|
Re: Churchill, Americans by and large like him because they just remember him positively from WW2. That's basically it, most Americans and American liberals don't know poo poo about him aside from that. It was a decent enough answer with that in mind
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Is there a better answer than Churchill? I guess it's kind of weird that pacifist Sanders chose one of the most celebrated wartime leaders ever, but I don't think you can go wrong with the man who risked everything standing up to Hitler and ended up leading the liberation of Western Europe. I mean, Mandela's great and his story is moving, but what was his foreign policy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Episode is not up yet on the season pass and the tbs stream is soooo bad arghh Disappointed to learn there are only 13 episodes scheduled, but it seems like they could choose to keep going if the show does well, hopefully without too long of a break in between?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
poty posted:Is there a better answer than Churchill? I guess it's kind of weird that pacifist Sanders chose one of the most celebrated wartime leaders ever, but I don't think you can go wrong with the man who risked everything standing up to Hitler and ended up leading the liberation of Western Europe. It's a stinker of a question to answer, but I know what the answer definitely isn't, and it definitely isn't Churchill. The Germans never had the capability to cripple the RAF, or to successfully invade Britain even if they had. As a military strategist Churchill was completely unable to distinguish a good, insightful idea (holding fighters back from France in 1940, delaying Operation Overlord until 1944, or patronising the Landships Committee in 1915) from an ambitious one that needed a great deal more planning and forethought than he was ever prepared to allow (the Dardanelles campaign in 1915), from an utterly ridiculous shitshow that should have been burned immediately to stop anyone's mind being poisoned by it (his brief enthusiasm in early 1915 for dealing with a troublesome German cruiser by literally setting a river on fire, or his support of Operation Catherine in 1940). As Home Secretary he was a non-entity at best; at worst he supported measures like forced sterilisation of the mentally ill (never adopted) and outright oppressive tactics against suffragettes. As Minister of War from 1919 he prolonged support for the White Russians far beyond the point of sanity, and sent the Black and Tans to Ireland. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he launched the economy into a depression a full two years before the USA could get there. In the mid-20s he told Mussolini “If I had been Italian, I am sure I would have been with you from the beginning.” From the backbenches he founded the India Defence League to oppose Gandhi, the Congress Party, and making India a Dominion within the Empire. There was a reason nobody paid attention to him when he started talking in worried tones about what was going on in Germany; by that point he had the credibility of a wet dishrag. Then the war came along, and it just so happened that what national morale really needed in 1940 was a charismatic leader who was good at inspiring people, who had in 1916 voluntarily gone to the Western Front and personally led 36 trench raids in three months. The Government needed a man who could bash heads together and get people pulling on the same rope. Churchill was the right man in the right place at the right time and very little more. Lord Alanbrooke, the head of the army during the war: quote:.....And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of the world imagine that Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no idea what a public menace he is and has been throughout this war! It is far better that the world should never know, and never suspect the feet of clay of this otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again...... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. Never have such opposite extremes been combined in the same human being. The war ends; he's bounced out of office, bleating helplessly about Labour's plan to enforce obedience with its own Gestapo (in those words) to their evil Socialist aims like universal healthcare. He comes back in 1951, initially serving as his own Minister of Defence. In this premiership, Churchill gave aid to the coup that installed the Shah of Iran, he approved mildly brutal tactics in putting down the Malayan Emergency (including the use of defoliants like Agent Orange) and when he sent the Army to the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya, trying to hang on to the crumbling remnants of the Empire, they went all the way to "incredibly brutal" in very short order. This ended in widespread use of concentration camps against civilians, and brutal prison systems for suspected members of the Mau Mau, many of whom were tortured in some of the worst ways possible without such footling concerns as "evidence" or "charges" or "trials". In fact, if the Clinton camp really wanted to turn the screw on this (they may well not, not least because it all smells rather like Guantanamo Bay), they could point out that one of the innocent victims of the Empire during this time was Hussein Onyango Obama, grandfather of the current president. He was repeatedly beaten by British squaddies, had pins pushed under his fingernails and into his skin. At one point they tried to crush his testicles with metal rods. On Winston Churchill's watch. Churchill was a very, very, very, very weird man, and about as far from democratic socialism as it's possible to get. If that answer sticks to Sanders, and then he somehow manages to pull off the upset, then he's going to start off his presidency by kicking himself right in the dick in the one area where he can really get things done and enforce his personality on the issues without Congress tripping him up all the time. Kenya remembers the Mau Mau. Iran remembers the Shah. Just because America thinks Churchill's a cuddly war hero doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees. It's a staggeringly illiterate thing to have said; with luck he'll be able to let it just slide on by and we'll all forget it by Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It's a stinker of a question to answer, but I know what the answer definitely isn't, and it definitely isn't Churchill. It's staggeringly illiterate maybe if you'd made a point to study Winston Churchill, the non-WW2 politician, or maybe if you lived in the UK where that sort of thing is more immediately relevant. I think I can confidently state that 95% of Americans don't know that. I sure as gently caress didn't, and while it's impossible to not  my own horn a bit while typing this I graduated in the top 5% of my class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Yes, I think most of America sees him as a fine leader. I really don't know much about him tbh, so I can't comment. I mean didn't Hillary agree about Churchill being a good choice before mentioning Mandela? Edit: Briefly reviewing his Wikipedia introduction, I find: 1. He was the first honorary US citizen. 2. He won the Nobel Prize in literature. 3. His funeral was one of the largest assemblies of world statesmen in history. 4. He was named the "greatest Briton" in 2002 by the BBC. 5. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential people in British history So maybe the above poster finds Churchill personally objectionable, but I don't think it was an unwise choice by Bernie according to mainstream analysis except perhaps that he should have chosen someone other than a white man. Pillow Hat fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
The point I was eventually working round to is that sure, America's not going to care; but what worries me is that if America's not going to care, Sanders might decide that namechecking Churchill is a simple, easy way to bolster his shaky foreign policy credentials over the next year. In Iran they know that the Shah's coup was backed by MI6 and the CIA. It would be utterly depressing if Sanders pulls off the impossible dream and goes into the Oval Office, thinking "Sure, the Hill's going to obstruct the gently caress out of my domestic agenda, but at least I can achieve something with a fast-thawing Iran!", only to find that the Iranians have suddenly become extremely wary of a self-declared maverick and outsider President who's spent the last year saying "I admire Winston Churchill's foreign policy."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
poty posted:Is there a better answer than Churchill? I guess it's kind of weird that pacifist Sanders chose one of the most celebrated wartime leaders ever, but I don't think you can go wrong with the man who risked everything standing up to Hitler and ended up leading the liberation of Western Europe. Mandela is a weird leader who while a great symbol was kind of poo poo at politics. He gets a ton of deserved credit for the end of Apartheid and working to bring South Africans together in peace but his unwillingness to crush the poo poo out of the corruption in his own party and among his successors is a huge blackmark against him. Churchill was poo poo but a ton of the modern criticism against him comes up due to changes in how we look at history. He wasn't super insane compared to most of his peers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The point I was eventually working round to is that sure, America's not going to care; but what worries me is that if America's not going to care, Sanders might decide that namechecking Churchill is a simple, easy way to bolster his shaky foreign policy credentials over the next year. In Iran they know that the Shah's coup was backed by MI6 and the CIA. It would be utterly depressing if Sanders pulls off the impossible dream and goes into the Oval Office, thinking "Sure, the Hill's going to obstruct the gently caress out of my domestic agenda, but at least I can achieve something with a fast-thawing Iran!", only to find that the Iranians have suddenly become extremely wary of a self-declared maverick and outsider President who's spent the last year saying "I admire Winston Churchill's foreign policy." This post rests on so many assumptions that it's hard to even associate with reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Y'all are being weird. The correct answer was to pander (but be honest), and Bernie hosed that up despite having legitimate good, true, answers. You marched with Dr. King for gently caress's sake, that didn't cross your mind to work in there? I very badly want Bernie to beat Hillary but those were awful answers. Churchill? Really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
I agree with that. I'm just saying that honest pandering aside, Churchill wasn't some lunatic pick like Trin Tragula would have us believe. In fact, MLK would have been a great choice since he spoke out against the Vietnam War (among other reasons). Totally a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
In case anybody wanted it:
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It's a stinker of a question to answer, but I know what the answer definitely isn't, and it definitely isn't Churchill. Thank you for the elaborate answer. I will happily admit to not knowing much about Churchill outside WW2 and you have a well researched and interesting opinion about him. So who would you have picked as a better answer for a foreign policy leader? Keep in mind that it must be someone the average American knows, or someone you can explain to them in 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Churchill was poo poo but a ton of the modern criticism against him comes up due to changes in how we look at history. He wasn't super insane compared to most of his peers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Nazis = Socialism Nazis = Bad England WW2 = Good Churchill = England It's a dumb question and any answer could be spun in a +/- way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Rabbi Raccoon posted:In case anybody wanted it: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
poty posted:I was never a big fan of Sam Bee on the Daily Show but I'm very pleasantly surprised by how much I'm enjoying her here
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I was really disappointed when she left The Daily Show. She was the best one on there at the time and better than anyone on there now (although Jordan Klepper and Jessica Williams are both pretty good, and I really like Trevor). If she had taken over as host though I feel like it would have been a loss, because her field pieces were her best stuff and I'm really glad it looks like she'll still be doing more of that type of thing on this show. I'm definitely a Trevor fan, and ultimately I think this is a net win (because now he and she have shows), but I think she could have made an excellent TDS host.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:I agree with that. I'm just saying that honest pandering aside, Churchill wasn't some lunatic pick like Trin Tragula would have us believe. In fact, MLK would have been a great choice since he spoke out against the Vietnam War (among other reasons). Totally a missed opportunity. If you're picking leaders who you like foreign policywise, who they are outside baseline American disinterest knowledge is important. First of all, don't pick a Brit who oversaw an empire upon which the sun never set. Second, don't pick one that people who know anything about the guy will question your choice. Nelson Mandela was a good choice to bullshit because he has good baseline fame and didn't really do anything foreign policy wise that is going to cause someone to question you. He's not really a good foreign policy answer as far as being informative, but he's not going to hurt you when people wonder about your imperial desires. poo poo, if deadass Churhill is fair game just name drop Hadrian or another one of the other 5 Good Emperors, talk up some good aspects and let the classicists all agree that 1st/2nd century Roman foreign policy has few effective modern parallels. gently caress, just say you like Pope Francis and dare anyone to call you on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
I don't really know what your point is, but you sure seem convinced of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
I was less conflicted with seeing Trump defend PP and condemn the Iraq War because Jeb and Cruz are obviously dickheads too and I was enjoying the destruction of GOP. I think when it came to foreign leaders, the only real choices were Churchill, Gandhi, Mandela, and Pope Francis. It's harder to pander (or simply have an inoffensive, uninteresting choice) if you have to back it up with a history lecture. (I kind of wish one of them mentioned Toussaint Louverture...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
I like what I've seen of this show (just the second episode but still). It's like The Daily Show before Jon Stewart got less funny and more angry, although watching so much horrible crap for a show that aired four days a week most weeks will grind on anyone. I think the once-a-week format is better at preventing outrage fatigue.Echo Chamber posted:I was less conflicted with seeing Trump defend PP and condemn the Iraq War because Jeb and Cruz are obviously dickheads too and I was enjoying the destruction of GOP. Where the gently caress is Sirhan Sirhan when you need him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:I like what I've seen of this show (just the second episode but still). It's like The Daily Show before Jon Stewart got less funny and more angry, although watching so much horrible crap for a show that aired four days a week most weeks will grind on anyone. I think the once-a-week format is better at preventing outrage fatigue. It sort of seems like it would go the other way, wouldn't it? In the general he'll try to appear more moderate, not less. I feel like he gets away with saying semi-progressive things because people really aren't as conservative as they think they are. He knows how to frame things so that the emotional appeal is still there. Like, he can get away with calling the Iraq War a mistake because he also has that godawful "ban all Muslims.... temporarily" plan. Basically, he can use technical details (PP does more than abortion) to distance himself from the establishment, while still saying awful poo poo (his frequent misogyny) and attract the same audience the GOP usually does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Every progressive-sounding thing that Donald Trump believes in will be thrown out the window come the general election and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. Yes, that includes his belief that Canada might have a point with this whole single-payer healthcare thing. Not long ago he was saying that the rich need to pay more in taxes, but then he came up with a tax plan that would hilariously benefit the rich and add trillions to the deficit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Great show tonight. It really made me feel happy to see how the Syrians reacted to Samantha's "important English phrases." I think she does an excellent job at portraying Syrian refugees as so completely human. Just normal rear end people trying to make a better life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
That Kasich takedown was brutal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:That Kasich takedown was brutal. And so deserved. He has so many repugnant opinions. He has called the death penalty consistent with Christian values, voted to prohibit needle exchanges (which lower HIV and hepatitis rates btw), stopped accepting Syrian refugees, and has an A rating from the NRA, among some other things. He has scraped by with the appearance of a moderate, but he's a piece of poo poo, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
A nuvaring of bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
How do I change the thread title to that? I've maybe never posted a thread in the decade I've been an SA member.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
A mod needs to do it. I think you can PM them a request, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Another great show this week. I think I'm going to drop the Daily Show and just watch Oliver and Bee. TBS is insane if they don't keep Full Frontal going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Well I don't know about you guys, but I honestly think Samantha Bee is the funniest person on television right now. I hope she stays at this for many years to come. This is my favorite show right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Well I don't know about you guys, but I honestly think Samantha Bee is the funniest person on television right now. I hope she stays at this for many years to come. This is my favorite show right now. I have to agree, of all the Daily Show with Jon Stewart's offsprings on the air, it's the most incisive and funny one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:A nuvaring of bigotry. Funny, and made me learn about birth control!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
drat, this is pretty brutal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
God drat we needed a woman to host one of these shows so badly. We still need more, but Samantha Bee is a magnificent start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
The MLK bit reminded me of this cartoon. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that is marvelous. I was just having a conversation with my racist uncle the other day for which this is a perfect response. He was talking about how BLM is filled with hypocritical bullies and I tried to explain that in fact mainstream America never recognizes civil rights activists for the heroes they are during their period of activism. They will always be criticized as disruptive, unseemly, polarizing, or whatever other coded language people can come up with. There is no "correct" way to petition mainstream America for the rights you are owed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I honestly thought the abortion law segment was weaker than Oliver's similar reporting. But the black history month and girl scout bits had a very clear message and were hilarious too. The election coverage was next level though. Instead of "LOL Trump is Bad!" jokes we got "You loving dumbasses did this by sleeping in six years ago". Which is a smart, smart angle to take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:I honestly thought the abortion law segment was weaker than Oliver's similar reporting. Yeah, it was a really clever angle. And while I really like Last Week Tonight and John Oliver, this show is much funnier then Oliver's. But Oliver's ability to take an issue and boil it down in such a concise format makes up for any mediocre jokes. Likewise, I think Bee's consistently funny writing makes up for any factual details lost in her segments. Both shows are great for different reasons, and neither makes the other seem redundant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 09:54
|
|
