Anyone? pic.twitter.com/xqhq5qFYVk— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 20, 2020
... but absolutely every response to it that I'm seeing on Twitter is attacking him for editing video to change the sequence — like it's dishonest, showing a real event in a way that it did not happen.
This is exactly like the montage Trump tweeted after the State of the Union, with Nancy Pelosi ripping up his speech at multiple points during the speech (and not after it was over, as happened in real life).
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 6, 2020
You can make people look awfully bad with this technique, but it's a standard comic method, and it would be terrible to lose it. But this is the Era of That's Not Funny and people have shown themselves to be woefully lacking in the ability to detect fake news.
Bloomberg's montage shows him
पोस्ट्स
१२९ टिप्पण्या:
No way Mini Mike came up with it, but that's funny.
Executive experience means nothing. After all, the executive position of president does not come with any room to exercise any discretion or judgment, according to one Constitutional scholar who frequently comments here.
Seems like a pretty devastating question. Bunch of professional politicians.
I admit, I laughed...a lot.
funny how
Was a funny video. Editing out of sequence is SOP in reality TV world. So much so that the technique is referred to as "Frankenbiting."
"this is the Era of That's Not Funny"
. . . when something reflects badly on progs.
"Bloomberg's montage shows him asking whether he is the only one on the stage with executive experience"
No. It doesn't show that.
"some of the other candidates do have executive experience. Buttigieg was a mayor, Biden was vice president, and Klobuchar was a county attorney for Hennepin County."
OMG. By the way, what did Biden execute to accumulate his "executive experience" as VP, besides protecting his son's sweetheart deal in Ukraine?
"But Bloomberg is technically right, because the question he asks is "I think I'm the only one here, I think, that's ever started a business — is that fair?""
Well, yeah, "technically" he was right, in fact he was just right.
That was funny as crap. Good job, shorty!!
Warren raising her hand....LOL
Funny, but dishonest.
Comedic editing was the bread and butter of the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart became the Walter Cronkite of the millennial generation.
Yes, the same people that now cry foul.
Bloomberg's montage shows him asking whether he is the only one on the stage with executive experience and portrays all of the others incapable of answering. I think the biggest problem there is that some of the other candidates do have executive experience.
Actually it shows him asking if anyone else has ever started (and ran) a business. That is NOT the same thing as executive experience in government jobs. Or even being an executive in someone else's business.
NOT the same thing at all. Not even remotely equivilant.
Starting a business requires a completely different and much more challenging skill set than stepping into an executive position that already exists.
Starting a business is like deciding to jump off of a cliff without any safety net. Being the Mayor of a town, or even VP of the US is stepping into a ready made situation with no real personal risk of failure or bankruptcy.
Browndog said...
Comedic editing was the bread and butter of the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart became the Walter Cronkite of the millennial generation.
Yes, the same people that now cry foul.
2/20/20, 3:25 PM
----------
Yes. Thank you.
more 'caca-phony' from "Get Shorty"
Dem Caca-phony
In the Trump/Pelosi example, its important to remember that Pelosi publicly stated that she tore up the speech because "every thing in it was a lie".
Every single thing.
No exceptions.
So it's perfectly fair and honest to juxtapose specific items from the speech with Nancy's specific response action.
It's perfectly fair and Trump ought to keep on running the ad whenever it makes political sense to do so.
That was funny.
That was also true.
Bloom seems to [at times] forget that he is a business man and not everyone's mom, who's job it is is to tell all the toddlers what to do.
He suffers from "knows best" and wants the power (POWER!) to tell EVERYONE what to do, just like all the rest of those clowns on that stage.
The lefties have spent 20 years laughing and laughing at the Daily Show and shows like it....which were explicitly built on deceptive editing of interview responses.
The most nuanced thinkers of our time have no ability to detect nuance in any medium.
"Actually it shows him asking if anyone else has ever started (and ran) a business. That is NOT the same thing as executive experience in government jobs."
Right. I don't get the Althouse take on this.
"I'm the only one here who's ever asked female employees to
sign NDA's. Is that fair?"
...when's that one coming out?
"Well, yeah, "technically" he was right, in fact he was just right."
Thanks. I agree and tweaked the writing (showing my work).
The reason my last paragraph came out like that was that I was writing from memory, and talked about the question as i remembered it. Then I watched it again and got the exact quote.
