Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As to the two examples.. I don't understand your objection. Both were treated with kid gloves by the media and those on the left. Trump at least gets push back and criticizm from his own side. There is nothing comparable in the media doesn't the left that I am aware of.

    I mean take late night t.v. when Obama was president they lost their ability to make jokes out of politics involving the president. Now that it is trump, every thing g is commedy gold. And I get that trump is more suseptable to it... But it is more than obvious they are approached different. I mean it was the same with bush vs Obama treatment. It paints everything the left does.

    So even the most mild form of criticizm.. which is comedy, is heavily slanted to the lefts favor.
    But then I would say that your perception that it's being done primarily out of political bias comes from your own political bias.

    I'm not saying that there is no political bias in comedy or that, everything else being equal, a Democrat president will be treated exactly the same as a Republican President, but the characteristics of Trump and Obama as both people and Presidents clearly are going to result in different treatment by late night comedians.

    I mean one of them had sex with a porn star and then payed her hush money and the other has apparently been an exemplary husband and father. And that's just one example where Trump is much more worthy, in both in terms of ease of being a humorous target and a legitimate target of derision, of late night comedy jabs than Obama was

    The non-partisan differences between Trump and Obama are so numerous and strong that I would say it's pretty much impossible to accurately determine the extent that the different treatment in comedy is due to political bias.

    If you think it is due primarily to political bias, then I guess that's what you think. But I really can't see such an argument being supported. One can certainly point out the different treatment but saying that it's due mostly to political bias seems to be nothing more than guesswork.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    But then I would say that your perception that it's being done primarily out of political bias comes from your own political bias.
    And you would be wrong, because I'm pointing to objective observations, and those observations carry not simply between trump and Obama, but also Bush and Obama.
    Such as you should note that I'm not complaining about the comedy done at trumps expense. If I did, then you may have some reasoning to blaim political bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not saying that there is no political bias in comedy or that, everything else being equal, a Democrat president will be treated exactly the same as a Republican President, but the characteristics of Trump and Obama as both people and Presidents clearly are going to result in different treatment by late night comedians.
    Exactly the same is too strong. Its not like I expect the same jokes.
    What I do expect is for comedians to find comedy in politics. In regards to trump, you are right there is a LOT of material. I mean..I could write jokes, and i have no talent.
    No, I am noting the LACK of jokes about Obama. It's like everything was hilarious when Bush was in office.. then Obama comes along and suddenly nothing funny in regards to the president.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you think it is due primarily to political bias, then I guess that's what you think. But I really can't see such an argument being supported. One can certainly point out the different treatment but saying that it's due mostly to political bias seems to be nothing more than guesswork.
    Do you remember Jib Jab?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Q-sRdV7SY

    That stuff was hilarious. When Bush was president they created like 4 videos about politics, with I think a perfect balance.
    I was looking forward to the work they would do on Obama during his term.
    Guess what.. nothing. Now I get that as a company they probably just re-focused, and got away from politics. It's not like they suddenly started doing it again for trump.
    however, that is basically what happened across comedy.

    SNL portrayed bush as an idiot.. the clip is great, because there is a contrast in how Dana Carvey portrays the first bush, and how will Farel portrays the second. Dana is a caricature of his mannerisms, and speech patters. (Which is exactly like the Obama version), where as Will Farrel is playing a retard dressed as the president.... Yea Dana actually calls him that in the skit.. so Call me politically biased, but I'm sensing a difference in approach.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcgoj-J-gFs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SluBPO4SCBw
    And Obama is the only sane person in the room, while the skits pitch for his policies.
    ---


    Now, I know there is some subjectiveness in the experience. But it is anything but a politically biased reading to see the contrasts.
    The problem is, SNL is probably the MOST balanced, because they at least have maintained the presidential skits, but the tone and approach is clearly different.
    and because we have two Republicans to compare it too, it can't all be just written off as "well trump is just such an easy target". That would take a certain pare of politically biased lenses in order to spin things that way.
    To serve man.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And you would be wrong, because I'm pointing to objective observations, and those observations carry not simply between trump and Obama, but also Bush and Obama.
    I don't challenge the notion that one can objectively count the number of jokes and see that there were fewer jokes about Obama than their were about Bush or Trump. But I do hold that the notion that the difference is due primarily to political bias is unsupported and could be just a perception based on your own political bias.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, I am noting the LACK of jokes about Obama. It's like everything was hilarious when Bush was in office.. then Obama comes along and suddenly nothing funny in regards to the president.
    And you are clearly overstating the issue which indicates political bias on your part.

    People did not make jokes about everything that Bush did and people did not completely abstain from making jokes about Obama.

    So if we state things in an objective manner we can observe that there were more jokes about Bush than Obama.

    But like Trump, Bush was an easier target than Obama. He was justifiably considered to be kind of a dummy and therefore an easier target for jokes than Obama, who seemed to be smart and calm.

    If Trump, Bush, and Obama were all of the same party, I would expect that Trump would still get more jokes and Bush and Bush would still get more jokes than Obama.

    And again, I don't completely discount political bias in Obama getting fewer jokes but the notion that it was a significant factor is not supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you remember Jib Jab?
    I'd say you are moving the target with that. I thought we were talking about late night shows.

    For all I know jib jab does indeed have a strong political bias that effected their decisions. I'm certainly not saying that NO ONE has a strong political bias that effects their creative output.

    But I thought you were referring to a larger criticism of the media.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    and because we have two Republicans to compare it too, it can't all be just written off as "well trump is just such an easy target". That would take a certain pare of politically biased lenses in order to spin things that way.
    No, one can just observe that Bush was also an easier target than Obama.

    And if we look at the Presidents prior to Bush, the "easy target" hypothesis holds up pretty well.

    Bill Clinton became an easy target once the Lewinsky scandal surfaced and there were LOTS of jokes about him then, probably more than Bush got.

    And from what I recall, the President before Clinton, George H W Bush, did not get a lot of jokes. He, like Obama, seemed to be a smart, calm President.

    From what I can see, the easier the target is, the more jokes he'll get and his party doesn't seem to have a lot to do with it. Again, I don't hold that there is never any political bias in comedy but the notion that it plays a significant role in how often jokes are made doesn't seem to be supported.
    Last edited by mican333; April 10th, 2019 at 11:45 AM.

  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't challenge the notion that one can objectively count the number of jokes and see that there were fewer jokes about Obama than their were about Bush or Trump. But I do hold that the notion that the difference is due primarily to political bias is unsupported and could be just a perception based on your own political bias.
    That is why I pointed to tone and type of jokes.
    See political bias is what calls the opponent stupid. Like... um Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you are clearly overstating the issue which indicates political bias on your part.
    And yet I pointed to evidence of exactly that. SNL skits were not about making fun of Obama, and they activly pushed his agendia with comedy.
    Vs Bush, where he was portraid as a retard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    People did not make jokes about everything that Bush did and people did not completely abstain from making jokes about Obama.
    Well, then stay within the evidence I offered, or offer more.
    I think I provided a good snapshot.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if we state things in an objective manner we can observe that there were more jokes about Bush than Obama.

    But like Trump, Bush was an easier target than Obama. He was justifiably considered to be kind of a dummy and therefore an easier target for jokes than Obama, who seemed to be smart and calm.
    And that is where your political bias shows. The only people that cast Bush as a dummy was the left and the comedy.
    It isn't like Obama didn't have similar instances of miss speaking. ..seems I recall him saying there were 58 states at some point.
    If that had been bush it would have been put into a pull string doll.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If Trump, Bush, and Obama were all of the same party, I would expect that Trump would still get more jokes and Bush and Bush would still get more jokes than Obama.
    Again, not just number. That is why I used SNL. Because they actually continued the president skit.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And again, I don't completely discount political bias in Obama getting fewer jokes but the notion that it was a significant factor is not supported.
    That would depend on what you consider support.
    I mean, I showed how two (no 3) Republican presidents were handled. There is a clear drift shown in the kind of Charicature that was cast for Bush 1 vs Bush 2.

    If that CAN'T POSSIBLY be evidence for a political bias drift... then There is nothing that would serve as evidence even if it were true.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'd say you are moving the target with that. I thought we were talking about late night shows.

    For all I know jib jab does indeed have a strong political bias that effected their decisions. I'm certainly not saying that NO ONE has a strong political bias that effects their creative output.

    But I thought you were referring to a larger criticism of the media.
    Not trying to move the target.. just trying to give some context to my subjective experience.
    I thought I prefaced that enough with Jib Jab referance. .. noting that it wasn't inherently a bias, but that, that sort of stuf does add to the perception.
    they litterally stopped making comedy once Obama was president. ... what kind of evidence are you going to be accepting? That way I don't waste my time drawing pictures that you will just dismiss because it doesn't fit you glasses.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, one can just observe that Bush was also an easier target than Obama.

    And if we look at the Presidents prior to Bush, the "easy target" hypothesis holds up pretty well.
    Well lets talk bias.
    How much of me seing Bush2 as equally richin comedy material with Obama is due to my bias.
    and how much of you thinking that Bush was actually a retard is due to your bias.

    I mean, I fully admit that Trump provides lots to work with. He is a cartoon.
    The first Bush was A LOT closer to Obama. If you didn't hear all the dumb things obama said, that is probably more on the bias of the media then that it didn't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bill Clinton became an easy target once the Lewinsky scandal surfaced and there were LOTS of jokes about him then, probably more than Bush got.
    Yea.. and that was really major, at that point they didn't have a choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And from what I recall, the President before Clinton, George H W Bush, did not get a lot of jokes. He, like Obama, seemed to be a smart, calm President.
    Well, wait just a moment. There is a very important thing that need to be taken into account.
    See, back then SNL was actually funny.
    but seriously, there has been a changing of the guard in late night over this time, and that is very relevant to the discussion.
    I mean steve colbert is himself a character that makes fun of republicans. ... please!, that is at least obvious right?



    So.. Final question.
    What sort of evidence are you accepting? Otherwise we aren't communicating really.
    It's just going to be me showing distinctions, and drawing comparisons.. and you saying "Na-Huh" Bush2 actually was retarded, and Obama was just the most un-funny president that deserved to have his wonderful policies pitched by late-night shows, and cast as cool and hip.
    Because.. well he was just so cool and hip. That isn't bias, that is just the facts.
    To serve man.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is why I pointed to tone and type of jokes.
    See political bias is what calls the opponent stupid. Like... um Bush.
    Begging the question. It has not been supported that the jokes about Bush being dumb were primarily derived from political bias.

    Of course I recognize that the "other side" is more likely to make and forward jokes about a President but again, the notion that political bias was the primary source of the joke is not supported and therefore I reject any argument that has that as a premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And yet I pointed to evidence of exactly that. SNL skits were not about making fun of Obama, and they activly pushed his agendia with comedy.
    Vs Bush, where he was portraid as a retard.
    Again, begging the question. It is not supported that SNL were actively pushing Obama's agenda.

    And it's not supported that the skits mocking Bush were primarily derived from political bias.






    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And that is where your political bias shows. The only people that cast Bush as a dummy was the left and the comedy.
    Please support that assertion.

    And the notion that he's not intelligent was definitely not made up whole cloth from the left or anyone in particular. Bush said dumb things. For example he said something along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...and...err...well, you can't fool me again" and I could provide many more dumb quotes if you need further support that he sometimes said dumb things. So the notion that he's dumb is based on a reality. I'm not saying that his gaffes actually means that he's dumb - he could be a reasonably smart guy who just isn't always eloquent. But regardless, when a public figure publicly says dumb things, it becomes a legitimate source of comedy to make fun of it and portray him as kind of dumb and partisanship need not enter the equation.

    So no, the "dumb Bush" jokes are not just an invention of Bush's political enemies.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It isn't like Obama didn't have similar instances of miss speaking. ..seems I recall him saying there were 58 states at some point.
    I don't recall that.

    But a smart person can make an occasional slip of the tongue. And the point is that Obama amply demonstrated that he was very smart. So there is no valid comedic value in portraying him as a dummy. Political comedy has to have some bearing on reality - be it actual reality or a public perception of reality.

    And there was a public perception that Bush was dumb so it's a valid comic premise. And there is no public perception that Obama was dumb so Obama being dumb, even if one can find an instance of him saying something dumb, is not a valid comic premise.

    Bush was an easier target for comedy than Obama was. And that was one of the reasons that he was the subject of more jokes, both on SNL and elsewhere, than Obama was.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If that had been bush it would have been put into a pull string doll.
    So there was a Bush string doll saying all of the other gaffes that he made? If not, then this hypothetical statement would not have been put in one. It's not lost on me that the "string doll" comment is just hyperbole and you weren't seriously saying that it would have been put into a literal string doll. But I have to say that you engaging in hyperbole shores up the view that your position is based on political bias.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would depend on what you consider support.
    I mean, I showed how two (no 3) Republican presidents were handled. There is a clear drift shown in the kind of Charicature that was cast for Bush 1 vs Bush 2.

    If that CAN'T POSSIBLY be evidence for a political bias drift... then There is nothing that would serve as evidence even if it were true.
    It's not evidence. You are just begging the question and just saying, without support, that the difference in how the two men were treated was due to a political shift when there are other possibilities that are no less supported.

    I would argue, with equal support (which is none at this point), the primary reason that Bush 1 and Bush 2 were treated differently is because they were different men and there wasn't much about Bush 1 that could be effectively lampooned so he wasn't as good a target for comedy as Bush 2 was.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not trying to move the target.. just trying to give some context to my subjective experience.
    I thought I prefaced that enough with Jib Jab referance. .. noting that it wasn't inherently a bias, but that, that sort of stuf does add to the perception.
    they litterally stopped making comedy once Obama was president. ... what kind of evidence are you going to be accepting? That way I don't waste my time drawing pictures that you will just dismiss because it doesn't fit you glasses.
    I thought you were arguing that there is a general bias in broadcast comedy, like SNL and late-night talk shows. So if it's not addressing those things, it seems kind of off-topic. So I consider jib jab to be off topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well lets talk bias.
    How much of me seing Bush2 as equally richin comedy material with Obama is due to my bias.
    and how much of you thinking that Bush was actually a retard is due to your bias.
    First off, you are asking me for my perception so I'm just telling you what I'm thinking here and am not forwarding this as anything that I can support. I'm answering because you asked.

    If you think that Bush2 and Obama are equally rich in comedic material, then I'd say that your view is very biased by either political considerations or the need to win this debate and/or comes from a lack of understanding of comedy. As far as my perception of Bush not being very smart, I'd say there is some bias there but I can certainly point to many objective facts to back up my view.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean, I fully admit that Trump provides lots to work with. He is a cartoon.
    The first Bush was A LOT closer to Obama.
    I think Bush1 and Obama are a lot closer in terms of being a comic source which is a pretty small amount. As I recall all that SNL could come up with Bush1 is just tossing out some phrases like "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent" but they didn't really have many avenues of serious mockery for him. Just like with Obama, they would make fun of the way he talked with the long "errrrrrrrr"s.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you didn't hear all the dumb things obama said, that is probably more on the bias of the media then that it didn't happen.
    If you want to support that, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm ignoring it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea.. and that was really major, at that point they didn't have a choice.
    In the same way they "don't have a choice" in writing jokes about Trump and Bush2.

    When it's your job to write political jokes and you have comedic material, then you write jokes and whether the subject is Trump's "Criminality", Bush2's "stupidity" or Clinton's "horniness" one is going to write jokes about and when the subject doesn't present much comic material like Obama doesn't, then you don't write as many jokes. The ones who provide more comedic material get more jokes written about them and those who present less get less jokes written about them.

    And it looks to me that the primary reason that Trump, Bush2, and Clinton got more jokes than Obama and Bush1 is because the first group provided more comedic material. And please note that both groups contain both Republicans and Democrats.

    So I have provided some pretty good support that the number of jokes is based on whether the person provides comedic material. I have seen little evidence that which political party they belong to is a significant factor.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    but seriously, there has been a changing of the guard in late night over this time, and that is very relevant to the discussion.
    I mean steve colbert is himself a character that makes fun of republicans. ... please!, that is at least obvious right?
    He used to have a show where he parodied a right-wing Bill O'Reilly character so he portrayed a Right-wing pundit to mock right-wing punditry. But he dropped that character is just himself on his own late-night talk show where he does regularly rip on Donald Trump. So you are roughly correct.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What sort of evidence are you accepting? Otherwise we aren't communicating really.
    It's just going to be me showing distinctions, and drawing comparisons.. and you saying "Na-Huh" Bush2 actually was retarded, and Obama was just the most un-funny president that deserved to have his wonderful policies pitched by late-night shows, and cast as cool and hip.
    Because.. well he was just so cool and hip. That isn't bias, that is just the facts.
    So why exactly are you mocking me? No need to answer that question. Just stop doing it.

    But if it will help move things along, there is no point in just pointing out the differing treatments. I fully acknowledge the SNL and late0night comics made more fun of Trump and Bush2 than Obama. I likewise forward that it's the characteristics of the man in question that has a significant, if not primary effect, on the differing treatment. So if you are going to support that it's mostly due to political bias, you'd need to show that the creators of the jokes were influenced more by political bias than trying to create good comedy as best they knew how. So evidence that the creators were intentionally doing that is the evidence that I would accept.
    Last edited by mican333; April 11th, 2019 at 06:30 AM.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    and the way Kathy Griffith was treated? or the outrage over the play where a Trump look alike was assassinated?

    These are actors and comedians involved in satire and let's compare it with the disgusting images of Obama as a monkey, primitive savage, and hanging from a noose from all over the right and alt right. Let's not forget mischaracterizations of things like Obama's relatives in Africa and outright lies like the Clinton's committing homicide all over the place.

    Sounds like you want it both ways and cry about it because your side is just not funny or good at satire. Too bad, Dennis Miller was once funny.

    --------------------

    This thread is way off topic.

    Congress is continuing its investigations and asking for documents. The president has sent sly messages that anyone who is not a sycophant will be purged.

    Barr at the Justice Department is obviously blocking for the president and the IRS chief is scarred of Menuchin and won't comply with Trump's returns.

    How will conservatives respond if it is revealed that Trump has not been under audit? Not that it matters, he can release his returns anyway like he promised, repeatedly.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But if it will help move things along, there is no point in just pointing out the differing treatments. I fully acknowledge the SNL and late0night comics made more fun of Trump and Bush2 than Obama. I likewise forward that it's the characteristics of the man in question that has a significant, if not primary effect, on the differing treatment. So if you are going to support that it's mostly due to political bias, you'd need to show that the creators of the jokes were influenced more by political bias than trying to create good comedy as best they knew how. So evidence that the creators were intentionally doing that is the evidence that I would accept.
    Thanks.
    I can't reach that bar. No none can, and I think it is unreasonable. I don't know their internal thoughts and intentions. I won't claim to, and no one can.
    It is an impossible standard, and defines political bias out of comedy. I don't find it useful, or reasonable.
    So if you like we can end it right there.


    All I can do is compare and contrast, and note the tone and over all attitudes present.
    Like Obama was treated with a level of respect for who he was, Bush and Trump are treated with animosity.
    Before Bush2, every president appeared to be treated with a level of respect for the person.
    This observation holds pretty strongly accross the culture, as we have moved to a more fiery and contentious setting.
    Clinton lived in a political climate where he worked with Republicans, and had a lot of compromise. Obama i think had a similar opporuntiy but did not capitalize on it, instead pushing the extreme.
    Now Democrats are being pushed to outright socialism (a huge swing compared to Bush1 in the aftermath of Reigan).
    Long story short, it really seems that in general Political civility is gone. Now opponents must go to jail, and be traitors (see hillary and trump)

    /END.. unless your going to consider the kind of evidence I am offering.


    -----------------------------------------


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Begging the question. It has not been supported that the jokes about Bush being dumb were primarily derived from political bias.

    Of course I recognize that the "other side" is more likely to make and forward jokes about a President but again, the notion that political bias was the primary source of the joke is not supported and therefore I reject any argument that has that as a premise.
    So, question begging would be just assuming the conclusion. That is not what I did.
    I am offering evidence, which is a contrast to how other performances were done.
    I noted the contrast of even how older republicans were portrait. Namely that they were fair caricatures of mannerisms, speech patters etc.
    Then noted that Bush was portrayed beyond that, as an actual retard.

    Those discrepancies are evidence of political bias. Compound that with your own political bias that sees such a thing as deserved. Making the false statement that "he was general seen like that".
    No, that was the political bias of the left's portrayal of him. This was pointed out by the right by little things like, Bush having better grades than his opponents.

    -Here I will note that, you are just rejecting this kind of evidence at all. So we are just in disagreement as to what genera of evidence is even evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, begging the question. It is not supported that SNL were actively pushing Obama's agenda.

    And it's not supported that the skits mocking Bush were primarily derived from political bias.
    Again, I posted a clip as evidence, where SNL skits was about pushing the healthcare issue. That is contrast with how they portrayed any of Trumps political issues, or even Bush.
    The contrast is the evidence.

    As for "primarily political bias" That is not necessary, and I consider it a moving of the goal posts.
    I only need to show that political bias is involved, not that it is a primary driver.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Please support that assertion.

    And the notion that he's not intelligent was definitely not made up whole cloth from the left or anyone in particular.
    He went to Harvard, and had better grades than John Kerry (who fought in Vietnam).
    Also See time line point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bush said dumb things. For example he said something along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...and...err...well, you can't fool me again" and I could provide many more dumb quotes if you need further support that he sometimes said dumb things. So the notion that he's dumb is based on a reality. I'm not saying that his gaffes actually means that he's dumb - he could be a reasonably smart guy who just isn't always eloquent. But regardless, when a public figure publicly says dumb things, it becomes a legitimate source of comedy to make fun of it and portray him as kind of dumb and partisanship need not enter the equation.
    First, you will note that Bush was portrayed as a retard before any of those Gaff occurred. You can't post date gaffs.
    Second, this is exactly the evidence I am appealing to to show political bias was involved. Bushes Gaffs were seen as hilarious, but Obama's was not. It isn't like Obama didn't make any, and there is no reason to even think he didn't make them as often. The difference is that Bushes were spot lighted, and Obama's were ignored.
    (see support linked later)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So no, the "dumb Bush" jokes are not just an invention of Bush's political enemies.
    The time line defeats your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't recall that.
    That is because it wasn't made fun of and mocked by the left.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But a smart person can make an occasional slip of the tongue. And the point is that Obama amply demonstrated that he was very smart. So there is no valid comedic value in portraying him as a dummy. Political comedy has to have some bearing on reality - be it actual reality or a public perception of reality.
    That is how a politically biased person sees their side, while attributing the same things done by the other side to the stupidity of their opponent.
    That is the actual substance of political bias.

    I can't give you any more evidence of such an actual bias, than that two equal things (miss speaking) are treated differently.

    For example, where was the Hillary "I've fallen and I can't get up" joke when she fell.. many times? (I know that expands the discussion a bit, but come on that was begging to be written).

    It isn't that this isn't funny
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ

    But it's not like SNL didn't make fun of falling on the ground.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6UkvhvqkDg
    Literally, the same actress as who played Hillary.

    It also happened regularly enough that it SHOULD have registered. I can't find any comedy on it though.
    Am I really to believe that if McCain had been on film doing the same things, we wouldn't have seen a falling down skit?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And there was a public perception that Bush was dumb so it's a valid comic premise. And there is no public perception that Obama was dumb so Obama being dumb, even if one can find an instance of him saying something dumb, is not a valid comic premise.
    No, there was not. Bush didn't get elected because everyone thought he was dumb. SNL portrait him like a retard as soon as he was elected (if not before), his miss speakings were focused on and the perception was matted over his actions.
    He didn't actually DO anything that would make you say he was an idiot. Even his presidential defining moment was him standing with a bull horn on top of the 9/11 rubble in a pretty Brave heart worth moment.
    Nobody saw a retard with a mike in that moment. (except the left).
    Again, in the debates with Al-gore, his defining moment was when Al gore tried to stand tall and give the image of towering over Bush, and Bush turned to him and made him shrink away.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bush was an easier target for comedy than Obama was. And that was one of the reasons that he was the subject of more jokes, both on SNL and elsewhere, than Obama was.
    That is question begging, and really undefined, and doesn't counter anything I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So there was a Bush string doll saying all of the other gaffes that he made? If not, then this hypothetical statement would not have been put in one. It's not lost on me that the "string doll" comment is just hyperbole and you weren't seriously saying that it would have been put into a literal string doll. But I have to say that you engaging in hyperbole shores up the view that your position is based on political bias.
    I remember there being such a doll. Though this is not the one I remember.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-JfvU8YVCo

    vs the Obama doll
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQswqoMldg

    take a guess, the first is a compilation of many Bush Gaffs, the second is excerpts from Obama's best speeches.
    why in the world would anyone get a sense of political bias? I don't get it.

    Dude, it's not hyperbole. That you insist on calling everything you don't agree with political bias... well, where could that possibly come from? (sorry, it's annoying)


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not evidence. You are just begging the question and just saying, without support, that the difference in how the two men were treated was due to a political shift when there are other possibilities that are no less supported.

    I would argue, with equal support (which is none at this point), the primary reason that Bush 1 and Bush 2 were treated differently is because they were different men and there wasn't much about Bush 1 that could be effectively lampooned so he wasn't as good a target for comedy as Bush 2 was.
    Your not arguing from equal evidence.
    First, your "evidence" for the basis of the Bush2 character was factually wrong. He had not made the gaffs you attribute the caricature yet. Honestly, Bush 2 was an amazing speaker before he was put in front of a teller-prompter. So much so, there were conspiracies of if he had developed a speaking problem.
    Second, I have not offered zero evidence, at this point it is kind a rude that you are going to dismiss the contrast and the reasoned argument about it as not even "evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I thought you were arguing that there is a general bias in broadcast comedy, like SNL and late-night talk shows. So if it's not addressing those things, it seems kind of off-topic. So I consider jib jab to be off topic.
    whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, you are asking me for my perception so I'm just telling you what I'm thinking here and am not forwarding this as anything that I can support. I'm answering because you asked.

    If you think that Bush2 and Obama are equally rich in comedic material, then I'd say that your view is very biased by either political considerations or the need to win this debate and/or comes from a lack of understanding of comedy. As far as my perception of Bush not being very smart, I'd say there is some bias there but I can certainly point to many objective facts to back up my view.
    Well, I appreciate that, but the actual debate is about the media.
    To point I supported that they both said equally stupid things, so I am at least offering evidence.
    I also countered those "facts" so far. So.. if you want to make the case you can, but so far your just assuming it (beyond the response I have offered anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think Bush1 and Obama are a lot closer in terms of being a comic source which is a pretty small amount. As I recall all that SNL could come up with Bush1 is just tossing out some phrases like "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent" but they didn't really have many avenues of serious mockery for him. Just like with Obama, they would make fun of the way he talked with the long "errrrrrrrr"s.
    Dude that is soOOOO much the point.
    Talented comedians don't need a lot of material. Bush 1 was hilariously portrayed
    I was much younger then, but we laughed a lot about "paper towels, good, blowers bad". They never came up with anything close with Obama. (I know that is my opinion)
    I primarily blame that on talent level of the show decreasing, but there are other factors.

    [QUOTE=MICAN] If you want to support that, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm ignoring it. [/QUOTE

    https://www.thoughtco.com/barack-oba...gaffes-2733986
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    "R-S-P-E-C-T." --flubbing the spelling of Aretha Franklin's famous song "Respect" while paying tribute to the iconic singer, New York, NY (March 6, 2014)

    "Even though most people agree... I'm presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don't take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right." --mixing up Star Wars and Star Trek references while discussing working with Republicans in Congress (March 1, 2013)

    "When I meet with world leaders, what's striking -- whether it's in Europe or here in Asia..." -mistakenly referring to Hawaii as Asia while holding a press conference outside Honolulu, Nov. 16, 2011

    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." —Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 22, 2011


    "One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." –mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb.
    5, 2010 (The Corpsman's name is also Christopher, not Christian)

    "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010
    More than enough for a pull string doll for sure. And again, unknown because they weren't considered funny and weren't highlighted.
    Bush does similar, and man that **** is FUUuuuUUUN...E.


    Political bias in comedy is all about what you end up finding comedy in. Not that they are not even equally funny.
    Your political opponent, the negatives will be found hilarious. So Bush is Dumb, Trumps hair is funny. etc.
    While your guy (speaking generically) is cool, and just dealing with funny idiots around him. The situation is funny, not the person.
    For your guy, falling down repeatedly is ignored (see Hillary), but the other guys health concerns are comedy gold.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In the same way they "don't have a choice" in writing jokes about Trump and Bush2.
    Not true. Because nothing we are discussing is on the same scale. For bush 2, that would have been war jokes, and for Trump that would probably be the wall stuff and a few issues.
    that doesn't encompass the points I made. So it isn't like a catch all response.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    When it's your job to write political jokes and you have comedic material, then you write jokes and whether the subject is Trump's "Criminality", Bush2's "stupidity" or Clinton's "horniness" one is going to write jokes about and when the subject doesn't present much comic material like Obama doesn't, then you don't write as many jokes. The ones who provide more comedic material get more jokes written about them and those who present less get less jokes written about them.
    So? I already addressed the frequency issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And it looks to me that the primary reason that Trump, Bush2, and Clinton got more jokes than Obama and Bush1 is because the first group provided more comedic material. And please note that both groups contain both Republicans and Democrats.
    Sure, sure. and I noted that same fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I have provided some pretty good support that the number of jokes is based on whether the person provides comedic material. I have seen little evidence that which political party they belong to is a significant factor.
    That is because you are ignoring the actual argument being made. Your attacking a straw-man and pushing a point I already addressed.
    Let me know if you need a review.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He used to have a show where he parodied a right-wing Bill O'Reilly character so he portrayed a Right-wing pundit to mock right-wing punditry. But he dropped that character is just himself on his own late-night talk show where he does regularly rip on Donald Trump. So you are roughly correct.
    I'll take it.
    Have you ever watched the Sunny and Chere show? I know.. I know, i wasn't old enough to watch it live or anything, but we love those characters, so while the wife and I watched, something struck me.
    There were NO political jokes at all. So like in the middle of Vietnam, not a single political joke? We watched a bunch of the shows, and it was really striking.
    Now I won't say that every show at the time was like that, but it just seemed to be a very different climate. I think that climate is relevant to what we are discussing, and reflective of a real shift.

    We have gone from no political jokes, to fact checking the president.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.b7858bae93a4

    That kind of political shift is going to open the doors wide open to political bias playing a role.
    To serve man.

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    MT, you steamrolled over my last post and your posts are full of linkwarz that would have the red typing all over if I did the same thing. You two are supposed to be moderators and are wrecking my thread for no good reason.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    MT, you steamrolled over my last post and your posts are full of linkwarz that would have the red typing all over if I did the same thing. You two are supposed to be moderators and are wrecking my thread for no good reason.
    As to "steam rolling", you stated your opinion.. there really wasn't anything to respond too.

    As to off topic...
    See your post 48, which is a denial of the very broadest inequality of media treatment.
    Mican just continued a natural flow from your objection.

    Also, my links are explained, and you don't need to click on them. Unless you want to get to the support material, or see that I am actually referencing real world events.
    If I say that SNL did a clip about falling down. Seems to me that providing a link to it is support.
    To serve man.

  10. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks.
    I can't reach that bar. No none can, and I think it is unreasonable. I don't know their internal thoughts and intentions. I won't claim to, and no one can.
    It is an impossible standard, and defines political bias out of comedy. I don't find it useful, or reasonable.
    So if you like we can end it right there.
    I didn't say that you had to read their thoughts or show a written confession. I'm just saying that if you are going to support your claim that the comedic viewpoint is heavily biased by leftism, you will need to support that very claim.

    How you choose to do it is up to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All I can do is compare and contrast, and note the tone and over all attitudes present.
    Like Obama was treated with a level of respect for who he was, Bush and Trump are treated with animosity.
    Before Bush2, every president appeared to be treated with a level of respect for the person.
    This observation holds pretty strongly accross the culture, as we have moved to a more fiery and contentious setting.
    Clinton lived in a political climate where he worked with Republicans, and had a lot of compromise. Obama i think had a similar opporuntiy but did not capitalize on it, instead pushing the extreme.
    Now Democrats are being pushed to outright socialism (a huge swing compared to Bush1 in the aftermath of Reigan).
    Long story short, it really seems that in general Political civility is gone. Now opponents must go to jail, and be traitors (see hillary and trump)
    I don't know if I agree with everything you are saying there (like the notion that the Obama's lack of progress was primarily his fault as opposed to blatant obstructionism from the Republicans who directly said that they would oppose practically anything he proposed) but it seems kind of irrelevant and even a bit contradictory to the notion that mainstream political comedy has a strong leftist bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, question begging would be just assuming the conclusion. That is not what I did.
    I am offering evidence, which is a contrast to how other performances were done.
    I noted the contrast of even how older republicans were portrait. Namely that they were fair caricatures of mannerisms, speech patters etc.
    Then noted that Bush was portrayed beyond that, as an actual retard.
    No, Bush was not portrayed as an actual retard. When I think a portray of an "actual retard", I view a drooling, can-barely-speak, "duh" and "der" kind of character. That is not an accurate description of Will Ferrel's portrayal of Bush. He certainly did not play him a bright person but he certainly did not play him as retarded.

    I recognize that "actual retard" might be hyperbole on your part but then all I can do is address your words as written and if your words are wrong, then I all I can do in rebuttal is point out that what you wrote is wrong. This is a primary reason I'm asking you to not engage in hyperbole.

    And the Bush portrayal was not harsher than all prior presidential portrayals on SNL. Chevy Chase' portrayal of Gerald Ford was IMO even more brutal. Ford was portrayed as a clumsy, dim-witted person.

    But beyond this, even if you were correct that the Bush portrayal was the most brutal portrayal in SNL history at that time, to say that the reasons was due to political bias as opposed to some other reason is begging the question. I have clearly, and with some some level of support, forwarded that the differing portrayals of Presidents is heavily influenced by the comedic aspects of the men themselves. Another explanation is that, as you indicated, that times are harsher so all comedy goes a bit farther and therefore the portrayals are more stinging as time goes on.

    But regardless, the notion that Bush was given the worst treatment isn't even supported. I do think that Ford was treated about the same and probably a bit worse.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Those discrepancies are evidence of political bias. Compound that with your own political bias that sees such a thing as deserved. Making the false statement that "he was general seen like that".
    My own political bias is irrelevant unless you are forwarding an ad hom fallacy. And yes, he was generally seen like that. I'm not saying that everyone thought something in particular, but there was a general notion in the public that he wasn't too bright. You can disagree with that perception but you can't deny that it existed (well, you can deny it but then you would be wrong). And a perception of X makes X a valid source for comedic material.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, that was the political bias of the left's portrayal of him.
    Again, begging the question.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, I posted a clip as evidence, where SNL skits was about pushing the healthcare issue. That is contrast with how they portrayed any of Trumps political issues, or even Bush.
    The contrast is the evidence.

    As for "primarily political bias" That is not necessary, and I consider it a moving of the goal posts.
    I only need to show that political bias is involved, not that it is a primary driver.
    If you are going to argue that there is a significant leftist influence in political comedy, then you do need to show that the comedy is general comes from such a bias.

    Of course there's going to be at least a little bias in any kind of writing. A person can't help but put themselves into whatever they write so a liberal writer, who has a point of view, is going to write as someone with that point of view. That can't be helped.

    But I thought the issue was that there was a clear and intentional bias in comedy. That creative types are intentionally trying to influence us towards a leftist viewpoint with their comedy much in the same way that Fox and MSNBC attempt to influence their viewers towards a certain political viewpoint.

    So are you talking about a clear intentional bias? If so, you need to support that that is what's going on.

    Or are you talking about unintentional bias that can't help but find its way into a creators work? If so, then I agree that it exists but so what? The only way for a creative person to not forward some level of bias in his writing it to just not write anything. If he's attempting to be politically fair and is just trying to write the funniest stuff he can, then he's doing fine even if some personal bias slips in now and then.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, you will note that Bush was portrayed as a retard before any of those Gaff occurred. You can't post date gaffs.
    I very much doubt that you have found a solid timeline that shows that the on DATE X, there was portrayal of GWB on SNL that portrayed him in a way that had yet to be based on a public perception of him based on things he actually did or said.

    So if you are going to offer this pre-date argument, you will need to provide solid support for it. I'm not going to hit the challenge button here but I ask that you either provide solid support for this (with some kind of link evidence) or drop it.

    I'm not going to get challengey for every argument of yours but if one sound particularly incorrect (like this one does) and is pertinent to your overall point, then it does need to be supported before it can be accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, this is exactly the evidence I am appealing to to show political bias was involved. Bushes Gaffs were seen as hilarious, but Obama's was not. It isn't like Obama didn't make any, and there is no reason to even think he didn't make them as often. The difference is that Bushes were spot lighted, and Obama's were ignored.
    Because whether one made some gaffes aren't the one and only thing in the equation. First off, there is the severity and frequency of the gaffes.

    Mixing up Star Trek and Star Wars is nowhere near as "what?" as somehow not remembering the "fool me once" proverb or voicing numerous malapropisms ("Hispanos,” “arbolist,” “subliminable,” “resignate,” “transformationed”,"misunderestimate". And another factor is that Obama demonstrated time and time again that he's very smart. So it's not valid comedic material to portray a guy is known to be very smart as a dummy just because he made an occasional gaffe. Again, there has to be a public perception that X is true before it's becomes valid comic fodder. And was no public perception that Obama was stupid so such a portrayal makes no comedic sense.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is how a politically biased person sees their side, while attributing the same things done by the other side to the stupidity of their opponent.
    That is the actual substance of political bias.
    Again, begging the question. You can't forward that it's all done due to political bias until you support that it's done due to political bias.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I can't give you any more evidence of such an actual bias, than that two equal things (miss speaking) are treated differently.
    But then the two things are not equal just because they are both misspeaks. For one, they are different gaffes.

    Forgetting how a common proverb goes while speaking it IS different than mixing up start trek and Star wars and therefore SHOULD be treated differently. And then there are the men themselves aside from their political ideologies.

    One of them was considered to be a very smart person and therefore when he makes a gaffe, it's not seen as a sign of stupidity because he was well-known to not be stupid. It's seen as a smart guy who made a mistake and not a dumb guy who is valid fodder for a comedic portrayal as such.

    And I do want this particular point addressed and will consider a non-response as it not being challenged. So to repeat, Obama was generally considered to be smart guy. So even if he did make a gaffes here or there, he was still considered very smart due to all of the intelligence he regularly portrayed. Therefore since he did not have the public perception of being dumb, there was no valid basis for portraying him as dumb for comedic effect. So this alone gave comedy writers, biased or not, good reason to not portray him as dumb in sketches.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, there was not. Bush didn't get elected because everyone thought he was dumb. SNL portrait him like a retard as soon as he was elected (if not before), his miss speakings were focused on and the perception was matted over his actions.
    He didn't actually DO anything that would make you say he was an idiot. Even his presidential defining moment was him standing with a bull horn on top of the 9/11 rubble in a pretty Brave heart worth moment.
    Nobody saw a retard with a mike in that moment. (except the left).
    Again, in the debates with Al-gore, his defining moment was when Al gore tried to stand tall and give the image of towering over Bush, and Bush turned to him and made him shrink away.
    I'm sorry but this all sounds like a politically biased argument about Bush with several statements that I don't agree with and are without support (for example, the left generally approved of his 9/11 speech so the statement that they thought he was a retard with a mic seems to be hyperbole borne from political bias).

    If there is any of it that you want entered as factual for the debate (I'm not sure how much of it is relevant) please separate and support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is question begging, and really undefined, and doesn't counter anything I have said.
    No, it's not question begging. It's a contrary position to yours.

    I'm saying that there is a valid explanation for why Bush and Obama were treated differently that has nothing to do with political bias. And the reason is that Bush, the man, had foibles that made him a better source of material for jokes than Obama did. And the same thing goes for why there were more jokes about Clinton than Obama as well.

    And to be clear, the burden is yours here. So my contrary position is forwarded to show that there is an alternative explanation than the one you are providing for the unequal treatment. I have no need to really support my position until you support yours.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    take a guess, the first is a compilation of many Bush Gaffs, the second is excerpts from Obama's best speeches.
    why in the world would anyone get a sense of political bias? I don't get it.
    I would say, in the doll situation, it's because it corresponds to their preconception that there's political bias.

    In reality, the dolls don't mean much at all. I mean I understand that if they were from the SAME COMPANY one could hold that the two dolls being so different shows that that particular toy company had a bias (which, even if true, isn't that relevant to a debate about the media). But from looking at the clips, I can see the dolls were made from two different companies and therefore does not show a bias from any particular company or individual or anyone in particular.

