I've only heard bad things about Agents of Shield. Last I heard, they were doing drastic things that made it successfully mediocre.

I get wary of franchises that see success. I expect them to eventually cave to pandering, pathetic tropes. Present Marvel universe included, as their recent films have just... meh.

The Democratic Party having control of both the executive and legislative branches does not mean Congress will go along with whatever the president says. Do you remember Obamacare at all? Was Obamacare what Obama wanted? No. It was a center left compromise to keep Democrats in the fold to vote for it. The Democratic Party still has a significant number of moderates within it.

Do you honestly think Obama got whatever he wanted his first two years in office with control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate? Absolutely not.

In fact, because of filibusters and polarization of the electorate, you can't get much of anything done anymore without control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate.

And the Shultz thing is hilarious to me. Clinton hired a high up skilled Democratic Party political operative for her campaign, and that means she's corrupt? Because Schultz favored a candidate who has always been a strong party candidate over another candidate who only caucused with the Democrats, and wasn't actually a Democrat himself? Yeah, she shouldn't have done what she did. Dennis Rodman shouldn't have done what he did to Scottie Pippen in the playoffs, too, when he was with Detroit. And who thought Rodman should have been brought in to help the Bulls? Pippen. Clinton is trying to win an election. If that's the kind of thing you consider as proof of actual corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not voting against Trump. I am voting for the most competent, experienced candidate who I think will do the best job out of this lot of candidates. She is the only candidate who is extremely qualified.

Is she perfect? Hell, no. She isn't particularly inspiring. She's not very good as a politician at persuading people to her side. She panders too much. Sometimes she plays political games too much, like with the email fiasco.


But you can do a lot worse than Clinton. You don't have to go back far to find an inept president.

I just read it.

I get that it's a complicated issue and emotive for many, I've been on the receiving end of abuse myself and I do understand what being "triggered" feels like (not that I think it should change anything outside of a personal context). I also understand that a subject such as this kind of requires some nuance and intelligence if it's going to be tackled comically, without coming across as simply crass.

But, finding some material crass seems like a necessarily consequence of experimentation and having a diverse artistic community. And moreover, Jim's material here didn't come across as crass, or intentionally hurtful to me. (beyond a deliberate faux crassness clearly intended to emphasise the effect of the material)

I can only assume that it cut too close to the bone for your own sensibilities and/or experiences? Or perhaps instead that you are concerned that it might in some way encourage or validate the twisted attitudes of unevolved brutes?

I understand and respect this, but I have always seen such things as my own weaknesses and obstacles to be overcome. By way of example; to me death and cruelty are the ultimate comedic premises. They represent the deepest fears and anxieties inherent in the human condition, and as such conduits to the deepest catharsis.

Life is unfathomably cruel and brief; to find true levity in the darkest reaches of that, I think represents one of the highest and most liberating state a human being can strive for. (the temporary suspension of ego and care)

We all die and awful things can happen at any moment, this for me is the divine joke and I suspect the underlying power of all things we find humorous to a greater and lesser extent. (one could re frame that as "life is pointless and as such hilarious", but it would mean the same here)

I guess after all that self indulgent waffling, I'm saying that I don't think the collateral of other peoples sensibilities should hold back the pursuit of such lofty things. I'm sure Jim wouldn't see it in quite such terms, but in his own small way this is what I think he, like all good artists, is doing.

There will always be Devils and Ignavi but would be Ubermenschen (or if you will Uberdamen) should never pander to such creatures, lest they allow them to pollute the light they seek to create.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Love is the law, love, under the temperance of will.

(That last part is just a lunatics way of saying; never let the fear of the foolish compromise the pursuit of ones highest arts. Life is short, shine brightly and apologise only on your own terms.)

(^ I do unfortunately suck at actually living by the above, because I'm lazy and cowardly)

Apologies for the gender mixup, I'll make a mental note for future reference

Much love.

So many references in here. I usually hate that kind of pandering, but still needed to point out:
David statue on coffee table (reference to Goonies?)
NES and Intellivision (c'mon, no one kept the latter around after '84).
R2D2 on coffee table
Stupid, obvious pro-wrestler action figure is stupid (ooooh yeah!)
TMNT comic is possibly anachronistic

This video is so pandering and silly, but the song is damn complex. Childs first feelings of love and sexuality combined with the witnessing of violence and murder. Now that I type that, it probably defines far more modern experiences than I realize.

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

Its an American television show intended almost entirely for American consumption. You yourself acknowledged you don't know very much about him. It is clearly not intended to introduce him as a candidate to someone who was previously unaware of him, it is after all a comedy sketch.

Trump has a notorious and long history of having an extremely thin skin and reversing his position multiple times. He actively and very publicly campaigned on some of the issues in that video, and now onto the general, realizes they make him (hopefully) un-electable.

The clip is meant to highlight the comical policy shifts and pandering, not introduce him to people who arn't familiar with him.

These Hillary people now just ignore all her hypocritical flip flopping, never ending pandering, and bribes from billionaires and corporations and claim she's the 'better candidate'....Delusional morons ignoring fraud, bribes, a complete lack of consistency ("I supported $15 an hour...My plan is to raise minimum wages to $12 an hour...I support $15 an hour"), illegal fundraising collusion with the DNC, and a likely indictment on multiple counts right before the election (improper or not), and add to that the second worst 'likeability' rating ever to the list of things that must be ignored to make her palatable and a total lack of support among independents, and yet they're still assuming that people that support an honest candidate will just support her...that's just plain retarded...we won't.
Clinton as the nominee means Trump as president.

EDIT: If Bernie can really get Warren to run as his VP, he might still take the win outright. I really wish they had gotten together and hashed that out long ago, we could be working on the general election by now.
I also really wish they would both run as independents, not beholding to either party, since neither major party represents the people anymore.

Should I?

/ducks

In all seriousness though, no, I don't really have an answer to your question. What I like about Sanders is that he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em, instead of pandering to what he thinks will get him the most votes like most politicians (cough Hillary cough). So, I guess the best way to find an answer would be to examine what he says (and how he has voted) about constitutional issues.

I suppose that if I had to guess the most likely "constitutional right" that his opponents would call him out for NOT wholeheartedly supporting would probably be the 2nd amendment. He has said (and voted) that he is in favor of an assault weapons ban on guns that are "only designed to kill people". And that he wants "common sense gun control legislation" enacted.

Fox News would probably say that means that he is radically opposed to some of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. You can decide for yourself whether you agree or not.


I should note that aside from my first line here "answering a question with a question", I'm not trying to be snarky in my reply here and wasn't trying to be in my first reply to you either. I just wasn't clear from the context of your original post if you were asking a question or if you "had an agenda". Now I get it. I think.

This is what happens when you try to pander to ignorants and morons.

How do you like that tea now, GOP?

Yep and where did that ruling come from? The supreme court, i.e. not politicians who pander to their idiot homophobic base.

I'm fine with someone picking this as a battle. As I said, it might come down to one brave couple "confessing" and forcing the law to be tested in court.

But sometimes, when you're fixing the ignition, you have to let the worn out shocks slide. Yeah, you need to sort that shit out, but it's not the job you're working on right now.

@Jinx

you used a great word:"nuance" and i would add "context".

i know you identify as a social justice warrior,and many here on the sift do as well.i would even include myself on that list in certain instances.

but this video is not addressing the rational and reasonable people who have valid grievances and wish to stand up for:human rights,fairness,justice and equality.

this video is addressing those who abuse political correctness to further their own,personal agenda,dressed up as social justice.these people,who have co-opted,infiltrated and hijacked LEGITIMATE and VALID causes and corrupted them with an irrationality that should,and IS,being ridiculed.

why?
because in the free market of ideas,where there is a free flow of information and dialogue,is the place where bad ideas go to die.

but how do these extremist deal with criticism?
with scrutiny and examination of their call for justice?

well,they simply ACCUSE you of being a:racist,bigot,homophobe etc etc and that is where the conversation ends.the very act of accusing shuts down any dissenting voice by demonizing that person for having the audacity to even question their righteous crusade.

change takes time in a free society.this is a slow process.
so archaic,societal and cultural belief systems take time to shift,but what has ALWAYS been the successful trait in every single victory for social justice is:conversation and discussion.making people aware of the situation and then addressing the problem.

basically it takes people talking about it.

but that is not the tactic we see used by these perpetually offended and faux outraged.THEIR tactic is to shut the conversation down as viciously and violently as they can.they are allergic to dissent or disagreement,and to even attempt to point out the logical fallacies,or incongruities will get you labeled a racist,bigot or homophobe.

that is not justice.that is censorship with a large dose of fascist.

this video makes a solid case for pointing out how a small cadre of narcissistic cry-babies have hijacked groups who had actual grievances and created an atmosphere of fear,anxiety and paranoia simply to promote their own brand of social justice by latching onto real movements...and in the process..destroyed them.

did you SEE what they did to occupy?
or their current slow motion destruction of feminism?
or how about that semi-retarded atheism plus?
good lord..just go watch PZ meyers slowly become a former shadow of himself to pander to these fuckwits.

look man.
even YOU acknowledge that their are some who abuse political correctness for their own self-aggrandizement,and i suspect that even YOU do not identify with this small group of extremists.

well,that is who this video is addressing.

i mean.what fair and reasonable person is AGAINST women having equality or being treated fairly?
who would be AGAINST fighting corruption in our political and economic systems?

but this new batch of social justice warriors are all about THEIR rights.THEIR feelings.THEIR safe spaces and THEIR fascist ideologies on how a society should behave and act.

and if you happen to disagree they will unleash the most vile and vicious tactics to not only shut you up,but lose your job AND,in some cases,abuse a court system to make you criminally libel.all because of THEIR agenda.

free speech is only something THEY are entitled to,YOU get to shut the fuck up.

this ultra-authoritarian,cultural marxism is so anti-democratic and anti-free society,that it must be called out and ridiculed for it's own absurd lack of self-awareness.

they should be laughed at,ridiculed and chastised for the idiocy it proposes.

now maybe we disagree on this,and that is fine.disagreements will happen and they are healthy.

but just know i am not addressing those actual social justice warriors,but rather their more radical and fascist minority that appear to have hijacked the conversation.

and i truly highly doubt you are part of that minority,and if you are?
sorry man.we disagree.

*promote
did anybody catch how slate called it for hillary?despite the obvious crushing that sanders delivered?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/hillary_clinton_bests_bernie_sanders_in_democratic_debate_in_charleston.html

hey slate,you have something dripping from your chin.you may want to wipe that off,you pandering,slutty whore.

i always love the vegan argument,especially when they attempt to trot out the morality tropes.

because when they pull that shit...i GOT em.

i just point to their shirt,or pants,shoes..or even their iphone and remind them the high percentage chance that the human who made those garments/phone was an 8 yr old.forced to work 14 hr shifts with no breaks,7 days a week..all so he could buy a bowl of rice,live in a 500 sq ft space with 25 other people and crap in a hole.(or on the beach..hmmm..lets go swimming).

so lets cut the crap with the moral absolutes.
thats just myopic,single minded pandering to give us the "feel goods"...because in reality we are all assholes in one aspect or another,sometimes knowingly,othertimes not,but still assholes.

which then brings the argument to the distinctive qualities and grade of asshole and thats just fucking boring.

my boy here has it right:

Politicians are so fucking scared of the losing the religiot vote it makes me sick. Look at them, cravenly pandering to turd-for-brain creationists, each candidate terrified that if they don't say they're a Christian 20,000 times between now and election day they haven't got a chance. Such cowardice. Why do such bad ideas as creationism get to figure on the world stage? Why should the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world even consider the opinions of people who believe in cherubim and seraphim and gods and planets appearing out of the void by magic? Ignorance of the facts is one thing, but anyone who seriously believes that the world is 6000 years old and that every living thing was poofed into existence by a kind of wizard, after being exposed and eductated by the evidence, should be mocked off the podium.

Hypothesis: each and every candidate, educated as they are, fucking knows that evolution is true. So they lie to keep the votes of dumbfuck creationists. The stand at rallies and make speeches about their anti-evolution stance, lying over and over again but they fucking know. And you know what? The people who genuinely believe in creationism should be insulted that their candidates pay mere lip-service to their religious beliefs. The public ends up electing a liar and they either don't know because they're too weak-minded to work out they're being lied to (they are creationists, after all) or they don't care because it's the right lie; it's the lie they want to hear, and yeah, the guy's lying, but there's plenty of cognitive dissonance to go round. It's the lie that you can't get elected without telling.

Clearly it is important in a presidential race to be seen as religious, which is a shame. What I don't really fully understand is why they don't roll with the oft favoured fallacy of argument from middle ground. Religious peeps, you can pretty much have your cake and eat it here... as long as you're willing to drop the whole literal interpretation of Genesis you can just use Evolution as more "evidence" to the glory of God's creation! Surely only a divine being would be able create a universe in which life is its own watchmaker! etc etc. Hey presto, you've just positioned yourself between those two extremes as a voice of moderation and at least America would get a Rep Pres that doesn't seem to be waging a war on rational...well, just on being rational.

Wait. Unless the point is they all want to appear to be more extreme than the other guy in order to pander to the smallest minds in the room.