When you see the actual quote, the lack of experience in question doesn't seem that important, but as I remembered it, from watching it once, it felt much more important. To me, that's the greater trick.
I remember when George W. Bush was referred to as the "MBA president." Very few US presidents have come from the business world. And I think there's a clear reason for that. Business and politics are very different endeavors, and success in one does not necessarily mean success in the other. If you ignore Truman's haberdashery, the last businessman to hold the office before Bush was his father and then Herbert Hoover.
"Well, yeah, "technically" he was right, in fact he was just right."
Thanks. I agree and tweaked the writing (showing my work).
The reason my last paragraph came out like that was that I was writing from memory, and talked about the question as i remembered it. Then I watched it again and got the exact quote.
When you see the actual quote, the lack of experience in question doesn't seem that important, but as I remembered it, from watching it once, it felt much more important. To me, that's the greater trick.
Weird. The main Bloomberg Ad that keeps chasing me around the web says that he isn't going to waste my time with Tweets.
Does that win the record for quickest broken campaign promise? Or was that Obama's switcheroo on taking public financing?
When he asked that question, did any of them take a page out of Obama's playbook and say their campaigns counted as a business?
>>Funny, but dishonest.
By "dishonest", you mean "literally true".
He is thinking like Trump. Now people are complaining about his video and not his actual debate performance. By Friday, no one will remember the debate other than this particular question.
"...(P)eople have shown themselves to be woefully lacking in the ability to detect fake news."
(P)eople have shown themselves to be intentionally lacking in the ability to detect fake news.
"Thanks. I agree and tweaked the writing (showing my work)."
An amazing day on the Althouse blog: first Farmer agrees with me (on another thread), now Althouse. :)
Bernie was mayor of Burlington in the 80s.
So we got three mayors
"Leland said...
He is thinking like Trump. Now people are complaining about his video and not his actual debate performance. By Friday, no one will remember the debate other than this particular question."
I agree, but the "he" needs to be changed to "they." No way Mini Mike came up with this by himself. Trumps tweets are his own.
Bloomberg paid Trump $10 million for that montage
Only Saturday Night Live should be allowed to engage in humor with distorted facts.
Drago makes a good point. Pelosi intended her action as a comment on the speech, all of it, everything in it, and said so explicitly. There is nothing remotely deceptive then in his montage. She *wanted* her disdain known — until she saw what it looked like.
@Sebastian:
An amazing day on the Althouse blog: first Farmer agrees with me (on another thread), now Althouse. :)
Ha. My dirty little secret is that I am eminently reasonable ;)
Oh, so now we're supposed to ignore Bloomberg's crappy performance and inability to answer basic questions and just focus in on EXECUTIVE ABILITY.
Except, Bloomberg's experience as MAYOR has almost no bearing in his being a good President. The NYC council was pretty much of a rubber stamp for him, they even let him serve 3 terms. And NYC doesn't have nuclear weapons or a foreign policy (insert joke here).
His business experience is even more useless. He's the sole owner of a billion dollar news business. That has ZERO to do with being President. In fact, I think Trump has proven that being the CEO/President of big Corporation is actually a draw back, because the management style that works in business may not work in the Presidency. Corporate employees can be motivated solely by $$$ - and the fact that the CEO and themselves differ on politics is irrelevant. In the Government, $$$ is almost NEVER the main motivating force. Employees are motivated by loyalty to the President and/or what he's doing.
Completely different situations.
People complain about the editing because they have nothing better. As with Trump’s bit, it was an obvious mashup that effectively made a true point.
Editing is everything. I guess these complainers think that the Democrat voters are too stupid to realize when they are presented with a sales pitch.
They should really investigate about how much editing goes on in the debate itself by the press who asked the questions and the participants who carefully cherry-pick and frame their answers.
People that make "nothing better to do" arguments have nothing better to do.
Hey wait a second... is nothing better to do a high standard?
It seemed like that was a fair representation of the actual response.
“Business and politics are very different endeavors, and success in one does not necessarily mean success in the other.”
Success in one political position doesn’t guarantee success in another either. Especially going from Senator (what does success even mean, other than getting elected?) to President. And career pols like Biden are the worst, totally insulated from reality outside the Beltway.
That was pretty damned funny - especially the clips of Biden. (Which are arguably cruel. But still really funny).
Who out there seriously thinks these are real-time responses?
"Ha. My dirty little secret is that I am eminently reasonable ;)"
Yes, and you've kept that secret pretty well. But no more.
