|
Ugh, the past two interviews Bill had with Coulter have been utterly horrible. He's essentially let her steamroll him at every opportunity. And here I was excited to watch this episode too.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Come on, how could they not keep Bernie in there for OT?! That's supposed to be the entire draw of the second guest over the initial interview one! The only acceptable protocol to break is just having all 5 folks at the debate table the entire time and letting nature run the course true with Coulter and Sanders getting into it... Odd that the show is off next week, but it will be meltdown central the week after that given Moore will be back on at the least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Lost in all Trump/Clinton personal attacks and this goofy election is the refusal of the R leadership to approve a new justice. Just grinding things to a halt and acting like Obama didn't win the 2012 election. it's par for the course they've been holding up other federal judicial nominees for years
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I felt that this was a great discussion. I hate to be "that guy" but Bernie does come off as his stereotypical "it's the wealthy!" rhetoric. The former Nebraskan Democratic hit the nail on the head. The Democrats speak way too much about issues that just don't reach the "common man". Sure income inequality and race relations do well to snap up the youth vote and minorities, but it leaves everyone else in the dark. What Democrats should be doing is communicating with people of how the policies will translate to the working class being taken care off. Some examples would be the expansion of public sector jobs in their region for infrastructure, automatic job programs for industries suffering heavy losses, hell possibly even talks about guarantee employment. Not saying that most or any of these things would pass, but the rhetoric would certainly turn some heads. I know it sounds crazy, but as a socialist I don't care too much about curbing trade. Trade is fine, as long as the workers are taken care of. On the other hand, Bill had a great point. The reason why Democrats don't try to reach on some of these topics is because the arguments are so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
"punk rebel ecks" posted:What Democrats should be doing is communicating with people of how the policies will translate to the working class being taken care off. Some examples would be the expansion of public sector jobs in their region for infrastructure, automatic job programs for industries suffering heavy losses, hell possibly even talks about guarantee employment. Not saying that most or any of these things would pass, but the rhetoric would certainly turn some heads. I know it sounds crazy, but as a socialist I don't care too much about curbing trade. Trade is fine, as long as the workers are taken care of. Democrats dont give a poo poo about the working class because they know anyone in that rapidly shrinking bracket with a brain is gonna vote for them anyway. Young people and minorities however apparently need 8 months of pandering and dick sucking because "who else are you gonna vote for lol" is too hard to remember every 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:Democrats dont give a poo poo about the working class because they know anyone in that rapidly shrinking bracket with a brain is gonna vote for them anyway. Young people and minorities however apparently need 8 months of pandering and dick sucking because "who else are you gonna vote for lol" is too hard to remember every 4 years. Would be a lot easier to vote for Hillary if there wasn't confirmation that she was nominated due to cheating. If it was even just assumed that there was cheating, I could do it. 8 months of their dick sucking, and adding pretty good stuff to the party platform, and Hillary's own agenda still haven't been enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
She was not nominated due to cheating. She won by millions of votes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:She was not nominated due to cheating. She won by millions of votes. Yes. Of course the party favored Hillary. She's a Democrat. I think too many people forget this. Bernie ran as a Democrat because a third party has no hope. It was opportunistic. He is not a Democrat and I don't know why anyone was surprised the party leadership favored the candidate who was actually part of their party rather than the candidate who wasn't. I wish we had Bernie too, especially since Trump has decided to commit suicide and literally anyone the Democrats nominated would win, but that's life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes.  I personally feel that the Democratic primary was farcical, predictable, and unnecessary. I just caught up with the DVR - Pitbull tries too hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes. This is stupid as poo poo because in a primary the party (as in, the organization itself) should not be trying to influence voters to vote for one of their candidates over another. Their sole job was to facilitate the primary from a functionally administrative POV. That's it. That's where their involvement begins and ends - it doesn't extend to brainstorming up poo poo for one candidate to hit another with. That's scummy as poo poo and pretty much the definition of un-democratic - they're honestly pretty lucky that Hillary didn't even need the help, to the point that the favoritism likely accomplished next to nothing. But it was still there and folks should be pretty annoyed by it. To reiterate, Hillary is not the candidate because of any loving cheating - hell, if anything she was probably annoyed at what a collection of loving dunces decided they had to do. But folks in the DNC did try to play kingmaker and influence the result of their election, and that's super lovely. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Bernie is more of what a Democrat should be than Hillary is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:This is stupid as poo poo because in a primary the party (as in, the organization itself) should not be trying to influence voters to vote for one of their candidates over another. Their sole job was to facilitate the primary from a functionally administrative POV. That's it. That's where their involvement begins and ends - it doesn't extend to brainstorming up poo poo for one candidate to hit another with. That's scummy as poo poo and pretty much the definition of un-democratic - they're honestly pretty lucky that Hillary didn't even need the help, to the point that the favoritism likely accomplished next to nothing. But it was still there and folks should be pretty annoyed by it. To reiterate, Hillary is not the candidate because of any loving cheating - hell, if anything she was probably annoyed at what a collection of loving dunces decided they had to do. But folks in the DNC did try to play kingmaker and influence the result of their election, and that's super lovely. Apoplexy posted:Bernie is more of what a Democrat should be than Hillary is. At the end of the day FPTP is a humongous failure. The United States is FAR too large of a country for only two major political parties. People against it have always pointed out that it would lead to a "wild west" in politics where more extreme groups will have more marketing (i.e. the Nazi Party of the United States) thus spread their hateful ideology. What I kept pointing out is that it is likely that a more extreme candidate could get into power by infiltrating one of the main political parties, winning the primary, and automatically be a humongous threat. Donald Trump has proven this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:At the end of the day FPTP is a humongous failure. The United States is FAR too large of a country for only two major political parties. People against it have always pointed out that it would lead to a "wild west" in politics where more extreme groups will have more marketing (i.e. the Nazi Party of the United States) thus spread their hateful ideology. What I kept pointing out is that it is likely that a more extreme candidate could get into power by infiltrating one of the main political parties, winning the primary, and automatically be a humongous threat. Donald Trump has proven this. I don't really understand that argument. If there were more parties, Donald Trump could still win. Heck, he would probably have an easier time in that situation. He did way better when competing against a group of republicans than he's doing against Hillary. Also, I'm not sure how more parties could happen in the US. Green Party is just the Democratic Party and Libertarian is just the Republican Party. In this country you're either liberal or conservative. If one of the third parties became viable, it would just split the vote and ensure that side never won again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:This is stupid as poo poo because in a primary the party (as in, the organization itself) should not be trying to influence voters to vote for one of their candidates over another. Their sole job was to facilitate the primary from a functionally administrative POV. That's it. That's where their involvement begins and ends - it doesn't extend to brainstorming up poo poo for one candidate to hit another with. That's scummy as poo poo and pretty much the definition of un-democratic - they're honestly pretty lucky that Hillary didn't even need the help, to the point that the favoritism likely accomplished next to nothing. But it was still there and folks should be pretty annoyed by it. To reiterate, Hillary is not the candidate because of any loving cheating - hell, if anything she was probably annoyed at what a collection of loving dunces decided they had to do. But folks in the DNC did try to play kingmaker and influence the result of their election, and that's super lovely. political parties are inherently anti-democratic organizations the primary process is designed to reward the candidates with the most pull within the party and presumably ability to further the party's interest bernie, while he caucuses with dems in the senate (because what the hell else is he gonna do), isn't part of the party structure and isn't at least from the party's viewpoint the candidate who would best promote their interests. and he really wouldn't because the democratic party is not a leftist organization which isn't to say that sanders couldn't have done what obama did ahead of 08 and build