Colbert on Debate

September 27, 2016

New button: Preparation H.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Colbert on Debate”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    Love the “Preparation H” play. Considering the size and nastiness of the hemorrhoid that Trump represents, no quantity of Preparation H ointment can soothe it. Perhaps it’s time to consider a nuclear weapon suppository? Hillary did manage to deliver more than a few fact-guided bombs, but it’s going to take more than that to finish off The Pig.

  2. andrewfez Says:

    He did get her pretty good on NAFTA though:

    In our particular echo chamber we see the voting decision weighted like:

    y=(0.1)a + (0.1)b + (1)c + (0.1)d + (0.1)e + … + (0.2)j

    where climate = c and jobs = j

    but for a lot of America who’s not focused on climate every day, the weighting is more like

    y=(0.1)a + (0.1)b + (0.1)c + (0.1)d + (0.1)e + … + (1)j

    When Trump hits her on NAFTA and political corruption, where large corporations pay off politicians then get a NAFTA stamp of approval to make car parts using $3/hour labor in Mexico, it resonates with people in WV, or OH, or where ever else they drive down the road of their ghost towns and see abandoned factories daily.

    Is Trump really going to do anything about NAFTA? No. Indeed he’ll lower taxes so hard the US will default on it’s debt and kick off a new great recession where we hemorrhage millions of jobs. But the face value of it is priceless to angry Rust Belt voters that once upon a time had a $20/hr union job that was shipped out of the country.

    This is why the polls are near 50/50.

    • addledlady Says:

      How did he get her “pretty good” on NAFTA?

      The agreement was negotiated by Bush the elder. Hillary was not a senator when congress debated to ratify the agreement. It was Bill Clinton who signed it as president after all the argy-bargy was done with. She had no role in any part of the process.

      • andrewfez Says:

        It’s collateral damage. She naturally praised NAFTA in the 90’s. She pushed for the TPP forty five times before coming out ‘against it’. She supported deregulation of Wall St. One of her first primary speeches focused around giving corporations tax cuts in exchange for not shipping jobs over seas (i.e. waiting a few years after the new tax rate is normalized before shipping out all the jobs). She is a pure distillate of an establishment Democrat willing to do the bidding of their corporate donors, even if such continues the destruction of the middle class.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          So, Andrew? You are not going to vote for her because she is a politician who has in many respects behaved like most politicians have for the past 150+ years?

          I know you won’t vote for Trump, so will you vote for Johnson or Stein? Or stay home?

          • Lionel Smith Says:

            I doubt he can vote for anybody as IIRC he is UK based.

            I tried to look up his English Classical Music recommends but that went off into the weeds.

            However, your general point is taken any vote not for Clinton helps the Donald, the consequences of that latter creature becoming POTUS do not make comfortable thoughts.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Are we talking about the same Andrew Fez? I thought Andrew was WV USA born and raised and now living in CA.

            And I like that “stiff upper lip” and tendency towards understatement of you Brits—-it’s what makes British movies so enjoyable to watch.

            “…..the consequences of that latter creature becoming POTUS do not make comfortable thoughts”. Quite so and most assuredly!

            Over here in the land of the brash and more vulgar, the reaction of intelligent and sane Americans has been “JFC!, WTF!, and Holy S**T!!!! Donald Trump could be elected President of the United States? No way!!!!”

          • andrewfez Says:

            I’m voting Stein, just like I did in 2012. I think Noam Chomsky is right in that there is a cyclical nature to progressive populism that happens on a multidecadal scale: Wealth inequality builds to a point where capital is concentrated at the top triggering the slowing down of the economy and the increased rate of speculation which causes a lot of volatility and that crashes the system; this is followed up by a democratic effort to return the money to the middle class to once again fuel up the American economic machine. We just went through a repeat of the Great Depression (same anomalous level of wealth inequality, same asset bubble style crash) and now it’s our historical duty to repeat the cure for such: New Deal, tax the rich and put that money into middle class pockets, unionization &c. This time it’s going to be harder to do so because we now have global competition, we live in an oligarchy thanks to a few SCOTUS decisions back in the 1970’s that are now catching up to us, and as a result of such the labor party no longer adequately represents the people. {cont…}

          • andrewfez Says:

            {….cont.} So discounting Wolf-pac.com’s effort to reverse the 1970’s SCOTUS decisions and divorce elitist $$ from Washington, our only hope at revision is scaring the Dems away from the corporate donor model. And part of that is consistently grabbing more and more votes each cycle for the Green Party until the corrupt DNC finally gives a Sanders type candidate a fair shake. Something like 1/2 of all millennial Bernie voters are now third party voters. These are economically desperate people voting for relief and their kids will be in the selfsame boat; there is a shift occurring to try to dissolve and re-coagulate a labor party that works for the people and minimizes the democratic deficit; such is reflected not only in this young person’s desire to vote Green but in the escalating numbers of folks that consider themselves as politically independent.

            Jill Stein is the new FDR. She’s pushing the Green New Deal: we do a WWII style effort to transform our energy system to 100% renewables and we rebuild our crumbling, grade-D infrastructure. We use the health and property damage costs, and cost of war associated with fossil fuels and their pollution to pay for it.

          • andrewfez Says:

            @Lionel Smith

            englishclassicalmusic dot com’s data tree was wiped clean secondary to a server error, and I haven’t had time to rebuild it as I’ve been working crazy the last several quarters. When everyone started equating the pro-Iraq War stance with American patriotism in the early 2000’s I stopped writing American influenced music and started instead writing music influenced by early 20th century British classical music:

            I’ll be voting Stein here in California. We already have enough Clinton voters in CA to secure her victory. If I were in OH or FL I might have to vote Clinton, but I’m not…

          • dumboldguy Says:

            In response to Andrew’s several comments:

            I can’t quarrel with much of what you say. I’m reading a great book right now that parallels in many respects what you’re saying and expands upon it.

            Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business, by Rana Foroohar, Crown Books, 2016.

            There is no doubt that our economic system is at the root of our difficulties, and that we are headed for more disasters as we “cycle” along merrily. Foroohar and those she interviews and quotes see us headed for yet another disaster if we don’t soon do what we should have been able to accomplish under Obama—-get the financial sector and the greedy rich under control.

            My quarrel is with the ideas behind “….grabbing more and more votes each cycle for the Green Party until the corrupt DNC finally gives a Sanders type candidate a fair shake”, “there is a shift occurring to try to dissolve and re-coagulate a labor party that works for the people and minimizes the democratic deficit”, and “Jill Stein is the new FDR” (and that last one rates a Lord love a duck!).

            The Green Party typically gets less than 1/2 of 1% of the votes and has made little progress for decades. Those of us who have been around for a long time are quite worried that voting for “The New FDR” (Lord love a duck again) is only a poorly thought out “feel good” and naive dream of the young people. You are in CA and you say it doesn’t matter if you vote for Stein, but all the talk across the nation may encourage some to vote for her in states where it MAY INDEED make a difference—–remember FL in 2000.

            I too see the need for massive change, but THIS IS NOT THE ELECTION THAT WILL BRING IT ABOUT. Progress is incremental unless it’s guns-and-swords revolutionary, and the millennials are big on talk but not on action. I can remember speaking with a number of World Bank protestors and Occupy types over the years in DC when I rode my bike downtown. Sincere and committed, but about as able to articulate their concerns and solutions as a squirrel. I have seen many interviews on TV with college kids and millennials, and have been appalled at how ignorant they are—-many are no better than Trump supporters in articulating anything that makes sense. Sanders recognizes that our best hope for now is to elect Clinton—-his candidacy has brought about some change and he recognizes that letting Trump win is the bigger danger. All you young folks would do well to follow his lead.

            (And I wish someone would explain to my how an even larger number of millennials seem to be planning to vote for Gary Johnson. How do they square what he stands for with what Jill Stein preaches. How can they both be good choices for young people but Hillary is NOT? Like I said, I’ve seen better reasoning by the squirrels who wanted to share my lunch on my bike rides than from some of the “revolutionaries” I encountered)

          • andrewfez Says:

            Hi Old Guy – I started a reply but have to get to work. Reply is below or at this location: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/09/27/colbert-on-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-86705

          • andrewfez Says:

            Welp I never did type out of full response here as I’m always doing 5 things at once, but here’s something that gives some insight into the Stein voters position(see video). Obviously Clinton is miles better than Trump with regard to climate, and is a better springboard to continue to fight for progress, but the thing is 1/2 the country is now poor, the middle class is no longer a majority, and though the majority of Americans want us to fix climate change, when you’re poor you’re more concerned about having a party willing to fight for the working class. I’ll let the video take it from there: https://youtu.be/hFnRy-06X40

  3. andrewfez Says:

    Hi Old Guy,

    I think what’s happening now is new media is becoming popular. TYT has over 3 million subscribers now; the show has one very vocal Stein supporter. Secular Talk is also rising up and these shows regularly beat old media in views per unit time online (sometimes beyond online).

    Unlike the MSM, these news outlets hammer Hillary, not on fake scandals like Benghazi, but on her actual history and view points. Every day it’s ‘Clinton voted for the Iraq War, she voted for the Patriot Act, she pushed fracking overseas on countries in the process of democratically banning it, she authorized arms sales to Saudi Arabia (who then use such arms to kill civilians in Yemen), she pushed for deregulation of Wall St., she took large speaking fees by the banks in exchange for speeches about how the banksters were ‘misunderstood’, she pushed for mass incarceration of blacks (super-predators that must be brought to heal), she was for TPP before changing her stance to garner votes, she was against gay marriage before the political wind shifted, she talks about ambiguous stuff like ‘bringing people together’ instead of policy, her super-pac hired an army of online trolls to counter claims against her, she put out stories accusing people of voting for Bernie as being sexist (this is not in a vacuum either: the latest generation of feminist radicals accuse everybody of being sexist, racist, &c. Online rad-fem activists managed to get a Nobel Prize winning biologist, who did cancer research, fired from his lab because he made some vanilla joke at a dinner party about how women in the lab fall in love with him or vise versa. Lot’s of people are fed up with the rad-fems these days), Clinton wants no fly zones over Syria which could lead to a Russian conflict, she’s a warmonger in general: the Bush neocons are cuddling up with her this cycle, &c.’

    Whoops I have to get to work, I’ll have to finish my point later…

  4. andrewfez Says:

    …and the selfsame social media phenomenon also explains the libertarians:

    The recent rise in libertarian philosophy is a new fad brought on by fake economic experts that work as internet professors, especially on Youtube, which say things economically desperate people (and just people curious about alternative economic ideologies) want to hear – that they have a simple solution to all the economic problems that currently exist. There is some libertarian philosophies that overlap with progress ones: they want to legalize all drugs and they want to stop all military intervention overseas. If those are the issues at the top of some voter’s priority lists, then such leads to Sanders voters going Johnson. Others have just randomly picked Johnson because he does have some government leadership experience and he happens to not be Clinton or Trump.

    And I’m gone again…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: