S17.E07: Matt Schlapp, Jonathan Alter, Mary Katharine Ham, Michael Steele, Noah Rothman

[GHScorpiosRule]

Matt Schlapp, Jonathan Alter, Mary Katharine Ham, Michael Steele, Noah Rothman

[Duke Silver]

Entirely conservative panel.  Pass.

[GoldenGirl90]

Bill just pulled out an “If Obama Did It” book... he started reading through it and Matt Schlapp said, “you can keep reading through it,” and Bill did exaclty that until Matt stopped him.. LOL!!! If Obama did any of the crap Trump has allegedly done, impeachment papers would’ve been drawn up immediately. Hell, a tan suit and dijon mustard on a hamburger nearly ended the Obama presidency, so... 🤦🏽‍♀️

[amsel]

Schlapp is just a good old political hack, and his arguments are awful. After Bill read through the "If Obama Did It" book, Schlapp came back by saying that Trump promised a lot of things and he delivered on them, and, therefore, his criminality, indecency, dishonesty, and hypocrisy are irrelevant (I've seen Schlapp a lot on TV, and that's his usual counter). What Bill should have said is that Obama also delivered on a lot of promises he made during the campaign, but if Obama had done 1/10th of the awful/criminal things Trump has done in office, the Democrats would not have supported him anymore and would have impeached him and/or demanded his resignation, and therefore Schlapp is a morally bankrupt person. Personally speaking, if Obama had turned out to be a crook, that would have been the biggest political disappointment I can think of. As we are seeing in real time, as Trump is becoming worse, his support among Republicans is getting stronger. But no, Maher just moved on, and he did the same thing on other issues that he brought up with Schlapp. As has been said many times in these threads, Maher is not good and maintaining pressure on his guests when they're clearly wrong. Or maybe he just doesn't care.

The panel discussion was mostly good, though that Rothman guy used a lot of words but said little. Jonathan Alter was fantastic, as usual. 

Michael Steele's 2020 prediction is full of holes. The best argument to use is this one: Trump needed a deeply flawed opponent, interference by an adversary, billions of dollars of free coverage on TV, Jim Comey's interference, etc. and that perfect election night amounted to a 70,000 vote victory in the right three states that Democrats almost always win. Will he have another perfect night? It's possible, but unlikely. What happened in 2016 was also unlikely, but Trump had about a 25% chance of winning, and that 25% chance became reality. Alter tried to make that point, but it was buried in the noise. And no one brought  up the historic victory by the Democrats just a few months ago as a great symbol of the dissatisfaction among the electorate. 

The discussion on Israel started well, but Maher ended it by saying that Palestinians are victims, but not of Israelis but of themselves. That's just objectively false, and I'm not anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian, or vice versa, but to absolve Israel from blame is just absurd. I just wish Alter, who is Jewish and is pretty objective on this particular issue, would have added a sentence or two to correct Maher's stupid claim, but they moved on to something else, as usual.

Edited March 9, 2019 by amsel

[Gemma Violet]

I don't understand why Bill has someone like Matt Schlapp on and spends an entire segment trying to convince him he's wrong about Trump.  Why waste ten minutes on something that'll never happen?  It's like trying to get a mule to cross a bridge he doesn't want to cross.  Why bother?

[crookedjackson44]

Another night of an insufferable Maher.  He calls himself a progressive, but he's really a conservative pretending to advance liberal causes.  His bullshit about Israel not victimizing Palestinians is just beyond the pale.  But it is in line with his long-term anti-Islamism.

[GoldenGirl90]

3 hours ago, Gemma Violet said:

I don't understand why Bill has someone like Matt Schlapp on and spends an entire segment trying to convince him he's wrong about Trump.  Why waste ten minutes on something that'll never happen?  It's like trying to get a mule to cross a bridge he doesn't want to cross.  Why bother?

Exactly. What a waste of time.

[arachne]

Am I old-fashioned, or was that outfit on Mary Katherine Ham inappropriately tight? I also found her kinda ditsy.

Interesting New Rule at the end, about how Christian fundies compare T***p to King Cyrus. And of course, that's totally misguided. 

[Mr. R0b0t]

13 minutes ago, arachne said:

Am I old-fashioned, or was that outfit on Mary Katherine Ham inappropriately tight? I also found her kinda ditsy.

Interesting New Rule at the end, about how Christian fundies compare T***p to King Cyrus. And of course, that's totally misguided. 

Inappropriate how?  I thought she was channeling Michelle Obama in a sleeveless dress with her guns out.  I was disappointed that right when they were getting into an interesting political discussion Maher shifted gears to Michael Jackson.

[Kenz]

5 hours ago, arachne said:

Am I old-fashioned, or was that outfit on Mary Katherine Ham inappropriately tight? I also found her kinda ditsy 

I agree, and she was trying hard to be cutesy. I don't remember her adding anything relevant to the conversation.

You have to hand it to Matt Schlapp. He masters the sleeze talk  in defense of his master, Trump, and that of his wife, Mercedes, who works in the White House. He loves to lie with a big smile on his face.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Kenz

[iMonrey]

It was torture trying to sit through the interview with Matt Schlapp, I had to turn it off about halfway through. WAY too much time wasted on this guy. What is the bloody point of talking to someone who just lies and denies facts outright? "Trump said he would build a wall and Mexico would pay for it." "He is building a wall." "No, there is no wall." "That's simply not true." Why go any further than that? This is a pointless conversation. When the interviewer says "water is wet" and the guest says "That's simply not true" there is absolutely no point in talking to that person any further.  This is someone who is either delusional or a bald-faced liar.

And when he said he'd break with Trump if Trump refused to leave office after losing the election he was lying too. Trump would say the election was rigged, there were illegal votes, etc., and every single Republican would line up behind him and support him.

[littlecatsfeet]

And of course Bill has to praise Schlapp (and others of his ilk) for coming on the show, like it's some big noble gesture that demonstrates bravery and principles. "Maybe you'll convert one person." "Democrats should go on Fox News." No and no. 

I have no idea who Green Dress lady was, but I agree she was really trying hard to be cutesy. It was kind of satisfying to see everything she said just land with a thud. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by littlecatsfeet
Grammar nerdery.

[ganesh]

Bill - here's some things going on in objective reality. 

Matt - what about what about what about things that haven't ever happened? 

I do hope if Trump is implicated in something that people like him have their careers end in shame. 

I get pundits. That's their job. But this is treasonous. 

[wknt3]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

It was torture trying to sit through the interview with Matt Schlapp, I had to turn it off about halfway through. WAY too much time wasted on this guy. What is the bloody point of talking to someone who just lies and denies facts outright? "Trump said he would build a wall and Mexico would pay for it." "He is building a wall." "No, there is no wall." "That's simply not true." Why go any further than that? This is a pointless conversation. When the interviewer says "water is wet" and the guest says "That's simply not true" there is absolutely no point in talking to that person any further. 

Yeah, but at least it's better than Bill's interviews with right wing hacks pre-Milo since he at least kept pointing out he was lying instead of just moving on to the next question. So I guess that's something?
 

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

Does Bill not know what SJWs are?

It's hard to tell with Bill when he honestly doesn't know these things and when he doesn't really care because it allows him to bitch about the kids these days who care about things he'd prefer not to deal with and pretend that anyone who calls out his BS is some sort of crazy radical.

[ganesh]

Honestly, "this was before Miami" was a great joke. 

Is positively chilling that anyone would compare a political figure to anybody in any so called holy book. That's how we lose the rule of law. 

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, wknt3 said:

t's hard to tell with Bill when he honestly doesn't know these things and when he doesn't really care because it allows him to bitch about the kids these days who care about things he'd prefer not to deal with and pretend that anyone who calls out his BS is some sort of crazy radical.

Looking at OT. The guy on the left seat was right, after the dude gave some wonky Rawlsian response, yeah, SJW isn't a thing that you're saying and Bill got all in an uproar. Because he doesn't know what the term actually refers to. It's not people talking about their feelings. And so what is they want to? SJWs are Gamer gate and incels and dudes who think they're "entitled to a hot chick" who say they wouldn't have to shoot up the campus if they got road head that one time. 

I put that in quotes because there's an article on that. It's really good. 

It's incredibly damaging on Bill's part. 

It's not true that the GOP is against regulations? So who made the rule that coal effluent can be dumped in rivers? 

Edited March 9, 2019 by ganesh

[Moxie Cat]

Too. Many. Republicans. I don't even mind Steele or Rothman that much, but oy vey. (Does Noah Rothman remind anyone else of Catherine O'Hara's friend Otho in Beetlejuice? Is it just me?)

Also not a fan of Ham's dress, and the "IDGAF" - please. I don't know how old she is, but even a millennial wouldn't say that OUT LOUD. It's like saying LOL or ROTFL just to try to sound hip and with it. (Terminology that shows MY age!) I've always thought that Bill gets off by having conservative women on the show, though, so not surprised by her presence.

Love Jonathan Alter and glad to see him. He used to be a more regular MSNBC guest back when but I can't remember the last time I saw him on a show there. Is he guesting on another channel these days?

[Guest]

This is not the place to discuss the 2020 election and what you may or may not think may happen. It is also not the place to discuss general politics outside the scope of what was discussed on the show and how it was discussed. Do not use the topics of conversation on this show as jumping off points for broader political tangents as this is off topic.

[deirdra]

9 hours ago, arachne said:

Am I old-fashioned, or was that outfit on Mary Katherine Ham inappropriately tight? I also found her kinda ditsy.

She added nothing to the conversation.  Why don't we ever see men in tight tank tops that caress each of their 6-packs sitting around talking politics and expecting people to listen to what they have to say?  Her "guns" looked a bid doughy to me (she's no Linda Hamilton in Terminator), even though she kept self-consciously repositioning her arms to avoid resting/squishing them against her body like everyone else in the room.

Edited March 10, 2019 by deirdra

[scrb]

Well I’m glad I don’t buy those overpriced pillows.

Chosen by god?

🙄

[ZoqFotPik]

6 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

the "IDGAF" - please. I don't know how old she is, but even a millennial wouldn't say that OUT LOUD.

I think that can chalked up to her not being used to being able to say "fuck" on tv.

Edited March 10, 2019 by ZoqFotPik

[CaliCheeseSucks]

10 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

and the "IDGAF" - please. I don't know how old she is, but even a millennial wouldn't say that OUT LOUD. It's like saying LOL or ROTFL just to try to sound hip and with it.

It reminded me of the episode of the "Palestinian Chicken" episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, with the woman who keeps saying 'LOL' instead of just laughing and her husband bribes Larry to call her out on it.

"You like saying that, don't you?"

"It's cute, right?"

"No, not really."

[msrachelj]

21 hours ago, Mr. R0b0t said:

Inappropriate how?  I thought she was channeling Michelle Obama in a sleeveless dress with her guns out.  I was disappointed that right when they were getting into an interesting political discussion Maher shifted gears to Michael Jackson.

well more like inappropriate because it was fugly and did her no favors. it was awfully tight and seemed a little intimate? for a television appearance. i guess she thought she looked good but to me , i agree it was inapropriate. no taste in parties, no taste in clothes!  just like she thought she was cool by saying IDGAF.  

Edited March 10, 2019 by msrachelj
spell

[SuzieSioux]

On 3/9/2019 at 7:24 PM, crookedjackson44 said:

Another night of an insufferable Maher.  He calls himself a progressive, but he's really a conservative pretending to advance liberal causes.  His bullshit about Israel not victimizing Palestinians is just beyond the pale.  But it is in line with his long-term anti-Islamism.

This is where he falls down re: his own insistence that liberals should stand up for liberal values (which I agree with). His complaint is that people stop standing up for liberal values at the point of discussing Islam; I'd say he is also guilty of this himself at the point of discussing Israel. I'd love someone to quote him back to his face one day.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Another night of an insufferable Maher.  He calls himself a progressive, but he's really a conservative pretending to advance liberal causes.  

I don't think he's that. I think it's some weird ego thing with him, especially in regards to having right-wing guests for interviews or on the panel. I don't know what, exactly, he thinks this does for the show. Possibly he's just looking for the fireworks and the water cooler talk he thinks will result in them. Or he thinks it proves something about how bipartisan he is and willing to listen to "both sides." I know he loves to brag about the fact that he has these people on his show, and it's been discussed to death how he calls them "brave." So I think he just thinks he's proving something that makes his show distinctive. He is certainly unwilling to hear criticisms about this, that much is certain.

That doesn't make him conservative, though. Just a stubborn idiot.

Edited March 12, 2019 by iMonrey

[ganesh]

Bill has said before that he rather have an argumentative panel. I think that era is past though, and when most 'conservatives' now are just sycophants. Never mind a civil debate; look at that interview - you can't argue against someone who denies objective reality. There's just nothing to do. Having them on to shame them won't work. Why bother?