The nation may survive, but the wound to hope and order will never fully heal - US elections 2016: the october surprises

remember when michael moore wasn't such an annoying fuckwit

actually... I don't

roger and me was very good

even though the title is grammatically incorrect

I assume there was a point where I didn't think he was an annoying fuckwit, probably before I started watching his movies

lol: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/in-deep-red-florida-signs-of-trouble-for-donald-trump/92289190/

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:43 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i think the trump campaign and a lot of the (male) talking heads have no idea how much these harassment charge have damanged him amongst women, was at a meeting withe prez of our company and she was telling me about her first job decades ago where her boss tried to play "footsie" with her under the table and lunch, she raised an objection w/the supervisor and nothing happened and she was remprimanded for writing a letter about it instead of "coming to him first"...i'd guess she is a centerist republican who i think is voting for hillary despite being not a fan at all...probably wouldn't have loved jeb i'm sure....anyway i think there's just so many stories like that out there and a lot of women who relate to the way trump is saying they are lying

iirc i enjoyed bowling for columbine. seems so long ago. i saw fahrenheit 911 in theaters + i think it was entertaining.

remember when michael moore wasn't such an annoying fuckwit

― akm, Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:59 PM

when was that

remember when michael moore wasn't such an annoying fuckwit

404 error - file not found

the one where he goes to the cuban hospital was unwatchable

roger and me was very good

― akm, Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:00 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like most of the good in it is cribbed from the book "Rivethead" by Ben Hamper (the guy who movingly talks about losing his mind to "wouldn't it be nice" by the beach boys in the film)...Hamper (iirc) was a gonzo columnists who wrote from inside the factory when Moore was editing the Flint free weekly he worked on

the one where he goes to the cuban hospital was unwatchable

― Mordy, Tuesday, October 18, 2016

I wanted an asshole to prick him with a purportedly clean needle to see if he didn't get hepatitis from one of the world's best healthcare economies.

I was moved by Roger and Me at the time I saw it (when I was in middle school). By the time Bowling for Columbine came out I had at least enough critical thinking skills to know that he was stringing together a bunch of bullshit to make his points in some places. I'm saying that even though I'm broadly in favor of gun control. My ex-girlfriend dragged me to the theater to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and I was actively furious at some of it. He's not someone I want on my side.

roger and me was very good

― akm, Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:00 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

even though the title is grammatically incorrect

― akm, Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:01 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Maybe the implied full title is "A Movie About Roger and Me." WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW?

I remember liking Roger and Me but i was in college when I saw it

"i feel like most of the good in it is cribbed from the book "Rivethead" by Ben Hamper (the guy who movingly talks about losing his mind to "wouldn't it be nice" by the beach boys in the film)...Hamper (iirc) was a gonzo columnists who wrote from inside the factory when Moore was editing the Flint free weekly he worked on"

maybe, but it's still a good documentary, regardless of where he might have stolen stuff from.

bowling for columbine was good too. I liked Farenheit 9-11 because I'm a liberal but I'm not going to tout it as the be-all and end-all of great documentaries.

"I remember liking Roger and Me but i was in college when I saw it"

does this mean your taste was bad in college? your critical thinking was poor? or (like me) you were drunk all the time?

To me, Michael Moore's signature achievement is when he wrote that "FIVE REASONS TRUMP WILL DEFINITELY WIN THE PRESIDENCY" post

Agitprop/polemics have their place, but this just seems about as effective as Eminem releasing that single so late in the '04 campaign.

It's like the periodic structure of quadrennial elections along with the depoliticization of every other aspect of daily life means that we get so much noise about voting and voting only; not organizing, not voter reg, not candidate dev/grooming, and we get stuff like this that is well-meaning but so fucking clueless. Like it reflects this idiotic idealization of why/how people vote, that we are influenced like last-min surprises(?) up until the second we step into the voting booth. Coincidentally, this is also the model that most glorifies the person posting this stuff, that they become this valiant hero who staved off Apocalypse and won thru methods akin to some horrifically righteous Sorkin moment.

So we get a lot of sturmunddrang that materially affects jackshit and good for nothing other that oh-so-fortunate branding reinforcement.

I remember being entertained by some of the bits on his short-lived TV show, but the more I thought about them later, the less I liked them. Like the thing where he loaded up a semi with a bunch of Soviet kitsch, painted it red with a big yellow hammer and sickle on the side, and did a "Communism farewell tour," driving it through a bunch of small towns and recording how angry it made people. Ostensibly clever, yes, but then I thought, eh, more than a few of these people probably lost friends and loved ones in Korea and Vietnam under the aegis of "fighting Communism." While a victory lap around the USSR is fine, this was just mean and petty.

http://www.media4.hw-static.com/wp-content/uploads/bowling-for-columbine-movie-still-michael-moore-right-buying-bullets-from-employee-amanda-duncan-at-a-canadian-wal-mart-in-bowling-for-columbine_1631857-400x305.jpeg

This Canadian Walmart employee is my irl second-cousin, incidentally

There was an Eminem single?

These people. (Via Maura on Twitter.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/republican-national-committee-election-rigged-229936

I'd like for Michael Moore to do a documentary on Morgan Spurlock doing a documentary on Michael Moore's documentary process; hopefully the ensuing Moebius loop of reinforced self-regard would trap them

"And now an epilogue by Errol Morris."

michael moore should do a documentary where for 30 days morgan spurlock survives only on a diet of food michael moore chooses for him

These people. (Via Maura on Twitter.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/republican-national-committee-election-rigged-229936

omg lol

"we nominated an unelectable clown as our candidate so clearly the reason he's going down in flames is because Politico is fixing the election"

Meanwhile: http://people.com/politics/people-writer-attack-by-donald-trump-corroborated-six-named-sources

Six colleagues and close friends who corroborate former PEOPLE writer Natasha Stoynoff’s account of being attacked by Donald Trump in 2005 are now coming forward. Among them is a friend who was with Stoynoff when she ran into Melania Trump later in N.Y.C.

The wife of the Republican nominee denies meeting Stoynoff after the attack, but Stoynoff’s friend Liza Herz remembers being there during the chance meeting.

Cool, maybe the GOP will convince enough of their constituents of the rigged system that they won't even bother to vote. Stupid, self-defeating motherfuckers.

eminem - mosh

“It depends on what you mean by ‘rigged.’ Our nominee is experiencing an unprecedented onslaught by most of the media in the country,” said Miriam Hellreich, an RNC committeewoman from Hawaii.

Yeah, that's not what 'rigged' means. I feel like this a constant thing this week, the slide from 'voter fraud' to 'media bias'. One of Trump's recent tweets: "Voter fraud! Crooked Hillary Clinton even got the questions to a debate, and nobody says a word. Can you imagine if I got the questions?" What does that have to do with voter fraud?

wow your unprecedentedly unqualified and terrible and despicable candidate is taking some shots

if trump got all the questions ahead of time he'd still fuck it up. he's whiffing on softballs from o'reilly wtf do you think?

Vehicular manslaughter! I stuck the shredded ruin of what used to be my hand in a running garbage disposal and Crooked Hillary still has both of her hands. Shameful!

roger and me was very good

the porn parody, "Rogering Me," was unfortunately a box office flop iirc

Roger In Me, surely.

Meanwhile, the cri de coeurs from NeverTrump right wing types are going to flood in. They are already:

http://theresurgent.com/dont-blame-god-or-america-for-trumps-loss/

(Mind you, you should see what this guy's 'rant' from last night hoping HRC would somehow lose is like:

http://theresurgent.com/deus-ex-machina/

Etc. etc.)

Meanwhile, in other theological stretches:

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/788390784257196033

fox news moves texas from solid R to learn R

someone post the bin laden thumbs up cartoon

*lean

given the vast and excessive history of stolen elections in this country it's sadly hilarious what people consider "rigged" these days. It's not like we're living in the era of district bosses just making up polling numbers after being paid off or people being shot/beaten to keep them from voting or any number of more blatantly corrupt practices - but then we are talking about people who are almost entirely ignorant of facts/history

The GOP decided to run with Trump; actively suppressed all efforts to stop him at the convention when delegates balked; allowed Trump to run the worst presidential campaign in modern history; agreed not to vet Trump to uncover what is now coming out in the press; [...]

here is where I started giggling because oh what a lengthy vetting process it must be to type "Donald Trump" into Google and then read the first few links

Well, he's talking about the more in-depth background work candidates (normally) agree to let themselves be vetted for.

Steve Berman at theresurgent.com seems absolutely frantic in the realization that all those white nationalists he's aligned himself with in the GOP rejected the "godly" candidates he favored, like Ted Cruz. He doesn't seem to appreciate just how disgusted his ungodly allies were with having to swallow the sort of unctuous hallelujah-shouters he loves so much.

Lately it seems like every last piece of the GOP coalition now hates the guts of every other piece of it. It's about time, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK-kWRAVmRU

Resurgent links are a rabbit hole and yet I can't resist.

There’s a sort of rhythm to the two-way polling between Trump and Clinton. It’s largely driven by events like the conventions, debates, and world events, but it’s also got a heartbeat of its own. The mean days in a Trump/Clinton peak cycle is 58.5, since May, with only about a 10-day variance.

I think what this garble means is that there have been a few times when Trump has been doing relatively well compared to Clinton, and if you squint JUST RIGHT they seem to come about two months apart.

March: OMG Trump is actually doing pretty well in these primary thingies; perhaps he really has a chance.

May: FBI slams Clinton but doesn't lock her up; Trump clinches nomination.

July: RNC convention/unification bounce (prior to Clinton's DNC convention/unification bounce).

September: FaintGate.

Whooaaahaaaoh pattern of three or maybe four!

We are now at peak Clinton, and by the mean days cycle, we should be back to peak Trump around November 15. But if the low value of 53 days is used, we’re at peak Trump on November 10. If peak Trump were to come just two days early, he could peak on election day.

Garble garble garble maaaaarggh sample of four (if we're counting generously) garrrbaaaaaghl.

None of this is scientific the way the boys at FiveThirtyEight would see as significant

No shit, really?

but Nate Silver has also written that Clinton, at an 85 percent probability of winning, faces a steeper statistical climb due to diminishing returns.

What Silver means is that it's harder to get from 85% (pretty damn probable) to 95% ("the sun will rise" level certain) than it is to get from, say, 30% probability to 40% probability (which are both kinda-sorta probabilities). Which is as it should be.

The steps between 85% probability and 100% probability SHOULD be very hard percentage points to get, as they distinguish between "probably gonna happen" and "definitely gonna happen."

that is numerology

soon these people won't even agree on what numbers are

they'll be all Terence Howard 1+1 = 1!

So has anybody had the stomach to watch these latest O'Keeffe bits of nonsense? Because RW Twitter is BLOWING UP over them.

I watched a couple minutes and it was really dumb

sounds like they're mistaking a regular GOTV effort for voter fraud (lol)

nothing is sourced either so yeah