U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Week said:

And the crazies are the only potential options? If they are, then maybe it isn't worthy of discourse.

It is worthy of exposure and criticism though. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

As Week said, there's a difference between giving conservative voices a platform and giving the crazy hate-filled speech those three always peddled in a platform (to be fair, Conway actually wasn't nearly as bad as Coulter or Ingraham back then).  Should be noted he's given plenty of male crazy racist fucks a platform too, but those three stand out for obvious reasons.  (As did Christine O'Donnell when she won the Senate nomination in 2010.)

1. That's basically all conservatives these days.

2. When Coulter is on Real Time it always seems like she's letting the audience know it's all schtick. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

One of the only people the President of the United States will talk to is an obviously insane pillow huckster who is pushing martial law. I mean, that’s fucking crazy. 

Couldn't he just be from Wisconsin......

I've never used one, but everyone that I've talked to who has says his pillows suck. 

[Week]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

It is worthy of exposure and criticism though. 

I think we're pretty clearly seeing the value of deplatforming the beyond the pale crazy. Exposure and criticism don't impact those that fall in line despite the crazy. You create a sideshow where the sane say "wow, that really is nuts" and the crazies say "yeah, totally agree and that pussy lib just talks shit*" -- what good comes from it?

Ultimately, the goal is to moderate the crazy for an actual functioning democracy and discourse -- that isn't going to magically happen when you keep engaging with the crazy ones.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

1. That's basically all conservatives these days.

It certainly wasn't back then, which is all the more reason to emphasize Maher bears considerable responsibility for its propagation. 

As for Coulter tacitly admitting it's a schtick, she always has and definitely not just when she goes on Maher.  I don't see how that matters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

I think we're pretty clearly seeing the value of deplatforming the beyond the pale crazy. Exposure and criticism don't impact those that fall in line despite the crazy. You create a sideshow where the sane say "wow, that really is nuts" and the crazies say "yeah, totally agree and that pussy lib just talks shit*" -- what good comes from it?

But what if the beyond the pale faction is the center of the Republican party? Should that just be allowed to fester on the right wing media? I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, and you're ultimately best off inviting them on to mainstream platforms so they can be beaten back. They grow stronger when they can build in the shadows.

Quote

Ultimately, the goal is to moderate the crazy for an actual functioning democracy and discourse -- that isn't going to magically happen when you keep engaging with the crazy ones.

Again, what do you do when "the crazy ones" are the heart of a party in a two party state? You can't just ignore them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It certainly wasn't back then, which is all the more reason to emphasize Maher bears considerable responsibility for its propagation. 

Well I guess this just boils down to if you think he was normalizing or exposing people. He's not perfect, far from it, but I think he generally falls on the latter more so than the former. 

Quote

As for Coulter tacitly admitting it's a schtick, she always has and definitely not just when she goes on Maher.  I don't see how that matters.

I'd say more there then in most places. Before she broke with Trump she was on Fox daily and there she did a good acting job. When she faces actual pushback she cracks pretty easily.

[Zorral]

The penultimate shoggothian federal / potus grift:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons.html

"Prospect of Pardons in Final Days Fuels Market to Buy Access to Trump
The president’s allies have collected tens of thousands of dollars — and potentially much more — from people seeking pardons."

The last grift, of course, is the Shoggoth presidential library (ya, I know, the Daily Mail, but Business Insider and others have also reported on it):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9156939/Donald-Trump-wants-raise-2-BILLION-presidential-library-near-Mar-Lago.html

 

 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Well I guess this just boils down to if you think he was normalizing or exposing people. He's not perfect, far from it, but I think he generally falls on the latter more so than the former. 

No, he was normalizing them.  They weren't even on as one-on-one interviews (which I frankly wouldn't favor either), they were panelists.  (While I was pretty young at the time and didn't watch it every week, pretty sure Politically Incorrect almost always only had panelists.)  That means you are telling the viewer their commentary and perspectives on the news of the day/week is legitimate discourse.  And it is not.  Plain and simple.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd say more there then in most places. Before she broke with Trump she was on Fox daily and there she did a good acting job. When she faces actual pushback she cracks pretty easily.

Again, why does this matter?  Her "cracking" certainly hasn't dissuaded her from peddling increasingly batshit hate-filled content nor her fans from buying into it.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But what if the beyond the pale faction is the center of the Republican party? Should that just be allowed to fester on the right wing media? I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, and you're ultimately best off inviting them on to mainstream platforms so they can be beaten back. They grow stronger when they can build in the shadows.

Again, what do you do when "the crazy ones" are the heart of a party in a two party state? You can't just ignore them.

You can engage their ideas without directly talking with them. Handing a bullhorn to the Alexs Jones, Glenns Beck, Kellyannes Conway, Anns Coulter, etc. allows them to continue to sell themselves and their noxious ideas that they aren't even accountable for.

Look at Qanon -- the widespread normalization and wink/nod to it has lead decent, previously not completely batshit to lose their minds. i.e. Jenna Ryan, the realtor insurrectionist with a private jet, was radicalized, felt justified, and COMFORTABLE doing what she did (I'm sure was not the most well adjusted individual four years ago).

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 I think sunlight is the best disinfectant

If only there was some way to inject that sunshine, in order to disinfect them, maybe the scientists can investigate this?

[KingintheNorth4]

It's funny how all the domestic terrorists that stormed the Capitol are now begging for mercy and help after finding out that there are consequences for their actions. Their patriot power fantasy has been shattered by the cold, hard reality of becoming a felon.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

If only there was some way to inject that sunshine, in order to disinfect them, maybe the scientists can investigate this?