Oh, I think Biden had a business - not just a legal one.
Yes, and you've kept that secret pretty well. But no more.
Only from people who confuse reasonableness with agreement.
Business and politics are very different endeavors, and success in one does not necessarily mean success in the other.”
Success in one political position doesn’t guarantee success in another either. Especially going from Senator (what does success even mean, other than getting elected?) to President. And career pols like Biden are the worst, totally insulated from the reality outside the Beltway.
“Funny, but dishonest.”
Like Chuck. Except “laughable”, not funny.
Variation on an NYT and so many more style guideline.
Now do one where you ask who's helped destroy businesses.
It's pretty obvious Trump has cracked open the universe on the paths to political dominance. He panders to his audience, but remains authentic to himself. Same with Col. Bernie Sanders.
Funny indeed. Funniest is all the whining about it. These super serious people would do themselves a huge favor, and attract support, if they just friggin' laughed once in awhile.
And not being a debate watcher I have to ask: whats up with the hand raising thing? Talk about funny, that sure is.
Howard at 4:24 makes an excellent comment.
Does Bloomberg's phenomenal success mean he doesn't know what it's like to "start" a business in today's environment?
Sen. George McGovern didn't "start" a business, but he knew the struggle to keep one on the edge alive:
I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels — e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales — takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.
George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtm
"By Friday, no one will remember the debate other than this particular question."
"Fat broads and horse-faced lesbians" seems like it might have a little staying power.
The hardest thing about that editing job must have been finding any quiet moments at all in last night's debate to string together.
The hardest thing about that editing job must have been finding any quiet moments at all in last night's debate to string together.
You don't need any quiet moments. You just drop the soundtrack and replace it with the sounds of crickets chirping.
so, now selective editing, is BAD; do i have that right?
How does this compare to Maureen Dowd, and her Dowdifying people's quotes?
That's still okay, Right? I mean; she only does it on republicans
I love the picture of Biden. It looks like he's glad to be wearing dark pants.
Bloomberg has 40,000 employees. It is Bernie's opinion that Bloomberg's wealth derives from his ruthless exploitation of those poor workers. Bernie didn't explicitly state that the children of Bloomberg's employees died for lack of adequate medical care, but those who know how capitalism works understand how that works... Warren thinks many of the female employees were subjected to who knows what kinds of filthy jokes or other behavior that left them traumatized. The NDA settlements probably barely covered the cost of their therapy.....I've got a pretty good hunch that a lot of Bloomberg's employees got rich working for him. He probably has more millionaires than sex abuse survivors or impoverished sick people in his immediate circle and the two or three rings outside that circle. I know many in the Biden and Sanders family circle have become wealthy because of their closeness to the patriarch, but I'm sure that number is dwarfed by the numbers of millionaires that Bloomberg has created. Capitalism works, although, of course, it works better for some people other than others. Socialism works only if you're the close relative of an important socialist.
I don't think it is funny.
I also think it is a pathetic straw man form of argument.
If I was Klobuchar or Warren I would have a video of Bloomberg looking like an ass after women asked him about NDA's and how much of a jerk he was.
Maybe someone reading Bloomberg's famous quotes with Bloomberg wide eyed or with his mouth freeze framed open.
This is moron level humor.
And career pols like Biden are the worst, totally insulated from the reality outside the Beltway.
Absolutely. Signing the front of a paycheck is an important reason why Trump has been a good president. Bloomberg is more like Trump than he wants to admit. I wonder why he hates him so much? I suspect it is personal.
Bloomberg is far from libertarian, which Trump is. He is also a lousy public speaker.
I remember reading about the siege of Leningrad. The Communists were relatively tolerant of the practice of cannibalism. People do what they have to do in order to survive. However, they brought the hammer down hard on those who criticized the administrators of the schools and orphanages. These people in charge of distributing rations to the orphans and children did not lose weight during the siege, but they were, nonetheless, good Communists and thus above reproach.....I invite those who say that socialism does not work to study their example. Socialism certainly worked for them.
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...
"I'm the only one here who's ever asked female employees to
sign NDA's. Is that fair?"
...when's that one coming out?
I bet Biden has some congressional staffers that were paid off by congress.
But that is exactly what needs to happen.
If Warren and Klobuchar or even Pete are too stupid to make that happen they just need to quite now.
Michael K said...
Bloomberg is more like Trump than he wants to admit. I wonder why he hates him so much? I suspect it is personal.
These people, billionaires and entrepreneurs, are so intensely competitive that normal people would find it hard to even recognize them as human or have any connection to them at all.
Bloomberg's existence right now is consumed by the need to show he can do a better job as President than Trump.
He sees that history is going to remember Trump and not him. This burns in his mind. He is always the most successful person in the room.
It isn't necessarily personal IMO. In order to be as successful as he is his brain is just wired differently.
Well I guess success in business includes success in advertising. And I guess success in business includes getting up off the floor when you're knocked down. Bloomberg won't win the Dem nomination for all the reasons on display last night but he won't simply quit either. He'll try to learn and try to pander in a warm tone. In the end with him there trying to win, the whole bunch won't be able to resist throwing the hardest punches they've got - Bernie's plans have gaping financial holes which Bloomberg will point out and Bloomberg's New York wasn't hardly Paradise which Bernie will point out. Biden might have a Corn Pop moment and punch Bloomberg out. Pete and Amy have their own vendetta going. Warren will bury the hatchet in everyone. Hillary will lurk. The American people in their political capacity will take on aspects of Romans watching gladiators in relation to the Dems while being folks enjoying the county fair over on the Republican side. Guess who wins the general?
Waaah waaah waaah! Deceptive editing--unfair--you got us all wee wee'd up.
Politics ain't beanbag. See Reid, Harry Dirty--lying about Mitt Romney's tax returns and then saying, "He didn't get elected did he" as an excuse for what he did.
The ad was funny. Look I'm not going to vote for any of those folks up on the debate stage, so it's not my circus, not my monkeys. But they are monkeys. Oops--that comment would be deemed racist if there were any people of color up there. But Liawatha doesn't count.
Achilles:
These people, billionaires and entrepreneurs, are so intensely competitive that normal people would find it hard to even recognize them as human or have any connection to them at all.
Bloomberg's existence right now is consumed by the need to show he can do a better job as President than Trump.
He sees that history is going to remember Trump and not him. This burns in his mind. He is always the most successful person in the room.
It isn't necessarily personal IMO. In order to be as successful as he is his brain is just wired differently.
You and I differ a lot, but on this, I agree with you 100%.
Was a funny video. Editing out of sequence is SOP in reality TV world.
I want to see edited in "bleeps" to make it seem like participants are saying fuck you and similar.
Read comments by a reality show participant who claimed all he ever said was darn and heck but editing made it seem like it was all fucks and goddamns..
These people, billionaires and entrepreneurs, are so intensely competitive that normal people would find it hard to even recognize them as human or have any connection to them at all.
I often wonder if Trump looks at the tech billionaires with more money than him and is resentful that they got rich relatively easy and quickly. Has to bug him.
It wasn't all that funny, but it was clever. Bloomie highlighted that these people are professional politicians who have never created anything useful in their lives.
They know how to extort business people with taxes and regulations, but they know nothing about creating something tangible.
’Has to bug him.’
I’m not sure I agree. Trump is smart enough to know that tech is not within his skill set. He’s done about as well as possible in the marketing or branding sector...
All of Mike Bloomberg's problems are now solved!
J. Farmer said...
You and I differ a lot, but on this, I agree with you 100%.
People disagree the most with people they are similar to.
I understand why Trump and Bloomberg do what they do because I feel the same way they do. I also see why they are against each other.
It is also why the best go-arounds on this blog involve the commenters who can see through those levels.
I can understand why Inga supports Bernie. She is stupid. It doesn't bother me.
Your current defense of Bernie however does bother me for the reasons above.
FullMoon said...
I often wonder if Trump looks at the tech billionaires with more money than him and is resentful that they got rich relatively easy and quickly. Has to bug him.
Maybe before he was president. Even then none of them were as famous as he was.
But now?
Trump is going to be remembered in the same breath as people like Reagan and FDR.
If he brings down the deep state he will be remembered in the same breath as Lincoln and Washington.
That was funny, and for political advertising, it is perfectly fair, too. The problem, though, is that the Democrats don't possess a sense of humor.
@Achilles:
People disagree the most with people they are similar to.
Touché.
Your current defense of Bernie however does bother me for the reasons above.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
That all depends on what you mean by "defense." If I could vote in the Democratic Primary (Florida is a closed primary state), I would most probably vote for Sanders. In the presidential election, barring some major catastrophe, I've already conceded I will vote for Trump. But the difference between me and most voters is, I don't think the 2020 election is all that important. This country is screwed, blewed, and tattooed. To quote Army parlance, we are FUBAR. But I still think that the notion of "capitalist vs. socialist" is an exceptionally poor way for understanding how the world actually works, as opposed to how it's supposed to work in some college seminar.
J. Farmer wrote:
"Editing out of sequence is SOP in reality TV world. So much so that the technique is referred to as "Frankenbiting."
It is also referred to as television journalism.
J Farmer?
How old are you? I can't place your age group
thanx!
@gilbar:
J Farmer?
How old are you? I can't place your age group
thanx!
I'll be 38 in April. I was born in 1982.
Of course, the debate can be selectively edited by Bloomberg's opponents, too.
thanx J Farmer; i was thinking 40's, and that confused me.
J. Farmer said...
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
>.<
That all depends on what you mean by "defense." If I could vote in the Democratic Primary (Florida is a closed primary state), I would most probably vote for Sanders.
This would have been the same rationale I would have had to use to vote for Romney in 2012 in the general. I almost did it. But I didn't. Even then I felt like Romney was a disingenuous POS.
The problem I have with Bernie is if he were elected it would just mean war. Cold until he actually tried to enforce his dictats then immediately hot. Since I am likely one of the ones that would actually be fighting this war I get a bit more upset.
In the presidential election, barring some major catastrophe, I've already conceded I will vote for Trump. But the difference between me and most voters is, I don't think the 2020 election is all that important. This country is screwed, blewed, and tattooed. To quote Army parlance, we are FUBAR. But I still think that the notion of "capitalist vs. socialist" is an exceptionally poor way for understanding how the world actually works, as opposed to how it's supposed to work in some college seminar.
I agree with the capitalist vs. socialist and the college seminar sentiments and somewhat about the FUBAR point. But I differ on why I think we are FUBAR.
I think we lack the sufficient testicular fortitude to fight for freedom.
Correct me if I am wrong but you think we are FUBAR because we have too much immigration.
I think immigration is fine. People that come here just need to understand the rules and not be allowed to vote until they are landed/tax payers for a number of years.
I think Bernie is more of a threat to our freedom than the guys I worked in the orchards and played Soccer with.
@gilbar:
thanx J Farmer; i was thinking 40's, and that confused me.
No problem. You weren't that far off. I'm not exactly sure when but at some point in my life I went from being a youth "with wisdom beyond your years" to an "old fogey in a young man's body." Either way, I take both descriptors as compliments.
J. Farmer said...
I'll be 38 in April. I was born in 1982.
I always thought you were older than me.
The world is messing with me. It never stops.
Farmer is an old soul
@Achilles:
The problem I have with Bernie is if he were elected it would just mean war. Cold until he actually tried to enforce his dictats then immediately hot. Since I am likely one of the ones that would actually be fighting this war I get a bit more upset.
I think the Cold War has already long started. At least since the 1990s.
Correct me if I am wrong but you think we are FUBAR because we have too much immigration.
Correct. BUt I also think too much immigration is why we "lack the sufficient testicular fortitude to fight for freedom."
I think Bernie is more of a threat to our freedom than the guys I worked in the orchards and played Soccer with
But the kind of guys you worked in the orchards and played soccer with are more likely to support a Bernie Sanders figure than the other guys. What do you think explains why the US/Canada went down such a divergent path than Latin America?
FullMoon said...
These people, billionaires and entrepreneurs, are so intensely competitive that normal people would find it hard to even recognize them as human or have any connection to them at all.
I often wonder if Trump looks at the tech billionaires with more money than him and is resentful that they got rich relatively easy and quickly. Has to bug him.
************************
You "wonder if".
Then conclude it "has to bug him".
That's Olympic-class conclusion jumping, right there.
And funny, innit, that Trump seems to connect to ordinary people, and they to him.
Farmer is an old soul
And not just because my favorite Ray Charles' song is Mess Around.
J. Farmer said...
But the kind of guys you worked in the orchards and played soccer with are more likely to support a Bernie Sanders figure than the other guys. What do you think explains why the US/Canada went down such a divergent path than Latin America?
This is where I think we diverge.
We are a Republic. Not a democracy. We have a constitution and we have rules. My position is you cannot vote away my freedom.
