MovieChat Forums > Phids > Replies
Phids's Replies
We've enjoyed three of the greatest weeks in politics in years, and perhaps in our generation. Hopefully even more good news is yet to come.
Looks like he just never made it to the A-list, probably due to his choice of projects to be a part of. His longest-running show was "Rosewood", but I have never heard anyone mention that it's a series worth watching.
I had never heard of "MAGA Granny" before this, which makes me think that she was a person that the left has been focusing on in order to spread the left's narrative.
That may reveal more about the slant of the MSM than anything else.
Makes you wonder if BBC News is going to profile any of the other cases of J6 pardons in which people were given huge sentences for relatively mild activities, or for any of the cases that may have involved the use of government torture under international standards.
Some people are saying that the documents will still contain a lot of redacted stuff. That might be true, but the sheer amount of files should still be very illuminating. More importantly, it shows the American people that their government is willing to tear down the veil of secrecy.
I'm a Trump fan, but I never thought that the #metoo movement was designed specifically to target him. Rather, it seems like it grew out of the Harvey Weinstein scandal in Fall 2017, and in the aftermath it was a way of "outing" other successful, "respected" men who had gotten away with (alleged) sexual harassment.
Since Trump has long had a reputation for being a playboy of sorts, allegations of sexual harassment against him weren't exactly scandalous in the way they were scandalous for other professional men. The whole Stormy Daniels story seemed like a side story more than anything else.
I think you're correct about your views on Quayle vs. Vance. Politics today are different than they were in the late 80s, and some things that are normal today would have been unusual to voters back then. Quayle was skewered as being a "boy" by the media, so much so that I think they had a child actor portray him in SNL skits of the time. I know that JFK was young when he became president in the 60s, but once we had a string of modern presidents - Clinton, Obama - who were also in their 40s, I think it helped change expectations among voters.
If only I had a dime for every time an Anti-Trumper made a prediction about impending doom for or at the hands of Trump, I might be a rich man...
Moviechat being a "ghost town" isn't really a fair comparison as IMDB had been around since the early 2000s when many people were still getting on to the internet for the first time as a regular part of their lives.
Problems with the show may have been a) lack of compelling supporting cast and b) confusing storyline for intended audience. I recall as a kid in the 80s that Full House was a compelling comedy because there was always something interesting going on with family dynamics. If it wasn't some drama from inside the family, it was drama from outside (e.g. "Kimmy" or Lori Loughlin's character). In contrast, I don't think I was ever drawn in to the dynamics of the "My Two Dads" storyline. I can understand that some relationship drama between Dad A and B, or between Dad A and daughter, or Dad B and daughter, but it just doesn't seem like it can generate as much material.
Also, as a youth I could understand the strange family situation in "Full House" because it was due to the death of the mother which caused a man to raise his daughters. In contrast, it's harder to understand two dads being forced to raise a daughter together because of some judge-imposed obligation because of a questionable paternity situation. Even as an adult, this kind of storyline seems hard to fathom. If you can't get past the origin story, it's probably harder to buy the rest of the story as well.
I haven't blocked a ton of leftists, but enough so that there are only 8 threads showing on the first page for MG, and 6 on the second. I think there are supposed to be 15 threads per page by default.
I think it would be better if you had made this comment about the American system in general, rather than about the most recent election after Trump was elected. In other words, if you had stated your concern *prior* to the election, it would have come across as carrying more credibility.
So it is a problem that relatively few people have been voting in elections for decades and decades? Well, yes and no. As you say, people will complain about such and such an elected official but can't be bothered to vote for someone else. Or, others will be too apathetic and will simply not vote out of laziness, which is sad. On the other hand, having a voluntary election system means that the people who do vote are more likely to be motivated by patriotism and concern for the common good, and also to be educated about the candidates. One could argue that it's actually better if only motivated people cast ballots because that suggests the uneducated voters, or the lazy voters, are voluntarily excluding themselves from making important decisions.
So depending on how you look at it, it could be a positive or a negative.
Let me explain this one more time so you can understand my point, since it appears you did not:
<i>The winner of the U.S. presidential election ALWAYS gets a small fraction of all eligible voters in the modern. ALWAYS.</i>
In every presidential election going back to 1976 (if not before), the winning president has only won 1/4 to 1/3 the overall popular vote. In other words, <b>in every election, about 2/3 to 3/4 of the voting population *does not vote* for the person who becomes president</b>.
To put it in even more plain language, your post here about lack of participation is simply a restatement of the norm. For you to zero in on Trump and say "Trump did NOT get anywhere NEAR what could be considered resounding support from the American people" is pointless, unless you also declare a universal statement that "no president of the modern era gets anywhere near what could be considered resounding support from the American people".
Trump got nearly 78 million votes, which is the second highest popular vote in history. Claiming he "doesn't actually" have the support of the nation because many people did not vote is in itself a lack of "keeping things in perspective".
I'm really surprised that they were paying him $7 million/year. That seems crazy.
But I thought I heard that this is exactly what is going to happen. There's simply no realistic way that 20 million illegal immigrants (or whatever the number is) could be caught and physically removed. Because of this, Trump's new plan would require some sort of penalty on businesses, which would reduce demand for illegal immigrant hiring. Whether these are aggressive penalties or not is up in the air, but I'd have to think that this would be part of it.
Based on what I have seen so far, Trump Administration 2.0 is going to be much more competent and efficient than Trump 1.0. Last time in 2016, he had to throw an administration together, and he then had to fight against people on the inside who opposed him. Now, he's got the people's mandate, and he has people in place who can help him, so I expect he'll get more things done this time.
I don't think this will be a "door-to-door" sweep. Rather, it will start with deporting people who are caught for other crimes, and probably punishments for employers who hire illegal workers. The plan probably also will incentivize self-deportations by illegal immigrants.
Yeah, it's like Trump learned his lesson from last time when he had to throw his administration together. Let's also hope he learned how to avoid some of the problems last time with the Michael Flynn issues.