Small Talk: Where Political Junkies Convene

[Duke Silver]

[cakes1975]

Thanks for posting this. I listened to this fairly attractive woman (with some jacked-up teeth), and realized something that I almost, always hear from my conservative friends of the male variety; if a good looking woman is spouting the party line and even when they know that what she is saying is utter bullshit, they will defend her viewpoint even more. A friend of mine told me during the 2008 Sarah Palin fiasco, that a lot of conservative men find attractive women with their viewpoint irresistible, and are drawn to and will defend them because of the family-values vibe. She will willingly defer to them in any and all things and allows them to be more "manly".  So when I saw the 16+million views, I could see that a lot of people were not doing their critical thinking or even doing basic research. Her numbers were so off-the-charts wrong as to be something out of some dystopian novel. But as Mark Twain use to say, " there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Drumpf1737]

Now that men are revealing their stories I'll be interested to hear Bill's next rant on the MeToo movement

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/2/22/17040046/brendan-fraser-me-too-sexual-misconduct-philip-berk

[KillingAdam]

And it's coming up on the anniversary of when I found out what Maher is like behind the scenes.

This happened over a decade ago, but in the whole METOO or whatever it seems especially timely. 

The new season of the show was coming on so Maher had an all hands on deck staff meeting. Maher, the writing staff, the people he writes jokes with, researchers, directors, producers, camera people, stagehands, assistants, EVERYONE was in a big conference room as they went over topics that were either currently in the news or that looked to blow up in the coming weeks as the show was airing. 

It was an all day affair and so about 1:00 there was a break for lunch, but it was going to be a working lunch, ie they were gonna order a bunch of pizzas. So, Bill had one of the VERY comely assistants walk around the room asking everyone what they wanted on their pizza and writing it down. Eventually she got to Bill, sitting regally at the head of the table and she said, "Mr, Maher, what would you like on your pizza?"

Bill glanced around the room to make sure all; eyes were on him, then eyed her up and down, smirked and said, "Your cum."

After a beat, Bill's chief flunky who's name I can't recall, broke into a braying laugh, and the entire room followed uneasily, as Maher sat there smirk gettin even wider.

[Guest]

@KillingAdam Thanks for sharing that. I find it both revolting and unsurprising. 

[KillingAdam]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

@KillingAdam Thanks for sharing that. I find it both revolting and unsurprising. 

I don't mean to shit on the people who  like Maher and I DO admire him for his comments about the 9/11 hijackers, but he has gotten a pass for his bro behavior towards women ever since he got into standup.

[Victor the Crab]

Not that I doubt that, it does sound like something Bill would do. But is there any proof, recorded or otherwise of him saying that?

[TheView]

Do you think there's an underlying attraction between Bill and Ann Coulter? I totally see it. 

[Liamsmom617]

It’s not even “underlying”, and it disgusts me. They are probably fuck buddies, which is their business....but to almost literally play footsie with each other on-air every time she’s on the show  is cringe-worthy. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

UGH. Bad enough I have to deal with the batshit crazies Bill invites on his show, but when he returns in two weeks, he's going to have that racist, homophobic plagiarist, Mr. Meghan McCain. I'd rather that ass be the top of the show guest, instead of Stern. Blechblechblechptooey.🤢

[BrownBear2012]

13 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

I think Bill longs for the days when he was young and considered the cool liberal guy and could make any jokes without worrying about being canceled. I think because his passion/livelihood is directly affected by the current political climate and culture, he's much more affected the rest of us. He complained about the PC culture in the 90's, so I guess it makes sense why he resents the current culture so much. 

I know conservatives who say he's more tolerable, but I don't know any who'd describe themselves as fans. My guess is his audience is comprised of folks whose politics are similar to his, as well as people further to the left who'll watch even if they don't agree with him on everything, people further to the left who hate watch, and then some conservatives who hate watch. 

I agree with @wknt3 that Bill is a good moderator and conversationalist. While these jobs look easy when they're done by someone with talent, they're not. That's probably why there aren't many shows like Real Time. I wish I knew how Bill would handle being a moderator on The View! lol 

Bill always made jokes that were offensive or sexist...that's who he is. Like when he called himself a "house" N word. As he's aged, he has become curmudgeonly, contrarian, intolerant of other's viewpoints...sort of like my Grandpa when he was in his 80's. Face it...Bill has aged and his lifestyle as a bachelor adds to his inability to have to understand someone else's opinions or make compromises. He clings to a point of view like my dog with a bone...it's white or black...no gray areas. His rants about "cancel culture" are becoming redundant and boring. He's buying into the right wing dogma and putting it on blast every show he does. Rather than view "cancel culture" as a negative product of "being woke" how about viewing it as a way of making a correction to bad and offensive behavior? If you say or do something that is racist or hateful, there is nothing wrong with someone pointing that out. You're not being canceled...I view this as a correction to all the insensitive, racist, sexist and sometimes violent rhetoric that we all see everyday on social media. If you're someone in the public eye and you're going on Twitter or Facebook making posts that are inflammatory, contain misinformation or are generally offensive to people, then yeah...they should be called out for it. If people choose to boycott companies,etc. for their online or in person behavior, then that is their choice. The right "cancels" people and corporations too...Colin Kaepernick was canceled, chastised publically, threatened and no football team has hired him for fear of retribution from the right wing media and MAGA fans. The Republicans are "canceling" the MLB for speaking out against voter suppression laws and pulling the All Star Game out of Atlanta in protest. Where is Bill in their "cancel culture"? 

Edited May 11, 2021 by BrownBear2012

[BK1978]

9 hours ago, BrownBear2012 said:

Colin Kaepernick was canceled, chastised publically, threatened and no football team has hired him for fear of retribution from the right wing media and MAGA fans. 

Was he though?  I mean people try to say he was this great QB, but his skills were starting to erode.  He opted out of his contract with the 49ers because he thought he was still starting material, but really he was at a point in his career when he was becoming a second string QB at best. He took a risk there and it did not pay off for him.

I am not going to deny that teams probably did not want to touch him.  It is a business after all and teams have to do what is best for their bottom line.  But I will also say that if he was still at the top of his game, I do think a team would still want to sign him.  I mean look at Lawrence Taylor, the dude was coked out of his mind and was suspended for drug use, but that did not spell the end of his career because he was one of the best if not the best Linebackers in the history of the game.  In regards to Colin, who is going to want to deal with negative publicity for a backup QB? 

I also think that part of the reason why he did not come back was because he simply was not good enough to be a starter and he was unwilling to be a backup. He did go from being a QB who guided his team to the Super Bowl, to being on the bench just two years later.  When he had that workout two years ago and word coming out of that workout was that he was simply not starting material anymore.  This is coming from people who make a living evaluating talent.

At this point I honestly think he makes far more money being an activist and heck it's easier on his body.  If he truly wanted to play again he could probably go to the CFL and use that as a gateway to showcase his talents.

[Avaleigh]

On 5/11/2021 at 12:30 AM, BK1978 said:

Or is it that people who were considered liberals five or ten years ago are now being pushed out as the party goes further left?  So maybe he is not growing a conservative audience per se, but this new "conservative audience" that he is getting is really just people who are left of center and are deemed conservative due to the liberals begin further left than they once were.

I think there's some truth to this. I think there are a lot of people who are aligned with the party when it comes to the basics--social equality across the board, egalitarianism, environmental protection, public education, universal healthcare, internationalism, etc.

It's these smaller (typically minor and inconsequential) culture war issues where some people don't feel aligned with the party and even though they're in agreement with the vast majority of the basics that are supported by the party (and more importantly, are still voting with the party), they feel like they're suddenly not considered to be liberal enough because they happen to disagree about some of these small topics. (Topics of course that the right wing media love to push.) 

I think that a person should still be able to have a place at the liberal table even if, for example, they disagree about the so called "cancelation" of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. Or if they point out that somebody like Malcolm X is being held to a different standard than somebody like Robert Louis Stevenson when it comes to canceling people from the past. If a person thinks it's unnecessary to have to watch a special introduction before viewing an old movie because of the thought that individuals can't be relied upon to put the movie in the proper context. Or if a person still enjoys the work of someone who has been canceled and feels comfortable with separating the art from the artist. Or thinking it's ridiculous when a yogurt shop comes under Twitter fire for displaying options that could be triggering to a person with disordered eating. Or if they acknowledge that the Twitter mob can sometimes get things wrong. e.g when a woman who worked at Chipotle was falsely accused of racism and had her life ruined overnight. Things like this shouldn't be a deal breaker when it comes to people deciding whether or not a person is sufficiently aligned with the party.

I don't think the left is alone when it comes to potentially pushing people out of their party. Conservatives like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney can toe the party line over 90% of the time but their unwillingness to bow down to He Who Must Not Be Named has a bunch of people unfairly labeling them as RINOs. 

I like that Bill isn't afraid to bring up some of the ridiculous stuff that comes from the left. At the same time, I can acknowledge that he needs to put the right on blast too for being the original cancel culture party. The right are just as guilty of cancel culture (and have a longer history of it) but Bill seems more focused on pushing back on the left. Maybe this is because he holds the left to a higher standard? Either way, I agree that he should more willing to criticize the right about these issues too.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

The politics rule still applies in Small Talk.  No personal politics please.  General discussions without casting aspersions or name-calling are allowed.  Also, discussion of social issues is allowed in Small Talk.  

[Victor the Crab]

2 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I like that Bill isn't afraid to bring up some of the ridiculous stuff that comes from the left. At the same time, I can acknowledge that he needs to put the right on blast too for being the original cancel culture party. The right are just as guilty of cancel culture (and have a longer history of it) but Bill seems more focused on pushing back on the left. Maybe this is because he holds the left to a higher standard? Either way, I agree that he should more willing to criticize the right about these issues too.

Berkeley pushed Bill to the edges where the notion that someone spewing out right wing nonsense getting them fired is consider "cancel culture gone too far".

I get that things go overboard when someone on the left starts protesting a bit too hard over something inconsequential. Bill's problem is that he uses a very wide brush to paint EVERYONE on the left as being guilty, even among the more conservative thinking. When, in reality, it's those on the far left that make everyone in the group look bad. Bill doesn't do nuance and he thinks that the entire left is one big monolith. He's too lazy to do the work that shows otherwise.

[Avaleigh]

It seems like he really does think that the grievances of his convervative, even white supremecist guests--should be respected and taken seriously even if they just come down to people not laughing at your jokes about trans people anymore, while the issues that don't affect him much (like being in constant danger from police harassment) are designer issues that affect no one and have driven nice people into the arms of Fascism.

I disagree of course about "respecting" the sort of grievances I think you're referencing but when it comes to Bill taking other people's grievances seriously, that makes sense to me if you're going to try to have any meaningful sort of dialogue and since he's ultimately a talk show host, I get him at least attempting to try to understand where people from other points of view are coming from when he has them on as guests.

Also, just to clarify and address the bit in bold, I'm not only talking about voters who run into the arms of right wing politics (which would typically take more than a person being upset about the so-called cancel culture issues that Bill addresses). 

I'm mostly talking about the left losing voters in general and it doesn't just happen with people who decide to full on vote for the other side. I'm thinking of the people who will choose to sit out the election altogether or the people who will give protest votes to people who won't win because they no longer feel they have a place in the party. There are also people who vote for whoever it is they hate the least and some of these minor culture war issues when viewed together collectively, can make a person feel like the party (and politicians) no longer accurately represent where they stand when it comes to these kind of topics. 

Some of the next elections are going to be so close, it bums me out to think that votes will be lost over some of these stupid culture war issues.  

It seems clear to me that there are indeed people who are starting to feel disgruntled with the other side when it comes to these sorts of topics otherwise the right wing media wouldn't keep going back to the well when it comes to pushing these stories.

I think the reason this topic gets to me so much is because I have family members both on my side and my husband's side who have changed politically and it's still crazy to me to see how far gone they are in swallowing practically everything Fox News has been pushing the past four years. One of the most bizarre things is how they often have identical responses to various subjects--it's hard to accept when we consider how they used to be. 

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

It seems clear to me that there are indeed people who are starting to feel disgruntled with the other side when it comes to these sorts of topics otherwise the right wing media wouldn't keep going back to the well when it comes to pushing these stories.

 

Just quoted this part, but I do agree with your whole post. I think the reason I get so frustrated with how BH handles this stuff is that it's true that the RWM always goes back to this well, but they also lie and exaggerate, which makes it hard for the Left to quit doing it--they're often not doing it to begin with! Or else they're doing stuff that really isn't affecting peoples' lives at all, except in ways that maybe prove the Left's point.

So on Bill's show you wind up with one side talking about the crazy Left thought police, and then Bill talking about...the crazy Left thought police. Which seems like it would actually be more likely to push people to not vote at all if they don't want to vote R. It just seems like we've spent a lot of years now with a choice between one party that makes sweeping, sometimes radical, changes and another party who mostly focuses on not upsetting the first party. And the one enemy they both agree on is The Squad.

ETA: And I think that also just seems so selfish to me, because the Dems really aren't doing anything for the groups that turn people off. Their actual legislation is pretty mild, more what more "centrist" Dems want. Yet they still get positioned at the ones who are being overlooked while the people who protest vote because of that are just dismissed.

Edited June 28, 2021 by sistermagpie

[heatherchandler]

On 6/27/2021 at 8:00 PM, sistermagpie said:

Always seems ironic, though, that when it comes to a topic he agrees with he admires the Republican plan of simply saying something and making everyone believe it. On Defund the Police, for instance, R's have been claiming city streets are dangerous war zones for years. Now they're claiming the spike in crime is due to BLM protests cowing police into being afraid to do their jobs and police departments being defunded, neither of which is true. But it's become an accepted reality.

 

Some of this is kind of true - in Chicago police cannot chase a car jacker because they don't chase anymore (Lightfoot's new policy, I believe).  This is good (car chases sometimes kill people) and bad, now that the car jackers know this, they are doing it in front of police.  There is video of this.  The police may later try to find the car, but basically the officers tell the people to call their insurance company.  As you can imagine, there are higher car jackings in the city.  

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, heatherchandler said:

Some of this is kind of true - in Chicago police cannot chase a car jacker because they don't chase anymore (Lightfoot's new policy, I believe).  This is good (car chases sometimes kill people) and bad, now that the car jackers know this, they are doing it in front of police.  There is video of this.  The police may later try to find the car, but basically the officers tell the people to call their insurance company.  As you can imagine, there are higher car jackings in the city.  

That just sounds....really convenient proof that if police can't endanger people they can't solve crimes that they totally would have solved if they could have had a dangerous car chase. (I mean, I have seen that video of the policeman in a different state who tells a woman to pull over for speeding and when she follows the procedure by blinking her lights to signal that she's driving to a safe place to pull over he flips over her car and then gets out to lecture her while waiting for an ambulance!)

Most of the police's job is responding to crime rather than preventing it or stopping it in the act. Most people whose car has been stolen are told to call their insurance company without the police trying to find their car. How many carjackers' priority is supporting the police narrative rather than stealing cars to make money?

 

[heatherchandler]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

That just sounds....really convenient proof that if police can't endanger people they can't solve crimes that they totally would have solved if they could have had a dangerous car chase. (I mean, I have seen that video of the policeman in a different state who tells a woman to pull over for speeding and when she follows the procedure by blinking her lights to signal that she's driving to a safe place to pull over he flips over her car and then gets out to lecture her while waiting for an ambulance!)

Most of the police's job is responding to crime rather than preventing it or stopping it in the act. Most people whose car has been stolen are told to call their insurance company without the police trying to find their car. How many carjackers' priority is supporting the police narrative rather than stealing cars to make money?

 

I would like for the police to be able to deal with a crime happening right in front of them.  In a perfect world, there are no carjackers.  But I am not thinking of these crimes in the abstract because this is happening in a city just a few miles away.  I am afraid for myself, my family.. an armed carjacking is not like shoplifting.  I am sure you would feel differently if someone put a gun in your face and told you to get out of your car.  This is a violent crime, and I think the police should be able to deal with it.  

You had said that Bill was spouting un-truths about police unable to do their jobs because of responses to last summer, and that is kind of exactly what happened.  The criminals are emboldened by a new restriction.

 

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

I would like for the police to be able to deal with a crime happening right in front of them. 

Which they can. It seems like you're talking about a law that's preventing danger on the roads.

2 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

 

In a perfect world, there are no carjackers.  But I am not thinking of these crimes in the abstract because this is happening in a city just a few miles away.  I am afraid for myself, my family.. an armed carjacking is not like shoplifting.  I am sure you would feel differently if someone put a gun in your face and told you to get out of your car.  This is a violent crime, and I think the police should be able to deal with it.  

I'm not pro-car-jacking, I just don't believe a policy about not getting into car chases means that if a guy stuck a gun in my face and a policeman was right there and felt like intervening, he would have to step aside. (If there's a car chase, I would hope the police have already failed to stop the guy getting me out of the car!)

2 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

You had said that Bill was spouting un-truths about police unable to do their jobs because of responses to last summer, and that is kind of exactly what happened.  The criminals are emboldened by a new restriction.

 

We were living in a pandemic last year and crime went up everywhere. There's no reason to think a rise in carjacking all over is the direct result of a new policy in Chicago telling police to not chase cars. Police have a record of taking credit when crime goes down and refusing responsibility when crime goes up when the numbers suggest they're not responsible for either. 

[heatherchandler]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Which they can. It seems like you're talking about a law that's preventing danger on the roads.

I'm not pro-car-jacking, I just don't believe a policy about not getting into car chases means that if a guy stuck a gun in my face and a policeman was right there and felt like intervening, he would have to step aside. (If there's a car chase, I would hope the police have already failed to stop the guy getting me out of the car!)

We were living in a pandemic last year and crime went up everywhere. There's no reason to think a rise in carjacking all over is the direct result of a new policy in Chicago telling police to not chase cars. Police have a record of taking credit when crime goes down and refusing responsibility when crime goes up when the numbers suggest they're not responsible for either. 

The car jacker is the danger.  I just read about a car jacker that killed someone while speeding away without any police following him.  

The point is that the new policy is (most likely) the actual cause of higher car jackings.  That's the point Bill was making and it is a solid point.  

My suburb didn't have crime go up last year, or this year because the police don't publicize that criminals can do whatever they want.  They may have a no chase policy, or they may have a case-by-case assessment, but they don't alert the criminals to that.  

 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, heatherchandler said:

The car jacker is the danger.  I just read about a car jacker that killed someone while speeding away without any police following him.  

So in this on particular anecdote a car jacker killed someone by speeding away, but he wouldn't have been a danger if he had sped away with a police car speeding away after him? Why was he even speeding--I thought that was the original point? Seems like we're talking about two dangers (potentially violent car jacker/reckless driving by anyone) and in this one alleged situation more reckless driving would have cancelled out both dangers?

Quote

The point is that the new policy is (most likely) the actual cause of higher car jackings.  That's the point Bill was making and it is a solid point.  

Who says it's most likely? Have they actually proved it? Were they already against police accountability?

Quote

My suburb didn't have crime go up last year, or this year because the police don't publicize that criminals can do whatever they want.  They may have a no chase policy, or they may have a case-by-case assessment, but they don't alert the criminals to that.  

 

But no police publicize that criminals can do whatever they want. They weren't doing it even is in the situation you're describing. There have been increases in crime rates all over the country despite of police doing exactly what they have been doing when they were claiming credit for crime going down dramatically. They're blaming the crime on a new policy and not going to do anything about finding the criminal/car?

Edited June 29, 2021 by sistermagpie

[heatherchandler]

4 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

So in this on particular anecdote a car jacker killed someone by speeding away, but he wouldn't have been a danger if he had sped away with a police car speeding away after him? Why was he even speeding--I thought that was the original point? Seems like we're talking about two dangers (potentially violent car jacker/reckless driving by anyone) and in this one alleged situation more reckless driving would have cancelled out both dangers?