As long as we have arms and the ability to use them we are free men. That is the country that our founders gave us.
It is the legitimacy conferred to a majority vote that is the problem. Any democracy given long enough will find 51% of the population that will vote to have the government give them everyone else's stuff and throw dissenters in jail.
There are some things that are just wrong. Social Security was the camel's nose under the tent.
Howard said...
Farmer is an old soul
You show flashes of capability.
I sometimes wonder if two people are posting under this name. One seems capable of participating and the other is a stupid troll.
Judging by the various Democrats I have talked to today, Bloomberg won that debate, in the larger sense. A lot of Democrats think that Warren and Sanders are batshit crazy.
@Achilles:
We are a Republic. Not a democracy. We have a constitution and we have rules. My position is you cannot vote away my freedom.
Okay, but large numbers of immigrants that we admit every year have no such position. Look at what mass immigration has done to California and more recently Virginia and is currently doing to Texas and Florida. There is a reason the 1790 Naturalization Act restricted citizenship. The primary requirement was being a "free white person."
There are some things that are just wrong. Social Security was the camel's nose under the tent.
And I am guessing that despite your "arms and the ability to use them we," you pay FICA.
https://twitter.com/realDerekUtley/status/1230459005102936064
"I know Donald Trump. He’s a great guy!” - Bloomie
"People disagree the most with people they are similar to."
Indeed.
I think a lot of people respond to Farmer knowing that they have many commonalities in thought, but the idea that he can then disagree on a significant issue causes the machinery to seize up. For me, he is one of the commenters I make a point to read, because there is always substance worth the time considering (and often with a much-appreciated amount of wry humor); if I am only looking for agreement, I can get that from the girl chained in my basement. She thinks I'm brilliant. And benevolent.
Regarding Sanders: if one looks at Trump as only delaying the inevitable slide to an AOC-approved America after he's gone, then having Sanders drive the car drunk is at least more honest than Warren or Buttigieg being the Designated Driver and lying about the destination.
And Sanders will piss off much of the Dem Elite in the process, so there is at least candy at the funeral.
I am Laslo.
But this is the Era of That's Not Funny and people have shown themselves to be woefully lacking in the ability to detect fake news
Well, having a national media that actively participated in promoting a multi-year Russian collusion hoax was probably more damaging to people's perception of the news than cute montage videos. But if they can keep the rubes riled up over the little things, no one has time to ask questions about the big things.
Regarding Sanders: if one looks at Trump as only delaying the inevitable slide to an AOC-approved America after he's gone, then having Sanders drive the car drunk is at least more honest than Warren or Buttigieg being the Designated Driver and lying about the destination.
I’m going to respectfully disagree, because the more slowly we move toward an AOC-ian dystopia, the more time we have for something to change the trajectory.
Any democracy given long enough will find 51% of the population that will vote to have the government give them everyone else's stuff and throw dissenters in jail.
BUT! I've Been Told, that THE IMPORTANT THING, is that we allow the "winner of the popular vote" to be President
Clearly, if the 50%+ of america that are white, decide that, under our LIVING CONSTITUTION, the rest of the population are chattel... The Democrats would say that that is Just Fine... Right?
I mean, Right?
'cause it's the popular vote, that matters; Right?
While I'm at it: I like that Howard is here.
As Achilles aptly said at 7:37, there are two modes of Howard: insult-the-right Howard and insightful Howard.
The former seems like tired autopilot, though: like it used to bring him amusement, but now it doesn't have the same rush anymore. You can tell his heart isn't really into it, because he's capable of being funnier than second-hand Colbert. (And now -- thinking about it -- it's like how I got bored of fucking Scarlett Johansson; I thought I'd never get tired of it, but then -- what do you know -- I was.)
Howard has had several strong insights about the Dems of late, and you can see the mask slipping off: it's more fun to say what you want to say, rather than what you feel expected -- even obligated -- to say.
Don't misunderstand: I don't expect him to be a Trump-supporter anytime soon. But I do think he is tiring of the scolds of the left. And realizing the left is only getting scoldier and leftier.
Which moves him somewhat to the middle. And the left hate the middle more than they hate the right, because they think the middle was rightfully acquiescing in their grasp.
Howard: listen to your nuts. They want to be free.
I am Laslo.
"I’m going to respectfully disagree, because the more slowly we move toward an AOC-ian dystopia, the more time we have for something to change the trajectory."
