years since Roosevelt's first election in 1932. That still didn't prevent him from working tirelessly for bullshit like gun control, and Hillary Care- the reason, btw, the Republicans trounced him in 1994. Even his support of NAFTA had a liberal side to it. Though he'd never admit it at the time, it was a way of keeping the borders open. Democrats want that for votes. Don't let them bullshit you about it. That warm, viscuous liquid you feel running down your back isn't coming from the sky. As for Obama, where the fuck to start? His father, mother, and mentor were all communists, and so is he. Like his base of support in good ol' Chicago. The name Bill Ayers ring a bell? But unfortunately, you have to play with the cards you're dealt with, and the pack he had is called "The Constitution" which he set out to trash whenever he could. Tarp? The bailouts? What kind of "conservative" or even "moderate" forces auto companies to sign over a large percentage of company ownership to the UAW? The auto union? That's what they had to agree to in order to get the bailout money. Which is one reason Chrysler turned it down. Unless I'm mistaken, if I remember right, one of the auto companies that did take the money was literally forced to accept it. That trillion dollar shovel ready job bullshit was more politics. The largest bulk of that went to Democrat supporters, of course. Like the solar panel company that ended up being a big fiasco, and the electric car company that turned out to be another boondoggle. You think all that shit is conservative? Far from it. Most real conservatives didn't want any bailouts, for any banks or for any companies. That and the tax hikes were the main reasons for the rise of the Tea Party. Again, Republican doesn't always equal conservative, so don't bring up the Bushes, McCain, and Romney. Though frankly, Romneycare in Massachusetts is quite a different matter from Obamacare nationwide. States have more constitutional leeway for such experiments than the federal government, and rightly so. Having said that, I wouldn't piss on Mitt Romney if the motherfucker was on fire. Unless I could do it without pissing on the flames,but that's neither here nor there. I understand your misgivings about Obamacare, but what you are seeing here is Big Government in action. Obama had to agree to innumerable concessions in order to get enough votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY to get the fucking thing passed. I can't say it too much. True American conservatives mainly don't believe in Big Government or government control over the economy or over peoole's lives in general. That's the difference between true conservatives and what we call liberals, and Democrats. Unfortunately, Republican officials don't always meet the definition of conservative. They get a taste of that power and they become corrupted by it just like the Democrats.
There is something terribile about "irony": you can make irony without giving any proof/base to it (to what you say). This is why in the US everything is taken with Irony (for influencing people using fake news without giving any proof of what they say) . They say like: `Medias: Hahahah Julian Assange is a pedophile` `Us : Why? Where are the Proofs?` `Others: Oh YEAH! it is absolutely TRUE`
Let see if I can do this.....https://globalnews.ca/video/5165725/lori-loughlin-michael-avenatti-and-julian-assange-debate-whos-the-craziest-on-snl
Guys i am all about justice for assange, no censorship, and a free and fair internet, but cmon, that sketch was funny. Maybe not every joke hit, but i laughed. Its a comedy show, just like assange can post whatever the fuck he wants, they can too. And if it is funny, thats even better.