Don’t forget about McConnell’s role of a supreme court nomination in a previous administration
Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)
- Thread starter GOT_BUD?
- Start date
That's essentially the direction the Biden Administration is trying to take things by hinting they will cut of offensive supplies to Israel. We would still support them defensively but without our offensive support Israel would have to work harder at trying to coexist with the rest of the region. The problem though is we would still have to support them defensively because most of the reason doesn't want Israel to exist. If there were any real hope of Israel being able to negotiate a peaceful coexistance with the region it would have happened by now. If the other nations were open to peaceful coexistance with Israel we wouldn't need to protect them defensively.
I mentioned that. I said it was probably his biggest achievement but it's mostly forgotten because Trump keeps trying to claim all the credit.
That’s where I think the system is wrong (waiting for death)
Edit: maybe I should have said (hoping)
Edit: maybe I should have said (hoping)
Last edited:
SNL hasn’t been funny in a long, long time. I haven’t gone very far past the cold opening in about 15 years. Why are Michael Che and Collin Jost still doing weekend update? They’ve sucked from the beginning.
Very lame when they all think they are funny but they are not. Canned laughter is a big turn off.
Britt is representative of the party when you ask yourself if this is the best they got. It's all downhill from there and it goes pretty far down.
RickLafleur
Well-known member
Very lame when they all think they are funny but they are not. Canned laughter is a big turn off.
Britt is representative of the party when you ask yourself if this is the best they got. It's all downhill from there and it goes pretty far down.
I haven't confirmed this myself but I saw a report today that was discussing has badly the Republicans hurt themselves with Britt's rebuttal. What I found interesting and I need to confirm was there was one person (it might have been former RNC chairman Michael Steele but I'm not sure of that) said that people should check out other recordings of Britt from when she first came to office last election, because the rebuttal portrayed her very differently then who she really is and that the way she came across in the rebuttal was entirely coached. Which is just as bad but in a different way because by making her seem different from who she really is they not only made themselves look bad but blew a chance for her to have come across as far more likeable if they just let her be herself. Of course it still looks bad for her too because she allowed herself to be manipulated and used in a way that will harm her image for some time to come.
Very lame when they all think they are funny but they are not. Canned laughter is a big turn off.
Britt is representative of the party when you ask yourself if this is the best they got. It's all downhill from there and it goes pretty far down.
I also did find Johansson's portrayal of her from SNL on Youtube and I know see why it wasn't very funny. It was very sateerical and Johansson did a good job of that but in her satire Johansson spelled out clearly they big lie Britt told about the woman she met with that was a victim of sex trafficking, which wasn't funny at all. Namely that the woman that was the victim experienced the horrors she went thru back in the early 2000's before Biden was even a vice president and that it all happened in Mexico not in the US. Which totally discredits the way she attempted to make it seem like the woman went thru what she did because of Biden's border policy. When in truth it would have been Bush's border policy and the US border policy had nothing to do with it because it all happened well away from the US/Mexico border. I would have to say though I'm glad SNL made her lie clear even if it was at the expense of the skit being funny.
I didn't get the reference to Karla Jacinto Romero watching the skit, but did see the reference in a couple reviews. Rather than satire, it looked to be damage control. Prior to the rebuttal, one network announced Britt as a "rising star" in preparation for some powerful counterpunches. They were underwhelmed.
Johansson's portrayal would have come off better with the affluent Alabamian kitchen was sporting eight kids at one year increments and a couple of black maids taking care of them. This would have been much better fitting with their retro views on women.
Yeah that would have fit the retro views on women better but it would also be so far different from what actually was shown that it would probably go over most peoples heads. As for the reference to Karla Jacinto Romero you might not have got it because it was indirect. What I was talking about, what to me made it not funny was how Johannson presented that whole part of the speech. She said something to the effect of "I'm going to pivot into a shocking, violent story about sex trafficking and rest assured every detail about it is real, except the year, where it took place and who was president when it happened" which was exactly how she (Britt) twisted that true story into a lie. For me that made it not funny because what Britt did was take this tragedy that Romero lived thru and falsely misrepresented it to attack Biden even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Biden, The US immigration problem or the US southern border policy. FWIW, I've since learned more from an interview with Romero about additional lies in Britt's version. Like for example, Britt said that it was the drug cartels that did that to Romero. When according to Romero it was just a single man that was/is basically Mexico's version of a pimp who had a business of sex trafficking women that he would kidnap and exploit. I guess Britt felt that it was much scarier to blame it on the Cartels then to say it was just a Mexican pimp? I also learned from the Romero interview that she doesn't like tlling her story to politicians now and tries to avoid them, because every time she does they end up doing what Britt did which was to misrepresent her story for their own political gain. Which basically is in a way like violating her life and the horrible experience she lived thru, all over again. Romero's whole thing now is to go around telling her story in an effort to educate people so that the same thing doesn't happen to other women. Ideally the best person for her to talk to about it in order to bring about change would be someone in a position of political power that could enact laws to prevent it. Yet because of politicians like Britt and others that's the type of person she now avoids to prevent her story from being used to push a different agenda.
Yes, in the skit it was a one liner calling out the fact that Britts story had nothing to do with Biden, wrong president, wrong year, etc. After hearing the real Britt rebuttal, and the story about the woman, there was really no way for most people to go back and fact check that portion. I don't know who would have been familiar with Britt's little trip to Del Rio where her fabricated story began.
As to the not funny skit. Some people were probably already aware of this fabrication, making this line in the skit even more of a downer. Even without that blow the skit came across as flat and not funny as SNL has become most of the time. This one was a huge missed opportunity and the original 1975 cast would have done allot more with it.
Well if you're going to go all the way back to the original cast who made SNL famous most all of the casts since then with the exception of the Eddie Murphy years, fell short of the original cast. I imagine though it all depends on ones age and those not old enough to have memories of the original cast might feel differently.
As for the rebuttal apparently there were enough people familiar enough with reality that they were able to fact check it in real time since Britt was already getting cslled on it and had to try to clean it up the very next day by pointing out that she said she met with a "woman" who told her about what happened to her when she was 12 years old. Accept she never indicated when the horror ended and so for all we might have known the horro might have just ended the year before for the "woman" that told her the story. I was totally unaware of that woman's story until the rebuttal and yet I still knew something about it was BS because you know if something like that happened when Biden was President every MAGA Republican would be shouting that story from the rooftops.
John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Lorine Newman, Jane Curtin, Garret Morris and Chevy Chase were the original seven. Eddy Murphy, Chris Farley and others came later. This group never disappointed.
I'm so shocked that a republican could tell us a stupid lie and think it was ok.
GenghisKush
Well-known member
John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Lorine Newman, Jane Curtin, Garret Morris and Chevy Chase were the original seven. Eddy Murphy, Chris Farley and others came later. This group never disappointed.
I'm so shocked that a republican could tell us a stupid lie and think it was ok.
Banned!
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
Last edited:
I'm just shocked they could tell such an obvious one and in a speech that they knew would get much more critical and intense scrutiny right off the bat. In the past they were a little smarter then that. This one was so bad that even some fellow republicans were critical of how bad it was. I guess they've just gotten spoiled by the way the voters that come to Trump rallies will accept virtually whatever they are told.
John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Lorine Newman, Jane Curtin, Garret Morris and Chevy Chase were the original seven. Eddy Murphy, Chris Farley and others came later. This group never disappointed.
I'm so shocked that a republican could tell us a stupid lie and think it was ok.
The MAGA base will believe anything from the Trump orbit and they dont seem to care when its pointed out.
peace
The problem is that the governmental system is based on the assumption that people holding governmental positions will conduct governmental business as basically honest (as honest as politicians can be) and that there is some shame in getting caught being dishonest and that there would be consequences. There are no provisions to deal with people who are basically dishonest and able to manipulate the system so there is no accountability what so ever.
If the system has decomposed to the point where one party is dealing in a basically honest upstanding traditional way while the other has become predominantly dishonest then the system has already failed
If the system has decomposed to the point where one party is dealing in a basically honest upstanding traditional way while the other has become predominantly dishonest then the system has already failed
RIP Democracy...