Yep. I hope you are right. My fear is that as every society proceeds, they inevitably shit closer and closer to where they eat.
I am Laslo.
Laslo
Pass your plate.
And now -- thinking about it -- it's like how I got bored of fucking Scarlett Johansson; I thought I'd never get tired of it, but then -- what do you know -- I was.
You mean the hot babe from Home Alone 3?
You mean the hot babe from Home Alone 3?
She was 12 in that movie.
But more importantly, never admit to having seen Home Alone 3.
I attempted a joke, J. Farmer, but thanks for the pedantry.
Always happy to oblige.
Steve Schmidt and Rick Wilson must be crying their eyes out that they are missing out on gouging Bloomberg for crappy campaign work like the guy in charge of his twitter is doing.
Steve Schmidt's career reminds me of that fantastic line from Wall Street: "What the hell is Cromwell doin' givin' a lecture tour when he's losing 60 million a quarter? Guess he's giving lectures on how to lose money. Jesus Christ...if this guy owned a funeral parlor, no one would die!"
She was 12 in that movie.
Everyone was 12 once.
But more importantly, never admit to having seen Home Alone 3.
Internet anonymity has its advantages. But zowie, was that a bad movie.
Everyone was 12 once.
Everyone was 6 once, too. (Boy that sentence sounds weird when you read it out loud)
Internet anonymity has its advantages. But zowie, was that a bad movie.
Roger Ebert actually gave it 3 stars. I'm a fan but holy shit did he have a blind spot when it came to shitty kids movies. He liked Burt Reynold's Cop and a Half FFS.
That's Not Funny
Only too true...
it was fucking hilarious. Particularly the shots of SloJo.
It's far, far too late of course, but what Biden needs to survive the primary process without being humiliated is a drama coach, the kind Disney employs to give the audience the impression Brie Larson actually has more brains than a wheel of cheese whenever the script calls for a closeup. In this case, a typical coaching session would go like this...
SLOJO: And when a competitor is speaking...
DC: You grin with your mouth closed...
SLOJO: I like my mouth open...
DC: WITH YOUR MOUTH CLOSED, Mister Vice-President. And you shake your "no" ever so slightly. This is the sarcasm bordering on arrogance face we discussed while watching those Trump videos, remember?
SLOJO: When I shake my head my plate comes loose.
DC: Which won't happen if you keep your mouth closed.
SLOJO: I like my mouth open. Used to be a lifeguard with my mouth open all the time.
Its not "exactly like it" you dumb Democrat.
I agree that Biden's expression was funny. He just looks lost and confused. It's crazy to put a 78-year old man thru this grueling humiliation.
The way to beat Althouse is to accuse her of racisim. It is not especially difficult, unless you contain conscious.
Like Bruce Willis, even Burt Reynolds bad movies are sort of enjoyable. He comes across like a guy who knows he’s doing the movie just for a paycheck but is trying to give his fans Burt Reynolds. I got the feeling if you wrote Burt a letter telling him you love most of his movies but Cop and a Half was just bad that Burt would send you $5 buck as a refund with a signed autograph
"I do think he is tiring of the scolds of the left."
Yes. Some sane progs do get tired. It happened to Althouse, and that's how she ended up with a mostly deplorable commentariat. Let's see if he can evolve some more.
@mccullough:
He comes across like a guy who knows he’s doing the movie just for a paycheck but is trying to give his fans Burt Reynolds.
I don't mind all of Reynold's wink at the camera shtick, but it was an obvious fallback. Reynolds himself used to incessantly whine about not being taken seriously as an actor. And when his films sucked, he could always use the excuse that he was just having fun, not taking it too seriously, not really trying, yada yada yada.
I thought Burt was good on the show Evening Shade.
I remember a stand up comedian who did a bit about how many bad movies Burt Reynolds was in. It was pretty funny.
So, Laslo has Scarlett Johansson chained up in his basement. Show of hands- who is surprised?
I remember a stand up comedian who did a bit about how many bad movies Burt Reynolds was in. It was pretty funny.
I was listening to the radio show Loveline one night, and the guest was Heather Graham. I can't recall what she was promoting at the time, but near the end of the broadcast, they asked her about what work she had coming up. She said she was doing a movie with Burt Reynolds and Marky Mark. They razzed her about for the rest of the program.
