Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Small Talk: Cup O' Joe

Dagny

By Dagny
in Morning Joe

Guest

Please remember that the Small Talk thread does not allow for the conversations that violate the Primetimer Politics Rule.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Kemper
Kemper

Today has just been one of those days.  But we did have a ramp installed a couple of months ago - a charity group did it.  They do it for free but we gave them a nice donation.  That ramp helps.  

Kemper
Kemper

Today started with me listening to Joe's rant for almost the entire first half-hour of the show.  The rest of the day so far has consisted of dealing with Medicare, Social Security and Blue Cross.  Ar

Eliot
Eliot

I'll be honest...it's hard to draw the line. MJ is a show *about* politics, so when you're commenting about how you're feeling about something that was said on the show (or pointing out that something

Posted Images

teddysmom

teddysmom

I thought we could all use a laugh.  Warning: This may not be everyone's taste.

It's a new Borat movie, so it's crude, juvenile, and hilarious.  My Amazon Prime subscription just became worth the $. 

https://people.com/movies/see-sacha-baron-cohen-dressed-as-trump-in-new-trailer-for-borat-sequel/

I linked it like this because the still in the trailer has Cohen almost naked.  Important areas are covered. Didn't want to offend anyone. 

Please to enjoy! 

  • LOL 2
teddysmom

teddysmom

18 minutes ago, neona said:

OMG OMG wait is this gonna BE A REAL THING oooor is it just a commercial??? Like is there gonna be an actual episode?

Yes they're re enacting Hartsfield Landing. It airs on HBO Max Oct 15.  I follow a bunch of the cast on Twitter, and West Wing Weekly podcast. They've been talking it about it for a few months.  It's a GOTV promotion in association with Michelle Obama. 

  • Love 2
teddysmom

teddysmom

I watched this.  I almost wish they would have done "College Kids", it was about GOTV and making college affordable. Much more relevant than a small town in NH that votes at midnight. It was a cute story 20 years ago.  

I read a thread on Twitter last night, the person commenting was hate watching first season.  She didn't like the misogyny, which ran rampant during the Sorkin years.   Sorkin has never been great at writing for women, they are capable in one respect, but they are always there to service the male characters, and to be admired for their looks, not their resumes.  They seem almost  buffoonish at times.  CJ falling off the treadmill or on the stairs boarding AF1, Ainsley Hayes dancing around in her office in a bathrobe (were they kidding with that?) running out of the Oval because she was scared to meet Bartlett. And Donna? Don't get me started.  Or CJ flirting/almost hooking up with Danny.  Former Press Secretaries have commented on the podcast that IRL she would have been fired for her behavior with Danny. 

As soon as Sorkin left the women all seemed to become actual people and not cartoon characters. CJ became CoS, Donna quit and went to work for Russell, basically telling Josh to F off in so many words, after hooking up with Hotty McHotStuff Irish photojournalist Colin Ayres. 
Sorkin also screwed up with "Dead Irish Writers". He had Donna not being a citizen because the border of MN and Canada had been redrawn and she was born in Canada, technically.  Except her parents were US citizens, so the whole thing was absurd. 

He also wrote story lines which were almost blatantly homophobic.  He had a character call Charlie a fairy, Charlie wonder if Josh was going to take Zoey to gay bar, etc.  JFC. 

And you have to love Sorkin getting dragged on TWOP forum and creating a fake username to push back on the criticism. 

rant over.  I still love the show.  I can just look back on it and realize how much society has changed re it's treatment of women, and minorities which reflects in the arts. 

  • Love 4
teddysmom

teddysmom

(edited)
8 minutes ago, xaxat said:

I remember those days. That was wild.

A couple of the mods from back then were on the podcast. It was really fun to hear them talk about it. 

And then Sorkin writes a story line where Josh  does the same thing, goes on some political website and gets into it with the members, but Donna and he trash all the people on the forum like we're/they're  a bunch of basement dwelling trolls. 

Edited by teddysmom
  • Love 3
neona

neona

23 hours ago, teddysmom said:

rant over.  I still love the show.  I can just look back on it and realize how much society has changed re it's treatment of women, and minorities which reflects in the arts. 

ITA. I didn't watch in real time, I watched it some years later and like the sexism didn't bother me as much because it looks and feels so dated anyway - but it's so damn smart and inspiring and energetic. I honestly miss that combination of optimism and intelligence so much - all the "smart" shows today are usually also "gritty" and graphic and cynical. Sigh.

I tried to watch his other show, The Newsroom, but that shit really WAS sexist, and there was no passage of time to excuse it ...so I guess he didn't evolve much in the interim. There was one female journalist on that show who was like, "I don't understand how teh economy works, omg!!" and it was a whole cutsey STORYLINE. No. Just, no.

  • Love 2
teddysmom

teddysmom

2 minutes ago, neona said:

I tried to watch his other show, The Newsroom, but that shit really WAS sexist, and there was no passage of time to excuse it ...so I guess he didn't evolve much in the interim. There was one female journalist on that show who was like, "I don't understand how teh economy works, omg!!" and it was a whole cutsey STORYLINE. No. Just, no.

Yeah Newsroom was terrible with women, too.  It's okay to not understand every aspect of macro economics, but to just be that blatantly dumb about it.  She's an EP on a national news show.   And the Olivia Munn character was smart re economics but acted like an idiot in other aspects. 

On West Wing the women were smart,  they were just not treated with respect, by Sorkin or the male characters.  That's why I like the post Sorkin years better in that the women were allowed to grow. Some have a problem with CJ being made CoS, but Leo was the one who gave Bartlett the idea. 

The saving grace with Sorkin shows is that they are uplifting and inspiring.  

  • Love 1
neona

neona

(edited)

Funnily enough Sorkin's best female characters were the sort of peripheral ones? Like Mrs Landingham, Nancy McNally, Surgeon General Millie... Almost like he understood strong women could exist, from his surroundings... and could sorta reliably sketch them...but then when he was called upon to portray female characters in depth, and give them substance, he drew a blank, and got it all wrong.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting while watching.

Also everyone will judge me now but the character I loved/identified most with in the series was Amy Gardner...yeah she was a bit insensitive buuut she also just did wtf she wanted... 

Ohhh and remember Glenn Close's one-episode Supreme Court Judge? I fucking wish I lived in that parallel universe right now.

ETA:

 

Edited by neona
teddysmom

teddysmom

16 hours ago, neona said:

Also everyone will judge me now but the character I loved/identified most with in the series was Amy Gardner...yeah she was a bit insensitive buuut she also just did wtf she wanted... 

I don't judge you, I just didn't like Amy because she was so full of herself, and refused to understand how the political game had to be played in the WH, as far as their interactions with Congress.   And this had nothing to do with the Josh/Donna dynamic.    I think Lou (Janeane Garofola) was a better written character who wouldn't play the game.   Amy expected everyone to just roll over and do what she wanted, and she (IMO) didn't present her case very well. It was just "here's a list of women, use one of them or feel my wrath".   And she wondered why she kept getting fired. 

Remember what Matt Santos said to Amy:   "fix the house from the inside instead of tearing it down, that's what the grown ups do". 

  • Love 1
teddysmom

teddysmom

18 hours ago, neona said:

Ohhh and remember Glenn Close's one-episode Supreme Court Judge? I fucking wish I lived in that parallel universe right now.

Yes that's one of the episodes that makes me cry. Even when they bring in William Fichtner as the conservative judge, and he tells Charlie how to argue affirmative action.  When Bartlett announces her appointment as Chief Justice.. omg

  • Love 2
neona

neona

(edited)
On 10/14/2020 at 2:46 PM, teddysmom said:

I don't judge you, I just didn't like Amy because she was so full of herself, and refused to understand how the political game had to be played in the WH, as far as their interactions with Congress.   And this had nothing to do with the Josh/Donna dynamic.    I think Lou (Janeane Garofola) was a better written character who wouldn't play the game.   Amy expected everyone to just roll over and do what she wanted, and she (IMO) didn't present her case very well. It was just "here's a list of women, use one of them or feel my wrath".   And she wondered why she kept getting fired. 

Remember what Matt Santos said to Amy:   "fix the house from the inside instead of tearing it down, that's what the grown ups do". 

 

I think in many ways in the same way I had this "time filter" on about the show in general, I had a similar filter re: Amy. I sorta felt they had this interesting character and they had to make her unsympathetic because of the Josh/Donna angle (I think?), and also this outdated 90s/00s perspective of Cautious Feminism. So I sort of interpreted her actions in light of that, and it sorta felt like Sorkin was saying warning! if you're a lil too transgressive you're gonna get fired! You can be stubborn but only if men find it cute! And in a weird way it made me like Amy even more, heh. Go figure.

Edited by neona
teddysmom

teddysmom

1 hour ago, neona said:
On 10/14/2020 at 9:46 AM, teddysmom said:

I don't judge you, I just didn't like Amy because she was so full of herself, and refused to understand how the political game had to be played in the WH, as far as their interactions with Congress.   And this had nothing to do with the Josh/Donna dynamic.    I think Lou (Janeane Garofola) was a better written character who wouldn't play the game.   Amy expected everyone to just roll over and do what she wanted, and she (IMO) didn't present her case very well. It was just "here's a list of women, use one of them or feel my wrath".   And she wondered why she kept getting fired. 

Remember what Matt Santos said to Amy:   "fix the house from the inside instead of tearing it down, that's what the grown ups do". 

 

I think in many ways in the same way I had this "time filter" on about the show in general, I had a similar filter re: Amy. I sorta felt they had this interesting character and they had to make her unsympathetic because of the Josh/Donna angle (I think?), and also this outdated 90s/00s perspective of Cautious Feminism. So I sort of interpreted her actions in light of that, and it sorta felt like Sorkin was saying warning! if you're a lil too transgressive you're gonna get fired! You can be stubborn but only if men find it cute! And in a weird way it made me like Amy even more, heh. Go figure.

Parker actually approached the show about being a love interest for Josh.  I think they decided to make her the anti-Donna.  Remember there's an episode where she & Josh get into it, and Amy approached Donna about how to smooth things over, Donna was not having it.  Of course Donna was in love with Josh (Janelle said that from the outset, she approached Donna as being in love with him but having to hide it. ) Brad said it took Josh a long time to realize he was in love with her, because he was a fucking idiot.   His words. I must concur. 

He only realized it when he almost lost her. 

Some of my comments about the silly way the women were written don't take into account that Sorkin always viewed the show as a type of light comedy.   As the seasons progressed the female buffoonery was toned down quite a bit. 

Mrs Landingham and Nancy McNally were probably the most well written female characters from the outset. Neither took shit from anybody. Esp Bartlett. 

  • Love 2
neona

neona

(edited)
1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

Parker actually approached the show about being a love interest for Josh.  I think they decided to make her the anti-Donna.  Remember there's an episode where she & Josh get into it, and Amy approached Donna about how to smooth things over, Donna was not having it.  Of course Donna was in love with Josh (Janelle said that from the outset, she approached Donna as being in love with him but having to hide it. ) Brad said it took Josh a long time to realize he was in love with her, because he was a fucking idiot.   His words. I must concur. 

He only realized it when he almost lost her. 

Yeah but that makes me sad. Idk, I guess watching it long after it was aired, I can't relate to Donna AT ALL, even if I was her age when I first watched it a few years later?  

In the old days it was like portrayed as normal and charming for old dudes to romance their young assistants, but now I find it icky.

And I find it gross that Amy's well-educated, mature character was twisted to make Josh and Donna's old-fashioned unbalanced dynamic work, ugh.

There are so many examples, but like, it's Maria and Captain von Trapp and the Baroness all over again, cutesy 50s style. I wish they'd developed Donna to just go fuck you, Josh, and marry someone who actually deserved her. And Josh to actually pursue someone who could challenge hm intellectually. 

Buuut ymmv, of course, that's just how I saw it watching it later lol. Still  loved loved loved this show and respect the fuck out of Sorkin and his genius.

Question for all of you: (with affection and good faith!) - was there any West Wing aspect or storyline you changed your mind about later/during a re-watch? 

Edited by neona
teddysmom

teddysmom

(edited)
Quote

In the old days it was like portrayed as normal and charming for old dudes to romance their young assistants, but now I find it icky.

Donna was around 25, Josh was a very youthful 38 when they met.  They had a close friendship and flirtation, but it never went further.  He didn't "romance" her while she was his assistant.  He dated Amy, he had a crush on Joey. Donna dated Jack the Naval Officer,  the Republican Congressional aide to name a couple. 

And they didn't really hook up til she was 33 and he was 46, That's not a big deal. When I was 34 I dated a guy who was 25. People thought I was the younger of the two of us.   

57 minutes ago, neona said:

Question for all of you: (with affection and good faith!) - was there any West Wing aspect or storyline you changed your mind about later/during a re-watch? 

I just find mistakes they made in factual stuff, like Donna not being a US citizen because of the boundary between MN & Canada, but her parents were US citizens so she was a citizen.  There's a lot of stuff that people in the positions they held would not have been involved with, people in legislative affairs would handle more of the Congressional interactions. Toby & Sam would be communications and speech writers, not negotiating with Congress.  The director of Communications would not try to solve Social Security.  That's what the President's economic advisors are for. 

I don't like the overtly sexual stuff they would say to each other.  Once CJ said to Sam "I'm gonna throw you down on this sofa and do you right here".  WTF  Comments about the women's bodies, etc.  Bruno made a lot of really awful comments  to women, when he ran the Bartlett re election campaign.  

No one liked Toby being the leaker of the military shuttle story. Richard Schiff said Toby would have NEVER done that.  That whole story line was ridiculous and unnecessary.  There was enough conflict between Toby and Josh, with Josh leaving to run Santos' campaign, they didn't need to make Toby betray Bartlett and his friends.  I also don't like Zoey being kidnapped. Her detail would have gone in the bathroom with her.  They would have been  standing off to the side when she was sitting with that little asshole boyfriend at the club.  She wouldn't move that they didn't know where she was. 

What I love about the show is the friendships and the loyalty they have to each other.   

"Now you're down in the hole, too."

"Yeah but I've been here before and I know the way out. "

"As long as I have a job, you have a job".  

Edited by teddysmom
  • Love 2
teddysmom

teddysmom

50 minutes ago, neona said:

And Josh to actually pursue someone who could challenge hm intellectually. 

Donna had to get out from under Josh (that's what she said)  to realize how much she had to offer. That's why she quit. She realized she was too good for that assistant job.  She was smart, maybe she didn't have a law degree from Yale , but she had common sense that Josh Lyman would never have. 

The scene in the SUV when they're talking about the pro choice group supporting Vinnick and Donna tells them, "they're not on our side. They're on their own side. They're an interest group jockeying for influence. You think they're supporters of a Republican no matter what they're leadership says? Pull back. I bet 85% of them are dyed-in-the-sackcloth Santos supporters."

The look on Josh's face.   Suddenly the power dynamic of their relationship did a 180. She had the upper hand from there on.  

neona

neona

2 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Donna had to get out from under Josh (that's what she said)  to realize how much she had to offer. That's why she quit. She realized she was too good for that assistant job.  She was smart, maybe she didn't have a law degree from Yale , but she had common sense that Josh Lyman would never have. 

The scene in the SUV when they're talking about the pro choice group supporting Vinnick and Donna tells them, "they're not on our side. They're on their own side. They're an interest group jockeying for influence. You think they're supporters of a Republican no matter what they're leadership says? Pull back. I bet 85% of them are dyed-in-the-sackcloth Santos supporters."

The look on Josh's face.   Suddenly the power dynamic of their relationship did a 180. She had the upper hand from there on.  

No no, I get this - and it makes sense in the context of the story.

But I guess my gripe is with the story itself? Donna had to get out from under Josh, but only because Josh was her love interest. Like... Carol was smart, but Carol never had to get out from CJ's shadow? Margaret was fucking awesome but she never got an independent storyline? The only reason Donna had a storyline was because the Josh/Donna power dynamic was uncomfortable once the romantic aspect emerged.

I'm not judging it - I honestly thought it was a cute romance! But in many ways it's so interesing bc it illustrates how the women on the show, and their interests and personalities were modified to suit the arc of the male characters..

If this show had been created in 2020 Donna would not have been Josh's love interests. It would have been Toby, and Toby would have been played by a smart, unstable and unusually moody woman. And it would have been epic.

teddysmom

teddysmom

1 hour ago, neona said:

I can't relate to Donna AT ALL, even if I was her age when I first watched it a few years later?  

You don't necessarily have to relate to her.   She was supposed to be an innocent who was thrown into this world and became very savvy at negotiating it. 

I was very disappointed in her giving up on the Irish photojournalist. I would have left the WH and gone off with him in a heart beat. 

  • Love 1
teddysmom

teddysmom

1 minute ago, neona said:

but only because Josh was her love interest

No it wasn't because he was her love interest, maybe the viewers knew they loved each other, and Donna  thought she loved him, but she grew to resent him. 

Donna left because Josh wouldn't discuss giving her more responsibility. She had grown and could do more and he wanted her where she was. 

4 minutes ago, neona said:

But I guess my gripe is with the story itself? Donna had to get out from under Josh, but only because Josh was her love interest. Like... Carol was smart, but Carol never had to get out from CJ's shadow? Margaret was fucking awesome but she never got an independent storyline? The only reason Donna had a storyline was because the Josh/Donna power dynamic was uncomfortable once the romantic aspect emerged.

They have 44 minutes to service several characters, and not everyone can have an independent story line.  There are restrictions on tv shows as far as budgets for actors' appearances, time constraints etc. 

neona

neona

2 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You don't necessarily have to relate to her.   She was supposed to be an innocent who was thrown into this world and became very savvy at negotiating it. 

No, I agree. I just... feel like there's one world you can be savvy at negotiating without education... and another world it's insulting to educated women to suggest you can navigate without it, because we took out astronomical loans and sacrificed so damn much.. and portraying it as something you can charm your way through is just fucking insulting, and old-fashioned...

Donna was great as some things, she had skills and personality traits I genuinely respected.... but there was a sort of ambivalence when they tried to make her, artificially, into something she wasn't.

OK I understand her very much as a transitional character. And for that reason I find her SO educational. It's like...a dude like Sorkin can write a female character...and then because society is interesting, and evolving...he can feel compelled to change her because he understands he got it wrong... it's kind of a cultural moment, and so interesting, for that exact reason

  • Love 1
neona

neona

8 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

No it wasn't because he was her love interest, maybe the viewers knew they loved each other, and Donna  thought she loved him, but she grew to resent him. 

Donna left because Josh wouldn't discuss giving her more responsibility. She had grown and could do more and he wanted her where she was. 

 

No, it was because the creators realized this one-dimensional, child-like mentee-character had accidentally turned into a love interest, and it was just... a lil bit icky, and they had to turn it into something more palatable. And like...this is SO obvious in hindsight? I can't understand how anyone can watch this, as a continuous series... and not see how unequal it was, early on... at least for people growing up today?

But at the same time, I know this is hard to believe, but it doesn't diminish the romance for me (!), in the same time I fucking love Plato, and Thomas Mann, if you know what I mean. Grain of salt, historical context, and all that.

neona

neona

47 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You don't necessarily have to relate to her.   She was supposed to be an innocent who was thrown into this world and became very savvy at negotiating it. 

I was very disappointed in her giving up on the Irish photojournalist. I would have left the WH and gone off with him in a heart beat. 

Ok but the first (and second, and third) time I watched this, I wanted to BE the Irish photojournalist (*cough* Christiane Amanpour *cough*), not the boring vapid girl who could have run off with him in a heartbeat. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

  • Love 1
teddysmom

teddysmom

16 hours ago, neona said:

a lil bit icky, and they had to turn it into something more palatable.

I guess I don't understand what you think is icky about their relationship, is it from the standpoint of him using power over her sexually?   

He never once made a lewd comment to her or about her. He told her once she looked nice in a dress. He never suggested she do anything sexual to keep her job.  A supervisor by definition has power over an employee. Was Josh a dick sometimes? Yes. But he was a dick to everyone. He was also the first person you'd call if you were in trouble, because you wouldn't want to bother Leo.  

I wouldn't call Donna vapid, which by definition means offering nothing.  Donna offered A LOT.  If you have ever worked in a position of executive assistant to someone in a very upper management position, those people are the power behind the throne.  Josh appreciated what she did, so much so that he didn't want to give her a promotion for fear of losing her. 

Donna grew thru the seven seasons of the show, which is the whole point of narrative fiction. A character has to grow and change. 

Also as far as power, I watched an episode just last night where Donna called Josh an idiot. To his face.  And there was no repercussion whatsoever.  I wish I had that much power over my boss. 

  • Love 1
neona

neona

7 hours ago, teddysmom said:

I wouldn't call Donna vapid, which by definition means offering nothing.  Donna offered A LOT.  If you have ever worked in a position of executive assistant to someone in a very upper management position, those people are the power behind the throne.  Josh appreciated what she did, so much so that he didn't want to give her a promotion for fear of losing her. 

 

These are all interesting points. I retract my "vapid" statement, I didn't really mean that, at least not quite. And I agree that executive assistants offer invaluable skills. 

Tbh I think what I'm trying to say is that it wasn't necessarily a sexist storyline within the context of the story itself - and I agree Josh was never lewd etc - but seen from the outside, some years later, there was definitely something sexist about how the story was conceived by Sorkin, and the male-female dynamics it involved. Josh's tone towards her in the early seasons was decidedly paternal, and Donna would talk back to him and challenge him (and call him an idiot) but in the sort of way a daughter would challenge her father, IMO. When it turned romantic it sorta felt like the message was very, you know, My Fair Lady... except this time Eliza stuck around.

Having said that, I actually enjoyed the story, I know that sounds nuts, but I did! But I sorta had to put on time travel goggles to do so heh.

  • Love 1
teddysmom

teddysmom

(edited)
On 10/16/2020 at 5:14 PM, neona said:

I actually enjoyed the story, I know that sounds nuts,

Then we're both nuts!    I just watched Donna give Josh 7 kinds of hell for even suggesting that she was complaining about Jack Reese getting transferred because he was her bf, and not because, as we find out, it was Hutchinson punishing him for giving Bartlett a force depletion report that accurately predicted casualties if they sent troops to Kundu.

After Josh said maybe Jack asked for the transfer, so he could get away from Donna. AS IF.  In the previous scene, Josh was showing how jealous he was by telling Charlie about Jack's dress uniform buttons. 

Oh and CJ came onto Danny just to shut him down about the terrorist plane murder thing.  In an office with windows. Right outside the press briefing room. Like, WTF Sorkin??! 

I think Aaron used his writing back then to work out his issues with women. 

Even in Trial of Chicago 7, he makes up a fictional female character who was an undercover cop to try to get info from Jerry Rubin. It's kind of played for laughs but there seems to be a recurring theme in his writing. 

Edited by teddysmom
  • Love 2
plumbago blues

plumbago blues

8 minutes ago, Kemper said:

And it has crushed my soul.

Wow, really? I was invigorated as a voter...despite standing in line for 90 minutes in 93 degree weather under the hot Texas sun...enjoyed chatting with fellow voters and even some local candidates. I'm sure we weren't all voting the same way but we were all Americans exercising our rights. Quite inspiring, actually. Glad to have you back here!

  • Love 4
Kemper

Kemper

Plumbago Blues...thanks!  

Actually, the first days of early voting were fun; everyone was excited to vote.  Chatty, happy, everyone nice to one another.  By the second week it had devolved into meanness and ill-will.  I've been doing this for at least 4 election cycles; and I have never been as disillusioned about my fellow man.  However. 