As the great and wise Toby Ziegler responded to the canard that sunshine is the best disinfectant:  "For germs, maybe.  Not the plague."

[Week]

8 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

It's funny how all the domestic terrorists that stormed the Capitol are now begging for mercy and help after finding out that there are consequences for their actions. Their patriot power fantasy has been shattered by the cold, hard reality of becoming a felon.

An example where sunlight is the best disinfectant. It matters what you are exposing and how. Charging documents delineating crimes and criminal activity on the 'orders' of liars and cheats is a much better expose' than whatever it is that Maher did with Ann Coulter as she laughs her way to the bank with multi-million dollar residences across the US, a dozen published books, and dupes that believe she has something of intelligence and value to say.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, he was normalizing them.  They weren't even on as one-on-one interviews (which I frankly wouldn't favor either), they were panelists.  (While I was pretty young at the time and didn't watch it every week, pretty sure Politically Incorrect almost always only had panelists.)  That means you are telling the viewer their commentary and perspectives on the news of the day/week is legitimate discourse.  And it is not.  Plain and simple.

Did you ever watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? They brought people on all the time that they viewed as illegitimate. 

Quote

Again, why does this matter?  Her "cracking" certainly hasn't dissuaded her from peddling increasingly batshit hate-filled content nor her fans from buying into it.

No, but it does further cement that she's a fraud. 

10 minutes ago, Week said:

You can engage their ideas without directly talking with them. Handing a bullhorn to the Alexs Jones, Glenns Beck, Kellyannes Conway, Anns Coulter, etc. allows them to continue to sell themselves and their noxious ideas that they aren't even accountable for.

If you're going to misspell all their names, could you have not at least stuck the landing with "Anus Coulter?" 
 

Quote

Look at Qanon -- the widespread normalization and wink/nod to it has lead decent, previously not completely batshit to lose their minds. i.e. Jenna Ryan, the realtor insurrectionist with a private jet, was radicalized, felt justified, and COMFORTABLE doing what she did (I'm sure was not the most well adjusted individual four years ago).

Normalization? Everyone in the mainstream highlights that they're fruitcakes, and they want to bring supporters on just to demonstrate how batshit they are. 

 

[Mindwalker]

23 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

It's funny how all the domestic terrorists that stormed the Capitol are now begging for mercy and help after finding out that there are consequences for their actions. Their patriot power fantasy has been shattered by the cold, hard reality of becoming a felon.

It is, but I'll save my laughs for when and if every one of them gets their fair consequences...

 

PS: Around the time of last year's DNC and RNC, I discovered the current late night dudes, inlcuding Maher. (Although, is he even late night? I watch on YT. Anyway, those kind of entertainers.) Seems to  be the last bastion of patriarchy, coming to think of it. Anyway, I watched a lot of their old shows., too One of my favorites is Colbert. I like the Colbert Report even more than te current show. And I think it is different to what Maher does. (Titles like "Politically Incorrect" are a clue, too. Maher means this seriously, while the old Colbert persona was clearly NOT what the real Colbert believed, but rather the contrary. )

 

Oh, and please show me one Daily show clip where Trevor does the same thing as Maher does. Has he ever even had one of the most deplorables on? No, just no.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did you ever watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? They brought people on all the time that they viewed as illegitimate.

This is a ludicrous comparison.  Maher's format has always been to have a legitimate discussion on the current events/political topics of the day.  Stewart and Colbert would "bring" illegitimate people on precisely to demonstrate how illegitimate their views are.  Often by selectively editing their interviews.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, but it does further cement that she's a fraud. 

No it doesn't.  All it does is confirm she's a fraud to people that already thought she was a fraud.  It's done nothing to shrink her fanbase and really the only argument is it's increased it.

[Mindwalker]

DNC said it much better than I.

As for those private planes, cheap as a used Porsche: ah, they're practically the lumpenproletariat of modern America!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a ludicrous comparison.  Maher's format has always been to have a legitimate discussion on the current events/political topics of the day.  Stewart and Colbert would "bring" illegitimate people on precisely to demonstrate how illegitimate their views are.  Often by selectively editing their interviews.

Far from it outside of the format. All three would try to have legitimate conversations with people who represented views they found odious. 

Quote

No it doesn't.  All it does is confirm she's a fraud to people that already thought she was a fraud.  It's done nothing to shrink her fanbase and really the only argument is it's increased it.

Doubtful. If you came across Coulter on Real Time, or say Meet The Press, you were probably already not going to like her and then you knew who she was if you didn't already. 

[Week]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did you ever watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? They brought people on all the time that they viewed as illegitimate. 

No, but it does further cement that she's a fraud. 

If you're going to misspell all their names, could you have not at least stuck the landing with "Anus Coulter?" 
 

Normalization? Everyone in the mainstream highlights that they're fruitcakes, and they want to bring supporters on just to demonstrate how batshit they are. 

They are fruitcakes that make millions disseminating their lies because clearly they are taken seriously by some people. Still. You're stance here has already completely and utterly failed. Your arguments are more tortured as you further dig in.

9 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

The media has said “private plane” not “private jet”. There’s a big difference.

For example, you can get a private plane fairly cheaply, for the cost of a used Porsche. A really nice, brand-new private plane might set you back $800k - $1.2 million. 

A decent private jet is in the tens of millions.

I could not care less about the difference -- it is completely and utterly pointless to the argument. Sorry to be harsh, but seriously this is an important nit to pick? This reminds me of when gun nuts tell libruls they have no right to talk about gun control because they incorrectly described the difference between a bump stock and a high capacity mag while incorrectly stating what "AR" stands for. Like really?