Of course, the film turned out to be Boogie Nights. I was happy to see Reynolds hit one out of the park, especially considering the previous year he was in the godawful adaptation of Striptease.
I was reviewing the list of Reynolds movies on IMdb- I realized that I hadn't seen any movies or television shows he had appeared in except for "Evening Shade" and "Boogie Nights". Until "Boogie Nights", I hadn't seen a movie of his since "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" in 1982.
I often wonder if Trump looks at the tech billionaires with more money than him and is resentful that they got rich relatively easy and quickly. Has to bug him.
Maybe before he was president. Even then none of them were as famous as he was.
Not talking about fame. Talking about tech guys making easy money quick sitting in an office without producing a physical product, while Trump actually builds real stuff that takes time, money and a lot of aggravation.
while Trump actually builds real stuff that takes time, money and a lot of aggravation.
A good portion of Trump’s money comes from branding and licensing deals.
Yancey,
I was born in the early 70s and remember seeing Smokey and the Bandit at the drive in when I was 5 (came out the same year as Star Wars which I also remember seeing at the drive in). I also saw Cannon Ball Run (the first one) at the movie theater and City Heat with Burt and Clint Eastwood. Then Boogie Nights. That was it. I didn’t even rent any of his 80s movies after the VCR and video stores started up.
Money-making wise (film gross revenue) Burt Reynolds was the Tom Cruise of the 1970s. But by the mid 80s his movies were not only bad, they didn’t make much. But he was an entertaining interview. Pretty good story teller. I guess he used to fill in for Carson in the 70s (along with Bill Cosby).
I’d say John Travolta has had a similar career trajectory. Some good movies and a lot of bad ones. Burt was supposed to be in Quentin Tarantino’s most recent movie. Tarantino has an odd sense of nostalgia that I sympathize with.
McCullough,
I saw "Smokey and the Bandit" in the theater, too, but the year after it come out- same with "Star Wars". I don't think I ever saw "Cannonball Run", but I did see "Hooper" in the theaters in 1978. His 80s movies were mainstays of the big cable movie channels ("Sharkey's Machine", "Malone", "City Heat", etc.) but I just never was interested enough to watch any of them.
My experience with Travolta was kind of similar- after a certain point in the early 80s, I just didn't watch anything he made. The last movie I saw him in before his career resurrection in the mid 90s was "Blowout" in 1981. I didn't see another movie he was in until "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, but then he had a string of really strong movies (in particular, "Get Shorty") and performances that seemed to end again with "Battlefield Earth". The only thing since 2000 I would recommend to anyone would be "American Crime Story" where he played Robert Shapiro, but the truth is that I have watched little that he has been in.
Pookie Number 2 said...
Regarding Sanders: if one looks at Trump as only delaying the inevitable slide to an AOC-approved America after he's gone, then having Sanders drive the car drunk is at least more honest than Warren or Buttigieg being the Designated Driver and lying about the destination.
I’m going to respectfully disagree, because the more slowly we move toward an AOC-ian dystopia, the more time we have for something to change the trajectory.
That is not how the river of history works.
The US is a black swan. Our society is a complete outlier. The Freedom we have is a very brief occurrence. The slide will only go in one direction and it takes something drastic to move that scale.
Trump is pretty drastic. His election was also a black swan event. I think it has shifted the scales over the tipping point. I think it has changed how everyone in the world views freedom.
Trump is an escalation in our fight to stave off the aristocracy and their captive barbarians. I hope it is enough because there is only one more thing to do at this point.
FullMoon said...
Not talking about fame. Talking about tech guys making easy money quick sitting in an office without producing a physical product, while Trump actually builds real stuff that takes time, money and a lot of aggravation.
I wouldn't call it quick or easy. I am in compsci and I wouldn't say it is easy to make money in this field. In fact quite the opposite.
But either way you are talking about billionaires. They have a very different way of keeping score.
Trump having a 90+% name recognition score before being president counts greatly on that score board.
And now he is in everyone's head. Everyone in the world talks about him. His score is very public and it is causing massive levels of jealousy among that crowd.
Blogger Howard said...It's pretty obvious Trump has cracked open the universe on the paths to political dominance.
It has struck me that the Republican standard-bearer isn’t really a Republican and two leading Democrats (including the currently dominant one) aren’t Democrats.
Bernie does have some executive experience. He used to make the decision about how much son-of-a-gun stew should be ladled out of the pot to each of his fellow hoboes.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा