S03.E26: Third Party Candidates

[Athena]

Quote

Main segment: Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016 and Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016
Segments: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

 

[peeayebee]

The Most Patient Man on Earth segments are always welcome.

I'm glad John did the segment on Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. More people need to know about them.

Trump continues to be scary as shit.

[Primetimer]

Oliver thinks they're worth taking seriously, so he attempts to... well... take them seriously.

View the full article

[ganesh]

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are morons, and I'm glad John pointed that out, as well as the morons in the clip on the show parroting the "lesser of two evils" canard. I don't understand why no one is pressed to clarify this. I don't think people are voting for them because of their policies, however. I don't think anyone really knows or cares. It's more a vote against Trump and Clinton than anything. 

I also thought the point about Stein throwing gas on the fire and walking away in regards to the vaccines was important. *Especially* coming from an actual doctor. That's professionally unethical. 

[attica]

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

The Most Patient Man on Earth segments are always welcome.

Agreed. And this time, the segment taught me something! My workplace just did a mass mailing, using (unusual for us) mailing lists we purchased from other companies. More than 30% of our responses are non-responses, i.e. people who didn't just throw out unsolicited/unwanted mail, but took the time to write back to us expressing their existential discontent and/or confusion. I've been wondering who these people are and what's wrong with them, and now I know! They're poor Steve Scully's callers!

I'm still a little miffed with John's making people's objections to Hillary equivalent to the hellscape that is Trumpism, which he did again last night. I understand that he wants to be fair and do so quickly, and that people have objections to Hillary, but his putting them in the same frame ('both are objectionable') may be true in its elements, but wildly untrue in degree and kind.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The Most Patient Man on Earth segments are always welcome.

Who the hell is that guy? Is that C-SPAN? Who the heck watches that?

OK. John did a great job of pointing out some of Johnson and Stein's less publicized foibles. But the fact that Johnson didn't know where Aleppo is kind of makes sense because he's a non-interventionist. He doesn't care where Aleppo is, he doesn't think we have any business being in the middle east at all and shouldn't be in the business of policing the rest of the world. That's kind of the whole point. Whether or not that disqualifies him from being President is debatable. He's no less qualified than than Trump, say. 

(And lest you think I'm actually voting for him . . . no.)

Quote

I'm still a little miffed with John's making people's objections to Hillary equivalent to the hellscape that is Trumpism, which he did again last night. I understand that he wants to be fair and do so quickly, and that people have objections to Hillary, but his putting them in the same frame ('both are objectionable') may be true in its elements, but wildly untrue in degree and kind.

This. Look, I love you, John Oliver. I like you lots, Bill Maher. But, for the love of criminy, please stop perpetuating the notion that Clinton and Trump are equally objectionable. Just because "a majority of voters rate them unfavorably" doesn't make them equal. The things that drive Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings pale in comparison to the things that drive Trump's. E-mail servers, paid speeches to Wall Street and "secrecy" are not the same as bragging about sexual assault, calling Mexicans "rapists" or avoiding federal income taxes for 20 years. 

The fact that virtually everyone in the media keeps hammering home this idea that "both candidates"  are viewed unfavorably is its own self-fulfilling prophecy. It continues to feed the sentiment that it doesn't make any difference who we vote for because they're both the same, which is clearly untrue. Nothing could be further from the truth, and yet too many people believe it, because too many people like John Oliver keep saying it.

Edited October 17, 2016 by iMonrey

[ganesh]

As much as I can't stand the false equivalency either, I think there's a little more nuance to it. John was showing the clips of the people saying "Trump/Clinton are both as bad;" ok, so if you believe that, here are the other options to vote for. Let's take a look these candidates.

Oh, their policies are actually ridiculous and they really don't know much at all. You want to vote for them?

What I think John should have said though was that the people in the clip that are voting for Idiot McMoron or Brainfart O'Stupid don't actually care about their policies anyway. Which seems a lot worse to me imo. 

Quote

But the fact that Johnson didn't know where Aleppo is kind of makes sense because he's a non-interventionist. He doesn't care where Aleppo is, he doesn't think we have any business being in the middle east at all and shouldn't be in the business of policing the rest of the world.