a coalition within the party to beat clinton. but he didn't, and so he's not the candidate punk rebel ecks posted:At the end of the day FPTP is a humongous failure. The United States is FAR too large of a country for only two major political parties. People against it have always pointed out that it would lead to a "wild west" in politics where more extreme groups will have more marketing (i.e. the Nazi Party of the United States) thus spread their hateful ideology. What I kept pointing out is that it is likely that a more extreme candidate could get into power by infiltrating one of the main political parties, winning the primary, and automatically be a humongous threat. Donald Trump has proven this. it's the other way around. the party system is designed to keep out the extreme candidates and favors the ones who support the status quo of course that's provided the party itself isn't falling apart, which is why trump is the candidate and not jeb! or little marco Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes. I don't think anyone was surprised. This was supposed to be Hillary's coronation and the DNC was obviously pissed that Bernie shook things up as much as he did. I don't think Hillary got the nomination because the DNC had their finger on the scales - she won decisively (I supported Bernie), but of course they did and I think everyone already knew that. "Everyone already knew that" is pretty much the running theme to the latest round of email leaks wrt Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I don't really understand that argument. If there were more parties, Donald Trump could still win. Heck, he would probably have an easier time in that situation. He did way better when competing against a group of republicans than he's doing against Hillary. This is being way too simplistic. First off many Republicans would rather vote for a more moderate Republican than Trump. If there was runoff voting, Trump would never have even gotten close to winning as more people would surely prefer a more moderate Republican than him. Second off you're not either "liberal" or "conservative". There are many different shades and viewpoints within the traditional American left and right wing. The Libertarian Party isn't the Republican Party at all. They are liberal socially and conservative economically. One who is pro-choice, anti-war, and is for free markets doesn't fit the Republican bill, even though part of it does. The Green Party on the other hand while may have the tenets of the Democratic Party, often takes those tenets to a level where only the most fringe of the fringe members of the Democrats slightly represent them. At that point, the party clearly represents an entirely different viewpoint. Having multiple parties exposes people to different viewpoints and ideologies of politics, and due to them not being published for voting in their conscious, the electorate and opinions of the populace do as a result. Things won't be perfect, by our nation's situation would be better. Alec Bald Snatch posted:it's the other way around. the party system is designed to keep out the extreme candidates and favors the ones who support the status quo This may be the intention, but it clearly hasn't worked. Even taking out a Trump, the Republican party has been getting more and more radical over the past few election cycles. IRQ posted:I don't think anyone was surprised. This was supposed to be Hillary's coronation and the DNC was obviously pissed that Bernie shook things up as much as he did. I don't think Hillary got the nomination because the DNC had their finger on the scales - she won decisively (I supported Bernie), but of course they did and I think everyone already knew that. Hillary supporters have to be the worst winners I can think of. I will admit most of the "scandals" are irrelevant at best, but there are some head turners, such as the recent million dollar birthday gift from Qatar or the DNC literally calling Morning Joe (I believe?) and telling them to stop being so pro-Bernie. And while the email scandal has been overblown, thinking that the 33,000 emails contained "nothing" is hilarious. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This may be the intention, but it clearly hasn't worked. Even taking out a Trump, the Republican party has been getting more and more radical over the past few election cycles. well yeah like i said it works if the party isn't collapsing
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Alec Bald Snatch posted:well yeah like i said it works if the party isn't collapsing I feel that both types of political landscapes can easily become a double edge sword.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
-Democracy is dead and WikiLeaks has killed it. -Donald Trump is effectively Bill Cosby. -Julian Assange's Internet has been turned off by John Kerry. PS Who owns infowars? It started off as anti-establishment against both Rs and Ds but now seems to be growing hugely as some kind of Trump advertisement as if he's an outsider. People are watching it more and more. Alec Bald Snatch posted:it's par for the course It's ridiculous. punk rebel ecks posted:The United States is FAR too large of a country for only two major political parties. I've been thinking about this recently. Without even getting into any aspect of political ideology the US grows by millions on a yearly basis and as the country grows larger and larger each single vote naturally mean less and less. Population growth is a natural disenfranchisement. I can only imagine if the US had the population of India or China. Bass Bottles posted:Green Party is just the Democratic Party and Libertarian is just the Republican Party. From 2008 onward the Rs have seemed to infiltrate the LP in obvious ways. All the nominees have been high-level Rs that supposedly had a change of heart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Rebecca Traister called HRC an "outsider" in OT. Heh... I wonder if Bill's going to bring up Project Veritas ferreting out those slimy election fraudsters. ExiledTinkerer posted:Come on, how could they not keep Bernie in there for OT?! That's supposed to be the entire draw of the second guest over the initial interview one! The only acceptable protocol to break is just having all 5 folks at the debate table the entire time and letting nature run the course true with Coulter and Sanders getting into it... Seeing Bernie paying more tributes to HRC and hearing Coulter sell her Trump book seems really redundant to me. Maybe if Bernie and Coulter got into a physical altercation. But I'm just tired of 2016. Moore will be on to sell his new Trump movie. punk rebel ecks posted:I will admit most of the "scandals" are irrelevant at best, but there are some head turners, such as the recent million dollar birthday gift from Qatar or the DNC literally calling Morning Joe (I believe?) and telling them to stop being so pro-Bernie. And while the email scandal has been overblown, thinking that the 33,000 emails contained "nothing" is hilarious. You can tell it's not "nothing" because they're actively trying to shut it down and won't even mention it on a lot of networks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Zogo posted:You can tell it's not "nothing" because they're actively trying to shut it down and won't even mention it on a lot of networks. You can tell that it is nothing because you can read them and see how banal they are. Also lol that you think the networks are actively trying to bury the story. They are reporting on it, it's just being overshadowed by the historic collapse of a major political party at the hands of one of the worst and most dangerous candidates in the history of the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:You can tell that it is nothing because you can read them and see how banal they are. The only damning emails I read are the excerpts stating that Clinton was for the keystone pipeline and only switched due to political issues, calling TV show hosts and telling them to stop being so pro-Bernie, and the $1,000,000 Qatar birthday gift. The emails are hilariously overhyped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:You can tell that it is nothing because you can read them and see how banal they are. I've read enough and through 20,000 Podesta e-mails a lot of it is banal. Other things could be considered insidious backdoor dealings, Washington power brokers conspiring with shadow governments. Obama's 2008 cabinet handpicked by nefarious bankers et al. There's still more to come. Now even if all that bores you to death it doesn't mean it's "nothing." There's plenty that the networks won't touch out of embarrassment. I've heard the WikiLeaks main story on the networks but as far as the details on the likes of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and local news outlets there's a lot left uncovered. CNN reporters even said you're breaking the LAW if you read WikiLeaks e-mails. Shameful! Bass Bottles posted:They are reporting on it, it's just being overshadowed by the historic collapse of a major political party at the hands of one of the worst and most dangerous candidates in the history of the country. Even if Trump loses all fifty states and DC I don't see the Republican party dissolving. Do you? Basically the entire Bush family has endorsed HRC to avenge John Ellis Bush but they'll easily slither back into the R fold after Trump disappears or is deposed. Trump is posturing like most national level politicians. He's not building the wall, he's not deporting tens of millions of people. It's all a bunch of lies. He's a chronic liar telling some people what they want to hear. Even more valuable considering it's antagonistic and puts fear into many other voters. Do you fear Trump?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Are you really so stupid as to fall for James O'Keefe doctored videos a third time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
drat shame Maher isn't on this week to blow his top at Johnson's Big Misadventure on Vice just a bit before the debate last night----to say nothing of the debate insanity itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Apoplexy posted:Are you really so stupid as to fall for James O'Keefe doctored videos a third time? What were the first, second and third doctored videos of James O'Keefe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Obama agreed to finally come on the show on November 4th.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
So how does that work? Will it just be the first 10 minutes of the show? Will he be on the panel? No panel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:So how does that work? Will it just be the first 10 minutes of the show? Will he be on the panel? No panel? Sounds like it'll just be an interview. Probably prerecorded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
This must have literally been the last thing on Obama's list as far as stumping for Hillary's presidential bid with even a slight chance of Trump winning---I was always so sure Obama would do the show at some point after his presidency was over and done with just to kind of rib Maher with it. This week oddly felt like the least Moore's actually said anything on all the Real Time jaunts thus far---mainly is was just Lazio acting incredulous. He didn't even give his little project much of a pitch! That said, I hope they just throw that FB Trump hour special(which is so crazy that this is even going to be a thing for an election) on their YT channel---because come on~
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Interview with Obama - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXH5agV7skw Great stuff, but not sure if Bill selling his soul to the DNC for 3 months was worth it
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Beating Trump is the only thing that should matter to liberals and liberal-leaning people. So 'selling his soul to the DNC' isn't a bad thing. He's doing good work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Kind of lackluster that they couldn't even get the full segment to air proper on HBO, especially given the 2 questions he tried to lead with---even if most of them didn't gain any real traction in terms of new or shocking revelations, especially on the Atheist and such front. They should've just had him in on satellite as I don't know that the sit down over there actually contributed anything substantive to it aside from the many cuts of Maher looking really uncomfortable and/or incredulous aside from that Obama Wink. Maher and co kind of lost the plot towards the end of the episode though---a practically full absolution for Bush and whitewashing of Romney/McCain/etc for *nothing* but a sacrificial gesture to nail down how bad Trump is? You can have more than one peak in a mountain range of poo poo Bill! Frum was as insufferably tone deaf as ever, perhaps even more so. Gonna be the strangest mood for a season finale the show has ever had next week---either apocalyptic or a haggard sort of celebration while untold heaps get swept under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Interview with Obama - Good interview, but Obama's dodge on the military spending question made me roll my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Here are some things that were said in this episode, at least as far as I can remember:
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:Here are some things that were said in this episode, at least as far as I can remember: Lol he looks he's about to cry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
DP
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Good interview, but Obama's dodge on the military spending question made me roll my eyes. Saw that one coming. Over all, it was a kinda nice interview, it's nice to see Bill not being so loving smug for once. At least someone has respect for president Blackenstein. To tell you the truth, I woulda been fine with a third Obama term, and I'm not Bernie or bust, but I'm still voting for the terrible singing hippie.I mean, it's California, nobody even polls California for electoral maps anymore. Why bother? doctorfrog posted:Here are some things that were said in this episode, at least as far as I can remember: Bill's got reason to freak out. It may not go downhill as far as he thinks, but Trump has this ability to hold petty grudges that's well known. Something that's reassuring was Hadyen's response to this assertion by Maher on a previous episode: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/29/will-the-military-obey-president-trumps-orders-hayden-bill-maher/ We can depend on the military to stand between us and total fascism, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Solvent posted:Saw that one coming. Over all, it was a kinda nice interview, it's nice to see Bill not being so loving smug for once. At least someone has respect for president Blackenstein. To tell you the truth, I woulda been fine with a third Obama term, and I'm not Bernie or bust, but I'm still voting for the terrible singing hippie.I mean, it's California, nobody even polls California for electoral maps anymore. Why bother?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
doctorfrog posted:Here are some things that were said in this episode, at least as far as I can remember: Yes, they really should've changed the title of the show to Henny Penny Time with Bill Maher these last couple of weeks. Some of Bill's thoughts: -Trump will turn himself into a king and never cede his power. -Embarrassing WikiLeaks e-mails are a Russian coup. -Comparing the US with Rwanda if Trump is elected. Truly a laundry list of buffoonish proclamations. Trump is a mega-charlatan but Maher's trying to turn him into the biggest supervillain in recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:11
|
|