Posts Tagged ‘Political Satire’

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

If there is one thing that you can give Donald Trump credit for as far as the strength of the American economy, its all the jobs that have been created in the comedy industry simply because of The Donald and his crazy narcissistic irresponsible behavior. George W. Bush, was great for comedy. Bill Clinton, was great for comedy,. Ronald Reagan was great for comedy. Jimmy Carter was great for comedy. But they are all minor players as far as their affects on the comedy industry, in comparison to Donald Trump. They would be like the Toledo Mud Hens in comparison to the Detroit Tigers. One is a AAA minor league club, the Tigers are obviously a major league club.

Alec Baldwin is one of the top and most popular comedians in America now. I’ve always seen him as a very funny man and someone who was great with wisecracks before. Very similar to Tom Hanks, but now Baldwin is one of the most popular and visible comedians in America simply because he plays President Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live. Which is probably still the most popular comedy show on TV. Donald Trump is obviously not the most popular man in America. I mean to be the most popular man in America with a 32% approval rating, means most of the country is either in a coma or you have a hell of a lot haters in the country who hates practically everybody. Perhaps the average American suffers from depression and hates everything that they see.

But Donald Trump is probably the most visible American in America, if not the world and when he makes an ass out of himself and generally he doesn’t go a day without doing that, the comedy industry both right and left and generally left, pick up on that and run with it. And Alec Baldwin has made a new career at literally making fun of and impersonating President Donald Trump. The man should be sending President Trump a Christmas card everyday of the year. Because Trump has been horrible for the country, at least according to his approval ratings and how he’s seen around the world, but he’s been great for Alec Baldwin and the broader comedy industry.

Politics and Prose: Alec Baldwin and Kurt Anderson- Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump


Read Full Post »

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I haven’t read Denis Leary’s book so I can’t get you any real analysis of it whatsoever. But I was alive, conscience, and in America, for the entire time in 2016. Except when I wasn’t sleeping, which is any longer than the average American sleeps. And I can tell you about Suck Bowl 2016 (which is what I call the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton presidential election) and why it was the worst presidential election we’ve ever seen.

I voted for Hillary Clinton for president and would do again million straight times, if her opponent is Donald Trump or anyone else who is as unqualified to even be a back benching member of the House of Representatives, let alone President of the United States. Ot is as immature, thin skinned, unread, lacking in intelligence, knowledge, and curiosity about how the U.S. Government works, narcissistic, dishonest, as a Donald Trump or anyone else with those same characteristics. That are the only reasons why I voted for her.

Not because I’m a fan of Hillary Clinton. I basically see her as a well-meaning intelligent person, who wants to do a good job. And if it wasn’t for this Thanksgiving grocery shopping list of reasons why I don’t like her, I could vote for her because I believe in her and believe she would do a great job. We’re talking about a major presidential nominee who has been thinking about being President of the United States, at least since she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, and yet didn’t seem to have any vision of why she should be President and what her campaign was about. Other than that she’s a well-educated, rich yuppie New Yorker, who is also a feminist and a Democrat. Which is why the rich cool people should vote for her. And that she’s also a woman and would be the worst female President of the United States. Well, most of the rich cool people did vote for Hillary and she still lost states that no Democrat has lost since 1988. Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So you have the baggage of Hillary Clinton. Well some of the baggage. How about her lack of candor and genuineness and ability to make a statement that doesn’t sound like it was poll tested or that some who works for her told her to say. Which killed her in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, probably Florida as well, states where she was heavily favored going in. What those voters saw in Donald Trump was at least someone who seems to say what he thinks, at least at the time. Even if he changes his position five minutes later after hearing what Breitbart or some other Far-Right publication or organization thinks about it. But Trump came off as real and says what’s on his mind. Instead of someone who seems to say whatever the polls are telling him are popular at the time.

This is why I call the 2016 presidential election Suck Bowl 2016. Perhaps the the two worst presidential candidates you could imagine running against each other. One, who might be a good public servant, but who is a horrible politician at least in the sense that she lacks any ability to communicate a vision for the country and what her presidency would be like and why people should vote for her. Against a natural politician at least in the sense of someone who can bring voters behind him and be able to speak to them. But who is a horrible public servant simply because he doesn’t believe in public service. His idea of service is serving himself. And some people are still wondering why Americans at least say they hate American politics and don’t like American politicians.

Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- “Why We Don’t Suck”

Read Full Post »

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

What Socialists don’t like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor, to sound like a cheeseball.

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don’t like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don’t like about the Libertarian-Right, well their a few things and I guess I could name them all. But they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they’re anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there’s almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you its up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers, to use as an example who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer’s rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater’s from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O’Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they’re not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can’t do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who’ve been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux’s and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I’m all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don’t need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul’s Jeff Flake’s, Ron Johnson’s, Justin Amash’s, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans by the way in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics.

The Independent Institute: P.J. O’Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Read Full Post »

Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton? Well which Hillary Clinton are you talking about. 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, hopefully not as Secretary of State. Don’t want 2016 to be about Libya for her, assuming she is the Democratic nominee for president. I actually like the 2015-16 Hillary quite a bit. She’s even now in favor of legalizing marijuana at least at the state level. Has publicly admitted that the Iraq War was a mistake, even if she privately knew that in 2006.

The 2015-16 Hillary looks like the Pragmatic Progressive. But I still prefer the Progressive With Results from Martin O’Malley. And if he can ever get a non-relative to endorse him for president and give his campaign money, he might still make a run for the Democratic nomination. Because he’s already accomplished as Governor of Maryland what Bernie and Hillary say they want to do, but have never actually accomplished anything.

With Bernie Sanders, like him, dislike him, hate him, love him, terrified of him and would never want to let him see your wallet and financial information for fear that all of your money would suddenly disappear after Uncle Sam takes what he wants from you, you have to at least respect him. Because here’s a real-life politician not a made up Hollywood politician, but a real-life human being and politician at the same time, (which might be a newsflash for a lot of Americans) who actually knows what he believes and says what he thinks. For the most part.

I mean free college, free health care, free health insurance, I think he’s at least smart enough to know that people will have to pay for all of their new government services and that of course they won’t be free. These will not be Christmas presents from their rich Uncle Bernie. But their Socialist Uncle Sam, or Bernie, who’ll have new taxes to pay for these services. Two guarantees in life, death and taxes, at least in America. And taxes are bills that Americans have to pay to get the free government services. Free government services is like trying to take a bath with dirt and playing football in the bathtub. It simply doesn’t exist for anyone whose a taxpayer.

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, to me at least looks like Bill Clinton vs George McGovern, or Jerry Brown, from back in Jerry’s hippie radical days in the 1960s and early 70s. Hard to imagine that once Bernie after he finally picks a number by how much he wants to expand the Federal Government in size and in money, assuming that ever happens, that he could beat Hillary anywhere outside of New England and San Francisco. And perhaps just Vermont and San Francisco. Too bad for Bernie that New York City is not a state, because maybe he could beat Hillary there.

Because Americans and even Democrats, are learning that to create all the new big government that Senator Sanders wants to create, the rich won’t pay for all of that. Their money will be in other countries even before some committee in Congress like Ways and Means, or Finance, looks at his proposals. So of course the middle class Americans will get stuck with the tax bills for all of these new programs. Hillary, is already scoring against Bernie in the debates on this. About whose going to pay to being Sweden to America. Hillary can say, “I have friends in Congress both in the Senate and House who I’ve worked with on these issues in both parties. And we can work together on these issues.” With Bernie it will an all or nothing approach that will die in Congress faster than a constitutional amendment to repeal both the first and second amendments.
The Daily Conversation: Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton on The Issues

Read Full Post »

The Daily Review
Political polls do have a place in American politics. I’m just not sure it is a good place, because imagine what our government would be like if politicians just made decisions based on what they believed and knew what was the right thing to do. And then let their voters decide if they should get reelected or not. Instead of a politician taking a poll on what is the best shirt to wear with their jacket. Or what they should eat at political events. Political polls do have a positive place in America if leaders actually use them correctly. Because a politician who might actually know what he thinks about an issue can see where their public is and far they are apart. And then stick with their position, but now they knew who they need to bring to their side and communicate to them. Instead of just taking positions based on polls.

The early 1990s, America was under attack from bogus lawsuits. Seemed like every stupid person was smart or lucky enough to find a lawyer even from accidentally backing into one, because they didn’t know their car was in reverse when they hit the accelerator. And every stupid person that was guilty of hurting themselves, but not able to hurt anyone else, found a lawyer who could find a way to blame their stupidity on smart people. We had women who sued McDonald’s, because she spilled her hot coffee on herself in her car. I remember hearing about that one in high school. We had someone else sue a tobacco company because they were now addicted to cigarettes, even though the cigarette box had warning labels on about the dangers of smoking tobacco. Another lawsuit involving someone being obese suing a good company for their obesity.

What political polls and bogus lawsuits have in common, is that they are both for stupid people. For politicians to show voters that they care about them, as they’re laughing behind their voters backs with their hands pulling out their wallets and taking their money. The bogus lawsuits, are also for stupid people and greedy lawyers, because it gives idiots who actually might be embarrassed for being as stupid as they are, an opportunity for blame someone else for their stupidity and then profit off it.

“It is now my fault that I pored that hot coffee down my throat without first checking to see how hot it was. It’s also my fault that I spilled my coffee on myself in the car. That coffee should have never been that hot in the first place.”

That is the lack of logic that are behind bogus lawsuits where the person suing is simply stupid, or irresponsible, or both. And if we had better judges in America, these lawsuit would get thrown out.

Read Full Post »

George Carlin & Nobody

George Carlin & Nobody

Source: Amet Reloads: Bill Maher & George Carlin on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher in 2001

Not clear the date of this show, but it sounds like the early days of the George W. Bush Administration in 2001, when our long national nightmare was just beginning, to paraphrase former President Gerald Ford. You would think after being appointed President of the United States and losing the popular vote and arguably Florida as well that would have given the election to Al Gore and not being very popular when assuming office in January, 2001 and having a divided Senate and a House with bare Republican majority, that President Bush just might try to govern as a uniter. And not try to force his right-wing agenda that the country didn’t support on the country.

But you gotta give President Bush credit for one thing and that’s where his credit runs out. He told the country what he believed and what he would do and then he did exactly that. He really is one of the most honest president’s we’ve ever had. Which is sort of like being the tallest man in Japan. So what! But its true. That whole cliché that elections matter. That is so true with G.W. Bush. The country knew what they were getting when they voted for him, other than that little trillion-dollar debacle called the Iraq War. And they voted for him anyway. I don’t blame President Bush for being who he was. I blame the Democratic Party who both times had a candidate better than Bush, but barely lost to him twice. For not running good campaigns and taking Bush seriously.

It is one thing to be a bad president and good luck finding a worst one than G.W. Bush where you look at the State of The Union when he took office and where it was when he left. But that person still has to get the job first and beat the opposition. I blame Al Gore, for not winning his home state Tennessee and not winning Florida in a walk with the senior vote and coming off as rude with superficial voters in the debates. For not taking advantage of the most popular politician in the country who just happened to be his boss in President Clinton and using him to take apart the Bush Campaign. I blame John Kerry, for again not taking President Bush seriously enough as a politician. And not taking the swift boat debacle seriously and wasting a whole summer not moving past that. But more importantly, I blame fifty-million or so American voters. Who didn’t have the decency to be awake, sober and on their medication when they went into the voting booths in 2000. And voting for the wrong person.

Read Full Post »



Source: Meg Rifter: George Carlin: Maybe it’s Not The Politicians Who Suck?

I partially agree with George Carlin on this. Our politicians actually do suck in way too many cases. I think that is obvious when you have a Congress that can’t get its basic responsibilities taken care of. Like gee I don’t know, funding the government that they are part of. Or paying the bills that has been run up on the debt, which is what a debt ceiling extension actually is. Not an agreement to borrow more money, just to pay the interest on the current debt. And you could add other examples of how members of Congress in both parties treat each other. Like the majority not allowing the minority opportunities to offer amendments and other examples like that. But just in case people who aren’t insomniacs actually read this, I don’t want to put everyone else to sleep with what is called in Washington Congressional speak. Language that only the House and Senate uses.

I completely disagree with George Carlin on his notion that non-voters have every right to complain. Sure, according to the First Amendment they do, which is all that they need. But for people to be taken seriously, they have to sound credible. And if you’re not doing everything you can to improve government and the least you can do is to bother voting, you can’t credibly complain about politicians who are on office now, because you were too busy complaining, or sitting on your ass at home, or at a coffee-house, perhaps watching celebrity TV all day, getting drunk, masturbating, whatever it might be and not voting. Had Democrats bothered to turn out in 2010 and 2014 anywhere near the numbers they did in 2008 and 2012, what Tea Party revolution? Republicans rely on low voter turnout to get elected and reelected. There are still more Democrats than Republicans in America. What Republican gerrymandering if Democrats held onto all of those legislatures and governorships in 2010?

I realize I’m coming at this from a Democratic vantage point, but here’s a newsflash. I’m a Democrat and I’m not saying this to put Republicans down, but Democratic voters don’t have much to complain about when they don’t vote for Democrats. Especially when their reasoning is that they don’t like Center-Left establishment Democrats and that the candidate, or incumbent is not in love with government and doesn’t have a new tax or government program to take care of everyone’s problems for them. Or is not as Far-Left as the Green, or Democratic Socialist candidate. Democrats, won back Congress in huge numbers in 2006, because Republicans didn’t bother voting. This works both ways. If you don’t do the very least that you can do to improve government and get the best possible people to represent you, which is bothering to vote and the person you most not rather see wins that office, whose fault is that? All the opposition did was show up and win and beat a party that didn’t bother to vote.

If you don’t like the current field of candidates, run yourself, or encourage someone who you think would be a good candidate to run and then work for that person. Assuming that you caught them when they were drunk, or high, or had a gun pointed at their head (that wasn’t filled with water) and agreed to run for that office. But a big reason why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters who suck themselves and maybe we should require all voters to pass a sobriety test, or eye examination before voting. But other reasons why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters in name only. People who are registered to vote, but who don’t bother voting at all. And as a result we get politicians, because of a low voter turnout who would’ve lost badly had we just had a decent voter turnout for that election. Who represent a small faction of the country and wouldn’t have won any other way.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: