Seth Meyers is a regular nemesis, Trevor Noah, he has good writers and excellent delivery. Stephen Colbert is still butthurt *and* can make some funny jokes about it. Samantha Bee also has some biting commentary. You can look up their clips on youtube and skip most of the commentary and commercials, and all of the FB highlight reel.

edited to add:

SNL has had some epic pieces about Trump and his entourage. Much of it is spot on.

I've seen some funny clips, even SNL, but I guess I'm not bombarded by it because I don't *state at the TV all day* --a funny video is 2-3 minutes and then I move on with my life.

Everyone who pays taxes is supporting him.

People in the ABC (Anyone But Clinton) camp could care less; because, they already feel the same about you and don't value your opinion.

Those who actually think Trump is a good thing aren't looking for respect. They're looking for compliance.

On the road of life, there are drivers (outcome winners) and there are passengers (outcome losers). Noisy passengers are called back seat drivers (pretenders).

I recognize that thought because I used to think it...

... and I was wrong.

You were a completely different person.

I acknowledge, that happens.

Your mom is a grumpy old man. And SNL is not funny.

And Trump is awesome. Tip that shit over and see what spills out. He is chaos.

DEFINITELY NOT, I had the very same values as I have today. I just participated in a different school of thought and started from different premises.

DEEPLY QUESTIONING those premises was an incredibly hard thing to do, but I found that once I merely "allowed in" different premises, and REQUIRED myself to ask myself "OK, what if I'm wrong?" I was very surprised at what I found.

This required finding the very best counter arguments against my beliefs - not the arguments I was aware of, but the best ones. (One thing I found was that the counter arguments for the other side that came from MY side were LOUSY! Everybody says "I'm right, and here's why"; nobody ever says "I may be wrong and here's why.")

Great stuff! That's some of the best stuff, right there.

I do that stuff (I try! right?) and I think everybody should, because it can be pretty transformational--leading to levels of personal growth that can be described as "being a completely different person."



I propose that core values are not the same thing as critical thinking skills.

I would say that the 13 years (13 fucking years! Jesus christ) I've spent in the Cellar has had a transformational effect on my thinking and political views. Complemented by my experience in local government, true, but mainly my interactions here.

I no longer think of those on the right as my natural and inevitable enemies. I no longer have that absolute conviction that my political analysis is the 'right' one. I still firmly believe in a socialist approach to many aspects of society (health care, unemployment benefits, pensions, basic transport and utilities infrastructure) but I also can see that the other side of that equation isn't necessarily the debil. That people can just as firmly believe in individual responsibility as the most important factor and do so with good and laudable intentions for the health of the nation as a whole is a step forward :P

I also am less certain than I once was that the socialist approach is the right, or only way to achieve a healthy society that benefits all.

I still think it's the best way - but I am also open to other ideas in a way I really wasn't 13 years ago.

Changing position is not necessarily growth.

I think the biggest change for me was to recognise the value in the other side. We need both sides - we need the left to mitigate the right and we also need the right to mitigate the left - in general - from an economic perspective the right seems to have had mostly its own way for a long time. The ground has shifted drastically over the last 20 years or so, empowering corporations and disempowering the workforce.

But in general - the body politic needs to be just that, a body incorporating the myriad views and needs of all those who participate.


[eta] also - as much as I want 'my' side to win - I don't want the supporters of the other side to 'lose'; it's a shitty feeling. Every election we (UK and also US) end up with half the electorate feeling upset, disenfranchised and unrepresented.

I just don't think it is a healthy way to organise a country.

Dana yeah - not as certain - like, at this point, I know I don't know what is actually best for everyone. How to govern the country? Who knows. I will leave that up to the people who figure they know.

Capitalism or Socialism? It sure looks like people have made both work, and made both fail.* It seems like the character of the people is waaaaay more important, but I have no clue how to make that work out, and nobody is having elections about that, or even talking about it.



*The Swedes made Socialism work hardest, and Chavez made it fail hardest. The USA made Capitalism work hardest, and the Albanians made it fail hardest. Or so it appears. I'm not sure.

Doesn't matter. It ain't gonna stop.

Failed 'socialism' and successful 'socialism' has little in common other than that word. It was never about capitalist verses socialist. It was always about details that exist in both socialist and capitalist economies. Details that are missing or perverted in failed economies - both socialist and capitalist.

For example, one parameter is the purpose of a company. In successful capitalist and socialistic economies, purpose is the advancement of mankind and that organization's product. In failing economies, too many want a reward; do not understand or appreciate its purpose.

Hugo Chávez had both charisma and credit lines to literally mortgage a Venezuelian economy. Purpose was not advancement of the country. He chose to cure symptoms rather than solve problems or advance his people.

Maduro does not have charisma. Everything has been mortgaged. Maduro is stuck with (and is a victim of) what Chavez created. Chavez mortgaged everything to promote a socialism that ignored purpose; as found in successful socialism and capitalism.

Purpose is relevant. 'Socialism' or 'capitalism' says less.

Having said that, what is the 'purpose' of The Donald? (To be more famous than the duck?)

Mock? Reality?