Warren could be good. I'm not 100% sold that she can play the political game particularly well -- the "Pocahontas" thing should have been pretty gracefully manageable, but she kinda fumbled there a bit. Still, if the Democrat primary system can avoid being the train wreck it was leading up to 2016, I think she could go through that and prove that she's got what it takes. So, maybe.

I love Sanders, but he's divisive because of the "Socialist" thing, which is still quite a scary word for Cold War-era people. I think that is surmountable by calmly explaining exactly what his brand of Democratic Socialism means, but there's always going to be that easy Fox News narrative against him. So between that, age, and other factors, he's not a slam dunk.

Obama? I'm assuming you mean Michelle? Name recognition yes. Firsthand political experience, not so much. I don't think I've ever heard her say anything about wanting to get into politics directly.

I concur about Avenatti.

I hope the D's don't screw this up. All of these celebrity / political celebrity candidates seem risky and hit or miss to me. Might be better to go with a relative unknown -- somebody who's been through a hairy campaign or two (because we know Trump will attack and try to rattle) and knows how to walk the line between giving those attacks legitimacy by responding to them and seeming too milquetoasty by ignoring them. (Barack) Obama was quite good at having that calm outer demeanor while also having a quick wit and knowing when to get counter-jabs in. Seems like someone with those kinds of skills could really lure Trump into a bunch of pitfalls.

Media Meltdown Over Trump 'Pocahontas' Joke to Navajo Code Talkers

You can't possibly argue that the Pocahontas thing while at an event intending to honor Native Americans is acceptable behavior. If he thinks Warren is lying about her heritage, fine. Say she's lying about it some other time. Nobody put a gun to Trump's head and said he has to call her that. And on top of all that, at least have the courtesy to not do it at that event. Honoring World War II Native American veterans has jack shit nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren.

Even if you happen to think that there's nothing wrong with the Washington Redskins name, do you think it would be appropriate for the President of the United States to bust through the wall Kool Aid man style dressed head to toe in Redskins garb doing the Tomahawk Chop at an event intended to honor Native Americans? FFS!

What next? Meet with a Chinese delegation and walk in doing slant eyes and the ol' "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, *lift shirt* LOOK AT THESE!!!"

All he had to do was turn his "be a dick" switch off for a few hours to honor war veterans. Is that so hard? Apparently, it's impossible for him.

Watching this guy as President is just astounding to me. Every damn day seemingly he finds new ways to be a total dick when he completely doesn't have to be. Elizabeth Warren is going to be fine, I don't care he insulted her. But acting like an ass clown in a way that's very likely to offend actual war heroes in the process?! Zero justification, zero excuses.

Being President isn't supposed to be a 24/7 reality TV show where everything revolves around petty partisan/personal vendettas, including disregarding basic tenets of acting like a mature adult.

Trump has sunk political discourse to new lows, I agree. But I think she'd suffer worse slings and arrows than "Pocahontas" no matter who her opponent is. That's the game and it always has been. She's got to "man up" and anticipate a certain amount of mud being slung her way. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, would never be caught unaware by a provoking one-liner like that.

Or as another example, think about Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic primary. From his own party; not yet from archfiend Trump. Sanders' own party called him a kook, didn't take him seriously, and harped on the "socialist" charge that they presumed would be a rallying standard against him for Republicans, etc. But I don't remember him showing any discomfort with that or letting on that it was getting to him.


I really do like Warren, but it is of paramount importance for any Presidential candidate to develop a thick enough skin to weather the smear campaign that is guaranteed to be headed their way. And this small throwaway interview isn't a sign that she can't get there, but it is a sign that she's still got plenty of work to do if she has those aspirations. Based on that, at this point I'd feel better if Sanders was the heir apparent (although that seems very unlikely given the current heads-up-asses state of the DNC). But Warren definitely has plenty of time to get to where she needs to be.

Hmm. I really like her, but I'm a little bit concerned about her reaction to some of Maher's quips/questions:

A) The Pocahontas thing seemed to really throw her off. I don't think Maher said it with any malice; just to remind her that there are some unreachable people who will vote Republican no matter what.

B) Maher was asking a very legitimate question (multiple times) when he was trying to get her to explain what the DNC needs to do differently to get people that agree with Democrat / Progressive policies to follow through with actual votes. She had no real answers beyond politician-speak.

C) As a further example of that, she took it a bit personally when Maher noted that people like her but clearly didn't like Hillary. Well, she needs to come to terms with that. Hillary was the wrong choice for the DNC, and Warren was right there along with most of her party in attempting to prop up that mistake. Warren needs to acknowledge and accept that, or she will fail to learn an extremely important lesson from it. If she gets taken off the Clinton's Christmas card list, so be it.

Rules are rules.
She was stopped for nor following the rules.

Pocahontas did not care to follow Rule 19. She was warned but decided to go forward and she failed.

Democrats are so out of tune with America.. Blinded by their self righteousness..

What I find interesting from this interview is that the logic he applies to ISIS applies equally to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?

Because it could.

Honestly, who could have stopped it? The U.S. has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council meaning that the U.N. was powerless to stop them even if it had tried. Neither Russia nor China, the only two other countries in the world that might militarily give the U.S. pause, gave a strategic fuck about Saddam Hussein.

It didn't matter that there was no hard evidence. They did it because they thought they'd get away with it--and frankly I think they did get away with it. The people most responsible for the war are all free, not facing any charges, and making more money in their twilight years than the rest of us will make combined over the course of our entire lives. The worst they have to contend with is snarky late-night hosts.

EDIT: Meanwhile, U.S. college students are too busy protesting white girls dressing up as Pocahontas for Halloween and other "micro-aggressions" to get angry about any of this. Truly America is fucked.

Eeerrr....ummmm...uuuuhhhh. Oh.
Male Pocahontas has got some moves there.

Huh, yep. Disney totally had 50 years of suck in the movie department.

Unless you include
101 Dalmatians 1961
Sword in the Stone 1963
Mary Poppins 1964
The Jungle Book 1967
Bedknobs and Broomsticks 1971
Freaky Friday 1976
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh 1977
The Rescuers 1977
Pete's Dragon 1977
Tron 1982
Honey I shrunk the Kids 1989
The Little Mermaid 1989
Beauty and the Beast 1991
Aladdin 1992
The Muppet Christmas Carol 1992
Homeward Bounds 1993
Cool Runnings 1993
The Lion King 1994
Pocahontas 1995
Toy Story 1995
Hercules 1997
Mulan 1998
A Bugs Life 1998
Tarzan 1999
Toy Story 2 1999
The Emperors New Groove 2000
Monsters Inc 2001
Lilo & Stitch 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the black pearl 2003
The Incredibles 2004
Chronicles of Narnia 2005
Cars 2006
Meet the Robinsons 2007
Ratatouille 2007
Enchanted 2007
Wall-E 2008
Up 2009
Princess and the Frog 2009
Toy Story 3 2010
Tangled 2010
The Muppets 2011
Brave 2012
Wreck it Ralph 2012
Monsters U 2013

But, other then that, yeah, no, nothing since 59. Except the other hundreds of classics that I didn't bother mentioning.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'colors of the wind, pocahontas, stoned, baked, cannabis, marijuana' to 'colors of the wind, pocahontas, stoned, baked, cannabis, marijuana, college humor' - edited by Boise_Lib

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

You're right, the first wave of settlers weren't strongly committed Christians, although one of the first things they did upon arriving was join the Rev. Robert Hunt in a communion service. However everything else is the complete opposite of what you said. Indeed, John Rolfe was the first to establish the colony, but what you've left out is that he was a deeply committed Christian! He is the one who converted Pocahontas to Christianity and took her as a bride. He had a Christian purpose for Jamestown such as to "advance the Honor of God, and to propagate his Gospel." He also said:

"no small hope by piety, clemency, courtesy and civil demeanor to convert and bring to the knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ 1000s of poor wretched and misbelieving people: on whose faces a good Christian cannot look, without sorrow, pity and commiseration; seeing they bear the Image of our heavenly Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mold. . ."

So yes, Christianity was there at the outset, and it continued to be the prevailing influence in shaping this country.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the library of congress:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> ^Hive13

>> ^jmd:

kceat, alien really was a work of art wasnt it. But they also didnt show many shots of it moving around, nore under bright lights. The majority of shots was of them getting shot up in sprays of acid and goo.


i think you completely misunderstand the art of film. Would you have been more impressed if you saw these shots? perhaps on a "detail oriented" scale. but from a movie going sense, a sense of mood, timing, suspense, and atmosphere? seeing more would be "seeing" less. In the same way that seeing less is "seeing" more.

Take jaws for example. The hitchcockian approach to the monster is what made you fucking scared. (granted that decision was largely due to the fact it wouldnt work half the time but its still a testament to the fast thinking directors mind that Spielberg has)

I'll never forget when i saw Aliens for the first time and during the Queen reveal scene i had a very serious holy-fucking-shit moment, and that bitch was made out of garbage bags and plastic. Conversely, watching Avatar just made me want to rewatch dances with wolves (or pocahontas)

I think both sides in this argument have fair points. Yes, all movies are derivative at some level. But not to this degree.

Also, I don't think Star Wars and the Matrix are that comparable. Sure, you could say Tatooine is like the real world, and space is like the Matrix. But that's kind of tenuous. It's not like outer space was a secret to Luke. They both fight a controlling, evil empire, but that plot point exists in half of action / epic movies. As a plot device, attacking evil empires works much better than attacking orphanages.

Also, if you look at the list of "7 types of plots", Matrix is man versus machine while Star wars is man versus man. Luke's life is heavily influenced by a mysterious father figure whose path he seeks to follow and whose (supposed) death he seeks to revenge. Neo's father plays no roll. Neo is saved by Trinity's love, Luke has no romantic interest. Who is the Han Solo figure in the Matrix?

Yes, they're similar at the one sentence level -- young warrior joins band of freedom fighters to destroy evil empire. That level of similarity can be found for any movie. For Avatar, you can instead write eight sentences, like in this trailer.

Young warrior leaves home for an alien, barely colonized new world inhabited by strange natives with a tenuous peace. The new world holds great spoils sought by the colonists. Meanwhile, the daughter of the native chief has an arranged marriage with a serious, stoic, well respected warrior of the tribe but she is not enthusiastic about this marriage. The young warrior and the native daughter meet and the warrior comes to appreciate the native point of view and way of life. The young warrior and the heroine consult with a sentient tree spirit. The young warrior and the chief's daughters form a close relationship that makes the betrothed mate jealous. The young warrior falls out of favor with the natives and barely escapes execution because of an attack from the colonists. Ultimately, there is a show down between the colonists and the natives, and the young warrior decides to aid the natives.

There are, of course, differences, especially with the ultimate resolution. In Pocahontas
1) There is less of a blood bath in the end.
2) The warrior leaves back to his old world at the end
3) The riches of the new world did not actually exist.
4) There is no "Avatar" element -- John doesn't pretend to be a native.
5) John wasn't specifically tasked to infiltrate the native community.

edit: I suppose this infamous image highlights the similarities better than I did:
http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/Pocahontas-to-Avatar.jpg

>> ^Kreegath:
If you look hard enough, then yes, you can liken the story in Avatar to most movies. However, comparing it to Pocahontas, you don't have to look hard at all.


Right. You just have to ignore the whole thing about Jake being a paraplegic, gaining a new body, becoming one with the Navi, then betraying them, then becoming their leader and uniting the tribes, and the whole giant sentient tree network, and unobtainium being the last hope for a dying earth, etc. You know, like most of the plot.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.