US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?

Don't they give that up when they become well known to make non-well known people feel better about themselves by comparison?

**whembly**

Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Spinner wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.

How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?

And he has the same right to call respond in kind, which he did.

Pro-tip when you have ME defending Trump, you've gone over the edge.

To your Spinner response, she didn't call half the population deplorable. Please google the speech if you've had a senior moment and forgotten the text of the comment.

To your response to my comment, he can and obviously does respond, good for him. It's his thin-skinned nature. But my comment was to your derision that a celebrity, because of an apparent "on high" position in society, needs what, some sort of expertise to call out unacceptably crude behavior from our POTUS-elect, or anyone else. Poppycock!

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
Spinner wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.

How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.

I don't remember Meryl Streep doing either of those things.

whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself. She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.

No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

**Frazzled**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Mayhaps they should talk about the actual award and her career in the film industry. She has the right to say what she wants. We have the right to never watch anything she is on and lampoon her hypocritical lifestyle and those of the Hollywood culture.

**whembly**

Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.

She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.

**Ustrello**

Frazzled wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Mayhaps they should talk about the actual award and her career in the film industry. She has the right to say what she wants. We have the right to never watch anything she is on and lampoon her hypocritical lifestyle and those of the Hollywood culture.

Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.

No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.

No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?

Which is ironic coming from you

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.

Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.

No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?

Which is ironic coming from you

Keep it going... it's attutides like this that's the downfall of your team D.

**Spinner**

whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.

She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.

**Frazzled**

Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again

That...sounds like a great idea actually.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).

They're a content provider company. (and yes, they still mail physical discs).

My question was how does Netflix get those contents delivered to their consumers, beyond physical discs (I realized that I should've been more specific)?

The key for Netflix's operations are Content Delivery Networks (CDN)... and there's a butt feth of them out there (as of 2014), that traverses the Netflix streamings.

Generally there's 'peer-to-peer' agreements between CDNs that as long as the in/out data streams between the CDNs are balanced, there's no associated costs.

Since most of Neflix's operations is content delivery, (not taking in data to facilitate data xfer across other CDNs), they incur a costs.

CDNs are a big fething deal with online media... here's a simple pic:

Therefore, Netflix has to purchase 'real estate' at MANY strategically located CDNs to ensure high availability to their customers.

In addition, some of the CDNs are also cable, wireless and telco companies, which CAN provide their own content.

Obviously, Netflix is trying to get into the CDNs business as well, in order to leverage of the cost efficiencies of being in a 'peer-to-peer' arraignment. Meaning, they're ramping up investments to build several datacenter/server farms to host their contents across the globe. That'll take several years, if not decades... but, it's a good strategic goal for the company.

The big KICKER that gets blindly lost in the whole net neutrality debate, is how incestuous the relationship between content providers and cable/wireless/telco companies. First, and foremost, attention need to be addressed here...

Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?

For someone who said "I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works..." ought to know there's a wide disparities between a Content distributors, CDN vendors and of course, the cable/telco companies.

Look... not having a go with you... just that, this subject matter in this industry is much more difficult than people think (it works SO well, that it has to be simple!!!... right?!?! RIGHT?!?!?).

But, hey if you want them to be treated as utilities, that's a whole lotta industry to nationalize.

Perhaps you should be less specific and more general(

), because that's less "how does Netflix work" and more "how does the internet work" which is a different question.

In this case, I'm mostly focusing on ISPs, because they are the "big players" as it were (and more importantly the one's directly involved with customers, which is where I'm coming from, customers first, businesses second), also because they are donkey-caves. One step at a time. (And it should be noted that "looked at it quire extensively" applies to net neutrility, which is what I was talking about. My knowledge on the internet's functions is less so (although still probably better than the proverbial man on the street through osmosis if nothing else), mostly because I haven't really had the inclination to learn more. Which is why I never claimed to be a MASTER OF THE INTERNET

). I'm not trying to out-knowledge you here or something (I mean, don't you do this stuff for a living, I'm just going into software development

).

I do know (a bit) about CDNs. Really only in passing though, because they aren't the ones trying to feth with customers (right now) which is what I care about. More importantly, ISPs ability to feth with both the availability and speed of certain content if net neutrality laws are removed (pseudo-censorship by companies is not something I want to be able to happen).

And I'm not sure what any of it really has to do with net neutrality rules. My end goal isn't even something that I think can really be achieved (because government=bad!), and it would probably be some sort of comprise with all of the companies heavily regulated but with tax-payer support. The plan would also include heavy investment in fiber and cable (as both an equalizer and a general upgrade) which is why I'm only pushing net neutrility now.

**Vaktathi**

The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*. What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

Now, the Democrats have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and absolutely made some errors in their game. But lets be real about the Republicans wins. They did not emerge from the "popular will", they came about from gaming the system better and the D's staying home in critical places and some favorable last minute events, and that success can only last for so long, particularly in the face of shifting demographics that are almost universally moving in a direction that does not favor the GOP over time.

**whembly**

Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.

She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

So... Drumpf's is a big bag of dick? Cool... we agree on that.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.

Yup.

Don't be a nag.

Anyhoo... I guess all this uproar is this:
Politics is downstream to culture/media/entertainment.

Streep has every right to do this... just as we have every right to call her out for being a neggy, nattering-a-boob.

Just like you and I have the right to call out Drumpf's.

**Frazzled**

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.

And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.

**Vaktathi**

Frazzled wrote:

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.

And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.

They probably are, but Obama also didn't nominate pick Clinton, it's not like he anointed her his chosen heir. He had to fight Clinton in the first place to get the job and beat her.

**Rosebuddy**

sebster wrote:
Truth be told, to this day we still don't know exactly why all of a sudden out of nowhere a middle class was created. And now it seems whatever drove the creation of that middle class is fading away.

I think it might be in part due to the massive post-WW2 economic boom. *shrug*

Co'tor Shas wrote:
The "this is why Trump won" meme is really ridiculous. "You dared to call out racism/sexism/homophobia/general assholerey, this is why Trump won!" No it isn't, it's because people ignored his faults and voted for him anyway. Stop trying to deflect blame off of the Republican party, the people who made him their candidate in the first place. Trump won because of two decades of anti-Hillary propaganda. Trump won because Democrats won't vote for their own fething candidate if they are less that perfect. He didn't win because people called out bigotry. He won because people ignored it.

Trump won because Clinton drove away millions of voters.

**Co'tor Shas**

Spinner wrote:
whembly wrote:
Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.

She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.

Yeah, he was no Bill Gates or something. The man has always been a smug donkey-cave, it's just he was a powerless smug donkey-cave who was fun to laugh at (and some people just like smug donkey-caves, I mean that's 90% of reality TV). And the entertainment media only gives a gak about one thing, money (so like all other buisnesses ever). So conflating actors with the businesses they work for is a tad reductive (bringing out my big-boy words today). More than anything, people are just realizing how much of an donkey-cave he is (not because he's doing anything worse than he usually does*, more that he has cameras glued to him 24/7), and that this thin-skinned donkey-cave with a penchant for vengeance for tiny slights is now our president.

*see the Central Park Five case, or his habit of suing everything in sight and defrauding people.

**whembly**

Vaktathi wrote:
The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*.

Which is a meaningless figure.

What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

That's federalism bucko.

Now, the Democrats have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and absolutely made some errors in their game. But lets be real about the Republicans wins. They did not emerge from the "popular will", they came about from gaming the system better and the D's staying home in critical places and some favorable last minute events, and that success can only last for so long, particularly in the face of shifting demographics that are almost universally moving in a direction that does not favor the GOP over time.

True... I can see Democrats get energize and take back some local elections, and make some dents in Congress. Really, it's the same thing for both parties.

**Spinner**

whembly wrote:

Anyhoo... I guess all this uproar is this:
Politics is downstream to culture/media/entertainment.

Streep has every right to do this... just as we have every right to call her out for being a neggy, nattering-a-boob.

Just like you and I have the right to call out Drumpf's.

Well, then I guess the crucial difference is that I don't think she was nagging.

Also, I'm disappointed that the next president can either A) be sent into a multi-tweet frenzy by someone saying something critical about him at an award or B) will take advantage of all the reporting his thin-skinned reaction to someone saying something critical about him at an award generates to go bathe in the swamp some more.

Can you imagine if Obama stopped everything he was doing to tweet angrily every time someone said something about him? He had Luther for that. I'm really going to miss him.

**Co'tor Shas**

God, if Obama did half the things Trump has done or promised without even having any power yet, the republicans would be calling him a dictator and unfit for office (I mean more than they already do).

**kronk**

Frazzled wrote:

Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again

That...sounds like a great idea actually.

I'd rather not listen to any celebrity's BS political thoughts, concerns, or verbal diarrhea. I would rather not listen to Eastwood talk to an empty chair, or Clooney's smug self-righteousness, or Kanye's....anything. Same goes for sports personalities like "bloody sock" Schilling. Talk about your sport, your craft, your whatever, but spare me the eye-rolling political discourse from some out-of-touch celeb whose surrounded himself/herself with echo-chamber yes men and sycophants.

What to make a political statement? Run for office, donate to your party, hold some fund raisers, but keep that gak off my TV, thanks. If I watch an awards ceremony, it's to see some 22 year old squeeze her size 36DD's into a 34C dress with a fething deep V-cut. Basically, give me Mariah Carey 24/7 (I don't give a gak about the lip syncing. I would have had her on mute, anyway...

Spoiler:

Or Robin William's openinf number for the academy awards. Damn that was funny.

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.

And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.
They probably are, but Obama also didn't nominate pick Clinton, it's not like he anointed her his chosen heir. He had to fight Clinton in the first place to get the job and beat her.

Exactly. They are face palming because the DRC picked her.

Incumbent party always is at a disadvantage, but to pick the candidate who had the worst negatives from the start (Trump only caught up and surpassed hers later), who had minimal charisma...wow.

How would she have done against someone who didn't have high negatives? It would have been a blowout.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again

That...sounds like a great idea actually.

I'd rather not listen to any celebrity's BS political thoughts, concerns, or verbal diarrhea. I would rather not listen to Eastwood talk to an empty chair, or Clooney's smug self-righteousness, or Kanye's....anything. Same goes for sports personalities like "bloody sock" Schilling. Talk about your sport, your craft, your whatever, but spare me the eye-rolling political discourse from some out-of-touch celeb whose surrounded himself/herself with echo-chamber yes men and sycophants.

What to make a political statement? Run for office, donate to your party, hold some fund raisers, but keep that gak off my TV, thanks. If I watch an awards ceremony, it's to see some 22 year old squeeze her size 36DD's into a 34C dress with a fething deep V-cut.

Or Robin William's openinf number for the academy awards. Damn that was funny.

But Kronk...

You.Will.Be.MADE.To.Care!

Don't you recognize your betters? Pick up that can citizen!

edit: the dames were eye-catching!

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
God, if Obama did half the things Trump has done or promised without even having any power yet, the republicans would be calling him a dictator and unfit for office (I mean more than they already do).

Unlike Obama, Trump never actually ordered American citizens killed without rights under the Constitution of course...

**Spinner**

I dunno, everyone else gets to air their crazy political opinions to the world. Don't see the problem with letting celebrities do it too.

Thanks, Internet!