S22.E24: Kaitlan Collins, James Carville & Dan Crenshaw

[Mr. R0b0t]

MODS, feel free to edit the episode title if I misspelled anything....

Last nights episode was sending me.  Carville has lost his fast ball and let Crenshaw run all over him with bad characterizations of Republican policies.  Bill pushed back a bit, but to just let him sit up there and lie and lie was too much.  Crenshaw acts like the House hasn't been an absolute sh!tshow for the last two years and the bills they "passed" are extremely unpopular.  

[sugarbaker design]

I know who Crenshaw is, but I wasn't that familiar with him.  I had no idea he was such a repulsive asshole.  Carville should be aged out of TV punditry.  He's  unintelligible, ill-tempered and entirely ineffective.  However, I thoroughly enjoyed Bill's takedown of Vance.

Edited August 24 by sugarbaker design

[aghst]

He kept saying Republicans were more moderate.

But he himself is for 6-week abortion ban.

He says metrics they are better.  Bill rejected the 50 to 1 million jobs created.

Clinton created a lot of jobs even if singing Glass Stegall created the 2008 crisis.

But before the crisis, job creation under Bush wasn't as robust.  And Bush allowed all kinds of predatory lending practices because he was pushing "ownership society" to raise home ownership.  In fact his DOJ ran interference to prevent state AGs, including some red state AGs, from trying to crack down on predatory lending.

So no, Bill can't lay the Great Financial Crisis only at the feet of Clinton.  Was a part of it but Bush's regulatory appointees let the industry do whatever they wanted.

Crenshaw also tried to say Trump had the best jobs growth before the pandemic.  Well no, Obama's last 3 years had greater growth and Trump inherited a strong jobs market.

Crenshaw kept demanding which policies led to job growth for Biden.  Well it's the big spending programs like the ARA which kept the economy afloat coming out of the pandemic.

He cited the Trump tax cuts for growing jobs.  Those tax cuts just ballooned the debt.  Corporations have record profits and profit margins now because Bush cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21% and is talking about extending it.  The Bush tax cuts all expire after 2025.

BTW, corporations just did more stock buybacks and repatriated profits stashed overseas because of the Trump tax cuts.  Also, before the Trump tax cuts, corporations had high profits already.

[DoctorAtomic]

I enjoyed Carville's just not even pretending like Crenshaw was worth a modicum of derision. Come back and talk to me when you win an election. tbh, I think Carville was just giving him enough rope. 

I can hold my booze, but if I drank every time Crenshaw said extreme, then I'd be in the emergency room. And I say this because it underscores what I think has been a total strategy failure by the Republicans after Harris took over. Bill led off by saying the Democratic party wins by campaigning left of center, to which Carville agreed. And I think the country is left of center. Any objective reading of the convention saw the party tack right into the groove. So painting Harris as extreme just by saying it over and over isn't going to work. Or does she just change her policy positions? Which is it? Because he said both. 

Looking at Crenshaw strategy-wise, everyone watching knew he's bringing the talking points from the jump, and everyone knows enough what the deal was. Sure, you got 4 years of each to compare and decide. Most voters aren't going to be doing that. Like Bill said, you had a convention that was positive and no one was hating on America. 

Some people can be generally funny and witty. It's ok if you're not; that doesn't mean you can speak publicly well. You don't have to always be witty to make a good speech. Crenshaw is not that and thinks he's far more clever than he is. He was trying to throw in the usual trans hate, and no one on the panel was biting. The culture war strategy isn't going to work this time around. It just comes off smarmy, and, how is someone on the fence going to think this is the way to go? Then let's throw in Vance, who has to constantly be on the back foot. I'm not seeing how the Harris momentum really tapers off unless they all shoot themselves in the foot. 

I get the project 2025 isn't the party platform, but the people who wrote it, some of them worked in the Trump Administration, no? I think Crenshaw is trying to have it both ways because Trump is certainly going to try to do some of those things. I don't think he'll be successful in many just because he's going to be appointing people who just don't know how government works, and other things will just be flat out illegal. Not that it shouldn't be taken seriously if only in concept. 

Abortion again. Ohio voted to protect freedom of choice. Florida passed a six week law. The law of the land is that it's up to the states. Yet, broken record here, whenever it's been a referendum, protections have passed in red states and blue states. You going to put that on the ballot in Florida? 

I'm not sure why the 50 million jobs is a bs stat. Maybe the number, but Politifact rated Clinton as mostly true. 

[Shrek]

27 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

 

I get the project 2025 isn't the party platform, but the people who wrote it, some of them worked in the Trump Administration, no? I think Crenshaw is trying to have it both ways because Trump is certainly going to try to do some of those things. I don't think he'll be successful in many just because he's going to be appointing people who just don't know how government works, and other things will just be flat out illegal. Not that it shouldn't be taken seriously if only in concept. 

 

I admire your belief that the legality of something will make a difference but sadly it will not. It doesn't matter that the SC didn't actually say the president is immune from everything he does but you can bet your last pennies that is the way it will be viewed by trump, as well as tested to the limit IF he wins.

They (the courts) can't even follow through on most of the cases against him because he will take anything they say all the way to the SC & I think we all know how that will end with his buddies in the majority. And anyone who thinks he will walk away happily at the end of his second term is delulu, he will 100% get rid of the 2 term limit any way he can, and he will have 4 years to figure out a way as well as have his people who kiss his ass in place. 

As for project 2025 that trump claims to know nothing about, it was written by people who have previously worked for him & he is mentioned quite a few times in it so yeah, it's 100% a blueprint for any 2nd term. 

At least the Palestine issue won't be an issue if he does get in because Palestine will cease to exist by the time he's finished. Ukraine won't be an issue either because he will let Putin do what he wants, including nuking Ukraine & the rest of Europe. 

[munchiewoman]

When Crenshaw said that Trump had stated he's not involved with Project 2025, why didn't Bill push back on him the way he hammered Carville? Just a little, oh, and he never lies would have been enough for me. But he let Crenshaw say whatever he wanted.

How can Crenshaw, a man who lost an eye in service, support Trump ever?? It boggles the mind.

I wish they had had Buttigieg against Crenshaw. That would have been epic.

 

Edited August 24 by munchiewoman

[Pike Ludwell]

Crenshaw repeatedly made a point of referring to the "Democrat" Party. Bill called him out on it in the most gentle way possible. True, it's a minor point a lot of folks don't get, but it's really being dickish. Bill should have said "I wasn't sure you were a dick but now I know", laughed and moved on.

Democrats need to start referring to the "Repub" Party, and then they're equalizing the disrespect and can move on and ignore this repub slur repubs will keep throwing. Not good to have one party dissing another and the other party treating them with respect.

[DoctorAtomic]

44 minutes ago, Shrek said:

As for project 2025 that trump claims to know nothing about, it was written by people who have previously worked for him & he is mentioned quite a few times in it so yeah, it's 100% a blueprint for any 2nd term. 

That's what I thought. Crenshaw was saying 'oh, it's just people from a think tank.' Crenshaw didn't seem to rebut Bill about getting rid of the civil service either. 

I mean, that's all they've got in terms of rebutting the Harris campaign. I still can't believe how hard 'weird' has landed as a strategy. Keeping Trump and Vance on the back foot and just being adults, like Bill said, is killing them. 

[Shrek]

Watching it now it strikes me how Bill is just letting Crenshaw say what he wants & talk over both Carville & even Bill himself, that would have never happened in years past. I don't know if Bill has gone to the dark side or just become a pussy who's too scared to push back on anything. 

[DoctorAtomic]

He just had a bad game. He was killing Gabbert when she was rattling the talking points. 

[Shrek]

Trump is listed as a contributor in the actual real 2025 documents but he knows nothing about it, and one of its authors has said it is "building a governing agenda, not just for next January but long into the future", that's a direct quote from Kevin Roberts president of the Heritage Foundation.

