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.

[/spoiler]
Kronk has reminded us of the true reason to watch these things...

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Only in regards to the mechanics of a specific election, which can subject to political gerrymandering. That has a very real meaning to many with respect to the fundamentals of democracy and how future elections will turn out.

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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Only in regards to the mechanics of a specific election, which can subject to political gerrymandering. That has a very real meaning to many with respect to the fundamentals of democracy and how future elections will turn out.

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.

Yes, but that doesn't mean its reflective of the will of the people nor a permanent thing. Districts change, allocations are shifted, policies are adjusted, etc. The point was that the R's won on the artificialities of the game, not on actually turning out voters and enacting popular policies. They won because they were best able to take advantage of a jilted system.

Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?

 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.

In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.

Sure, not saying any of this applies exclusively to one party or the other, only how they take advantage of it and what the future prospects likely are at this current time.

In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.

Hrm, I think it's a call to not push candidates that people just don't like on the whole. Hillary Clinton's "likability" was always very low, even with many democrats she didn't inspire anything near the excitement or "get out the vote" feel as with say, Obama or her husband in the 90's and it's what lost her the 2008 nomination as well. She was popular primarily only with the parts of the base and with her establishment, neither candidate was particularly attractive to the electorate as a whole and both had record low approvals from the public as a whole. In terms of "moderating" anything, I have a feeling that's going to be more on the Republican side of things as unpopular policies and crazy statements have come much more from their side of things of late. Hillary's policies were, by and large, considered much less "radical" than say, Sanders', and it's looking a lot more like Sanders would have pulled through over Hillary in a general as things emerge. What we got was an anti-establishment vote, and that showed. The establishment candidate lost.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected.

Sure, but it doesn't the electoral college system is a particularly great system that works terribly well or even functions in anything resembling the way it was originally intended

If the Electoral college worked the way it was orginialy intended Donald Trump would not be president, it would be someone like Paul Ryan.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If the Electoral college worked the way it was orginialy intended Donald Trump would not be president, it would be someone like Paul Ryan.

That's a distinct possibility.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?

Taking a political stance is anyone's right, but you should be careful on how it affects your fans, your box office returns, etc.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly AND The Unforgiven were my all time favorite westerns. If they were on TV, I'd watch them no matter how far along the movie was. I liked Clint Eastwood right up until the "Obama's Empty Chair" crazy talk where he went full-on Old Man Crazy. Never go full-on Old Man Crazy. If I catch either on TV now? No thanks. I'll see what the ComCast Adult Alternative music channel is playing.

Same for Green Day, the Dixie Chicks, Clooney (I liked him on ER, hated him as Batman), Tom Cruze, and any other celebrity on a holier-than-thou kick, regardless of them being Lefty, Righty, or Pants-on-Heady (Cruze).

I haven't seen Mrs. Streep's speech. I can't comment on it. Perhaps it was nothing, perhaps it was subtle, perhaps it was "feth Trump with a two-sided, Concrete BLANK". Or something in between. Perhaps I'll avoid it altogether as I rather like her acting and would hate to have another artist I need to avoid watching.

Just my opinion. You can support whomever you want.

I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.

Of course, that's just my view!

 kronk wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?

Taking a political stance is anyone's right

Going by how people react and what is being said it sure doesn't seem that way.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.

In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

Again... this sounds a bit like sour grapes. The system today isn't designed to maximize national popular vote, so whatever that tally ends up is literally meaningless.

I'd argue that it doesn't suggest that there's a problem. It's working as intended.

it's the system that our previous modern president were elected.

The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.

Sure, not saying any of this applies exclusively to one party or the other, only how they take advantage of it and what the future prospects likely are at this current time.

In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.

Hrm, I think it's a call to not push candidates that people just don't like on the whole. Hillary Clinton's "likability" was always very low, even with many democrats she didn't inspire anything near the excitement or "get out the vote" feel as with say, Obama or her husband in the 90's and it's what lost her the 2008 nomination as well. She was popular primarily only with the parts of the base and with her establishment, neither candidate was particularly attractive to the electorate as a whole and both had record low approvals from the public as a whole. In terms of "moderating" anything, I have a feeling that's going to be more on the Republican side of things as unpopular policies and crazy statements have come much more from their side of things of late. Hillary's policies were, by and large, considered much less "radical" than say, Sanders', and it's looking a lot more like Sanders would have pulled through over Hillary in a general as things emerge. What we got was an anti-establishment vote, and that showed. The establishment candidate lost.

In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand.

But, in local/state elections... 'team D' is in a world of hurt.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected.

Sure, but it doesn't the electoral college system is a particularly great system that works terribly well or even functions in anything resembling the way it was originally intended

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?

Eastwood is a strange one. If you look at his art, he seems to promote a pretty progressive viewpoint (rigid masculinity is a fascade that can't work in a functional society, violence to others is destructive to self, multiethnic/cultural acceptance and embracement are good for society, assisted suicide is sometimes the best negative solution, jazz piano isn't horrible) but his political beliefs seem discordant with that. He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.

Whembly said: "In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand." Why pick on the sailors? It's the chess players you should be wary of. I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine.

 whembly wrote:

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?

People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.

That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?

People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.

That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.

So... therein lies the fault.

Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.

In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

Again... this sounds a bit like sour grapes.

Hrm, I wouldn't call it that, I'm not unhappy Hillary lost, though one could say I'm unhappy that Trump won. I'd have preferred neither won really

The system today isn't designed to maximize national popular vote, so whatever that tally ends up is literally meaningless.

I'd argue that it doesn't suggest that there's a problem. It's working as intended.

Fair enough, though I'd say if the system is devised in such a manner that it can be won with a quarter of the actual vote (and thus, represent only a minority of the will of the people, undermining the whole concept of democratic elections) and that it no longer adheres to the purpose it was originally intended for (that is, educated and wise electors kicking out unsuitable populist candidates) that it's a bad system.

In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand.

Almost certainly

But, in local/state elections... 'team D' is in a world of hurt.

I'm not as familiar with the various idiosyncracies of all the states, though I will say there appears to be an increasingly high level of polarization amongst them that swings towards the crazy ends of both wings rather than the middle.

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?

The flaws presented themselves in this election and the way in which electors are chosen is done in such a way that fulfilling their original role of preventing unsuitable populist candidates from assuming office is never going to happen. A broken system can still work some or even most of the time. If your car works 4 days out of 5, it's working most of the time, but that's broken enough that it's going to cause you severe problems.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.

Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.

Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.

Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935

Um...Its not amazing art. Its amazing propaganda. Having watched it, there's nothing about it thats not just propaganda.

I'm fortunate in that - with many of these artists - its not a hard thing for me to avoid their stuff.

 kronk wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.

Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.

Oh, I agree it is difficult. It's the reason I have a hard time watching a Tom Cruze character and not seeing Tom Cruz playing a character. Maybe that explains the turn to heavy prosthetics and CGI characters. Ever see Vanilla Sky? He was amazing in it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.

Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.

Oh, I agree it is difficult. It's the reason I have a hard time watching a Tom Cruze character and not seeing Tom Cruz playing a character. Maybe that explains the turn to heavy prosthetics and CGI characters. Ever see Vanilla Sky? He was amazing in it.

His Less Grossman will forever earn a 'let's give it a shot' card from me....

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.

Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935

Um...Its not amazing art. Its amazing propaganda. Having watched it, there's nothing about it thats not just propaganda.

Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.

Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.

And you have the temerity to sit there and judge another artist (like tv show Mr. Trump) who is attempting to persuade people to appeal to her views. Again, I say, look at the actual art. What was Streep saying that was not to your liking? What was Trump's? Which one would be a better representative for "American values"? Seems pretty simple.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.

We're going to agree to disagree as discussing whether propaganda is art (and if this is groundbreaking art in that context) is probably a better discussion item on another thread.
(also while watching it, my thoughts were, if the Russians were watching this they should have massed up the tanks and immediately invaded with everything they had but thats a side point)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.

We're going to agree to disagree as discussing whether propaganda is art (and if this is groundbreaking art in that context) is probably a better discussion item on another thread.
(also while watching it, my thoughts were, if the Russians were watching this they should have massed up the tanks and immediately invaded with everything they had but thats a side point)

Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.

The Russians didn't because they had a side agreement with Hitler, which he proceeded to break. Huh, breaking treaties doesn't sound like a talking point, now, does it?

I giggled waaaaaay too much at your "... just because the nation farted."

Can this nickname have staying power please?

Mr. President Flatulence.

Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.

1. Er...what?
2. Now we disagree on two things: that its art and also that its appropriate for the thread.
3. This does beg the question-if the entire nation ate redbeans and rice, would the resulting mass green house emission knock the planet off its orbit of the sun?

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?

What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?

What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?

You're right-I assumed he would hand off the operation of his companies. If he doesn't then they don't need Kirchner to pay him off.

Having an advisor who has a direct management interest in his companies at the same time he 1) sets policies including major contracts; 2) has inside information on government policies and negotiations with other countries and major companies would be a screaming conflict of interest anywhere else.

I see on other boards the Trumptskiites are already lapping it up. Dog this is disappointing to see the American people do this (or they're paid Russian posters of course-no not joking).