Sunday, February 12, 2017

SNL Political Skits Rock

If you need some humor to start the week, here you go.  I wonder if Trump and his cabinet will ever stop giving them so many easy targets?

NPR SNL Skits
CNN Opinion Can SNL Topple Trump

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Trump has been the target of ridicule for all of his adult life. That won't stop any time soon. Let's hope the situation around him doesn't get serious.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

In my opinion the only "twitter" produced by SNL will not be of laughter, because it simply isn't funny, and never was. At best it is stupid, with occasional stoops below plain meanness. If Trump does Tweet in response, I hope it is to call them on their lack of comedic value.


Anonymous said...

I don't know that satire is supposed to be funny. Donald was funny because no one ever took him seriously. Now that he is president, we shouldn't be surprised that he isn't funny anymore.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Quote without comment:
"Here is some real news: Sean Spicer’s daily press briefings, broadcast live, are being watched by around 4.3 million people. That is several times the audience for Saturday Night Live. I assume viewership will die down once we get past the opening weeks of the Trump administration, but still, it’s remarkable. Once again, the Democratic Party press, in its desperate yearning to bring down the Trump administration, is missing the real story."

Anonymous said...

Saturday Night Live has been averaging about 10 million viewers this season. It's ratings are at a near term high. With youtube and streaming, things not measured by conventional ratings systems, it's likely that it's viewership is at an all time high.

I wonder what Power Line Blog is thinking in their claim that Spicer's ratings are several times higher than SNL's? Surely they must understand that is implausible on it's surface.

Ratings are all important to Trump. He believes in being on TV. That being the case, he will always be a rich target for satire.

Is there are real story out there being missed? Is Trump actually governing in some way? Is he working on issues? Or just trying to figure out a way to fire his national security adviser between golfing trips?

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry,
Oh come now Trump and his interesting cabinet are the best thing that could have happened to SNL.

"Trump has attacked the series and Baldwin's impersonation on Twitter throughout the season saying that the actor's "portrayal stinks" and that it's "time to retire the boring and unfunny show."

But the show is actually in the midst of a viewership revival this season, its 42nd.

"SNL" is averaging 7.4 million viewers an episode, according to NBC. Add in those who watch within a week and that number jumps to 10.6 million, the show's biggest audience in 22 years."

John said...

I mean the reality is pretty simple, the majority of Americans don't support Trump as President. I mean the electoral college gave him the win , but it does not change the fact that most Americans disagree with his beliefs and actions. So of course they like laughing at his antics.

Now I voted for the man and disagree with his grand standing, lying, bragging, etc on a regular basis. If he wants to be President and impress folks like me. Stop talking/tweeting and start working on taxes, healthcare, jobs, deficit reduction, etc.

Anonymous said...

Oh come now Trump and his interesting cabinet are the best thing that could have happened to SNL.

this is in fact true. And Trump has been great for the mainstream media generally. This is how polarization works. Each side gets stronger.

I don't think the people who voted for Trump wanted him to govern. They are both against government and committed to the idea that government cannot work. They would prefer government not working, and to be provided with scapegoats. As for specific issues, Trump can't lower taxes while protecting Social Security, Medicare, and expanding the military. That's why deficit reduction is a non starter as well. As for health care, the Republicans just can't find anything to agree on. What I really expect to happen is that the system will be allowed to collapse, and they will blame Obama for it.

--Hiram

John said...

I guess I am not that cynical, after visiting the Parents this weekend and getting my true Trump supporters update, I think they just have unrealistic expectations. Somehow they the expect Trump to facilitate miracles within our very divided and chaotic government.

Whereas the reality is the Emperor Obama could not drive rapid change to the Left and neither will Emperor Trump move us too fast to the Right. Our Founders were very smart and made sure the pendulum would not jerk too fast one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

Somehow they the expect Trump to facilitate miracles within our very divided and chaotic government.

During the campaign, I was struck but what I think of as the promiscuity of Trump's promisng. Over and over again, he would tell any given audience exactly what they wanted to hear. He promised them things no conventional politician would promise because they knew those things were impossible to deliver. Well, Trump won, at least by some measures, and now he will be expected to deliver on those promises, and he simply can't.

Our founders were terrified that a strong federal government would abolish slavery so they created a system that was basically dysfunctional. We have been living with their tragic mistake for 230 years.

==Hiram

John said...

Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder in this case.

You see a tragic mistake whereas I see brilliance.

Slow and steady wins the race... And prevents mass rebellions...

Anonymous said...

I see a Civil War as the direct result of the failures of 1787.

--Hiram

John said...

And what do you think would have prevented that?

Wiki 1787 Convention

"Among the most controversial issues confronting the delegates was that of slavery. Slavery was widespread in the states at the time of the Convention. Twenty-five of the Convention's 55 delegates owned slaves, including all of the delegates from Virginia and South Carolina. Slaves comprised approximately one-fifth of the population of the states; and apart from northernmost New England, where slavery had largely been eliminated, slaves lived throughout all regions of the country. The majority of the slaves (more than 90%),however, lived in the South, where approximately 1 in 3 families owned slaves. The entire agrarian economy of the South was based on slave labor, and the Southern delegates to the Convention were unwilling to accept any proposals that they believed would threaten the institution.

Quaker John Dickinson argued forcefully against slavery during the Convention. Once Delaware's largest slaveholder, he had freed all of his slaves by 1787.
Whether slavery was to be regulated under the new Constitution was a matter of such intense conflict between the North and South that several Southern states refused to join the Union if slavery were not to be allowed. Delegates opposed to slavery were forced to yield in their demands that slavery practiced within the confines of the new nation be completely outlawed."

Anonymous said...

And what do you think would have prevented that?

The British parliamentary system which was rejected by the founders was able to peacefully eliminate slavery in the British empire through legislation. The system designed by the founders was never able to even address the issue of slavery. That really was it's point. But that never for a moment meant the issue of slavery would go away. The constitution was a procedural attempt to wish away a substantive problem and it failed.

--Hiram

John said...

It looks like it took a LONG TIME and a lot of MONEY to end slavery in the British Empire.

I don't think Americans are that patient, generous or war averse.

Laurie said...

Obama had a opposition congress. Trump has congress of the same party and will be able to change things much more drastically than Obama was able to.

John said...

Please remember that for the first 2 years Obama had Congress of the same party. That is how we got ACA after all.

So yes you are correct that problems can arise...

John said...

Obama first 2 years

I especially like this quote.

"This Congress has been considered one of the most productive Congresses in history in terms of legislation passed since the 89th Congress, during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society."

Let's hope this Congress can be just as "productive"... I wonder that will mean for the Conservatives.

John said...

Maybe those first 2 productive years ensured the GOP would take back control in year 3.

On the upside, history shows that the "in control" party tends to over reach and then they get thrown out of power. So only ~22.5 months to go. :-)

Laurie said...

During Obama's first two years the dems had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for 14 weeks.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Americans are that patient, generous or war averse.

How much did the Civil War cost? How much has racism in America cost?

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
And Trump does not have a filibuster proof majority ever. What is your point again?

Hiram,
I am still missing what you would have liked to have seen done differently?

Would you have preferred if the country had broken up back in 1787?

Anonymous said...

I am still missing what you would have liked to have seen done differently?

I just don't know how much sense to have a system of government where the different branches work at cross purposes to each other. It was certainly a controversial choice then, and no one else seems to be doing it now.

The fact is, in 1787, the decision not to deal with slavery turned out to be catastrophic. It's hard to imagine that there would have been a worse possible outcome.

--Hiram

John said...

I am think that the US breaking up in 1787 would have been a worse result for everyone including the Southern slaves. The compromise in 1787 allowed time for the US to become strong enough so that it could survive the civil war in tact.

Please note that British actions did not occur until well into the 1800's. It is not like they were enlightened in 1787 and US were savages.

John said...

Let's think through the US splits in 1787 scenario.

The "Southern Confederacy" is it's own country and no one has a desire to free their slaves...

The "US" (ie Northern States) are slave free as of 1787.

What would have happened?

Anonymous said...

What would have happened?

Something worse than the Civil War?

--Hiram

John said...

Maybe...

The slaves could have stayed slaves much longer.
There could have an extension of the slave trade.
The civil rights of Black people in the South could still be limited.

By having a strong unified country, we were able to force change that may not have occurred for a long time.

I mean another option to have saved lives is that the USA could have let the Southern States secede... Would that have been better or worse?

Laurie Wagner said...

I predict the GOP senate will get rid of the filibuster.

John said...

Well the Dems did set precedent when they eliminated it for the Federal Judges.

The GOP may follow suit, especially if the Dems try to block Gorsuch.

jerrye92002 said...

Actually, the GOP does not need to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS judges. They simply need to enforce the old "two speech rule." It's like a filibuster only the (Dem, in this case) Senator actually has to hold the floor and only gets to speak two times on any subject. If they make a procedural motion (a delaying tactic, typically), that counts as one speech. It might take a while, but all of those Dem Senators are unlikely to want to sit there for hours and days on end to make their speech, knowing that in the end it won't matter. The other question is, why would they? Why don't they take the wise political advice and "Stop doing Stupid Stuff"?

John said...

I like that simple excellent advice and it would be excellent for both sides to adopt it some day...

Anonymous said...

Now the problem is much deeper. With the Trump Presidency falling into deep crisis, do it's Supreme Court nominees have any legitimacy at all? Let's recall what Republican told us when they denied Judge Garland a hearing, that the people needed an opportunity to weigh in. Now that they have, to the tune of a 2.8 million vote margin for Mr. Trump's opponent, and now that the days of Trump's presidency appear to be numbered, is it appropriate to give his nominees any consideration at all? Particularly bearing in mind that this is a lifetime appointment?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The other advantage to that rule is that it does indeed make it possible for the minority to prevail. If any one or more of those speeches actually convinces somebody on the other side to change their mind, then logic and reason succeed. And with 2*48 chances, you would think that Democrats might indeed create that situation. Of course, that would assume "logic and reason" were central to the debate, something I have yet to hear.