Trump Triumphs

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

The difference of course being that the former are headline news and are actively destroying their own cause by playing on the best weapon of right wing populism, that the wealthy liberal elite are totally out of touch with them and don't care about them.

 

The average person in the street wouldn't have a clue who Jones or Milo is.

I didn't say that I agreed with it, just that they are two examples of groups howling into the wind.

 

And the internet populists should stop being humble and take at least a little credit for helping win this time round.

[bovril]

52 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Hollywood brigade talking about such things tends to be rather similar to the Breitbart/4channer lot discussing the latest Alex Jones/Milo video on the matter. Echo chamber.

 

You could say the same thing about certain posters on these type of threads.

[bovril]

You might find Meryl Streep sanctimonious and annoying, maybe even an overrated actor, but she is just that. An actor. Donald Trump is a childish twitter whore living in an alternate reality, but he is the President-elect of the US.

 

This is what I don't get and never will about the "let's show the luvvies!" brigade. What have you achieved? They are still rich and successful Hollywood celebrities. You are still shouting at your TV, but now you have Trump leading the Free World. It's like getting annoyed at over-zealous road safety campaigns and driving your car into a wall to show them who's boss.

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

You might find Meryl Streep sanctimonious and annoying, maybe even an overrated actor, but she is just that. An actor. Donald Trump is a childish twitter whore living in an alternate reality, but he is the President-elect of the US.

 

This is what I don't get and never will about the "let's show the luvvies!" brigade. What have you achieved? They are still rich and successful Hollywood celebrities. You are still shouting at your TV, but now you have Trump leading the Free World. It's like getting annoyed at over-zealous road safety campaigns and driving your car into a wall to show them who's boss.

I don't care whether luvvies are rich and successful, good luck to them. I don't mind that they have an opinion different to mine. It just annoys me that the fact that they're reasonably attractive and can speak into a camera means that they think the have the right to lecture us. I'm fed up with them going on TV talking utter shit and not having any of their views challenged by interviewers. They're no cleverer than the rest of us, they have no moral superiority, quite often the reverse. Who do they think they are?

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't care whether luvvies are rich and successful, good luck to them. I don't mind that they have an opinion different to mine. It just annoys me that the fact that they're reasonably attractive and can speak into a camera means that they think the have the right to lecture us. I'm fed up with them going on TV talking utter shit and not having any of their views challenged by interviewers. They're no cleverer than the rest of us, they have no moral superiority, quite often the reverse. Who do they think they are?

They're giving their opinion, which is what you and I are doing on this forum.

 

And anyway, you've ignored my point, which is that people who think they are "sticking it to the luvvies" really aren't sticking it to anyone.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

They're giving their opinion, which is what you and I are doing on this forum.

This thread is about the American election, that's what it is for. Meryl Streep was picking up a lifetime achievement award at a film festival and she used the moment to talk about Donald Trump, it's ridiculous.

 

At this rate we're probably only ten years from a football match being stopped so a microphone can be brought on and someone like Jamie Carragher can lecture the crowd about the NHS.

[Webbo]

Just now, bovril said:

They're giving their opinion, which is what you and I are doing on this forum.

I don't have an international platform.

 

When I'm in the football threads I talk about football, when I'm in the joke thread, I post jokes. I wouldn't use the film thread to make a melodramatic speech about how unfair it is that the party I voted for didn't win the election.

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

This thread is about the American election, that's what it is for. Meryl Streep was picking up a lifetime achievement award at a film festival and she used the moment to talk about Donald Trump, it's ridiculous.

 

At this rate we're probably only ten years from a football match being stopped so a microphone can be brought on and someone like Jamie Carragher can lecture the crowd about the NHS.

Because Hollywood stars never make political speeches at awards ceremonies.

 

Anyway, like I said, I don't care about Meryl Streep really. As you said, this is a thread to discuss the American election. And I find it slightly more concerning that the President-elect responds to criticism by wailing like a toddler on Twitter than an ageing actress making a speech.

