Jollyjack's Political Comics

[informationgeek]

Been a while since I did a post... might as well do one involving a neat online artist I follow call Jollyjack. Here's some of his recent political ones...



href="http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/">Check out his work here on DeviantArt, though be warned. His work can be rather pervy and NSFW, with nudity and such.








Not political, but funny still...

Comments

[richardak]

I think you mean "did allegedly interfere", and the only interference alleged by anyone not totally paranoid was that Russia allegedly sponsored the hackers who uncovered and published the emails demonstrating Clinton's corruption. Which makes the whole thing even funnier, because the same people now up in arms about that are the same people who were saying what a non-scandal it was that Clinton was using her own private, unsecured server for her emails. And to think that there are still people who question whether G-d has a sense of humor.

[q99]

-I think you mean "did allegedly interfere",-

Nope. It's quite clear that's what happened, according to multiple intelligence agencies. Like, all the intelligence agencies. 17 of 'em.

Also, I note how you don't use 'allegedly' on any other note in your paragraph. Telling.

-demonstrating Clinton's corruption. -

Seriously, if one calls *that* corruption I got a bridge to sell you.

That's one of the funny thing- All the releases were stuff that were not popular, but... even hacking, they couldn't get anything more than 'Hillary saying things not different than her public stances, but phrased to appeal to different groups.' Like, to Wallstreet, she talks about... regulating wallstreet and raising minimum wage, just phrased in a wallstreet-friendly way. Woo-hoo.

For all that people stand up and shout 'corruption!', it's all naught but empty noise where ironically the stuff they point to as evidence, is actually pretty good evidence that she's remarkably clean. One can use illegal means to dig deeper into her affairs than any other candidate, and she still did nothing illegal.

It's not like big donations to a court justice who then conveniently dropped a case (as another candidate had done), or even the various university scandals. It's a wonder of propaganda that literally the least corrupt candidate got framed as the most.

-Which makes the whole thing even funnier, because the same people now up in arms about that are the same people who were saying what a non-scandal it was that Clinton was using her own private, unsecured server for her emails-

Yea, there is a bit of a difference between using a server never breached, with no harm done, and where, like, half of Washington has similar e-mail non-scandals (Colin Powell, GWB... Mike Pence, who's current court arguments is he shouldn't have to show his e-mails), and actual active interference with an election.

It is pretty funny how people so actively re-draw the lines of unacceptable- "This thing which caused no harm and is super-common to do is beyond the pale... but this other thing which is highly illegal and is unprecedented in US elections is completely ok in comparison. Hillary talking to wallstreet is corruption, Trump giving donations to judges on his cases is not. Etc. etc.."

[burkeonthesly]

It is pretty funny how people so actively re-draw the lines of unacceptable

Gotta love that re-districting, huh?

[richardak]

I am amazed and amused by the knots you are tying yourself into. So the Russians "subverted" the election by publishing completely innocuous emails? And if the server was "never breached", and "no harm [was] done," how did the Russians publish her emails and supposedly subvert the election?

So seventeen intelligence agencies say (without having made public any evidence) that the Russians did it? The same seventeen intelligence agencies who said that Iraq had WMD's? Wasn't their unanimity on that point just proof of how they had been politicized to give the answers that their political masters wanted? But if you can't trust an anonymous source, whom can you trust? Of course, I guess the FBI isn't one of those seventeen. So the FBI knows exactly what it's talking about when it "clears" Clinton of wrongdoing with respect to her server, but not when it says there's no actual evidence of Russian involvement.

Also, Clinton is completely innocent because the emails that she didn't destroy don't prove any crimes, because innocent people regularly destroy evidence of their innocence.

Seriously, though, four years ago, the eighties wanted their foreign policy back. Now we all have to worry about Russian subversion. What's next? Preserving the purity of our bodily fluids?

I do have to thank you though. I really am having a great time listening to you. It has been a while since I have enjoyed this site so much.

[torberg]

There's no evidence the server used by Secretary Clinton was breached. The leaked emails came from an intrusion into a server run by the Democratic National Committee. There's a difference.

[richardak]

According to the FBI, at least five different foreign intelligence agencies breached Clinton's server.

[q99]

-
I am amazed and amused by the knots you are tying yourself into. -

Pot, kettle, black.

-So the Russians "subverted" the election by publishing completely innocuous emails? And if the server was "never breached", and "no harm [was] done," how did the Russians publish her emails and supposedly subvert the election?-

The Russian ones were off a DNC hack- and they *also* hacked the RNC, they just didn't share it.

The server ones? Nope, those were clear.


-
So seventeen intelligence agencies say (without having made public any evidence) that the Russians did it? The same seventeen intelligence agencies who said that Iraq had WMD's?-

Actually, no. The agencies never said they had WMD, that was the Administration's conclusion based on the much less conclusive intelligence briefings. Also, there were significantly fewer involved.

Anyway, long story short, it's quite impressive the misinformation and conspiracy theories people have jumped on to.

-
Also, Clinton is completely innocent because the emails that she didn't destroy don't prove any crimes, because innocent people regularly destroy evidence of their innocence. -

Bzzt.
You're literally assuming guilt based on lack of evidence of guilt.

Hillary had lawyers specifically delete personal e-mails, *which she was authorized to do* because those weren't asked for- and note, they aren't gone-gone, the FBI's actually seen 'em. Included stuff like recipies and birthday party plans.

Note how I mentioned everyone has scandals like this- GWB deleted 33 million e-mails.

-
Seriously, though, four years ago, the eighties wanted their foreign policy back. Now we all have to worry about Russian subversion.-

Well, that and massive unconstitutional religious bans, mass deportations, sec of education who thinks child labor laws are bad, sec of energy who wants the department gone, pissing off trade partnets failures to understand foreign policy....

But the twisting to somehow paint 'but her e-mails' as worse is quite impressive.

[richardak]

Yeah, that's why a Clinton staffer used BleachBit on her server in March 2015, four months after her lawyers supposedly turned over everything that wasn't just a cookie recipe or a birthday plan. And a Russian company looking to buy a major North American uranium concern requiring approval by the Secretary of State just found husband so fascinating that they were willing to pay him an $800,000 speaking fee. That's just a completely innocent coincidence.

I also love the revisionist history. No intelligence agencies ever said that Iraq had WMD's. It's certainly the case that none of them ever called it a "slam dunk".

Meanwhile, Julian Assange has said that the Clinton emails did not come from Russia. But what does he know about it?

"Well, that and massive unconstitutional religious bans, mass deportations, sec of education who thinks child labor laws are bad, sec of energy who wants the department gone, pissing off trade partnets failures to understand foreign policy...."

Look, you are free to indulge in whatever paranoid fantasies you like about what Trump will do as President, but none of that has anything to do with your other paranoid fantasies about a supposedly rigged election. Remember how Trump was so terrible for saying he might not accept the result of the election, and how horrible it was that he suggested the election might be rigged? But now that he's won, suddenly the election was rigged after all.

What makes this especially hilarious is this. There was a rigged election: Clinton and her friends in the DNC rigged the Democratic nomination to ensure that Clinton would win it. And now her supporters are complaining that the general election was rigged, apparently because leaked emails somehow constitute rigging an election.

[q99]

- And a Russian company looking to buy a major North American uranium concern requiring approval by the Secretary of State just found husband so fascinating that they were willing to pay him an $800,000 speaking fee. That's just a completely innocent coincidence.-


Let me introduce you to snopes! http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Ah yea, the one that required approval of nine departments? Not something Hillary personally set up, just a departmental rubber stamps, and which she was even incapable of vetoing, she didn't have that authority.



Really, the spin on *every* *single* *thing* is impressive. No matter what she does, it gets spun as this horrible offense even if it's milder than what everyone else does, and stuff that's actually proven in the other cases, not just waving in the direction.

E-mails? Thorough investigation, no wrongdoing. Remember, one of her predecessors used Yahoo for the same purposes.

Indeed, she's actually been charged with zero crimes despite being investigated more than anyone on Earth.

-
Look, you are free to indulge in whatever paranoid fantasies you like about what Trump will do as President,-

Aka "what he actually said he'd do." And people he's actually appointing now. Like, deporting people, he's said that, a lot. Appoint a SoE who is against child labor laws, that's his *actual pick*.

Isn't it funny how 'listening to what Trump says,' is paranoid fantasies on my part, but 'pretending that Hillary did far worse than she did' is perfectly normal and not made-up on yours?

I don't even know what to say that 'repeating what your candidate says and does' is paranoid in your book.

-
What makes this especially hilarious is this. There was a rigged election: Clinton and her friends in the DNC rigged the Democratic nomination to ensure that Clinton would win it. And now her supporters are complaining that the general election was rigged, apparently because leaked emails somehow constitute rigging an election. -

Ah yes, another irony- Hillary won overwhelmingly in the primary, largely due to overwhelming wins in early states. The e-mails leaked revealed... DWS was biased in her favor but didn't do anything that'd actually affect the race, certainly not by the several million she won by (and notably, such accusations came after the states Hillary'd already won by a ton). Heck, fun fact, the DNC *doesn't run the voting*, the state governments do, often Republican ones ironically enough.

Meanwhile, we have stuff like Pence's state raiding voter registrations, the North Carolina Republicans purging voter registrations and a court ordering them to restore them on the ground of it violating the Voter's Rights Act... only for a Republican judge ordering them re-purged without waiting for an appeal or stating reason. This happened in multiple states.

We also have the FBI director Comey breaking his department's decades-long history of neutrality 8 days before an election to announce New Evidence!... which was literally just additional copies of old evidence in another spot, had Republicans in congress crying foal, and followed shortly by a quiet 'oh yea it was nothing.'

We also also have known, confirmed foreign interference.


Again, your accusations of 'paranoia' are ignoring thing that actually happened, solidly proven, while your accusations of 'oh there's definitely corruption' are waving in the direction of things that you're assuming happened and upon examination, don't actually involve any cheating.

And, just, we won the popular. By two and a half million votes. Trump won due to Electoral College geography, not by being more popular.


The Republican party stunk to high heaven about losing to Obama by millions. Trump acting like he won a landslide when he only got through on technicality- and you acting like there's no reason to complain- is really rich.


Anyway, I believe that covers everything. The willingness to ignore evidence on one side, and to treat vague waving on the other as proof of guilt, really says it all.

You want more, again, http://www.snopes.com/ Snopes is your friend. All I've said is stuff available on publicly accessible factcheck sites, unless those are 'paranoid fantasies' too.

[tonybennett3]

+1 The really sad thing is that this is one more 'What's a matter with Kansas' situation (What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) is a book by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank) . The 23% that voted for the Repubs are least likely to benefit from the policies. For me, as a Black Independent voter, it breaks my heart that 54% of the U.S. couldn't care who ran the country. New York, California will survive any economic storm. But those red states are the most vulnerable to the economic winds and whims of those that are taking office.

[q99]

Yes. Trump's tax breaks are most likely to go to blue states like New York, California, etc., because that is where the money is... and where states invest in themselves. The South? They don't get tax breaks and have less self investment. Arizona'll be gutted by mass deportation policies...

The echo-chamber that sustains this economic situation is something I really hate.

Oh come on

[velador]

The lengths to which people can lie not only to others but also to themselves that their candidate is free from any sin is truly amazing. What's next, are you going to tell us that Lois Lerner's seven (!) harddrives all crashed through pure coincidence or that OJ did nothing wrong?

Then we have the hilarious double-think that James Comeys' FBI is simultaneously an non-partisan trustworthy defender of the law who cleared Hillary of any wrongdoings (funny, I seem to remember him listing a long charge of punishable offenses she commited including lying under oath and then recommending not to push charges) and then again a partisan hack controlled by the omnipotent "vast right-wing conspiracy", all in the course of a few days, just as we went from "it's not rigged, you're just losing" to "Russians rigged the election". Wow.

And never forget that Romney was publically smeared to no end from the media for belittling half the American voters, talking different in public than behind closed doors, taking big Wall Street donations, and naming Russia as No1 foe, e.g. all things Clinton did on a much grander scale.

"Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."

But, sure, Trump is the Manchurian Candidate/literally Hitler etc.

To quote a very wise person here: "The willingness to ignore evidence on one side, and to treat vague waving on the other as proof of guilt, really says it all."