    So one company made a doll that had Bush gaffes. The reason? Because they figured that people would buy such a doll!

    And another company made a doll of Obama quotes. The reason? Because they figured that people would buy such a doll!

    The notion that any of this had anything to do with political bias on the part of these companies is utterly unsupported.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your not arguing from equal evidence.
    First, your "evidence" for the basis of the Bush2 character was factually wrong. He had not made the gaffs you attribute the caricature yet. Honestly, Bush 2 was an amazing speaker before he was put in front of a teller-prompter. So much so, there were conspiracies of if he had developed a speaking problem.
    When you support this, I will consider it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, I have not offered zero evidence, at this point it is kind a rude that you are going to dismiss the contrast and the reasoned argument about it as not even "evidence"
    I don't dismiss the contrast. I'm just not taking your word for it that the REASON for the contrast is political bias.

    I'm sorry but you do need to support that the contrast is due to political bias before I will accept such a notion.
    .



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I appreciate that, but the actual debate is about the media.
    To point I supported that they both said equally stupid things, so I am at least offering evidence.
    You did not support that they said equally stupid things. Not all mistakes are equally stupid.

    And likewise focusing on just the gaffes misses the forests for the trees here. I'm not forwarding the simplistic argument that because Bush made a gaffe, he must be considered stupid but instead just using some of his gaffes as an example of why he was considered to be kind of dim. So no, I don't have to agree for consistencies sake that anyone who ever made a gaffe must also be considered just as stupid.

    And as I said, if someone has a reputation for being very smart, like Obama does, then it's not a valid comedic premise to portray him as a dummy even if does make a mistake now and then.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dude that is soOOOO much the point.
    Talented comedians don't need a lot of material. Bush 1 was hilariously portrayed
    I was much younger then, but we laughed a lot about "paper towels, good, blowers bad". They never came up with anything close with Obama. (I know that is my opinion)
    I primarily blame that on talent level of the show decreasing, but there are other factors.
    But the point is they didn't really rip on Bush 1. They found what humor in the way he talked but they weren't harsh. And again, they WERE harsh with Gerald Ford.

    So the hypothesis that they treat Republican and Democrats differently due to political bias is pretty much countered by noting how Presidents were treated over the years. If I were to make a list of how harshly they were treated (from worst to best), I would say.

    Trump
    Ford
    Bush2 - Clinton (tied)
    Obama-Bush1-Carter-Reagan (tied)

    And if I were to list which presidents presented fodder for sketch comedy I would but them in the same order which indicates that it's comedic potential and not political bias that drives the jokes.

    Of course that's my perception but then I don't see you offering much more than your perception as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Political bias in comedy is all about what you end up finding comedy in. Not that they are not even equally funny.
    Your political opponent, the negatives will be found hilarious. So Bush is Dumb, Trumps hair is funny. etc.
    While your guy (speaking generically) is cool, and just dealing with funny idiots around him. The situation is funny, not the person.
    For your guy, falling down repeatedly is ignored (see Hillary), but the other guys health concerns are comedy gold.
    This is just begging the question.

    You are just forwarding the unsupported premise that the reason that comedic writers on SNL and others make jokes about one thing and not the other is because they are politically biased.

    And Gerald Ford's falling down was lampooned A LOT on SNL. And Bill Clinton's horniness and penchant for fast food was also lampooned plenty.

    So this argument does only beg the question but seems to be cherry-picking examples to support itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not true. Because nothing we are discussing is on the same scale. For bush 2, that would have been war jokes, and for Trump that would probably be the wall stuff and a few issues.
    that doesn't encompass the points I made. So it isn't like a catch all response.
    You said the writers were "forced" to make jokes about the Clinton scandal as if to explain away why they lampooned a Democrat President (they didn't want to lampoon a Democrat but they had no choice!).

    They aren't literally forced (like a gun to the head) to write anything at all (and of course I know you weren't saying that). A comedic writer who is writing about current political events is "forced" to write about whatever is on the public's mind and has comedic value. And just like writers were "forced" to write jokes about the Clinton Scandal, they are also 'forced' to write jokes about whatever is/was going with Trump and Bush2.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is because you are ignoring the actual argument being made. Your attacking a straw-man and pushing a point I already addressed.
    Let me know if you need a review.
    Which argument of yours have I failed to address?

    Please present it and I will address it.

    If you don't have an ignored argument to show me, then I ask that you not accuse me of ignoring your arguments in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'll take it.
    Have you ever watched the Sunny and Chere show? I know.. I know, i wasn't old enough to watch it live or anything, but we love those characters, so while the wife and I watched, something struck me.
    There were NO political jokes at all. So like in the middle of Vietnam, not a single political joke? We watched a bunch of the shows, and it was really striking.
    Now I won't say that every show at the time was like that, but it just seemed to be a very different climate. I think that climate is relevant to what we are discussing, and reflective of a real shift.

    We have gone from no political jokes, to fact checking the president.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.b7858bae93a4

    That kind of political shift is going to open the doors wide open to political bias playing a role.
    But I wouldn't put the political shift primarily on the media. The media is reacting to what's going on more than causing it to happen.

    And given the current President's propensity for saying untrue things, fact checking is a very good thing nowadays.

    And we have not gone from "no political jokes" just because Sonny and Cher used to not make political jokes. I'm sure you can find plenty of shows on current television that don't make any political jokes. I'm guessing most modern sitcoms don't make such jokes.
    Last edited by mican333; April 14th, 2019 at 08:26 AM.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. "21 Questions For Donald Trump"
    By CowboyX in forum Politics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: November 15th, 2016, 08:52 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 26th, 2012, 07:52 PM
  3. Donald Trump for President ?
    By Vandaler in forum Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 18th, 2011, 06:39 PM
  4. Donald Rumsfeld: "I'm Not Santa Claus"
    By manise in forum Current Events
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: September 1st, 2006, 01:54 PM
  5. Donald Rumsfeld, caught in his own web of lies!
    By ZealousDemon in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 18th, 2004, 01:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •