Chris Wallace is a shitty journalist but not generally a shitty human being. Personally, I blame it on him going to Harvard instead of his dad's alma mater.
(Mine)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Bill's head is so far up his ass that his guts make a mobius strip. It does make me wonder though if he believes that stuff, or that it's possible to say almost anything when you have the big, comfy pile of money to sleep on that he does.
Man yeah, he lets that other Judge Whateverface dude on to spout just atrocious argumentation and acts like it is good back and forth too it is too frustrating to watch.
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
The sad thing is, I think Jon's aware of this. I remember one time he talked about his interview with Donald Rumsfeld and how he felt he had blown it, saying "I lost more sleep over that interview than he probably lost over the entire Iraq War."
While he may not be a *good debater*, he does seem genuine. He says what he thinks / believes, and takes his interlocutor seriously. He doesn't go in with scripted talking points, and ignore the other person.
Given what most interviews are anymore, I prefer Jon. At least he means what he says.
Man yeah, he lets that other Judge Whateverface dude on to spout just atrocious argumentation and acts like it is good back and forth too it is too frustrating to watch.
Debates are hard though. Cutting someone else off because you think their points are atrocious is not debating, and no one will agree to debate with you if that's how you act. Plus, only a complete idiot will admit defeat or completely reverse their position in a public debate because you're arguments were just too good. So at some point you have to accept that you are never going to reach a logical end point and move on past each individual issue even if you think the other person is wrong. Otherwise you just sit there going around in circles on one issue. Which is frustrating as shit to be part of, and completely uninteresting to watch. The best you can hope for is that each side gives their views and then whoever is watching can decide which side made better points.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
While he may not be a *good debater*, he does seem genuine. He says what he thinks / believes, and takes his interlocutor seriously. He doesn't go in with scripted talking points, and ignore the other person.
Given what most interviews are anymore, I prefer Jon. At least he means what he says.
The problem is that he often doesn't challenge bad reasoning or lies or accepts really terrible arguments, thus giving them a veneer of respectability.
While he may not be a *good debater*, he does seem genuine. He says what he thinks / believes, and takes his interlocutor seriously. He doesn't go in with scripted talking points, and ignore the other person.
Given what most interviews are anymore, I prefer Jon. At least he means what he says.
The problem is that he often doesn't challenge bad reasoning or lies or accepts really terrible arguments, thus giving them a veneer of respectability.
See David Barton.
I swore off the daily show for a while after watching that theocrat getting lobbed softballs for 10 minutes.
That might be the hardest swerve from fucking depressing to amazing yet. Y'all have to watch tonight's John Oliver.
The saddest thing was, he was right. Absolutely right.
Listen to the supreme court recordings? Yawn, snooze, zzzzz...
Watch them re-enacted by adorable house pets and people with fuzzy gloves? Let me get my popcorn.
0
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
That might be the hardest swerve from fucking depressing to amazing yet. Y'all have to watch tonight's John Oliver.
The saddest thing was, he was right. Absolutely right.
Listen to the supreme court recordings? Yawn, snooze, zzzzz...
Watch them re-enacted by adorable house pets and people with fuzzy gloves? Let me get my popcorn.
Kinda makes me wonder if John had a hand in the Republican Debate bit on TDS where they had Mitt and Newt represented by Johnny Cage and Reptile.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The best thing about Last Week Tonight is that at some point when creating the show, HBO said to Oliver, "Look, this is a Daily Show style news program that airs once a week instead of 4 times a week. Once we build the set we can shoot this for $10 a week plus pizza and soda in the writer's room. But here's what we're thinking: what if we just gave you a stupidly large pile of money each week for literally no reason?" and Oliver said, "Yes, I could get up to some shit with that. Let's do it."
The best thing about Last Week Tonight is that at some point when creating the show, HBO said to Oliver, "Look, this is a Daily Show style news program that airs once a week instead of 4 times a week. Once we build the set we can shoot this for $10 a week plus pizza and soda in the writer's room. But here's what we're thinking: what if we just gave you a stupidly large pile of money each week for literally no reason?" and Oliver said, "Yes, I could get up to some shit with that. Let's do it."
I'm pretty sure that John Oliver needs to just be mandatory viewing for Congress. I mean, seriously. This last episode, in particular, seems like the kind of thing politicians would normally be rushing to do for easy PR points.
Can we have that? Just have a bill that says everyone starts Monday morning with a mandatory viewing of the week's latest topic of where the government is going horribly fucking wrong?
This american life did a thing on this a few months(years?) ago about an iraqi that was considered a invaluable asset. they were working on bringing him over, and then something came up in a background check, basically a rumor that he had a mean streak with his trainees(like beating them or something) and they completely dropped him despite having documented records of saving lives for the coalition.
If you enjoy john oliver hitting specific issues like this, you guys probably should try this american life. It doesnt have as big of a following I would bet, but it's the same kind of stories without ironicly bad skit/impressions getting in the way. I like JO, but some of his attempts to be 'funny' really pinch my nerve when watching.
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
See, I can't listen to This American Life most of the time. It is too depressing/enraging, because there is no break for humor. The episode of cryo-freezing especially drove me over the edge.
See, I can't listen to This American Life most of the time. It is too depressing/enraging, because there is no break for humor. The episode of cryo-freezing especially drove me over the edge.
I introduced a guy to "This American Life" with that episode. In retrospect, perhaps this was not the wisest decision.
So I know these questions are rhetorical, and that I'm preaching to the choir here;
But what the actual fuck is with American politics?
Whether or not you voted for your own party's presidential candidate is a contentious question?
Like, a) We're going to pretend it isn't a given, and b) It could actually sway people's vote?
Also, while he's had some slipups, I legitimately don't understand why Obama is so unpopular. Like, the right hates him, obviously. But it seems like a pretty widespread thing. I mean, here in Canada, as much as people don't like Stephen Harper, I don't think people rag on him nearly as much as Americans rag on Obama, and Harper's party only got 38% of the vote to begin with.
Also, the whole Scott Brown thing. Just... what the actual fuck?
Like, Toronto's recent mayoral/municipal election actually makes sense in comparison.
So I know these questions are rhetorical, and that I'm preaching to the choir here;
But what the actual fuck is with American politics?
Whether or not you voted for your own party's presidential candidate is a contentious question?
Like, a) We're going to pretend it isn't a given, and b) It could actually sway people's vote?
Also, while he's had some slipups, I legitimately don't understand why Obama is so unpopular. Like, the right hates him, obviously. But it seems like a pretty widespread thing. I mean, here in Canada, as much as people don't like Stephen Harper, I don't think people rag on him nearly as much as Americans rag on Obama, and Harper's party only got 38% of the vote to begin with.
Also, the whole Scott Brown thing. Just... what the actual fuck?
Like, Toronto's recent mayoral/municipal election actually makes sense in comparison.
(Thanks thread for letting me vent)
I'm a little bit ... why is Stewart mad (or whatever) at the Democrats, because Scott Brown might win, instead of being mad (or whatever) at the voters, because Scott Brown might win? Is it just a comedy thing? When I look at it, my response is, "What do you want this poor woman to do?! Become Iron-Woman and go defeat ISIS single-handedly?"
So I know these questions are rhetorical, and that I'm preaching to the choir here;
But what the actual fuck is with American politics?
Whether or not you voted for your own party's presidential candidate is a contentious question?
Like, a) We're going to pretend it isn't a given, and b) It could actually sway people's vote?
Also, while he's had some slipups, I legitimately don't understand why Obama is so unpopular. Like, the right hates him, obviously. But it seems like a pretty widespread thing. I mean, here in Canada, as much as people don't like Stephen Harper, I don't think people rag on him nearly as much as Americans rag on Obama, and Harper's party only got 38% of the vote to begin with.
Also, the whole Scott Brown thing. Just... what the actual fuck?
Like, Toronto's recent mayoral/municipal election actually makes sense in comparison.
(Thanks thread for letting me vent)
I think we should dump all the decorum rules in Congress and just let people fist fight on the floors like they do in some other countries.
But, yes, the entirety of our politics, even down to a local level in most places, are so absurdly polarized that someone will say "Oh, they voted for/with this person that I am told I have to believe is a Bad Person™, so it is completely unimportant that I actually learn their policies and ideas, I will not only not vote for that person, but I will make it my mission to scream about how they're another Bad Person™ forever.
I mean, you know that "Rally to Restore Sanity" Stewart/Colbert hosted some years ago? Well, in the intervening time, the opposite has happened. What seemed like a somewhat surprising wave of extreme politics going around managed to get a foothold and is now the norm.
As far as why Obama is unpopular, it's a combination of the pre-existing mindless hate by the right, and the ever increasing disillusionment of those on the left who really bought the hope and change message and thought he was going to be a wizard who fixed government. When he turned out to just be a 'normal' President who, like any other President isn't a dictator and can't force through every ideological thing they want, people got mad.
Of course it doesn't help that his administration spends an inordinate amount of time trying to appease the unappeasable, making him look weak on issues he should just give them the finger on. Also, you know, failing to live up to promises on things like Guantanamo, authorizing needlessly oppressive amounts of drone strikes with no factual backing, and having no coherent foreign policy...
Which, again, is just how it goes; his image could only really go down from the '08 election (which isn't really his fault IMO), and given the nature of a multi-branch government ruled by two political parties who are both, for very different reasons, painfully incompetent (though one of the two isn't mustache twirling evil...) he was bound to do, say, and decide things that weren't going to be popular with his base.
Despite all of the anticipation, he just turned out to be a middle of the road hum-drum president, who's footnote in the history books will be about his race, not his actions. If the Republicans had a better candidate in '12 he would have lost handily, and his effect on the '16 elections are going to amount to basically nothing given that he can't really hurt Hillary's chances of winning, and the republicans have even fewer potential candidates that have even the slightest appeal to moderate voters than they did in '08 or '12.
Most of that is not accurate though. Obama is still extremely popular with Democrats (and extremely unpopular with Republicans, hence the polling numbers) and he'll be known for a hell of alot more then just his colour. Like, you know, massive healthcare reform.
The problem is the Dems are fucking stupid and like many politicians live inside the beltway media bubble where the narrative is that Obama is unpopular and a loser and centrism (read: conservatism) is the American Way as always so they are running from him and from their own party's stances and from everything the Democratic party has achieved.
Most of that is not accurate though. Obama is still extremely popular with Democrats (and extremely unpopular with Republicans, hence the polling numbers) and he'll be known for a hell of alot more then just his colour. Like, you know, massive healthcare reform.
The problem is the Dems are fucking stupid and like many politicians live inside the beltway media bubble where the narrative is that Obama is unpopular and a loser and centrism (read: conservatism) is the American Way as always so they are running from him and from their own party's stances and from everything the Democratic party has achieved.
Looks like he's somewhat below average, but not significantly:
Though really, 25% of Americans identify as Republican right now, so his approval's less 42% of Americans so much as 56% of Americans who would ever consider approving of Obama. (Hyperbole, apparently 6% of Republicans approve.)
Posts
Chris Wallace is a shitty journalist but not generally a shitty human being. Personally, I blame it on him going to Harvard instead of his dad's alma mater.
Bill O'Reilly is excellent at his job.
Jon, imo, is really great on one subject and that's the media itself.
Given what most interviews are anymore, I prefer Jon. At least he means what he says.
Debates are hard though. Cutting someone else off because you think their points are atrocious is not debating, and no one will agree to debate with you if that's how you act. Plus, only a complete idiot will admit defeat or completely reverse their position in a public debate because you're arguments were just too good. So at some point you have to accept that you are never going to reach a logical end point and move on past each individual issue even if you think the other person is wrong. Otherwise you just sit there going around in circles on one issue. Which is frustrating as shit to be part of, and completely uninteresting to watch. The best you can hope for is that each side gives their views and then whoever is watching can decide which side made better points.
The problem is that he often doesn't challenge bad reasoning or lies or accepts really terrible arguments, thus giving them a veneer of respectability.
I swore off the daily show for a while after watching that theocrat getting lobbed softballs for 10 minutes.
Watch them re-enacted by adorable house pets and people with fuzzy gloves? Let me get my popcorn.
Kinda makes me wonder if John had a hand in the Republican Debate bit on TDS where they had Mitt and Newt represented by Johnny Cage and Reptile.
I imagine it going more like the first quote:
The President of HBO gets drunk, watches an Oliver rerun of the Daily Show, and thinks, "...I want to see more of this."
I hope The Daily Show starts using it.
Can we have that? Just have a bill that says everyone starts Monday morning with a mandatory viewing of the week's latest topic of where the government is going horribly fucking wrong?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
This whole bit was amazing
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If you enjoy john oliver hitting specific issues like this, you guys probably should try this american life. It doesnt have as big of a following I would bet, but it's the same kind of stories without ironicly bad skit/impressions getting in the way. I like JO, but some of his attempts to be 'funny' really pinch my nerve when watching.
I introduced a guy to "This American Life" with that episode. In retrospect, perhaps this was not the wisest decision.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
But what the actual fuck is with American politics?
Whether or not you voted for your own party's presidential candidate is a contentious question?
Like, a) We're going to pretend it isn't a given, and b) It could actually sway people's vote?
Also, while he's had some slipups, I legitimately don't understand why Obama is so unpopular. Like, the right hates him, obviously. But it seems like a pretty widespread thing. I mean, here in Canada, as much as people don't like Stephen Harper, I don't think people rag on him nearly as much as Americans rag on Obama, and Harper's party only got 38% of the vote to begin with.
Also, the whole Scott Brown thing. Just... what the actual fuck?
Like, Toronto's recent mayoral/municipal election actually makes sense in comparison.
(Thanks thread for letting me vent)
I'm a little bit ... why is Stewart mad (or whatever) at the Democrats, because Scott Brown might win, instead of being mad (or whatever) at the voters, because Scott Brown might win? Is it just a comedy thing? When I look at it, my response is, "What do you want this poor woman to do?! Become Iron-Woman and go defeat ISIS single-handedly?"
I think we should dump all the decorum rules in Congress and just let people fist fight on the floors like they do in some other countries.
But, yes, the entirety of our politics, even down to a local level in most places, are so absurdly polarized that someone will say "Oh, they voted for/with this person that I am told I have to believe is a Bad Person™, so it is completely unimportant that I actually learn their policies and ideas, I will not only not vote for that person, but I will make it my mission to scream about how they're another Bad Person™ forever.
I mean, you know that "Rally to Restore Sanity" Stewart/Colbert hosted some years ago? Well, in the intervening time, the opposite has happened. What seemed like a somewhat surprising wave of extreme politics going around managed to get a foothold and is now the norm.
As far as why Obama is unpopular, it's a combination of the pre-existing mindless hate by the right, and the ever increasing disillusionment of those on the left who really bought the hope and change message and thought he was going to be a wizard who fixed government. When he turned out to just be a 'normal' President who, like any other President isn't a dictator and can't force through every ideological thing they want, people got mad.
Of course it doesn't help that his administration spends an inordinate amount of time trying to appease the unappeasable, making him look weak on issues he should just give them the finger on. Also, you know, failing to live up to promises on things like Guantanamo, authorizing needlessly oppressive amounts of drone strikes with no factual backing, and having no coherent foreign policy...
Which, again, is just how it goes; his image could only really go down from the '08 election (which isn't really his fault IMO), and given the nature of a multi-branch government ruled by two political parties who are both, for very different reasons, painfully incompetent (though one of the two isn't mustache twirling evil...) he was bound to do, say, and decide things that weren't going to be popular with his base.
Despite all of the anticipation, he just turned out to be a middle of the road hum-drum president, who's footnote in the history books will be about his race, not his actions. If the Republicans had a better candidate in '12 he would have lost handily, and his effect on the '16 elections are going to amount to basically nothing given that he can't really hurt Hillary's chances of winning, and the republicans have even fewer potential candidates that have even the slightest appeal to moderate voters than they did in '08 or '12.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The problem is the Dems are fucking stupid and like many politicians live inside the beltway media bubble where the narrative is that Obama is unpopular and a loser and centrism (read: conservatism) is the American Way as always so they are running from him and from their own party's stances and from everything the Democratic party has achieved.
I knew Louis Gomert was dumb, but holy shit. I'd never heard him speak live before and it's just ... wow.
Looks like he's somewhat below average, but not significantly:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Though really, 25% of Americans identify as Republican right now, so his approval's less 42% of Americans so much as 56% of Americans who would ever consider approving of Obama. (Hyperbole, apparently 6% of Republicans approve.)
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
i burst out laughed when he asked if Neil Gaiman would be next. dude really has not been paying attention has he. :biggrin: