Another OT:SNL

[CaliFLACane850]

I miss In Living Color and MAD TV.

 

[Martycane]

In my lifetime, I have never seen anything like this current crop of gaping, triggered snowflake Republicans, who incessantly whine about comedians making fun of their bumbling idols.

When I was a registered Republican in the 1980s and 1990s, we didn't give a **** about how any Republican was portrayed on a late night TV show, but most people who claim to be Republicans today can't go an hour without crying about the media, the deep state, the comedians, the professors, you name it. Meanwhile, since 2000, Republicans have won every presidential race but 2, Republicans have held the House and/or Senate at multiple points, Republicans have gerrymandered multiple states, but to hear them whine about it, they are fighting for their very survival against COMEDIANS and other "disrespectful" people who won't be "fair" to them.

People forget (or never knew) the history of Saturday Night Live ripping both sides of the aisle in political sketches, and they ignore the fact that SNL has used political humor FROM THE BEGINNING. Gerald Ford was not even an "impression", it was just Chevy Chase (with no makeup or prosthetics) making fun of Ford's multiple clumsy stumbles, like this one:



Why do people either ignore history or not bother to research it? Sure, Ford played football, but that didn't make him impervious to stumbling. SNL made fun of physical and verbal mistakes that Ford actually made. And let's not forget that SNL allowed President Ford's PRESS SECRETARY Ron Nessen host the show. And Gerald Ford did the "Live From New York" line on that episode. Imagine if SNL allowed James Carville TO HOST THE SHOW in the middle of a re-election campaign.

Let's not act like Republicans have been blocked from SNL either. Steve Forbes and Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have hosted, as has Trump DURING his time as a Republican activist.

As for the imitations, Dan Aykroyd's portrayal of Jimmy Carter was much more of an imitation than Chase's version of Gerald Ford, and was much more biting. While SNL got to make fun of Ford for all of 1 year, it was Aykroyd's imitation of Carter over 4 years that changed a lot of people's impressions of Carter's competence.

SNL never really had much impact on Ronald Reagan, and I'm not sure Reagan would have even cared. Dana Carvey's impression of George H.W. Bush was so beloved that President Bush himself invited Carvey to come to the White House in late 92/early 93 to do the impression to cheer up his staff after Bush lost to Clinton.

As for Clinton, both Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond skewered him. One of the all-time funniest political sketches is where Hartman plays Clinton out jogging, and then he stops at a McDonald's for some junk food, telling his Secret Service protector that there are "a lot of things we are not going to tell Hillary" and that fast food is the least of their worries. Hartman was so energetic about parodying Clinton that in the part where he illustrates the Somalian warlords stealing food assistance by wolfing down everyone else's food, he actually chokes on the food.

SNL took it pretty easy on George W. Bush with Will Ferrell and Barack Obama with Fred Armisen/Jay Pharaoh. SNL has been pretty benign with Presidential candidates such as Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry. But SNL has also been rough on Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump.

Bottom line, it's such a pvssified cliche to listen to current-day Republicans whining about how late-night shows and comedians are sooooo unfair to their politicians. Ronald Reagan would laugh at all of the right-wing snowflakes in 2020.

Dems have won the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections...But they're said to be out of touch...with the "Real America"!

 

[JTKoval]

todays events made me think a Matt Foley motivation speech might be in order.

 

[CaliFLACane850]

Dems have won the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections...But they're said to be out of touch...with the "Real America"!

Good thing the popular vote doesn't matter.

 

[raincane]

In my lifetime, I have never seen anything like this current crop of gaping, triggered snowflake Republicans, who incessantly whine about comedians making fun of their bumbling idols.

When I was a registered Republican in the 1980s and 1990s, we didn't give a **** about how any Republican was portrayed on a late night TV show, but most people who claim to be Republicans today can't go an hour without crying about the media, the deep state, the comedians, the professors, you name it. Meanwhile, since 2000, Republicans have won every presidential race but 2, Republicans have held the House and/or Senate at multiple points, Republicans have gerrymandered multiple states, but to hear them whine about it, they are fighting for their very survival against COMEDIANS and other "disrespectful" people who won't be "fair" to them.

People forget (or never knew) the history of Saturday Night Live ripping both sides of the aisle in political sketches, and they ignore the fact that SNL has used political humor FROM THE BEGINNING. Gerald Ford was not even an "impression", it was just Chevy Chase (with no makeup or prosthetics) making fun of Ford's multiple clumsy stumbles, like this one:



Why do people either ignore history or not bother to research it? Sure, Ford played football, but that didn't make him impervious to stumbling. SNL made fun of physical and verbal mistakes that Ford actually made. And let's not forget that SNL allowed President Ford's PRESS SECRETARY Ron Nessen host the show. And Gerald Ford did the "Live From New York" line on that episode. Imagine if SNL allowed James Carville TO HOST THE SHOW in the middle of a re-election campaign.

Let's not act like Republicans have been blocked from SNL either. Steve Forbes and Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have hosted, as has Trump DURING his time as a Republican activist.

As for the imitations, Dan Aykroyd's portrayal of Jimmy Carter was much more of an imitation than Chase's version of Gerald Ford, and was much more biting. While SNL got to make fun of Ford for all of 1 year, it was Aykroyd's imitation of Carter over 4 years that changed a lot of people's impressions of Carter's competence.

SNL never really had much impact on Ronald Reagan, and I'm not sure Reagan would have even cared. Dana Carvey's impression of George H.W. Bush was so beloved that President Bush himself invited Carvey to come to the White House in late 92/early 93 to do the impression to cheer up his staff after Bush lost to Clinton.

As for Clinton, both Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond skewered him. One of the all-time funniest political sketches is where Hartman plays Clinton out jogging, and then he stops at a McDonald's for some junk food, telling his Secret Service protector that there are "a lot of things we are not going to tell Hillary" and that fast food is the least of their worries. Hartman was so energetic about parodying Clinton that in the part where he illustrates the Somalian warlords stealing food assistance by wolfing down everyone else's food, he actually chokes on the food.

SNL took it pretty easy on George W. Bush with Will Ferrell and Barack Obama with Fred Armisen/Jay Pharaoh. SNL has been pretty benign with Presidential candidates such as Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry. But SNL has also been rough on Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump.

Bottom line, it's such a pvssified cliche to listen to current-day Republicans whining about how late-night shows and comedians are sooooo unfair to their politicians. Ronald Reagan would laugh at all of the right-wing snowflakes in 2020.

You’re just wrong if you think there isn’t a clear bias. Also Reagan might laugh since he won 49/50 states and dominated the popular vote. Republicans have lost popular vote last time, so for republicans this type of media influence is no laughing matter. If you believe a company is materially harming the country by influencing people towards harmful policy, then why would you laugh?

 

[Turnoverchaincane]

It's sad when someone tries to be a troll, but can't pull it off. Remember, I'm not the one throwing a hissy fit because some satirists made fun of a dude that is a walking punchline.

You mean a walking punchline for mainstream media and the failing left leaning late night shows that practically nobody is watching these days. People aren't watching because they're not funny anymore.

And who's having a hissy fit and who the **** even uses the term, hissy fit, anymore? What are you 12?

No need for a meltdown and false accusations dude. Someone might take you for a snowflake. The horror.

Go Canes!!!!!

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You’re just wrong if you think there isn’t a clear bias. Also Reagan might laugh since he won 49/50 states and dominated the popular vote. Republicans have lost popular vote last time, so for republicans this type of media influence is no laughing matter. If you believe a company is materially harming the country by influencing people towards harmful policy, then why would you laugh?

What a pvssified bunch of excuses.

"Clear bias"? Who gives a ****. Everyone has their own opinions. On the newspaper side, media bias was MUCH WORSE 100 years ago, there were literally dozens of major city newspapers that spouted one party line or the other. People forget that William Randolph Hearst was largely responsible for inflaming American sentiment to get involved in the Spanish-American War.

As for televised media, it has become polarized, if you really believe in right-wing ideology, YOU CAN WATCH FOX NEWS. "Influencing people towards harmful policy". What a load of crap.

Here's an idea for Republicans - create policies that appeal to more than 50% of the voting public. Wow, what an idea. If they do that, there is no "media influence" in the world that can shake that. "Influencing people towards harmful policy". I've never read anything so inane.

 

[Turnoverchaincane]

What a pvssified bunch of excuses.

"Clear bias"? Who gives a ****. Everyone has their own opinions. On the newspaper side, media bias was MUCH WORSE 100 years ago, there were literally dozens of major city newspapers that spouted one party line or the other. People forget that William Randolph Hearst was largely responsible for inflaming American sentiment to get involved in the Spanish-American War.

As for televised media, it has become polarized, if you really believe in right-wing ideology, YOU CAN WATCH FOX NEWS. "Influencing people towards harmful policy". What a load of crap.

Here's an idea for Republicans - create policies that appeal to more than 50% of the voting public. Wow, what an idea. If they do that, there is no "media influence" in the world that can shake that. "Influencing people towards harmful policy". I've never read anything so inane.

Dems have won the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections...But they're said to be out of touch...with the "Real America"!

Yeah that's the ticket. Let's let places like LA, New York and Chigago, determine the outcome of every presidential election. Complete ****holes that have been run into the ground with liberal policies.
Meanwhile in 2016. The current President of the United States won a whopping 2,626 counties in the United States while Hilary Clinton only won 467. Not even close. But you keep regurgitating that popular vote narrative the liberal media keeps shoving down your throats. Do yourself a favor and get off the liberal political Plantation . Become an Independent voter and think for yourself. Or just keep melting down when things don't go your way and become constantly triggered. The choice is yours.


Go Canes!!!!!

 

[JD08]

This should be simple. If jokes are going to **** off half your potential audience rethink them unless you also tell jokes ****ing off the other half. People will tolerate some offense if they don't see it as malicious bias.

Of course, we've gotten to the point now where people threaten to cancel subscriptions if news sources publish something they disagree with, so maybe not.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Yeah that's the ticket. Let's let places like LA, New York and Chigago, determine the outcome of every presidential election. Complete ****holes that have been run into the ground with liberal policies.
Meanwhile in 2016. The current President of the United States won a whopping 2,626 counties in the United States while Hilary Clinton only won 467. Not even close. But you keep regurgitating that popular vote narrative the liberal media keeps shoving down your throats. Do yourself a favor and get off the liberal political Plantation . Become an Independent voter and think for yourself. Or just keep melting down when things don't go your way and become constantly triggered. The choice is yours.


Go Canes!!!!!

Typical insane right-wing ramblings.

Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote.

People vote.

I don't give a **** where people live, I only care who the majority votes for. The president is selected by people, not "counties".

But you are going to create a false comparison between "cities" and "counties". None of that matters.

People matter. Majority rule. Democracy.

What a joke, trying to use land divisions ("counties") that were invented hundreds of years ago to justify our broken voting system.

Counties. Good lord, what will we hear next? Which presidential candidate won the most zip codes? Which presidential candidate won the most area codes? Rural routes vs. city blocks?

Inane nonsense from people who invent false equivalencies to justify "why they won".

 

[JD08]

Typical insane right-wing ramblings.

Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote.

People vote.

I don't give a **** where people live, I only care who the majority votes for. The president is selected by people, not "counties".

But you are going to create a false comparison between "cities" and "counties". None of that matters.

People matter. Majority rule. Democracy.

What a joke, trying to use land divisions ("counties") that were invented hundreds of years ago to justify our broken voting system.

Counties. Good lord, what will we hear next? Which presidential candidate won the most zip codes? Which presidential candidate won the most area codes? Rural routes vs. city blocks?