Who says it's most likely? Have they actually proved it? Were they already against police accountability?

But no police publicize that criminals can do whatever they want. They weren't doing it even is in the situation you're describing. There have been increases in crime rates all over the country despite of police doing exactly what they have been doing when they were claiming credit for crime going down dramatically.

 

I guess my point is that car jackers are criminals and they don't care who they kill.  I added that story to say that people can die because of this crime with the police following or not.

Have they polled the car jackers to see why there are so many?  I don't think so, that's why I said "most likely."  But if the carjackings go up exponentially after announcing that the police won't go after them, it is obvious what happened.  I watch the local news and this is topic here.  All crime is up, but this crime has gone up way higher than the rest.  Maybe it is a coincidence.  But common sense tells me it isn't.  

Lori Lightfoot is an especially idiotic mayor, and she did announce this policy.  

 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

 

I guess my point is that car jackers are criminals and they don't care who they kill.  I added that story to say that people can die because of this crime with the police following or not.

Have they polled the car jackers to see why there are so many?  I don't think so, that's why I said "most likely."  But if the carjackings go up exponentially after announcing that the police won't go after them, it is obvious what happened.  I watch the local news and this is topic here.  All crime is up, but this crime has gone up way higher than the rest.  Maybe it is a coincidence.  But common sense tells me it isn't.  

Lori Lightfoot is an especially idiotic mayor, and she did announce this policy.  

 

I tried to look up the announcement of the policy and find out what might happen to officers that didn't follow it and I couldln't find anything about it. When did she announce it?

[heatherchandler]

30 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I tried to look up the announcement of the policy and find out what might happen to officers that didn't follow it and I couldln't find anything about it. When did she announce it?

I don’t know when she announced it, I watched it on the news live.  
 

Chicago Police Department General Order G03-03-01 states, “members will not engage in a motor vehicle pursuit whenever the most serious offense wanted for is a…theft (including Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicles).”

 

[millennium]

Are Bill's frequent reminders that he smokes pot a schtick or a tic?  In high school there were always kids who had to let you know they were high/got high last night/liked to get high/ or were holding.   No matter what the conversation was about, they would either work it in or just blurt out their pot status.   As a person utterly disinterested in pot, even then, I was never really sure what motivated them.  Was it an attempt to seem cool and anti-establishment, a manifestation of the I-just-did-something-naughty-and-want-to-tell-somebody impulse, or an attempt to widen their circle of pot acquaintances?

Whatever the reason, it seems unbecoming of a man of Bill's age to be constantly reminding his audience that he's still that guy from high school who just has to talk about pot regardless of whom he's engaged in conversation with, or whatever topic might be on the table.  What if another commentator went out of his way two or three times in the course of an hour to remind everyone how much he loves some other mood-altering substance while talking about national politics?

I tend to cringe every time Bill does it. 

[MsTree]

9 hours ago, millennium said:

Are Bill's frequent reminders that he smokes pot a schtick or a tic? 

Good question. I think initially he was being a rebel of sorts with the mentality of "I'm doing something everyone else does behind closed doors even if it's illegal...and you can't stop me". He's been talking about how it should be legal for so long, then once it actually happened he was so elated, and his enthusiasm went overboard.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

39 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

This is a very good point. My rant before was about focusing strictly on a technical workforce development, which I do think you need some degree. I would still encourage people to go to community college at the least because you may learn about jobs you didn't know were out there or that you have skills you didn't know. I'm not seeing bank teller or shop manager necessarily needing a degree. 

I think the free community college would be a huge benefit for the country though. There's still trade school type programs at the community colleges. Over here, there's a successful machinist program and they place nearly everyone in gainful employment. 

 

Taking this over here since I'm going beyond show chat.  In my city the community college is now free (tuition) for city residents.  It was always common here for people to take advantage of the low cost community college for the first year or two of college, then transfer to a university.  You could take care of all of the core classes, english, math, chemistry, etc., then move into a four year university to complete a bachelor's degree if you so choose.  And, like you say, there is a lot of quality education available for the building trades and healthcare as well as other areas.