[Guest MattP]

The worst thing is he wasn't even mocking him for his disability, he does this about everyone, it's media were just prepared to spin everything to try and make him look bad for Clinton.

 

In the World of post truth politics people will just look away as they don't want evidence, they just want something that confirms the bias they already have.

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Don't care what anyone says Trump doing an impression of that spaz was funny as fvck. I gotta say I was howling.

[Barky]

Funny how whenever trump has a big serious question to answer like he has now with the Russia issue he tweets something outlandish or about something trivial like this and it takes all the focus off the real issue. It's quite clever really.

 

Good video on this by nerdwriter1 on youtube, who also does some great non-political videos

 

 

[leicsmac]

Posted by a friend. Is any of this defensible? Point 2 and 7 in particular boils my blood - apparently your reward for caring about the future of the Earth and humanity is the sack and being ridden roughshod over.

 

"The federal week in review:

1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day. (this is unprecedented, and mean spirited as systems to ensure no breakdown of diplomatic communication are already in place)

 

2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.  (bear in mind that this stupid rule is over 100 years old)

 

3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.

 

4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.

 

5. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.

 

6.Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.

 

7. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it."

[Barky]

3 hours ago, Barky said:

Funny how whenever trump has a big serious question to answer like he has now with the Russia issue he tweets something outlandish or about something trivial like this and it takes all the focus off the real issue. It's quite clever really.

 

Good video on this by nerdwriter1 on youtube, who also does some great non-political videos

 

 

I actually linked the wrong video here, this is the one I meant explaining how trump (and politicians in general) deflect attention. 

 

 

[Claridge]

5 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Don't care what anyone says Trump doing an impression of that spaz was funny as fvck. I gotta say I was howling.

You are a cruel man,but spazzo impressions can be disturbingly amusing.

[leicsmac]

22 hours ago, Webbo said:

I don't have an international platform.

 

When I'm in the football threads I talk about football, when I'm in the joke thread, I post jokes. I wouldn't use the film thread to make a melodramatic speech about how unfair it is that the party I voted for didn't win the election.

The arts and politics have NEVER been separate. Indeed, some of the most influential and powerful works of writing, film, artwork etc have been produced as a response to the spectre of totalitarianism.

 

Being annoyed at artists using their platform to demonstrate how their art resonates with the current political situation is a little naive IMO.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The arts and politics have NEVER been separate. Indeed, some of the most influential and powerful works of writing, film, artwork etc have been produced as a response to the spectre of totalitarianism.

 

Being annoyed at artists using their platform to demonstrate how their art resonates with the current political situation is a little naive IMO.

How many of those artworks have been from a non left wing standpoint? Can you imagine an actor giving a speech at an awards ceremony calling for a cut in public spending? Can you imagine the backlash if they did? No right wing actor would dare to speak openly in support of the conservatives . Kenny Everett's career  suffered after he appeared at a conservative rally.

 

It's a one sided, shallow, virtue signalling , bore fest. If they want to lecture us they should be prepared  for a few fvck offs in reply.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How many of those artworks have been from a non left wing standpoint? Can you imagine an actor giving a speech at an awards ceremony calling for a cut in public spending? Can you imagine the backlash if they did? No right wing actor would dare to speak openly in support of the conservatives . Kenny Everett's career  suffered after he appeared at a conservative rally.

 

It's a one sided, shallow, virtue signalling , bore fest. If they want to lecture us they should be prepared  for a few fvck offs in reply.

 

Perhaps that's because the vast majority of the ethos of creative arts as a whole (and by extension those who are good/successful at then) speaks out against conservatism and totalitarianism? Even the ones that do have a right wing message are most often satirical (like some of Heinleins work). Of course it's going to be one sided.

 

Respond to it as you may - you and yours have box seats right now, amazing for folks with "no platform".

 

[bovril]

43 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How many of those artworks have been from a non left wing standpoint? Can you imagine an actor giving a speech at an awards ceremony calling for a cut in public spending? Can you imagine the backlash if they did? No right wing actor would dare to speak openly in support of the conservatives . Kenny Everett's career  suffered after he appeared at a conservative rally.

 

It's a one sided, shallow, virtue signalling , bore fest. If they want to lecture us they should be prepared  for a few fvck offs in reply.

One sided? In the history of popular entertainment in the US there have been more individuals blacklisted for espousing left wing beliefs than conservative ones.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

One sided? In the history of popular entertainment in the US there have been more individuals blacklisted for espousing left wing beliefs than conservative ones.

That's down to whatever conservative government was in charge of the US at the time rather than action taken by Hollywood itself, but it's a fair point.

[Finnaldo]

Just now, bovril said:

One sided? In the history of popular entertainment in the US there have been more individuals blacklisted for espousing left wing beliefs than conservative ones.

Didn't America spend most of the fifties blacklisting directors as communist sympathizers for suggesting blacks deserved equal rights or that homosexuality wasn't a psychiatric disorder?

 

That being said, it has very much delved the other way, especially in the last 20+ and the celebrity bandwagon certainly didn't help the Clinton campaign one bit. You would have thought they'd be suggesting Americans come together for their own good, not necessarily under Trump but under the necessity of cohesion. The same tired rhetoric of Fuhrer Trump really isn't helping anything at this point.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Perhaps that's because the vast majority of the ethos of creative arts as a whole (and by extension those who are good/successful at then) speaks out against conservatism and totalitarianism? Even the ones that do have a right wing message are most often satirical (like some of Heinleins work). Of course it's going to be one sided.

 

Respond to it as you may - you and yours have box seats right now, amazing for folks with "no platform".

 

Communism is totalitarian and we didn't see much anti  Castro/Chavez art. Do you think there are no actors/singers/artists that aren't on the left? Do you think an actor who campaigned for the Conservatives would get a job on Eastenders?

49 minutes ago, bovril said:

One sided? In the history of popular entertainment in the US there have been more individuals blacklisted for espousing left wing beliefs than conservative ones.

It's not the 50s anymore. I'm talking the last 30 years.

 

I'm used to it now, it's water off a ducks now. I don't really care but don't expect me to respect their views.

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's the 50s anymore. I'm talking the last 30 years.

 

I'm used to it now, it's water off a ducks now. I don't really care but don't expect me to respect their views.

Not so much in Hollywood, but there were plenty of actors, musicians and journalists that suffered because of their opposition to the war in Iraq. In some states there are plenty of calls to boycott certain films, books, etc because of their 'liberal' content.

 

Of course it works both ways, and I doubt a rabid Trump supporter would go far in Broadway. But you make it sound like there's some horrible conspiracy to silence any conservative views. Nobody's lecturing you. If it pisses you off just turn off the TV / computer.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Not so much in Hollywood, but there were plenty of actors, musicians and journalists that suffered because of their opposition to the war in Iraq. In some states there are plenty of calls to boycott certain films, books, etc because of their 'liberal' content.

 

Of course it works both ways, and I doubt a rabid Trump supporter would go far in Broadway. But you make it sound like there's some horrible conspiracy to silence any conservative views, you're portraying right-wingers as victims. Nobody's lecturing you. If it upsets you just turn off the TV / computer.

It doesn't particularly upset me, as I said it's par for the course, but it came up in the thread for discussion and I was just chucking in my 2 penneth.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Communism is totalitarian and we didn't see much anti  Castro/Chavez art. Do you think there are no actors/singers/artists that aren't on the left? Do you think an actor who campaigned for the Conservatives would get a job on Eastenders?

Yeah, totalitarianism is totalitarianism, no matter what wing it belongs to. Both Mao and Hitler enjoyed purging artists.

 

From what I can tell creative art is what could be called classically liberal rather than just left wing.

[Guest MattP]

43 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Didn't America spend most of the fifties blacklisting directors as communist sympathizers for suggesting blacks deserved equal rights or that homosexuality wasn't a psychiatric disorder?

The Democrats in America spent most of their before this century trying to keep blacks in slavery.

 

It's not really relevant in 2017.