If that is his position, then he should have stated it. You're going to have to deal with the Syrian civil war in some capacity, even if it's pulling troops out, so you kind of need to know where those troops are. Just because you're non-interventionist doesn't mean you get to be ignorant of world affairs. I'm not even saying he's got to have intricate policy positions either. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by ganesh

[stillshimpy]

Quote

The things that drive Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings pale in comparison to the things that drive Trump's. E-mail servers, paid speeches to Wall Street and "secrecy" are not the same as bragging about sexual assault, calling Mexicans "rapists" or avoiding federal income taxes for 20 years.

 

 

Precisely.  For many Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of everything that makes politics suck inside out and that's debatable in and of itself.  Trump is a narcissist, a racist,  a misogynist, and on top of that, he's essentially incompetent at everything he claims he does well.  So that's problematic on multiple fucking levels.  Clinton might be a lot of folks par for the course, situation normal, etc.  but truly they are not comparably bad on any level.   Even breaking it down to the "well, which one would you want to have a beer with....?"  of old, even if you hate her, that's still got to be Clinton because god alone fucking knows what Trumplestiltskin would get up to in the course of trying to behave like a normal human being.  At least Clinton is politic enough to not burn your house down while grabbing your ass and likely insulting your ancestors and beyond that?  If she didn't know how to fucking drink a beer and ask about your kid's tennis lesson, she'd have the wits to hire someone to teach her how to fake it if there was anything crucial on the line. 

So having revealed (for the eleventy billionth time around here) that I voted for Hillary (yes, past tense, I practically did a victory dance in the street when I mailed in my ballot because good fucking riddance and here's hoping Hillary wins the damned day), I found John's coverage almost entirely delightful except for the "both are objectionable" thing.  I admit to shrugging that off because truly, anyone who believes that at this point is already judging from imbalanced criteria.  

That and good gawd, what precisely is wrong with Gary Johnson?  I think I know why he's hitting the medical grade strain, the man has medical-grade rage issues when questioned.  Awesome.  Just what you want in a president, an overly reactionary, ill-informed, social program-hating , apparently mapless, apparently easily-infuriated stoner.  I usually like stoners. 

California was voting on legal weed anyway and god knows I voted "for the love of mercy, that's probably a really good idea, can we start now?"  but Gary Johnson weirds me out enough that I mildly resent agreeing with him on even that. 

Jill Stein is underqualified but primarily I think her placating of conspiracy theorists is the least worrying because it's not like they needed that reinforcement to keep going and ....Jill Stein is about as likely to be president as my dog is.  

Edited October 17, 2016 by stillshimpy

[attica]

5 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Jill Stein is about as likely to be president as my dog is.  

Is your dog on ballots in 44 states? Great petition work -- for a dog! For a candidate, not so much.

[stillshimpy]

I feel certain that on ballots in ....I'm going to go with a likely ....25 states there is someone named Oscar on the ballot.  Maybe more :)   A vote for Oscar is a vote for....WAIT....this is key....THAT'S THE WRONG OSCAR.  

If you want to Oscar most likely to bring a freshly killed mole in 2016, you're pretty much shit-outa-luck.  

Weed? 

Edited October 17, 2016 by stillshimpy

[trow125]

27 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

So having revealed (for the eleventy billionth time around here) that I voted for Hillary (yes, past tense, I practically did a victory dance in the street when I mailed in my ballot because good fucking riddance and here's hoping Hillary wins the damned day), I found John's coverage almost entirely delightful except for the "both are objectionable" thing.  I admit to shrugging that off because truly, anyone who believes that at this point is already judging from imbalanced criteria.  

John did handle this perfectly a couple of weeks ago, with the raisin cookie vs. deluge of raisins example. There's a very nuanced takedown of the "two most unpopular candidates in history" idea here (a few months old, but still relevant).

I had no idea about Dr. Jill Stein's 90s folk-rock band, but I found it hilarious. Their entire oeuvre is available on Bandcamp (yay?).

I'd love to know if "most patient man on television" Steve Scully watched that brilliantly trippy segment on last night's show.

[sinkwriter]

Quote

I had no idea about Dr. Jill Stein's 90s folk-rock band, but I found it hilarious.

I had no idea either (LOL). I know John was going for the jokes, but -- problematic "silent thunder" lyrics aside -- I've heard much worse music. (The line about her band sounding like a cross between the Indigo Girls and the Red Hot Chili Peppers was pretty funny, though.)

[Hanahope]

I did like to hear about the main third party candidates and good reasons why neither one is remotely qualified for the office.  

Jill Stein - Its my understanding that the federal government loaned the banks money during the recession, but they did have to pay it back.  Now perhaps its without interest, so to that extent, I could be on board with students paying back their loans without interest.

Johnson - he's just a republican who admits to getting high and doesn't mind the gays.

Oh and John, I'm very happy to vote for Hillary.  With Hillary, I know that the country will still be around and in roughly the same condition as now, and that's just fine with me.  If its a little better, bonus.

[ruby24]

Yeah, sorry John, but I AM 100% excited and happy to be voting for Hillary, and I'm thrilled to be voting for the first woman president as well.

She is the ONLY qualified person running in this race.

[futurechemist]

Meh, I think John Oliver missed the mark in this episode.  Third-party candidates for President are inherently stupid.  It doesn't matter if you agree with them or nor, they're not going to be elected.  With our first-past-the-post system, a viable 3rd party candidate would have to have a campaign infrastructure in place in over half the country to mathematically be electable.  And even if they were elected, they'd have nobody in Congress to support their policies.  

Now 3rd parties in Congress, state legislatures, governors, or any parliamentary democracy is a different story.  But spending any time on Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, let alone Joe Exotic is just a waste of time and resources.

[atomationage]

I thought Joe Exotic was the funniest part of this episode, but I wondered why JO didn't mention Evan McMullin, the guy from Utah who decided to run because he can't tolerate Drumpf.  He'll probably get more votes than Jill Stein if he managed to get on enough state ballots.  I don't get why these shows feel that have to give equal time to negativity about Hillary.  Some people who were very negative about her when Bernie was running against her have come around, like Bill Maher.  JO did conclude that she's the sane one running against the three main loons and a pack of even loonier loons. 

[Victor the Crab]

I was hoping Ollie would eventually talk about third party candidates in the U.S. presidential election. And how he would explain why the two main candidates in that category - Gary Johnson and Jill Stein - are dangerously unqualified to be elected president (like Drumph). Personally, I would like to see Joe Exotic ahead of the three mentioned idiots in the upcoming election. Just for shits and giggles.

How does Steve Scully manage to get through his workday? A giant bag of weed he goes through?

[ruby24]

1 hour ago, futurechemist said:

Meh, I think John Oliver missed the mark in this episode.  Third-party candidates for President are inherently stupid.  It doesn't matter if you agree with them or nor, they're not going to be elected.  With our first-past-the-post system, a viable 3rd party candidate would have to have a campaign infrastructure in place in over half the country to mathematically be electable.  And even if they were elected, they'd have nobody in Congress to support their policies.  

Now 3rd parties in Congress, state legislatures, governors, or any parliamentary democracy is a different story.  But spending any time on Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, let alone Joe Exotic is just a waste of time and resources.

I agree. I think his being English and used to the parliamentary system might be the reason he feels that third party candidates should even be indulged and considered. I'm sorry, but ours is a two-party system and yes, until the day we abolish the Electoral College, the only thing a third party can ever do is be a spoiler in a presidential race. Teddy Roosevelt himself acknowledged and regretted that his run in 1912 lost the election for the Republicans.

And again, this year, I do NOT believe that Hillary is only the lesser of two evils. We've got a sane, competent person with an unexciting personality against absolute fascism. That's not the lesser of two evils, that's preserving the Republic versus the destruction of it. It's a tragedy that the Republican party folded in the face of evil and it reveals that we are vulnerable to a fascist takeover like we never thought possible.

[theatremouse]

I didn't think Oliver's tone in this one implied an equality of badness betwixt Trump and Clinton. I thought he was simply starting with the premise that lots of people dislike both, and regardless of the differences in degree of said dislike, for some people that dislike rules out both candidates. I'm sure there are plenty who find one significantly more objectionable than the other, but for various reasons (many not grounded in logic or reason) those people find it unacceptable to vote for either, regardless of which is worse.

So he was basically saying, OK people who feel that way, let's look at the two dinguses you purportedly find less objectionable. If anything I thought this piece theoretically helped import the reality that they really are just spoilers, pulling votes from one of the two who could actually win. So theoretically, to anyone who does not yet get that, well here let's destroy the third option these folks for some reason think are less horrible. Because then maybe once they realize it's a question of horrible-horrible-horrible-horrible, maybe then they'll go the route of voting in a manner more likely to preclude whomever they deem most horrible from winning; instead of some ill-advised throwaway "conscience" vote for a candidate who actually doesn't even represent whatever better values they think they might. Because they don't. Clearly the other angles of approach with those sorts of people have not worked yet, so I appreciate coming at it this way. Anything that might flip the switch in someone's brain and stop Trump from starting WWIII 3 hours after taking office (which is absolutely what I anticipate would happen) is welcome. If the raisins didn't do it, then maybe this will. Because I bet some people were thinking, Trump is deskful of raisins, Hillary is a dozen in one cookie, but if they think Stein or Johnson are rainsin-free, time to wake the fuck up.

Edited October 17, 2016 by theatremouse

[atomationage]

16 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

Trump is deskful of raisins, Hillary is a dozen in one cookie, but if they think Stein or Johnson are rainsin-free, time to wake the fuck up.

I was wondering how many raisins were in that shitstorm.  That was a lot of raisins. 

 

1 hour ago, Victor the Crab said:

Personally, I would like to see Joe Exotic ahead of the three mentioned idiots in the upcoming election. Just for shits and giggles.

I would like for Drumpf's vote to be at the level of a third party candidate.  He certainly doesn't deserve as many votes as even Perot got, and wouldn't get that many without that R next to his name, IMO.

[stillshimpy]

For the record, I was downright giddy to be voting for Hillary.  My 'good riddance' was directed at the entire, bloated, horrifying, demoralizing, soul-curdling process that has been this election cycle.  To be clear.  Yay Hillary, go Hillary! I'm genuinely pretty psyched by the concept of her presidency.  First female president (way past, past time but nonetheless Yay!) someone whose learning curve will be practically nonexistent in these troubled times (ideal....even if it was brought about by the world sucking like it's a hobby...so Yay!) , I've potentially gotten to see not one, but two barrier-shattering presidents within my lifetime on some big ass, long-held barriers.  A huge, behemoth, gargantuan Yay!  

The process that got it here?  Get the fuck off my lawn.  Where you've been shitting, pretty much nonstop for two years.  

I think the somewhat strained quality of the show -- which I agree, it wasn't in the top tier for me either -- has to do with the fact that....jeez, what a place to be in as a comedian.  The show can't really dare ignore the lumbering beast that is Trump but truly, there are only so many ways to express that outrage in a comedic setting and then....gods save us all....it somehow has managed to get even less funny without even factoring in the staleness of it all.  It's terrible shit.  This is terrible shit.  They have been tasked with making this funny and fresh for 26 (and counting!) episodes this season and some of this is inherently unfunny shit.  No wonder he welcomed the chance to mock Jill Stein's altogether-not-really-actually-all-that-terribly bad band. 

When it's all over, wouldn't it be bliss if we could bring a giant class action suit (we can't) against Trump for emotional wear and tear?  Name all of his supporters as participants in a conspiracy to drive us all to actual madness (with some incidental alcohol abuse along the way).   Sure, it could never happen, but it relieves my mind to think  about things like that, in this, the waning days of the campaign against sanity, reason and all things decent.  That's how I feel from my "thank god that it isn't my job to talk about this stuff....let alone render it coherent...forget about funny...." seats.  

I don't think it's because he's English that John's flagging a bit, in these the last, gasping (clawing, fire-breathing, gasoline-farting) days of the election.  I think it's because they're all bone-weary and cringing at the same time because each time they think, "Surely this will be the last terrible, melanoma riddled, pox covered, excrement-stained thing of Trump's that we'll have to try and mak.....and he's scalping Baby Pandas on twitter, isn't he? Right now. FUCK!" it just seems to get worse.  

Edited October 18, 2016 by stillshimpy

[halopub]

6 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

Jill Stein is underqualified but primarily I think her placating of conspiracy theorists is the least worrying because it's not like they needed that reinforcement to keep going and ....Jill Stein is about as likely to be president as my dog is.  

I was surprised that John neglected to mention her controversial views on Putin and US-Russia relations. Those trouble me just as much as her unprofessional waffling on vaccines. 

[ruby24]

I also think that for all that Hillary is disliked and has high unfavorables, it is worth pointing out when you talk about this that she had sky high numbers as Secretary of State and as a Senator and as a first lady (after she retreated from initially trying to have a more activist role in the early 90's).

So, yeah, people may not like her, but they seem to not like her the most when she runs for president. I cannot help but see that as having a real element of "we like her as long as she stays in her place."

[KerleyQ]

I was so glad to see John address Jill's "it's a magic trick" thing.  When one of her supporters told me on social media that "she's going to erase all student debt!" I asked "How do you envision her actually doing that?  Because I'm not comfortable placing my trust in someone who can only describe her policy as 'a magic trick'."  They promptly blocked me after telling me to fuck off for being negative.  

Those "most patient man" clips always crack me up.  I really don't know how he maintains that calm expression through all that shit.  

Joe Exotic is less insane than Drumpf.  And infinitely more honest.  

[trow125]

1 hour ago, stillshimpy said:

I think the somewhat strained quality of the show -- which I agree, it wasn't in the top tier for me either -- has to do with the fact that....jeez, what a place to be in as a comedian.  The show can't really dare ignore the lumbering beast that is Trump but truly, there are only so many ways to express that outrage in a comedic setting and then....gods save us all....it somehow has managed to get even less funny without even factoring in the staleness of it all.  It's terrible shit.  This is terrible shit.  They have been tasked with making this funny and fresh for 26 (and counting!) episodes this season and some of this is inherently unfunny shit.

I was somewhat relieved to realize a few days ago that I have theater tickets for this Wednesday night, which means I won't be able to watch the 3rd debate. I sometimes picture how happy and serene Oliver's old boss Jon Stewart must be on his farm, only having to deal with animal dung, not the shit that Trump's slinging.

[tenativelyyours]

Johnson infuriates me.  He claims to be pro-gay rights and yet also will not back down from the stance of government should never regulate or hold private business to a standard of equality.  Funny, I know someone who also holds that view.  Why Mike Pence.

And there is trying to be all Phoebe Buffat about climbing Mt Everest (I think he knows exactly the affect he wants with the daffy and daft act he puts on -- he hopes to slide by with minimal effort and place anyone who pushes or detracts as a negative in the situation) and then shrugging off climate change in the same speech.  You can't have climbed Mt. Everest in the last fifteen years and not be aware of damage man causes on the environment in general let alone actual affects that are sudden and severe and fucking NOW if you climb Mt. Everest.  That manchild self indulgence followed with a complete lack of responsibility and refusal to parse his own stances on the matters he brings up?  Why its the Orange Scrotum trying to go all Kristallnacht on his own party!

Johnson is an affront to the concept of a third party he is not its defender.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I did like to hear about the main third party candidates and good reasons why neither one is remotely qualified for the office.

Trump isn't any more qualified than Johnson or Stein though. I'm not advocated for either . . . swear to God I'm not. But Johnson doesn't pretend to know things he doesn't know. Trump does. Johnson doesn't say "I have a plan, trust me, it's going to be so great, I can't tell you what it is but trust me it's great." If he doesn't know something he says so. I actually prefer that. So . . . Johnson? Not qualified. Trump? Potentially even less qualified and ten times more dangerous.

Quote

 I don't get why these shows feel that have to give equal time to negativity about Hillary. 

The problem with John Oliver, Trevor Noah and even, to an extent, Samantha Bee, is that they are comics first and foremost, and so they have to poke fun at Hillary too. In the first place, they can't resist, whether it's something about her pant suits or her e-mails. In the second place, they are undoubtedly trying to avoid accusations that they are biased, which would be rampant if they never made any jokes about Hillary.  

Now, both Oliver and Bee have done excellent jobs in laying out the differences between the two candidates and disproving the false equivalencies. Nevertheless, the details are sometimes forgotten in favor of the one-liners they feel compelled to toss off from time to time. And that's annoying, because it perpetuates the "both are bad" meme.

Quote

Meh, I think John Oliver missed the mark in this episode.  Third-party candidates for President are inherently stupid.  It doesn't matter if you agree with them or nor, they're not going to be elected.  With our first-past-the-post system, a viable 3rd party candidate would have to have a campaign infrastructure in place in over half the country to mathematically be electable.  And even if they were elected, they'd have nobody in Congress to support their policies. 

I understand your point but I also appreciate what Oliver tried to do here. Too many people are saying they are going to cast a "protest" vote for Johnson or Stein without really knowing anything about them. They really do need to be educated. Even a fraction of those people might be horrified enough by what they learn to change their vote.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Critics of the plan point out other big complications that Oliver doesn’t mention, probably because they’re challenging to explain on TV. For one thing, the tax figure of 23 percent that Johnson cites is misleading, because the campaign is expressing a sales tax in terms commonly used for an income tax, says Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation.

This is a little complicated, but hang with me for one paragraph: When you tell people they pay a 23 percent sales tax, most would assume that on a $100 purchase, you would pay an additional $23 in tax. But that’s not how Johnson’s tax is calculated. Instead, what you’d actually pay in tax is 23 percent of the total purchase priceincluding tax. So on a $100 purchase, you’d actually pay $30 in taxes, since $30 is 23 percent of $130. Hayes, who the Johnson campaign referred to in order to explain the tax plan, confirmed that this is how the tax is calculated.

 

Quote

 

There are other criticisms. While Johnson’s plan would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, an almost universally hated institution, critics say it might require creating its own massive bureaucracy at the state level - especially because the plan could spark more tax evasion.

One reason the U.S. tax system is so complex is that people are less likely to evade multiple taxes charged at lower rates, Pomerleau says. If all of a country’s tax is collected on the sale of new goods, that provides buyers and sellers with a powerful motivation to carry out transactions on the black market instead.

Hayes, who supports Johnson, disagrees. He says income tax evasion is already running out of control in the United States, as more Americans work as independent contractors, and that Johnson’s plan actually helps to address this change. By levying taxes through retailers, the United States could actually clamp down on tax evasion, especially because most of our retail purchases are concentrated at big merchants that are easy to supervise, like Walmart or Amazon, he argues.

 

Commentator tore into Gary Johnson’s tax plan — and barely scratched the surface

[dusang]

59 minutes ago, OneWhoLurks said:

This is a little complicated, but hang with me for one paragraph: When you tell people they pay a 23 percent sales tax, most would assume that on a $100 purchase, you would pay an additional $23 in tax. But that’s not how Johnson’s tax is calculated. Instead, what you’d actually pay in tax is 23 percent of the total purchase priceincluding tax. So on a $100 purchase, you’d actually pay $30 in taxes, since $30 is 23 percent of $130. Hayes, who the Johnson campaign referred to in order to explain the tax plan, confirmed that this is how the tax is calculated.

WTF?  That makes no sense at all.

[ganesh]

The thing that got me about the tax plan, besides the fake math, was that everyone would "get a rebate check every month." That reduces government overreach and red tape, how exactly?

[Hanahope]

12 hours ago, ganesh said:

The thing that got me about the tax plan, besides the fake math, was that everyone would "get a rebate check every month." That reduces government overreach and red tape, how exactly?

Not to mention drastically increasing the opportunities for mail and identity theft.

[ganesh]

He said he wants to get rid of the IRS in the news clip they showed, but you'd still need something like that for the rebate checks. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by ganesh

[Jersey Guy 87]

Johnson and Stein are perfect examples of why you need people in politics who have experience in politics.  Things aren't that simple.  Do away with three departments of the US government?  Sure, sounds good.  But who covers for the things they did that you still want done?  Oh, you don't actually know what they do, you just want to eliminate them so you can talk about smaller government.

I have no idea if a third party can be successful in America but when they trot out thoroughly unqualified candidates they have no shot.  Ross Perot and John Anderson were the closest things to viable third party candidates that I can recall and they were both essentially spoilers in the end.

[KerleyQ]

1 hour ago, Jersey Guy 87 said:

Johnson and Stein are perfect examples of why you need people in politics who have experience in politics.  Things aren't that simple.  Do away with three departments of the US government?  Sure, sounds good.  But who covers for the things they did that you still want done?  Oh, you don't actually know what they do, you just want to eliminate them so you can talk about smaller government.

This is exactly what his "get rid of the IRS" talk is.  He knows that "smaller government" is a big buzzword for not only the Libertarians, but also the Tea Party.  And, since some portion of those groups see taxes as the government stealing from us (and the ones who don't still resent how much of their money is paid into taxes that don't, in their minds, directly benefit them), what better campaign policy than to eliminate the IRS?  Two birds, one stone. He has no idea how he'd accomplish that or why it's completely not a feasible thing.  He just knows that it's a great rallying cry for the voting base he's aiming for.  

Stein is basically the same.  She knows what plays to her base (AKA the disgruntled Bernie voters) - get rid of student loan debt being the big one.  So she says she'll do it, but, again, she has no idea how to do it (because it's not something that could be done without having huge ramifications on the economy).  Instead of going for something more realistic - like easing back on the interest on student loans - she goes over the top, for something that is just not feasible.  Then, to cover that she's in over her head, she pretends to understand a concept (one she clearly does not understand), and condescendingly tells the rest of us "you don't need to understand it, it's like a magic trick."  No, no it's not.  It's also not something that you, as President, would just be able to do.  

It's like they're so afraid of losing their "outsider" status that they can't risk being known to consult with any policy experts who could explain to them whether it's possible to implement their ideas and how to do so, or how to adjust their ideas to fit reality.  

[ganesh]

Plenty of republicans have been blathering about getting rid of the IRS for years, so it's not like it's a unique Libertarian policy position anyway. On the show, Johnson is screaming at the woman about how "he's a legitimate choice", yet major policy positions, as was pointed out on the show, are essentially the same. 

[theatremouse]

3 hours ago, Jersey Guy 87 said:

Johnson and Stein are perfect examples of why you need people in politics who have experience in politics.  Things aren't that simple.  Do away with three departments of the US government?  Sure, sounds good.  But who covers for the things they did that you still want done?  Oh, you don't actually know what they do, you just want to eliminate them so you can talk about smaller government.

Which is why in the clip he was backtracking all over the place. First he easily rattles off three, then says "I named three because you asked for three not because I'd actually do it". On the one hand, if he really is Libertarian, then his premise should be getting rid of them to facilitate "don't do those things anymore", but if he wants to get rid of departments and still do some but not all of the things...he'd need a super detailed plan on what they entails, which he doesn't. Hence it's all blather which he gets away with because no one's taking him seriously anyway. But even if he did have said plan, he'd still have virtually no shot because for all the yammering of the "smaller government" folk, if they go down the list of the things I think you'd hardly find someone who genuinely believes A: yeah, just don't have government do that at all anymore and B: that sudden cutoff would not throw large chunks of society into massive chaos.

[anna0852]

On 10/17/2016 at 8:20 PM, stillshimpy said:

I don't think it's because he's English that John's flagging a bit, in these the last, gasping (clawing, fire-breathing, gasoline-farting) days of the election.  I think it's because they're all bone-weary and cringing at the same time because each time they think, "Surely this will be the last terrible, melanoma riddled, pox covered, excrement-stained thing of Drumpf's that we'll have to try and mak.....and he's scalping Baby Pandas on twitter, isn't he? Right now. FUCK!" it just seems to get worse.  

I hear John's voice in my head reading this and nearly died laughing.

On a serious note, I'm actually feeling sorry for the comedians that have to keep dealing with and trying to make funny all this stuff. I have to imagine that somewhere Jon Stewart is on his knees in gratitude that he is not on the Daily Show right now or he might have had a stroke. Jon Oliver, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers and all the rest will need a vacation after this.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Claiming that "Last Week Tonight" "completely ignored" information her campaign provided when contacted by the show's research team, Stein's campaign said they are "considering a range of options."

Besides "canceling the F-35 fighter jet program, reinstating Wall Street transaction taxes, or some other way," the former Harvard Medical School instructor's statement failed to actually list any alternatives.

Interestingly, Stein also didn't respond to Oliver's criticism that she encourages support among 9/11 conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, nor did her campaign address his attack on her ear gouging-inducing turn as a folk rock singer and djembe drummer in the band Somebody's Sister.

 

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein responds to 'Last Week Tonight' host John Oliver's criticism of college loan forgiveness plan

ETA:
 

Quote

 

In his first-ever general election presidential debate job, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace tonight asked Hillary Clinton, “What went on between you and the Clinton Foundation — why isn’t it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?” He asked Donald Trump, “Do you want to see the [Supreme] Court overturn Roe v. Wade?” Among many, many others, of course.

He didn’t ask this question, however: “Does the executive branch have too much, too little or just the right amount of power?”

Had Wallace been crippled by the flu or something, the country may well have heard the candidates face off on that issue. That, after all, is one of the questions that substitute 2016 debate moderator Steve Scully of C-SPAN had on his list, just in case. He also wanted to know what the candidates thought of the current purpose of the United Nations, plus specifics on how they’d whittle down the $19 trillion national debt.

 

Quote

 

The CPD is extraordinarily touchy about choosing moderators who may have the remotest conflict of interest or controversy in their pasts. This no-bad-PR-blowback is a box that Scully checked in stark red ink. He’s the guy who was dubbed by John Oliver’s HBO show “Last Week Tonight” as “The Most Patient Man on Television.” Mash-up segments showcase Scully’s perfectly unfazed gaze as C-SPAN caller after C-SPAN caller says the looniest things. Scully’s patented response is a neutral “okay” before switching to the next caller. Example:

Caller: We need to get rid of every Muslim out of the country because they are sent here to kill us.

Scully: Okay, we’ll leave it at that.

 

The life of campaign 2016’s substitute debate moderator

Edited October 20, 2016 by OneWhoLurks

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

Megan Mullaly is part of the extended Belcher family, voicing Linda's sister Gayle. Will we be hearing more from her and other big guest stars this season?
Here's what we think about our guest stars: The ones we've already had are so fantastic, if we only just had them back, we'd have an embarrassment of riches -- Megan Mullaly, Kevin Kline, Zach Galifianakis and Jenny Slate, just to name a few. Our own David Herman is so freakin' good, and we sort of get to treat him like a utility player, but he is not. He's a very special guest star, and we are lucky to have him as Mr. Frond and all the other characters that he plays. I'm glad you asked if we'll get any more Megan Mullaly. Of course you are! We love her so much. We love that character. We were locking an episode [earlier this month] where Aunt Gayle brought her cat to a cat agent, played by John Oliver, and Bob and Linda, because they loan Gayle so much money, have to pay for the headshots and overnight them somewhere. They become suspicious, and Bob gets really protective and goes down to this cat agent's office to demand a refund, because he thinks he's just taking advantage of Gayle. Bob ends up getting completely sucked into this world of trying to get Gayle's cat, Mr. Business, on the box of this cat food that's re-casting. That's a perfect example, and also, it's nice to find new fantastic guest stars. John Oliver, for example, is amazing. So funny. Such a nice, generous performer, and he was so perfect as this British cat agent named Ian.

EXCLUSIVE: 'Bob's Burger's Creator Loren Bouchard Talks Holidays With the Belcher's, Gene's Feminism, and More Megan Mullaly

ETA: Oops, meant to post this in the media thread.

Edited October 23, 2016 by OneWhoLurks

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

In an interview conducted by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks (TYT) at the YouTube Space L.A., Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein responded to John Oliver’s comments made on his show Last Week Tonight, about Stein and her plan to erase student debt.

“Are you part of the Hillary protection network?” Stein asked, implying that Oliver had given Hilary special treatment in his segment about presidential candidates.

The event was organized by the TYT Network to give audience members and online viewers the chance to ask Stein about her presidential campaign. In front of an audience of about 80 people in the Youtube Space L.A., located in Playa Vista, Stein made it clear she took exception to some of the jokes made about her.

 

Jill Stein makes comments about the media in TYT’s town hall at YouTube Space L.A.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

But here's the problem: his program is watched by a lot of people and the day after his show, our unsolicited web contributions dropped by 60%, from an average of $7,000 - $10,000 a day to about $3,000 a day. Ouch.

(Contributions from people like you though, have stayed steady. Thank you!)

So I'm writing today to ask you to do some heavy lifting and help make up for the shortfall in “walk-in” web donations. Can you give $29, $39, $49, or $59 for Stein today?

 

Pushing Back Against John Oliver

[stillshimpy]

So I'm writing today to ask you to do some heavy lifting and help make up for the shortfall in “walk-in” web donations. Can you give $29, $39, $49, or $59 for Stein today?

[stillshimpy]

Welp, at least the finale for the season promises to be lively. 

[stillshimpy]

And suddenly I'm on-board with coddling conspiracy theorists.  Guess it just depended on the theory for me.  

Jill Stein to request a formal recount in battleground states.  Hallelujah.  

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

(AP) -- A colorful, mullet-wearing operator of an exotic animal park who ran as a write-in candidate for president is among a group of Libertarian Party candidates planning to run for Oklahoma's open governor seat in 2018.

Joseph Maldonado, a self-described actor and musician known as "Joe Exotic," says he will join a crowded field vying to become the state's chief executive.

 

Joe Exotic, 2 other Libertarian candidates announce plans to run for Oklahoma governor