Inane nonsense from people who invent false equivalencies to justify "why they won".

There's a reason we're a republic, not a democracy. It's by design that change takes place slower than it would with a true democracy. It also the same reason we have a bicameral legislature and the electoral college.

 

[classiccane12]

Typical insane right-wing ramblings.

Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote.

People vote.

I don't give a **** where people live, I only care who the majority votes for. The president is selected by people, not "counties".

But you are going to create a false comparison between "cities" and "counties". None of that matters.

People matter. Majority rule. Democracy.

What a joke, trying to use land divisions ("counties") that were invented hundreds of years ago to justify our broken voting system.

Counties. Good lord, what will we hear next? Which presidential candidate won the most zip codes? Which presidential candidate won the most area codes? Rural routes vs. city blocks?

Inane nonsense from people who invent false equivalencies to justify "why they won".

Foolish to not even address the issues with pure democratic majority rule like tyranny of the majority and mob rule. Where marginal benefits to the majority outweigh bigger negatives to the minority. Especially when considering the sheer geographic size of the US, it easy to see how small areas with lots of people can disproportionately affect those in more rural areas, where the interests of different groups don't line up. Pure democracy has been tried before, it doesn't work, that's why we and most other nations are democratic republics.

 

[LoungeLord]

SNL has always poked fun at and satirized political figures. Too many people are triggered nowadays, and as @nystateofmind stated, the writing is generally poor.

Yes, they really let Obama have it during his time in office.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

There's a reason we're a republic, not a democracy. It's by design that change takes place slower than it would with a true democracy. It also the same reason we have a bicameral legislature and the electoral college.

Bull and ****e.

Nobody decided to make us a "republic" to create elections with 100 million voters who are then told "your vote didn't matter, 500 electors mattered".

And the reason why we have a "bicameral legislature" is because the southern states used the three-fifths compromise to inflate their representation (pretty neat trick to count slaves while not allowing them to vote).

The "electoral college" is the same ridiculous joke that it always was. INDIRECT election. Which we eliminated for US Senators.

Look, I'm not going to get personal with you, but you need to do more than regurgitate some 9th grade civics lessons (that are also inaccurate).

Words mean something. A "republic" does not require INDIRECT democracy. Nobody is complaining about the job of government being done by democratically ELECTED representatives.

The issue is, and always has been, how the governmental representatives are selected.

A "republic" is not defined by "indirect elections" or "bicameral legislature" or "electoral college" or "counties". All of those are unique and unnecessary contrivances that were created hundreds of years ago for reasons having NOTHING to do with "creating a republic".

It's always Republicans who love to wax philosophical about our "republic", while having no idea of what a republic is. And having no idea that a governing republic AND democratic elections are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[L A M P]

@TheOriginalCane Speak your piece & move along.. enough with these drivel filled novels. You aren't "woke", just opinionated.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Foolish to not even address the issues with pure democratic majority rule like tyranny of the majority and mob rule. Where marginal benefits to the majority outweigh bigger negatives to the minority. Especially when considering the sheer geographic size of the US, it easy to see how small areas with lots of people can disproportionately affect those in more rural areas, where the interests of different groups don't line up. Pure democracy has been tried before, it doesn't work, that's why we and most other nations are democratic republics.

What an ignorant post.

The term "republic" refers to the concept that the "government" is made up of democratically-elected representatives. The term "democracy" refers to the concept that the SELECTION of these representatives is done by majority-rule.

Your (false) argument is that, somehow, a "republic" NEEDS, by necessity, a distortion of the vote of the people in order to somehow achieve some pre-meditated goal. Wrong.

There is only "sheer geographic size" of the US today. There was no such thing in the 1700s. This is a typical mistake that people make TODAY, where they use the reality of TODAY to try to explain why some guys did something 250 years ago. Wrong.

The concept of "large geographic areas" vs. "more rural areas" is not suddenly fixed by creating distortions in the US system. You have the SAME issues on a state level. Chicago dominates Illinois politics. Atlanta dominates Georgia politics. You don't fix those natural tensions by giving disproportionate votes to to rural areas in Illinois or Georgia.

This isn't rocket science. It is mathematically provable that the vote of an individual in Montana counts more than the vote of an individual in California, and that is NOT based on whether it is a person who lives in a Montana city or farm or whether it is a person who lives in a California city or farm.

It doesn't matter if you "like the outcome" or not. It is undeniable that the voting system is distorted by 200 years of unintentional consequences. The Founding Fathers did not "intend" for the presidential vote of people in 1788 Rhode Island to have more power than the presidential vote of people in 1788 Virginia. That is NOT what they intended to create, and that is NOT what they intended for an outcome.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

@TheOriginalCane Speak your piece & move along.. enough with these drivel filled novels. You aren't "woke", just opinionated.

I didn't say I was "woke" or opinionated. But I am correct. Factually.

 

[Turnoverchaincane]

Typical insane right-wing ramblings.

Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote.

People vote.

I don't give a **** where people live, I only care who the majority votes for. The president is selected by people, not "counties".

But you are going to create a false comparison between "cities" and "counties". None of that matters.

People matter. Majority rule. Democracy.

What a joke, trying to use land divisions ("counties") that were invented hundreds of years ago to justify our broken voting system.

Counties. Good lord, what will we hear next? Which presidential candidate won the most zip codes? Which presidential candidate won the most area codes? Rural routes vs. city blocks?

Inane nonsense from people who invent false equivalencies to justify "why they won".

Registered Independent Voter here. Have been for my entire voting life. Nice try. I stopped reading at your typical right wing- ramblings. You're obviously a left wing wack job. Who freaks out everytime someone has a different opinion or In this case presents simple facts. You know. Like how people that vote. Live in counties that are in states. The electoral college was created to keep radicals like yourself from taking over the country. You don't like the rules? Leave the country. You're free to do so. That's ok. You're probably a lost cause by the sounds of your rants. Good luck being triggered for the next 5 years.
Step away from the TV take a deep breath and give Independent thought a chance to creep into that mind of yours that lives on the liberal political Plantation. You might learn something.

Go Canes!!!!!!!

 

[L A M P]

"I am correct. Factually."

Fixed

 

[JD08]

Bull and ****e.

Nobody decided to make us a "republic" to create elections with 100 million voters who are then told "your vote didn't matter, 500 electors mattered".

And the reason why we have a "bicameral legislature" is because the southern states used the three-fifths compromise to inflate their representation (pretty neat trick to count slaves while not allowing them to vote).

The "electoral college" is the same ridiculous joke that it always was. INDIRECT election. Which we eliminated for US Senators.

Look, I'm not going to get personal with you, but you need to do more than regurgitate some 9th grade civics lessons (that are also inaccurate).

Words mean something. A "republic" does not require INDIRECT democracy. Nobody is complaining about the job of government being done by democratically ELECTED representatives.

The issue is, and always has been, how the governmental representatives are selected.

A "republic" is not defined by "indirect elections" or "bicameral legislature" or "electoral college" or "counties". All of those are unique and unnecessary contrivances that were created hundreds of years ago for reasons having NOTHING to do with "creating a republic".

It's always Republicans who love to wax philosophical about our "republic", while having no idea of what a republic is. And having no idea that a governing republic AND democratic elections are not mutually exclusive concepts.

You don't suppose that smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware might have been concerned about being overruled by larger states? How would you convince a state to join your country without offering them a seat at the table?

The reason we have a bicameral legislature is so the interests of both the majority of the people AND the individual states get equal representation.

You also incorrectly assume my party. A republic is a simpler way of stating a representative democracy rather than a direct one. The idea is that the will of the people decides matters of state and that's worked just fine for a long time, not just here, but a great many other countries. The only time its an issue is when you have a divided country on the popular vote.