The weather has chilled; been meeting with a couple friends on various patios and decks and doing coffee, tea and/or wine.  Depends on the time of day.  Family is talking about Thanksgiving - we may have a "group" Facetime while we eat if we can't get together.  I watched Hallmark Christmas Movies this weekend (I never do that) and felt better.  I just cannot allow myself to get as "down" as I was last week about the state of affairs we are in.  Plus, Irish Whiskey can help take the chill off.  

  • Love 2
oakville

oakville

1 hour ago, Kemper said:

 

 

 I watched Hallmark Christmas Movies this weekend (I never do that) and felt better.  I just cannot allow myself to get as "down" as I was last week about the state of affairs we are in.  Plus, Irish Whiskey can help take the chill off.  

I love watching Hallmark Christmas Movies! They do follow a standard formula, but they are still fun to watch.

  • Love 1
teddysmom

teddysmom

13 hours ago, Kemper said:

Actually, the first days of early voting were fun; everyone was excited to vote.  Chatty, happy, everyone nice to one another.  By the second week it had devolved into meanness and ill-will.  I've been doing this for at least 4 election cycles; and I have never been as disillusioned about my fellow man.  However. 

That's a shame. I just voted last week and I'm not a poll worker but as people left they were being friendly, asking how the lines were etc. State Farm had a little booth set up with coffee and a woman was walking around handing out snacks and water. 

 

 

  • Love 5
Kemper

Kemper

(edited)

Oakville....our old neighborhood in Northern Virginia....we voted at the local elementary school.  The PTA would hold a bake sale starting early in the morning; McDonald's would donate coffee, cups, napkins, creamers, etc.  We would sell the baked goods and coffee to the commuters early, first thing.  They would stop to vote on their way to work.  Later in the day parents donated heavier fare.  We cleaned up!  No matter how one voted, it was easy to be nice when eating cookies, pie, cake, etc.  

This "unhappy" behavior started maybe a couple election cycles ago.  But most people are cheery and are happy to vote.  However, this year I had some things said to me that broke me a bit.  I just got a call that a volunteer had to cancel their shift late this afternoon.  Never say never...

Sorry....I should have "replied" to Teddy's Mom for her post.

Edited by Kemper
Made a mistake in reply to wrong person!
  • Love 2
CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama

(edited)

My voting experience was funny.  I woke up early, since the precinct is around the corner, I got there about 10 minutes before they opened, because my brilliant idea was it would be empty.     Wrong!!!  The parking lot was full, so I followed a man in a big pickup truck who seemed to know what he was doing, and we parked next to the street, probably illegally (but not across the street marked tow away zone).     Then I stood in line for about 30 minutes, voted, and as I walked out of the voting place, I saw the parking lot was now over half empty.   So much for my get there early and the parking lot will be empty idea.           

I wonder how many of the creative parkers were blocked in, and had to wait for someone to move to get out of the way?  

The county I used to live in had been very rural, and then thousands of homes were built in a few years.    I was in line for 90 minutes during one Presidential election, but that turned into a big party.   No one discussed politics, but were just chatting, one man brought his English Bull dog puppy, and we all had fun.   The worst part was finding a parking space.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • LOL 1
  • Love 1
oakville

oakville

(edited)

It would be fun if Steve got his show back. They had pastries with the amount of calories on them to please Mika. Steve's guests included KAC & former Morning Joe panelist Ana Marie Cox. This show aired November 30, 2014.

https://www.msnbc.com/up/watch/counting-the-calories-of-the-up-pastry-plate-365291587751

Edited by oakville
  • Love 2
Kemper

Kemper

I tuned in to Brian Williams for a wee bit last night; he was asking someone a question regarding Truman.  This is ominous - are all the shows going to have guests on to speak about Truman?  

I also saw where Al Franken is now going to be a guest on both MSNBC and CNN.  I listen to his radio show some - and he is relaxed, knowledgeable and funny.  But my brother saw him on Bill Maher (ick) a couple of weeks ago and said he was not good at all.  If he can get his humor front and center again, maybe he could be on Morning Joe as a new regular.  I would love to see him match wits (if he is on his game) with Joe.  Please, MSNBC, make this happen.   

  • Love 5
Guest

Please remember that the Small Talk thread does not allow for the conversations that violate the Primetimer Politics Rule.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...