Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Trump

New Jesus and Mo strip called “jump”, comes with the tags generation snowflake, political correctness, Trump. And indeed, he seems to be talking about Trump as an end to “political correctness,” which it’s not.

2016-11-23

45 Comments

  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Had no idea Mo could be so astute.

    • jaxkayaker
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      Now if only he could be so perceptive whilst looking in a mirror.

  2. Ken Kukec
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Jesus may be “talking about Trump as an end to ‘political correctness.’” But it seems author is being ironic in suggesting that the other side of the political spectrum has formed its own version of the offense-and-insult-mongering brigade.

    • Alpha Neil
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

      Exactly. Trump’s demand for an apology from the cast of Hamilton following the Pence incident is a fine example of how freedom of speech is a relative term for him.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

        And speaking of Trump/Clinton and all those who continue to follow – Hilary’s lead in the vote is now 1.5% or 2,017,563. Try not to use the term democracy too often as the boys at the Constitution had almost no thought of it.

        • Alpha Neil
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:37 am | Permalink

          The Iraqi army should be arriving soon to bring democracy to our troubled nation.

          • Posted November 23, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

            Nothing to hope for / be afraid of. Judging by its performance against ISIS, “Iraqi army” is an oxymoron.

        • Mark Sturtevant
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

          An interesting development is that some high level computer scientists have found anomalies in voting when comparing paper versus electronic ballots in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They suggest these might have been hacked, and are urging Clinton to ask for a check in those states.

          If she does ask, get ready for a wild ride!

          • Richard Bond
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

            I have ben muttering abou this for a week or two. Perhaps I am not so paranoiac after all.

          • nicky
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

            Have any reference or link?

            • Posted November 24, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

              http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html

              Hack? Who knows. However the *appearance* of impropriety is everywhere.

              • nicky
                Posted November 26, 2016 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

                Thank you for the link.
                I’m not enough of a computer fundi to appreciate the importance, but even without hacking, these elections were probably stolen.
                I think there is enough ‘prima facie’ evidence for Clinton to revoke her concession. She should, after all, all these ‘discarded’ votes are not hers, just votes for her. Who is she to neglect them by conceding?

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

            OH, please, oh, please!

    • Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Exactly. Suddenly Trump supporters are so sensitive to all the backlash of being associated with racists that they are beginning to sound like little oppressed snowflakes. Many of them already had persecution complexes to begin with, but now they whine that they think minorities won’t like them so they have to keep their voting preferences to themselves. We all decry identity politics on the left, but identity politics rules both sides, the left just happens to have a larger diversity in that regard.

      • Jeremy Tarone
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        Yes, and if we consider the overlap of Trump supporters with Republicans, it’s not sudden at all. Republicans have their own brand of PCism and purity tests, including the religious right Republicans.

        In fact we are just in time to watch another season of the so called war against the “War Against Christmas”. Dog help anyone who says happy holidays instead of the religious rights PC “Merry Christmas”. They are even rating businesses now based on their store’s interior, commercials, flyers and staffs greetings.

  3. Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    “Very unfair!” — DJT

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      The New York Times met with the failing Trump pre-presidency. Sad!

      • Claudia Baker
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        🙂

    • Kevin
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      So rude! 😥😥😥😥

  4. Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    For all the complaints about the regressive left and their safe spaces, the Trump crowd has no shortage of people acting like Jesus in this cartoon. I’ve been blocked or unfriended by several people who supposedly are all about being “anti-PC.” I have presented things in brusque terms but never in a way that presents an ad hominem attack as they are so prone to. I guess the adage about playground bullies still holds–like the Great Orange Dickhead himself, they can dish it out, but can’t take it.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Exactly!

    • Diane G.
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

      Was that acronym on purpose??

  5. Tom
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Jesus wept!
    Irony is not dead …yet.

  6. tomh
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    One of the great short sentences in literature, from Ring Lardner, describes Trump’s attitude towards free speech.
    “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

  7. Heather Hastie
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    All the comments I’ve seen so far have been on the money. The hypocrisy from Trump and his supporters has been unbelievable.

    While for years they’ve done their best to block every political move by Obama, they’re calling for people to pull together.

    After burning Obama in effigy, denying his citizenship, calling the first couple apes, saying the first lady is really a man and the children stolen, and more, they call for an end to insults.

    After decrying Obama’s admittedly stupid idea not to mention Islamism in relation to terrorism, they insist that’s the only sort of terrorism there is.

    And we’re about to see the enforced dominance of conservative Christianity on US culture, even to the extent of gay conversion therapy.

    Trump’s talking about draining the swamp, but it seems you don’t count as a swamp creature if you’ve suitably flattered him during his campaign. He’s even telling Britain who they think should be their ambassador to the US – a job that’s not even vacant. (The odious Nigel Farage.)

  8. nicky
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Despite the fraud Clinton still leads the popular vote. According to the exit polls she won the EC too, if not for the *massive* and fraudulent discarding of votes in swing states such as Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida.
    And now we’re stuck with a Cheeto whose personal high sensitivities melt the ones of any snowflake.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted November 23, 2016 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      I’d be interested to see a reliable source for the “‘massive’ and fraudulent discarding of votes” in those six states, if you’ve got one.

      • nicky
        Posted November 23, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        Yep, the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final count. Always in Trumps favour. Pathognomonic for fraud. Official sources:
        North Carolina: exit: 2.1 % Clinton lead. 3.8% Trump win. Diff: 5.9%
        Peñsylvania: exit: 4.4% Clnton lead. 1.2% Trump win. Diff: 5.6%
        Wisconsin: exit: 3.9% Clinton lead. 1% Trump win. Diff: 4.9%
        Florida: exit: 1.1% Clinton lead. 1% Trump win. Diff: 2.1%
        I do not have the nrs for Ohio, but the descrrepancy was bout 8% there.
        Note, as far as I know there was not a single state were Trump had an exit lead and Clinton won.

        All experts agree that a discrepancy between exit pools and final result is a reliable sign of fraud. Especially if the discrepancy always favours the same party.
        Note, the US rejects election results in other countries because of this descrepancy. E.g. the Ukrainian elections in 2004. But not at home?

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-the-us-election-stolen-yet-again/5557930
        http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

          Could be.

          But when hearing hoofbeats, it’s prudent to think horses, not zebras.

          • nicky
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

            Well, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, paddles like a duck,feather patterns like a duck, might be a goose?
            Note that we have quite a few zebras here in S.A..
            Why, discounted votes and the mechanism by which they are discounted are not public, hidden from scrutiny. Apart from the exit poll versus count discrepancy, we know there is no independent or bipartisan body overseeing the count like in any other genuine democracy. Even South Africa and Rwanda do3 better there.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted November 23, 2016 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

              “here in S.A.”

              S.A. being…?

              cr

              • nicky
                Posted November 23, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

                South Africa

        • Pali
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

          This sort of claim was made regarding exit poll and result discrepancies during the Democratic primaries. Snopes had an article regarding those claims, which explained that US media exit polling and exit polls done in other countries to guard against vote fraud use very different methodologies, and that US media polls shouldn’t be expected to be highly accurate given how they are held. I suspect a similar issue is at play here.

          http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

          • nicky
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

            So, in the US exit polls appear not to be reliable, unlike the rest of the world.
            However, official counting, done without independent or bipartisan oversight in the US, unlike the rest of the world, is reliable?
            Good for the goose, but not for the gander.
            Crosscheck? Queues at polling stations (voting day is not a public holiday in the US)? Provisional votes? Jim Crow?
            Why would the counting without genuine oversight suddenly be reliable, if you have these clear efforts to disenfranchise ‘ethnic’ voters?

            • nicky
              Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

              And the Snopes article does not really account for the fact that the discrepancies were systematically in the GOP’s favour.

              • nicky
                Posted November 24, 2016 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

                Also, that Snopes article states
                that non-US exit polls are specifically designed to detect fraud. That is simply not true. B.S. in other words.
                Brexit exit polls were just to gauge how the vote was going, but they were deadly accurate. And against expectations.
                In general, exit polls in genuine democracies are just meant to get an early impression of how the voting went, and they are very accurate.
                I find it *highly* suspect that they would not be accurate in the US, especially since there is no serious monitoring of the counting.

        • Taz
          Posted November 23, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

          That “GlobalResearch” site looks like “InfoWars”.

          • nicky
            Posted November 23, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

            Yes, I admit -after rereading it- that it is quite partisan. Still makes some pertinent points though.

        • jeremy pereira
          Posted November 24, 2016 at 8:17 am | Permalink

          Isn’t it just as likely that the people who voted Trump knew how it would look and therefore lied in the exit polls. They were just embarrassed about their choice.

          • nicky
            Posted November 26, 2016 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

            I find that highly unbelievable, why would they?
            – exit polls are anonymous
            – admittedly hearsay, but the ‘Trump signs’ in gardens were rampant. Apart from the solidly ‘blue’ coastal states, there was no shame, on the contrary, I think it can be argued just as well that people were afraid to admit they voted Clinton.
            – raw exit polls are highly reliable, say deadly accurate c.f. Brexit. would there not be shame to vote for Brexit?
            Without compelling evidence, or stronger, *any* evidence, from outside the staunchly ‘blue’ coastal states mentioned, I don’t buy it for a second.

            • jeremy pereira
              Posted November 28, 2016 at 7:34 am | Permalink

              It only needs a small percentage of the voters to be embarrassed about voting for Trump to explain the discrepancy in the polls.

              By the way, there were no exit polls with respect to Brexit. The conventional polls there were off, possibly because Brexiters were a bit embarrassed about the way they were voting. The same happened with the BBC exit poll for the 1992 general election.

  9. Javier
    Posted November 23, 2016 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Scientific American: “Closer Look Punches Holes in Swing-State Election Hacking Report”
    http://j.mp/2ftzcqR

    Experts tone down a news story about the Clinton campaign being urged to challenge results due to possible cyber attack

    “Nate Silver, founder and editor-in-chief of the highly regarded, statistics-driven news site FiveThirtyEight, tweeted a quick analysis, claiming that this statement did not survive what Silver called a “basic sanity check.””

    • nicky
      Posted November 24, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      The absence of hacking (or not) is not really pertinent to the argument.
      The argument is that so many voters were disenfranchised by ‘crosscheck’, ‘provisional’ votes (most of which just get tossed away) and other obscure discarding tactics, long queues in ‘ethnic areas (Jim Crow), etc.
      And to me, despite that Snopes article, which I þhink deeply flawed, the EC was not won, but stolen by the GOP.
      I would love to be proven otherwise, eg. by being shown how (and how many and for whom) votes were rightfully discarded.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: