Roseanne canceled by ABC

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2018, 11:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I was a big rand supporter up until the recent tax deal.

Cutting taxes to top earners and increasing the deficit? He’s as bad as the rest of them.

Unless he truly believes it will help the economy. I'll disagree with the assertion that he's "as bad as the rest of them" and I disagree with many of his views. He just seems to be motivated by idealistic conviction than most.  

[Dill]

(05-29-2018, 06:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: She did apologize though. Maybe I'm too soft on that, but as soon as someone admits to wrongdoing and asks for forgiveness, I'm usually in favour of granting that.

Might be that the tweets were too much, because they were quite much indeed. I still could live with her show not being cancelled. This is also about the people that enjoy watching it.

Some think she had a history of bad judgment--and "apologies."

[Dill]

(05-29-2018, 11:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The problem with the "doing what is best for your constituency" usually starts with the hubristic declaration by a politician that they themselves and their ideas "are what is best for the constituency". I'll stand by what I said about the "self party". The selection of a political ideology is usually an aftereffect of a politician making the personal choice that "they are best". This is why many politicians do not personally feel that changing parties is such a big deal.

As a result, anything that is required to put them in the highest position of power that they can attain is therefore "what is best for the constituency", as decided by... they themselves. And that usually starts with campaign funding from special interests, corporations or industries, who in turn become "what is best for the constituency".

Wonder if that applies to our state representative, Dave Reed. He went through college as a Democrat and wanted to run for our district seat (62nd) as a Democrat. But the Democrats already had a good person there, and said no. He switched parties and ran as a Republican--and won in 2003. What bothered me most about that was that he also had college students from Liberty university going door to door for him. After that I was mostly bothered by the big oil donations. 2nd most of any politician in the state.

[Bengalzona]

(05-29-2018, 11:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Wonder if that applies to our state representative, Dave Reed. He went through college as a Democrat and wanted to run for our district seat (62nd) as a Democrat. But the Democrats already had a good person there, and said no. He switched parties and ran as a Republican--and won in 2003. What bothered me most about that was that he also had college students from Liberty university going door to door for him. After that I was mostly bothered by the big oil donations. 2nd most of any politician in the state.

An excellent example, IMO. Having met more than a few politicians, this is how it is done. For many, party alignment is only "flavor of the moment" type choice. Whichever one will get them elected, usually based upon which one has done the best in recent elections. The political tenets of a party only matter to a handful of hardcore 'true believers'. But even then, the basis of their 'true belief' is more along the lines of riding the doctrine as far as they can go within the party leadership (i.e. no different than communism in that regard).

And all of this is colored by the need for funding and what those special interests and corporations want the politician to do for them. After a certain level, you do NOT get elected in America without them.

[NATI BENGALS]

I smell a cabinet position...

Either that or its just getting hard to tell if the smell went down with the shit i flushed earlier

[Shake n Blake]

(05-29-2018, 06:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: She did apologize though. Maybe I'm too soft on that, but as soon as someone admits to wrongdoing and asks for forgiveness, I'm usually in favour of granting that.

Might be that the tweets were too much, because they were quite much indeed. I still could live with her show not being cancelled. This is also about the people that enjoy watching it.

I'm with ya. Terrible tweet, but she gave what looked like a sincere apology and swore off twitter. I 100% get the firing, but I prefer forgiveness and 2nd chances when warranted. Especially for words.

As for the show. Meh. I'd rather have Last Man Standing - which is coming back. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2018, 12:22 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm with ya. Terrible tweet, but she gave what looked like a sincere apology and swore off twitter. I 100% get the firing, but I prefer forgiveness and 2nd chances when warranted. Especially for words.

As for the show. Meh. I'd rather have Last Man Standing - which is coming back. 

I have 0 problem with celebrities being held accountable for their political/PC tweets. I would just hope we are unbiased in our conviction. 

No problem with Rosanne getting the ax.

No problem with Griffin ruining her career.

Though Madonna should have been brought up on charges when she stated she has thought of bombing the White House

and there are countless others. My preference would be that we just write them off as ignorant entertainers whose political views should mean nothing, but the social media society have elevated these folks to someone whose political views we should give a damn about. 

[Shake n Blake]

(05-30-2018, 12:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have 0 problem with celebrities being held accountable for their political/PC tweets. I would just hope we are unbiased in our conviction. 

No problem with Rosanne getting the ax.

No problem with Griffin ruining her career.

Though Madonna should have been brought up on charges when she stated she has thought of bombing the White House

and there are countless others. My preference would be that we just write them off as ignorant entertainers whose political views should mean nothing, but the social media society have elevated these folks to someone whose political views we should give a damn about. 

I don't have any issue with the firing, either. Like I said, I get it. That was a pretty colossal goof. 

It would be nice if the outrage was equal for hateful words/actions on both sides though. 

Remember when the Dixie Chicks committed career suicide by saying they were "ashamed of Bush"?

15 years later, those comments would look completely tame compared to the multiple threats Trump has received. 

[Bengalzona]

(05-30-2018, 12:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: and there are countless others. My preference would be that we just write them off as ignorant entertainers whose political views should mean nothing, but the social media society have elevated these folks to someone whose political views we should give a damn about. 

Interesting take on things, since many would say that that was exactly the same strategy which put a reality TV persona into the White House.

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2018, 10:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not singling you out because (in my mind) I reply to more of your posts than others when I somehow drift over here, but I think that’s a little too passive. Anytime you vote in regards to pocket lining and special interests instead of your heart when you know the real truth which is happening in this country is a crime by human morality.

I won’t say all politicians do this because I simply can’t do that. However, I would challenge anyone to name 1. Just saying.

One problem I run into in answering this is that we don't know who most politicians are. The politicians at the federal level have a higher percentage of assholes, but that is who everyone knows. Even with that, though, I'd say the majority are trying to do what they think is best for the country. But we have to remember that the vast majority of elected officials are in state and local governments, they are more responsive to the people, and less affected by special interests. The other problem that I have in answering this is that when talking about the federal level officials (and even state/local in some instances) naming names becomes highly partisan.

There are folks on both sides of the aisle that I feel believe that they are doing what is best. I have to be clear that I am not saying they are doing what is best, only that they believe they are doing what is best.

(05-30-2018, 12:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: An excellent example, IMO. Having met more than a few politicians, this is how it is done. For many, party alignment is only "flavor of the moment" type choice. Whichever one will get them elected, usually based upon which one has done the best in recent elections. The political tenets of a party only matter to a handful of hardcore 'true believers'. But even then, the basis of their 'true belief' is more along the lines of riding the doctrine as far as they can go within the party leadership (i.e. no different than communism in that regard).

And all of this is colored by the need for funding and what those special interests and corporations want the politician to do for them. After a certain level, you do NOT get elected in America without them.

One of the biggest misconceptions in politics is the role money plays in swaying political opinions. One of the political scientists on my campus, and a friend of mine, did his graduate work with people researching this and he has continued researching it, himself. He actually used to work for OpenSecrets.org before coming here to teach and research.

Anyway, the previous research, and the recent research he has done, indicates that lobbying money doesn't change the positions of elected officials. Elected officials were going to vote the way they were going to with or without lobbyist efforts or donations. That's why lobbyists and donors target them.

You are right, though, in the conversation with Dill about the party membership. This is why I talk more about political ideology. Most people will not change their ideological stance even with a switch of parties. This is a problem with our party structure in this country more than anything, though. Our political parties exist for only one reason: to win elections. In our peer countries, political parties exist to really give an infrastructure and to bring like-minded officials and people together. But that isn't the case here. We have two parties that are giant umbrellas. The party has no actual role in the government itself outside of elections. And that's one of the problems.

[*michaelsean*]

I just feel bad for all the other people who lose their jobs because of one idiot.

[Bengalzona]

(05-30-2018, 08:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: One of the biggest misconceptions in politics is the role money plays in swaying political opinions. One of the political scientists on my campus, and a friend of mine, did his graduate work with people researching this and he has continued researching it, himself. He actually used to work for OpenSecrets.org before coming here to teach and research.

Anyway, the previous research, and the recent research he has done, indicates that lobbying money doesn't change the positions of elected officials. Elected officials were going to vote the way they were going to with or without lobbyist efforts or donations. That's why lobbyists and donors target them.

You are right, though, in the conversation with Dill about the party membership. This is why I talk more about political ideology. Most people will not change their ideological stance even with a switch of parties. This is a problem with our party structure in this country more than anything, though. Our political parties exist for only one reason: to win elections. In our peer countries, political parties exist to really give an infrastructure and to bring like-minded officials and people together. But that isn't the case here. We have two parties that are giant umbrellas. The party has no actual role in the government itself outside of elections. And that's one of the problems.

Except that politicians of a certain level need a warchest just to campaign. This is well known. And monied interests are needed to build that warchest.

Now, if your friend's assertion is that the comparative sizes of warchests between two candidates running against each other has little relevance (which is what it sounds like), then I totally agree with that. But that would not necessarily negate the fact that a candidate would need a base warchest just to "be in the game".

I do agree that the lobbying money is geared towards the candidates that are predisposed to vote a certain way (i.e. "insurance money"), with the politician selling this as "what is best for the constituency".

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 09:29 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Except that politicians of a certain level need a warchest just to campaign. This is well known. And monied interests are needed to build that warchest.

Now, if your friend's assertion is that the comparative sizes of warchests between two candidates running against each other has little relevance (which is what it sounds like), then I totally agree with that. But that would not necessarily negate the fact that a candidate would need a base warchest just to "be in the game".

I do agree that the lobbying money is geared towards the candidates that are predisposed to vote a certain way (i.e. "insurance money"), with the politician selling this as "what is best for the constituency".

I think you may be misinterpreting what I said, but it's likely because I wasn't clear. When I said there were misconceptions about the role of money in swaying political opinions, I was referring to the opinions of the officials. The role money plays in swaying the opinions of voters is significant. Whether it be directly by campaigns or through PACs, which is why Citizens United was such a blow to the democratic process and our republic as a whole.

[*Nately120*]

(05-30-2018, 09:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I just feel bad for all the other people who lose their jobs because of one idiot.

Ehh, they wouldn't even be relevant enough for a bizarre reboot without said idiot, so what can you do?  I can't imagine any of them saw making a career move in 2018 based around a "constantly apologizing for being systematically offensive" Roseanne as anything other than building a house upon sand.

The money people who gave this thing the green light can act as surprised as they wish, but the whole thing was likely a front-loaded cash grab to appeal to Trump supporters and nostalgia freaks before Roseanne ruins it with her off-stage antics.  

[*michaelsean*]

(05-30-2018, 11:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, they wouldn't even be relevant enough for a bizarre reboot without said idiot, so what can you do?  I can't imagine any of them saw making a career move in 2018 based around a "constantly apologizing for being systematically offensive" Roseanne as anything other than building a house upon sand.

The money people who gave this thing the green light can act as surprised as they wish, but the whole thing was likely a front-loaded cash grab to appeal to Trump supporters and nostalgia freaks before Roseanne ruins it with her off-stage antics.  

I had no idea she was a Trump supporter until the first show, and then I still didn't know if that was just her character.  I always assumed she would be libera  just based on the odds.  I liked the first Roseanne and was enjoying this one, but yeah, you had to figure she'd do something to screw it up.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 11:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I had no idea she was a Trump supporter until the first show, and then I still didn't know if that was just her character.  I always assumed she would be libera  just based on the odds.  I liked the first Roseanne and was enjoying this one, but yeah, you had to figure she'd do something to screw it up.

So here is one of the things that most people don't know, the political spectrum isn't a straight line. The ends start curving towards each other when you get to the extremes on the right and the left. It's really interesting to look at. They both tend to get interested in conspiracies, they get distrustful of the state, they espouse extreme populist views, etc., etc. Anarchists are like the connective tissue between the two extremes that makes almost a complete circle.

[*Nately120*]

(05-30-2018, 11:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I had no idea she was a Trump supporter until the first show, and then I still didn't know if that was just her character.  I always assumed she would be libera  just based on the odds.  I liked the first Roseanne and was enjoying this one, but yeah, you had to figure she'd do something to screw it up.

I only saw the first episode but the Trump support seemed like an extension of real life Roseanne and rather tacked on and forced rather than integral to the show.  It came off as a marketing ploy and nothing that so clearly dates a show would be used if long term plans were in play .

That's just my take, though.  Roseanne as a person always seemed apolitical and self serving to me . I am woman heard me roar and respect me, but nuts to the downtrodden parties to which i am not a member. 

Actually the original show dealt with issues in a controversial yet respectful manner, so that might not be completely fair of me to say.  I just didn't see the reboot investing in the characters like the original run and their personalities were amped up and tossed out at the viewer in a ham fisted manner .

[fredtoast]

Interesting to note that one listed side effect of Ambien is "extreme racism"

[*michaelsean*]

(05-30-2018, 12:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I only saw the first episode but the Trump support seemed like an extension of real life Roseanne and rather tacked on and forced rather than integral to the show.  It came off as a marketing ploy and nothing that so clearly dates a show would be used if long term plans were in play .

That's just my take, though.  Roseanne as a person always seemed apolitical and self serving to me . I am woman heard me roar and respect me, but nuts to the downtrodden parties to which i am not a member. 

Actually the original show dealt with issues in a controversial yet respectful manner, so that might not be completely fair of me to say.  I just didn't see the reboot investing in the characters like the original run and their personalities were amped up and tossed out at the viewer in a ham fisted manner .

Oh if it had continued on the way the first episode did, I would have been out.  That was hard to watch no matter who if anyone you supported.  But it pretty much disappeared after that.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-30-2018, 12:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh if it had continued on the way the first episode did, I would have been out.  That was hard to watch no matter who if anyone you supported.  But it pretty much disappeared after that.  

I recall the debut getting some praise from people who try to convince me that every other show on tv does the exact same thing with liberal politics

Still the characters didn't act very political outside of simply yelling if they liked Trump or not, which made it seem even more out of place .