|
nine-gear crow posted:That, and the look on Kamau Bell's face after Bill revealed that "black kids need to start taking some responsibility for themselves" quote came from Michelle Obama and not Paul Ryan. That was priceless. I found that very amusing. It also annoyed me how him and the lady kept saying that throwing money at the schools would fix everything after D.C. spends the most money per capita on school. Though I don't know if they were comparing it to states or just other cities.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
I love how Bill Maher kept referencing shitholes like Afghanistan and Somalia of why Muslim countries are always barbaric but ignored Indonesia and Turkey.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Bill was acting like a massive dick to his Christian guest. I know that the Christian nut shouldn't be taken that seriously but Bill was acting like an rear end in a top hat toward him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Maher's comments on Israel/Palestine were very frustrating. Did he really say that the Palestinians had a choice to live in some other Muslim countries and denied it, thus they don't want to end the conflict? Or did I misheard him?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:I think Maher's point on Palestine was centered on their neighbors in the region being content with the ongoing strife to exploit as red meat/proxy fodder as opposed to actually wanting to help the Palestinian folks have a better life. So like Israel and the US?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
I think I will officially stop watching this show. Horrible episode. This show use to be insightful to me and I don't know whether it is because it has steadily gotten worse or that I am just more politically educated but drat is this show hard to watch now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
I thought that in the previous episode Mary didn't look at people when talking to them because she was drugged up. Now I realize that's just how she is. Also is this the article Maher was talking about? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/world/africa/new-freedoms-in-tunisia-drive-support-for-isis.html?_r=0 Where does it say that a high percentage of Tunisians support ISIS? All it says is that possibly up to 3,000 Tunisians have joined ISIS's "cause" but out of a country of 10,000,000 that isn't THAT much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
IRQ posted:She was totally drugged up last time, but her not looking at people she's talking to is 100% because she cares entirely about looking at the camera. She wasn't looking at the camera though. Unless there was one their that we didn't see?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I don't whether to hate Rula or love her. She mixes good points that everybody avoids (how radical Islam really gave rise) with general naiveness (thinking it is feasible to embargo Saudi Arabia). The general pissed me off about how "We have to stay in these bases around the world for the long haul." Yes because Western Europe can't possibly up there armies to match the might of the mighty Russian Empire...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I still can't get over the fact that he said the reason for the New Year rapes are due to the slut shaming culture in Islam rather than the usual factors of why the poor and uneducated engage in criminal activity including rape.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:Even if somebody had, he'd just counter with something along the lines of the religion encouraging them to be poor and uneducated to keep them fervent or some such. Greenwald seemed to shut him up just fine. But then again that is probably why he is no longe appearing on the show.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
As a minority, I love this week's New Rule. It's so obnoxious. 2:10 in is on point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:What are you talking about? If anything I found Maher to be on point. I find it annoying that there are slews of white liberals who cry fowl over bandaids being beige yet don't say poo poo about stuff like segregated towns and cities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I'd also like to add this is why I feel the Democratic primaries to be insufferable as both sides claim to be the REAL side for American minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
The Dems are not divided./cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6303197/Section4_5.png)
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I have a strong feeling that if America does go leftward in a "Feel the Bern" manner over the next twenty years, Maher will flip as a "moderate" conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Oh my loving God the New Rule was so loving terrible. Bill Maher really has become the caricature of what he's mocked for years. He also doesn't understand the concept of Kickstarter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It would work better if he wore the alien suit during all his new rules segments forthwith. Maher is a perfect example of the political culture gap between the Boomer and Gen Xers who vote Democrat and the Millennials and Gen Z who vote Democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Holy poo poo overtime gets super awkward. Ravi Patel lays down a devastating insult towards the trump lady. It's super pro level awkward and tense. She is a dumbass to be sure but still.... Wow. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Good New Rules. Though to be fair California is just one example.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Solvent posted:The Earth can be a crazy, lovely place. While this is a facetious post, there is a fair amount of truth to this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Is it wrong for me to dislike Barney Frank? Duder initially comes off as part of America's "left figures" like Warren, Sanders, and Stein. However, he is anti-transparency, hates left leaning groups, and venomously hates anyone who wants to shake up the system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
lovely New Rules segment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I will be voting for Hillary this election, but Kerry Washington is annoying as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:Yeah that exchange between him and Mel Brooks' kid was stupid. Who cares if he's not voting for Clinton; they should be happy he's not voting for Trump. A lot of people in the Democratic establishment camp don't believe they have to earn people's votes. If they dislike Trump then they HAVE to vote for Clinton as that is the only realistic option that helps Trump not get into office.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:I don't think it's that so much as for some dumb reason they still think they need the votes of people they really shouldn't bother with persuading. It's both and they coincide with one another. People in the Democratic establishment camp believe that the Republicans are all insane (which isn't too far from the truth), and thus anyone who is opposed to their ideals HAVE to vote for the Democrats. Whether you are to the left of the party or are a "moderate". You are dumb for not voting for the Democratic Party because it is by far the more sensible party, regardless if your choice is to vote third party or stay at home. "Not casting a vote in favor of the Democratic Party is a vote for Republicans." I could argue whether or not I agree with the tactics of voting third party or sitting out the vote, but that's for another conversation. To continue on with my point, people will then counter the Democrats reasoning by saying "if you want my vote you have to earn it!", to which most in the establishment shake their heads. This is because ever since the 1990s the party has followed the strategy of being as inoffensive as possible and "capturing the center". Bill Clinton broke the Democrats losing streak and most believed that it was because he ran on a much more "moderate" platform which was very appealing to centrists, including right leaning ones. Since then the Democratic Party has always took this strategy in order to capture this lightning in a bottle moment. The result has ranged from mediocre to an utter disaster. While Bill's presidential run was successful the next two candidates failed. How one loses to George W. Bush is quite a mystery, but both Democratic candidates who did just that are to this day mocked for how monotone and "boring" they were. The Democrats managed to break the streak with Obama who was young, energetic, and made it quite clear on which "side" he stood on. The result was one of the greatest Democratic victories in modern history. To be fair the Recession was a big reason for that, but regardless the results were nothing to sneeze at. Despite this, the party has learned absolutely nothing. In previous election during 2014 they got lambasted out of the Senate. Yes losing seats was all but inevitable, but they lost more than they should have. The biggest criticism was that the party attempted to capture the center-right "moderate" voters. Many of them even ran against Obama. The media criticized this as this route was stupid for a myrid of reasons. The result was that the party got trounced at the polls, with all of the anti-Obama types losing horrendously. What really put salt in the wound however is that many of these GOP winning states passed referendums that are solidly part of the Democratic platform, which overwhelmingly passed. Which begs the question, instead of running on a campaign of being "Republican Lite", why not just run on the issues that are popular in the state that align with your parties platform? A notable minimum wage increase seems awfully Democratic yet instead of pushing it heavily they decided to run away from it. When this pointed out, Democrats immediately get defensive and state that you can't run as a "progressive" in these states, when in reality these measures were overwhelmingly supported by the population and just merely standing by a wage increase doesn't make one Elizabeth Warren. So pushing them is a no brainer. Barrack Obama was so successful because he ran on a platform of inspiring and motivating people to vote. He didn't bother in "meeting in the middle" to appeal to the undecided voters, he convinced them through his message and platform. The modern Democratic establishment is a huge contrast to this. Whether they like it or not, Hillary Clinton has a horrible messaging problem. She presents herself as being the inoffensive choice and is running on a platform of "not Trump". But that doesn't encourage people to vote for you. It alienates the left because they see her not taking many of their issues seriously, it alienates the moderates because they don't trust her, and she alienates the right leaning voters because they recently saw her reach out to the other two groups. As a result, two third party candidates are likely to snag a record amount of third party votes in modern electoral history (especially if one discounts 1992). The reason for this is clear, the Democrats don't seem to inspire or motivate people to vote for them, and instead keep trying to chase people who never will. Nobody who votes Republican in the modern era is going to vote for Hillary or really any other Democrat. Nobody is going to not vote for Trump due to advertising his bigotry, everyone in the country knows about his quirks. Rather than realizing this many in the Democratic establishment are doubling down and they are already spinning Hillary's poor performance on those pesky third party voters (just like they did with Gore). This completely ignores the fact that Donald Trump should have been a shoe in for any Democratic candidate. And the fact that it seems to be competitive so far signals that there is something very very wrong with what the Democratic Party is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:Negatives about Trump are positives for Trump in a way we've never seen before. Mitt Romney gets hit with the 47% comment which hurt him badly. Trump says he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care and he does better for it. But for some reason the DNC can't understand that. Honestly, that pisses me off more than either Hillary or Trump winning the general. The fact that these people can't see the most obvious truth in politics in my lifetime. It's like watching a toddler play whack-a-mole. For years the Republican party has been criticized of living in a bubble, some sort of false reality and isn't in touch with the American public. While that is certainly true, it is also true with the Democratic party. Regardless if you believe that the Clinton's "moderate the party" strategy was correct to take during the time, the '90s are far over. It's a different world and one that is far more divided, hostile, and fragmented. Being the most "reasonable" person in the room will no longer win you elections. What pisses me off is that the party constantly chases the wrong enemies as well, which they use to blame the parties underperformance. Gerrymandering is an ideal example of this. While it certainly is a problem, it is not the reason why Democrats are so stacked against Republicans. The real reason is that House members aren't proportional to where the population resides, thus having cities far under-represented while rural areas far over-represented. A push for a more proportional House would do miracles in solving the issue. Unfortunately the party is either too scared, naive, or both to take that on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It would've been interesting to see how things transpired if Perot was not involved in 1992. He received nearly 20,000,000 votes! IIRC, weren't his voters evenly split between Democrats and Republicans? IRQ posted:Bernie doing as well as he did should have taught them that being boring centrists was not what the base actually wants (because who else votes in primaries) but of course they've failed to take notice beyond some lip service to college debt. As I said, the establishment base is in a bubble at least as much as the more "fiery" portions if the American left. For months the more extreme segments of the pro-Hillary side presented the narrative of how important the House was, and how Sanders didn't care about to do so because of reasons. Now, it is looking like the Democrats may lose the Senate again and apparently now not just the House but the Senate was a lost cause to begin with. Remember in 2014 when those who aligned with the Democratic establishment stated that 2014 is pointless and we should focus on 2016 instead because it is an election year and should be a "shoe-in"? The blatant cheerleading behind the party is obnoxious. Alec Bald Snatch posted:the last thing any elected democrat wants is to actually have to accomplish something This needs to be posted in every page, in every thread that involves the Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It's interesting that Gary Johnson is polling ~30% for the 18-34 vote. What's the explanation to that? Millenial's aren't really that "liberal". Few of these people are bernouts, but libertarians who don't vote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Tweak posted:with the exception of trump email lists I think most people agree the wikileaks stuff is a whole lot of nothing though? It pretty much is nothing other than questionable remarks about trade and secretly liking the Keystone Pipeline. Pretty much everyone, other than those who take her 100% for word on her campaign trail, won't be surprised by her "leaks".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Trump winning with a majority of senate, house, and supreme court is horrifying. That alone is to make him winning a big deal as it would erase the progress gained by Obama the past eight years and then some. Sure they either involve half measure baby steps like the ACA, completely ineffective and only to send a message like Dodd Frank, or arguably being something he took credit for such as opening the US to Cuba. But at the end of the day, that is still something and these things never would have happened with a Republican or blue dog in office. Having a Republican in office would reverse all of this and then some. Also, like it or not, the president has a huge influence over the political and social culture and climate of the country. Not much was able to get done in congress over much of the past 8 years, but despite this the political and social culture of the left has pressed on ward. There is no way you would have had people "Feeling the Burn" without them craving "Hope and Change" first. And the left being rather calm and collected (there is a world outside Something Awful) is partly attributed to Obama's tone. What kind of tone would Trump bring to the country? Hell, he's just a candidate and look what he's done. A Trump presidency would greatly increase overt racism and acts of aggression toward those keeping America from being "great". But the real problem is what if some major event happens when Trump is in office. What if say Brexit and Greece finally caving in leads the Eurozone to crash and thus causing a second Great Recession? How will Trump handle that? Not just with the obvious question of jumpstarting the economy back up, but with all of these poor and vulnerable white and want to be white citizens? What if ISIS begins doing American soil attacks like they did to Paris or worse what happened in 9/11? How will Trump handle that situation? Hell I don't even trust how Hillary would handle that situation. But at least with her I know she won't ban Muslims from entering the country and expand Guantanamo Bay as a place to put all Muslims suspected of being terrorists as well as Muslims who committed misdemeanor crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 06:15
|
|