[News] Satirical News Show Clips

I decided to just put a John Oliver clip in this thread and change the name and scope rather than start a separate thread for Oliver's stuff.

So just put any video stuff in here; Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Seth Green, etc.

JLS wrote:
farley3k wrote:

When republicans have shown they have no morals, scruples or values except power then you can't play this happy-time sweet game of morality. They don't care, they have shown they don't care. Democrats need to stop pretending and living in a fantasy world.

I agree that they can't be naïve in their strategies, but if Democrats sacrifice what's left of their integrity in the process, (what's left of) my faith in federal government will vanish. They've been in bed with plutocrats for decades and ignored progressive interests for too long. What's left if they sacrifice any remaining pretense of respect for the rule of law and institutional norms?

I guess I'll choose anarchy over tyranny if I must, then hope my passport doesn't expire before a sympathetic country will let my family in.

I don't believe it would sacrifice their integrity to work to make one person one vote more of a reality by getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. There is a lot of stuff they can do.

farley3k wrote:

I don't believe it would sacrifice their integrity to work to make one person one vote more of a reality by getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. There is a lot of stuff they can do.

The electoral college is mandated by the Constitution, though, so they can't do a whole lot about that one without an amendment, and there's no way you'll get enough states to ratify it (it would require 38).

He does discuss that. He mentions an initiative where states can agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote no matter what. Of course states like California and New York have agreed to that but states like Wyoming haven't (and probably would't) because it makes them unimportant really.

farley3k wrote:

He does discuss that. He mentions an initiative where states can agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote no matter what. Of course states like California and New York have agreed to that but states like Wyoming haven't (and probably would't) because it makes them unimportant really.

This SCOTUS would almost certainly strike that down as illegal, but only in years when it would help Democrats.

Mixolyde wrote:
farley3k wrote:

He does discuss that. He mentions an initiative where states can agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote no matter what. Of course states like California and New York have agreed to that but states like Wyoming haven't (and probably would't) because it makes them unimportant really.

This SCOTUS would almost certainly strike that down as illegal, but only in years when it would help Democrats.

the constitution specifically and explicitly says state legislatures have the ability to decide how they choose and submit electors to the EC. they could SAY it was illegal, but it would be another of those obviously wrong on its face decisions that doesn't do anything but erode the legitimacy of the court.

thrawn82 wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
farley3k wrote:

He does discuss that. He mentions an initiative where states can agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote no matter what. Of course states like California and New York have agreed to that but states like Wyoming haven't (and probably would't) because it makes them unimportant really.

This SCOTUS would almost certainly strike that down as illegal, but only in years when it would help Democrats.

the constitution specifically and explicitly says state legislatures have the ability to decide how they choose and submit electors to the EC. they could SAY it was illegal, but it would be another of those obviously wrong on its face decisions that doesn't do anything but erode the legitimacy of the court.

The Republicans could try using Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, by arguing that the rights of voters in those states are being "abridged" because they don't have any direct say in which electors for President and Vice President their state sends. This especially holds true if the popular vote margin is greater than the population of the state, in which case even if every single person in the state had voted for the opposing candidate it would make literally no difference in which electors got sent.

The Fourteenth Amendment wrote:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Keldar wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
farley3k wrote:

He does discuss that. He mentions an initiative where states can agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote no matter what. Of course states like California and New York have agreed to that but states like Wyoming haven't (and probably would't) because it makes them unimportant really.

This SCOTUS would almost certainly strike that down as illegal, but only in years when it would help Democrats.

the constitution specifically and explicitly says state legislatures have the ability to decide how they choose and submit electors to the EC. they could SAY it was illegal, but it would be another of those obviously wrong on its face decisions that doesn't do anything but erode the legitimacy of the court.

The Republicans could try using Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, by arguing that the rights of voters in those states are being "abridged" because they don't have any direct say in which electors for President and Vice President their state sends. This especially holds true if the popular vote margin is greater than the population of the state, in which case even if every single person in the state had voted for the opposing candidate it would make literally no difference in which electors got sent.

The Fourteenth Amendment wrote:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

IANAL but it looks to me like that doesn't say the abridgement itself is illegal. That says if abridgement of male voters occurs, you don't get to count that non-voting population for the purpose of determining federal congressional representation.

thrawn82 wrote:

IANAL but it looks to me like that doesn't say the abridgement itself is illegal. That says if abridgement of male voters occurs, you don't get to count that non-voting population for the purpose of determining federal congressional representation.

Sure, but if they decide every state that signed the compact disenfranchised some portion of their voters, then you have to redo the calculations for the House of Representatives, except you don't count part of the population of every Democratically-controlled state (the ones that signed the compact). This is going to cause the House to shift pretty drastically to the right.

I'm not saying they'll try it, or that it'll even work, but it would hardly be the first time they've tried something overtly underhanded to try to give themselves an advantage.

The recent move by the Republicans to just have Republican-controlled state legislatures appoint Electors is the flip side of this, and has got me thinking (LINK):

December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

If a state legislature were to pass an Interstate Vote Compact, technically there *isn't* a vote for electors, therefore no one's right to vote for them is abridged, as no one has the right to vote for electors to begin with.

maybe for other reasons it won't stand up, but the core of it--that a state could pick electors according to the national vote total--wouldn't be an abridgement of an election. It would be the revocation of an election previously granted, a revocation that, according to that article, looks legal.

Election 2020: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Trump: 'Maybe I'm Immune' - Paul McCartney Parody

Not a video but it is satirical

from the Onion.

Rudy Giuliani Tests Positive For Slew Of Obscure Bat Diseases Unrelated To Covid-19

After undergoing tests to rule out the possibility of coronavirus infection, sources close to Rudy Giuliani confirmed Friday that the attorney tested positive for several dozen obscure bat diseases completely unrelated to Covid-19. “As of now, we have confirmed 27 diseases and counting inside Mr. Giuliani, many of which experts have only previously seen as communicable from bat to bat,” said Dr. Allen Ellis, physician for the former New York City mayor, adding that a team of archaeobiologists from Harvard University who specialize in rare mammalian diseases discovered high levels of guano in Giuliani’s blood. “While definitely suffering from more common bat-to-person transmissions like rabies, ticks, and histoplasmosis, Mr. Giuliani has also somehow contracted vespertilioma—a long-eradicated bat cancer researchers haven’t seen since a very unusual case in Germany in 1903. He also has the bat version of diabetes. A number of these viruses are only sexually transmitted between bats, so this is extremely concerning. An especially interesting contagion located inside Mr. Giuliani’s chest is linked to the only known fossilized remains of a rare Tibetan bat species, which was buried with the inscription ‘kha rdung pho wang,’ roughly translating to ‘curse of the small winged mammal.’” At press time, Dr. Ellis was struggling to make sense of an abdominal scan of Giuliani, which appeared to show six live bats living comfortably inside his liver.

That headline made me laugh out loud for real.

Some light-hearted satire for a change.

I don't know how much of this is scripted and how much is real.

So how about on November 3rd we get on out there and win one for McKinnon.

"DEBATE NIGHT 2020!" — A Bad Lip Reading of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

annoying to ebbed but go, turn on the sound and be entertained and depressed I will post the first one
https://imgur.com/gallery/9ZDsji0

Jordan Klepper Hits One Last Trump Rally Before the Election | The Daily Social Distancing Show