[aghst]

Ross Vought, who’s close to Trump, said his public denials are just for show.  After the election, Trump will go in on a lot of the things on it, even if they don’t call it Project 2025.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/russ-vought-project-2025-trump-secret-recording-invs/index.html

Crenshaw knows Trump is doing damage control.

They also call it Agenda 47, though it doesn’t yet have the same negative perceptions.

[ichbin]

10 minutes ago, Pike Ludwell said:

Crenshaw repeatedly made a point of referring to the "Democrat" Party.

That goes back to at least G. W. Bush's time in office.  He is the first person I can remember saying it that way.  Now I've noticed it coming from the mouths of quit a few Republican politicians, including Trump.

 

31 minutes ago, munchiewoman said:

I wish they had had Buttigieg against Crenshaw. That would have been epic.

Now that would have been an interesting panel!  

At this point it's hard to take anything Carville says seriously, regardless if he is correct or not, simply based upon him apparently feeling he no longer needs to exhibit any displays of professional appearance or personal hygiene.  Sitting there in a stained sweatshirt while in need of using a tissue...wtf.

[Pike Ludwell]

16 minutes ago, ichbin said:

That goes back to at least G. W. Bush's time in office.  He is the first person I can remember saying it that way.  Now I've noticed it coming from the mouths of quit a few Republican politicians, including Trump.

Even before GW Bush. I remember Bob Dole in 1996 referring to the party that way a lot. Maybe it was done before '96 as well. It's been commonly done since then as a deliberate sign of disrespect.

One of the great things about Chris Matthews was that he'd call his repub guests out on this. Most other hosts would let it slide. The problem though is if someone calls them out on this all the time, it can backfire and the host can look petty.

Edited August 24 by Pike Ludwell

[Winston Wolfe]

22 hours ago, ichbin said:

Now that would have been an interesting panel!  

At this point it's hard to take anything Carville says seriously, regardless if he is correct or not, simply based upon him apparently feeling he no longer needs to exhibit any displays of professional appearance or personal hygiene.  Sitting there in a stained sweatshirt while in need of using a tissue...wtf.

Also, this is rough to say because I respect the elderly, but Carville appeared to be drooling a bit at some points and his nose was running.

As far as content, same old, same old. Maybe next week will be better. The last month gave Bill a lot of topics to work with, but other than the closing monologue this show was tepid tap water.

Edited August 25 by Winston Wolfe

[munchiewoman]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's what I thought. Crenshaw was saying 'oh, it's just people from a think tank.' Crenshaw didn't seem to rebut Bill about getting rid of the civil service eithe

This reminds me... Is Crenshaw REALLY thinking it's ok to dismiss the conservative, Republican bill on border safety because it was "done in the dark" and no one had read it? Seriously? Maybe ask the REPUBLICAN who wrote it. It's so incredibly disingenuous for someone who acts like he's such a straight talker.

Edited August 24 by munchiewoman

[Mr. R0b0t]

Crenshaw thinks we should trust probably the most documented, well-known liar in America when he says he denounces Project 2025.  I'm sorry Dan, that dog won't hunt.

[Kenz]

That interview with Kaitlin Collins was kind of bizarre. Bill saying that Kamala Harris not giving interviews for a few weeks was worse than Trump trash talking and degrading  the media for years was ridiculous, along with other comments he made. I give Kaitlin credit for politely and effectively refuting many of his dumb remarks. 

[DoctorAtomic]

The media is going bonkers over Harris not giving any one on one interviews. tbh, why should she at this point? I'm not a 'blame the media' guy, and certainly no journalist should bear the brunt of Trump's tantrums, but have they really been acting in good faith? By that, I mean the media is making themselves the story by squawking about all the gotcha questions they're going to ask. She's going to be taking questions in the debate. 

I think Bill is off the mark by saying she's being condescending. 

However, I did like Bill saying that all of a sudden we can have a 4 month campaign so why not just do that from now on. 

[Severin]

Ugh, it was frustrating watching Crenshaw spewing all these talking points without much pushback from Carville.  He does need to retire, he is no longer effective at making the case for Democrats.  And good grief man, put on a clean shirt.  Democrats really need an effective way to push back on the talking points about the economy being so great under Trump, because of course it was after 8 years of the Obama administration. 

Crenshaw was not just saying democrat party, he was also mispronouncing Kamala (kaMAla intead of KAmala).  It seems all the republicans have gotten the memo on that one.

[DXD526]

I immediately dismiss any arguments from anyone who says 'Democrat party.' They've proven themselves to not be a serious person, and therefore, undeserving of attention.

Carville's stained shirt was like sandpaper on my eyeballs. The guy shouldn't be going on TV if he doesn't know better than to wear dirty clothes. 

[heatherchandler]

Democrat is a person who belongs to the Democratic Party.  Isn’t it that a person is a Republican or Democrat?  

Edited August 26 by heatherchandler

[DoctorAtomic]

2 hours ago, Severin said:

Crenshaw was not just saying democrat party, he was also mispronouncing Kamala (kaMAla intead of KAmala).  It seems all the republicans have gotten the memo on that one.

Just counterpoint to throw it out there - I don't think it's working anymore. Carville called him out on that and was dismissive at other times, but this audience and viewership knows the usual talking points aren't landing. I could argue that Bill and him were both like, "That's all you got. You're still on that? Okaaay." Because Bill did push back on those talking points when Gabbart was on the show, but that time, Biden was still running. Or Bill was peeved that he thought the guest might have been better. Or Bill just wanted Crenshaw to come on and spew to my original point.

Myself, I think Crenshaw and that ilk are still running against Biden and just swapping out him for Harris. She didn't do anything on policy because she's the vice president. Sure, you can say, well, she's part of the administration. Ok, if that's the case, then she can take credit for the chips act and inflation reduction act. So called 'swing' voters might be interested in voting for an actual adult that thinks bipartisan legislation is a good thing. So which is it? 

[chediavolo]

On 8/24/2024 at 3:56 PM, ichbin said:

That goes back to at least G. W. Bush's time in office.  He is the first person I can remember saying it that way.  Now I've noticed it coming from the mouths of quit a few Republican politicians, including Trump.

 

Now that would have been an interesting panel!  

At this point it's hard to take anything Carville says seriously, regardless if he is correct or not, simply based upon him apparently feeling he no longer needs to exhibit any displays of professional appearance or personal hygiene.  Sitting there in a stained sweatshirt while in need of using a tissue...wtf.

Carville needs to just give up going on TV. He is nauseating. Between the filthy  shirt, the spittle on both sides of his mouth, his snotty nose & garbled speech, he’s disgusting, Doesn’t really make a good argument anymore either. 
Kaitlin Collins does nothing for me.Never seems genuine.
I thought this hour sucked. 

[chediavolo]

I guess this forums  been abandoned?

[DoctorAtomic]

No, I check every week to see if anyone wants to talk about the show, but I've already given my opinion on why the forums aren't active. 

[aghst]

Maybe we should create a general topic and post about any episode rather than have a dedicated thread for each episode.

 

 

[tessaray]

12 minutes ago, aghst said:

Maybe we should create a general topic and post about any episode rather than have a dedicated thread for each episode.

 

That's not a bad idea. My only thought would be to have one for each season maybe?

[Shrek]

58 minutes ago, tessaray said:

That's not a bad idea. My only thought would be to have one for each season maybe?

Makes sense to me. I hate starting a new thread for anything & one per season would be perfect.

[DoctorAtomic]

Or, the people who hate watch Bill and dominate the discussion thread over the people who actually want to talk about the show can just post on the appropriate Bill thread, and the rest can talk in the episode threads so we don't feel forced out of the discussion all the time. 

[tessaray]

38 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Or, the people who hate watch Bill and dominate the discussion thread over the people who actually want to talk about the show can just post on the appropriate Bill thread, and the rest can talk in the episode threads so we don't feel forced out of the discussion all the time. 

Which is also fine but the show fans don't seem motivated to create episode topics either. 

The site no longer has mods dedicated to specific shows, so if users want someone else to do it they need to message a site mod and request it. 

[DoctorAtomic]

Well, maybe that's why because I was wondering why threads weren't created like they used to be. I check in every Saturday morning when I watch the show to see if anyone created the thread, and I would bet there's others doing the same. 

[Salacious Kitty]

Anyone can create an episode thread or, as has been discussed, a General Discussion thread. The latter may be better given the lack of engagement of late. 

[DoctorAtomic]

There's been a lack of good faith discussion versus hate watching. Because you just create an episode thread and it's invariably overrun with hate watching, but you can't moderate that, so why bother. 

So, can I create an episode thread and boot out the hatewatchers? What's the rules?

 

Edited October 13 by DoctorAtomic

[tessaray]

31 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

So, can I create an episode thread and boot out the hatewatchers? What's the rules?

No, you can't.  Sorry. As long as discussion doesn't violate forum rules (no attacking others personally, no personal politics, no hate speech, etc) all opinions are fine. That includes snark and hate watching, as long as it's directed towards what was actually on the show. 

Probably the easiest thing to do is to put people you disagree with on ignore.  Though I believe you will still see them if they are quoted in a regular post. 

[Soapy Goddess]

10 hours ago, tessaray said:

Which is also fine but the show fans don't seem motivated to create episode topics either. 

Probably because it's a PITA if God forbid you get the format wrong 🙄

[DoctorAtomic]

11 hours ago, tessaray said:

That includes snark and hate watching, as long as it's directed towards what was actually on the show. 

That's the problem. Most of it isn't directed to what's on the show. It's not the same as genuinely disagreeing with something Bill said. 

[chediavolo]

12 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Probably because it's a PITA if God forbid you get the format wrong 🙄

This entire site has been a pain in the ass the last few years.

[Salacious Kitty]

It's not that difficult.

Season #.Episode #: guests

Mods just used the first post to repeat the guests. 

Easy peasy. 

[TVbitch]

sooo... who's gonna make the new thread? 😬 😁

I watch every episode, and try to stick up for Bill when there is a thread. He's not a perfect human, but he is smart, well-spoken, well-read, and tries WAY harder than most people I know to be open about an issue and understand other perspectives (whether he agrees with them or not). And he's funny. 

[heatherchandler]

I’ll make the new thread- I’ll just make one for the season.

[Soapy Goddess]

11 hours ago, chediavolo said:

This entire site has been a pain in the ass the last few years.

YES...1000 times yes!!!!!

[Avaleigh]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:23 AM, DoctorAtomic said:

That's the problem. Most of it isn't directed to what's on the show. It's not the same as genuinely disagreeing with something Bill said. 

Having people who hate watch doesn't bother me at all. As long as people want to debate what's being discussed, I'm all for it. It would be very boring if we all had the same opinions on everything. 

From my perspective, the problem that we had when people were still discussing the weekly episodes was that there were several posters who admitted they weren't watching the episodes. They were hating on Bill and the show, and not contributing to the discussion of the actual content of the episodes. On top of that, there were a couple of posters who were regularly encouraging people to stop watching the show the way they had. When a poster is regularly telling people that they're wrong for watching a show that they've chosen to watch for whatever reason--it doesn't create fun or meaningful discussion. It just comes across as someone telling people that they're wrong for watching. 

[DoctorAtomic]

45 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

They were hating on Bill and the show, and not contributing to the discussion of the actual content of the episodes.

That's what I meant. We're saying the same thing. You'll see upthread I did say, not the same as genuinely disagreeing with something Bill said in that particular episode. Especially when you're getting comments from people who haven't watched the episode. My contention is that it drove people away from discussing the show. *Especially* since there is a dedicated thread for people to just post about Bill. So I'm not even saying they can't express their opinions, but a place was created for just that type of discussion.