S17.E11: Julián Castro, Chelsea Handler, Danielle Pletka, Gideon Rose, and Salman Rushdie

[Guest]

Airdate April 5

Quote

Guests: Julián Castro, Chelsea Handler, Danielle Pletka, Gideon Rose, and Salman Rushdie

[paigow]

Rushdie should be the next Secretary Of Education, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination....

[scrb]

So I would think Bill saying Biden is not Harvey Weinstein or R Kelly would be controversial, or saying Americans needed perspective or to stop being nit picky.

Quote

but the first person who brought this up said he made her feel 'gross and uneasy.' You know what makes me feel 'gross and uneasy'? A second Trump term."

[littlecatsfeet]

Wow. Bill actually said that Kavanaugh didn't "sexually assault" Christine Blasey Ford. "It was just a high school thing". Wow. Wow. Fuck you Bill. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Wow. Bill actually said that Kavanaugh didn't "sexually assault" Christine Blasey Ford. "It was just a high school thing". Wow. Wow. Fuck you Bill. 

Yeah, I didn't understand what he was getting at there.

I enjoyed the interview with Julian Castro but not much else. I don't think Castro has a shot at winning the nomination but he did make a good argument for winning Florida, Arizona and Texas. I think Texas is more likely a pipe dream - if Beto O'Roarke couldn't beat Ted Cruz you're not getting a Democrat out of Texas. But Florida is certainly doable, and maybe Arizona too.

That Danielle Pletka lady was positively ridiculous on Overtime, defending Fox News while simultaneously claiming not to watch it. It was another guest Bill ended up congratulating or thanking for being brave enough to be on the show. He needs to stop doing that. Don't thank people for coming on your show and spreading lies and disinformation.

[UYI]

OMG, I had never heard of Danielle Pletka before, and after Overtime I kind of wish it had stayed that way. Yikes. 

[Frisson]

7 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Yeah, I didn't understand what he was getting at there.

I enjoyed the interview with Julian Castro but not much else. I don't think Castro has a shot at winning the nomination but he did make a good argument for winning Florida, Arizona and Texas. I think Texas is more likely a pipe dream - if Beto O'Roarke couldn't beat Ted Cruz you're not getting a Democrat out of Texas. But Florida is certainly doable, and maybe Arizona too.

That Danielle Pletka lady was positively ridiculous on Overtime, defending Fox News while simultaneously claiming not to watch it. It was another guest Bill ended up congratulating or thanking for being brave enough to be on the show. He needs to stop doing that. Don't thank people for coming on your show and spreading lies and disinformation.

Plus, she told Salman, “You’re not allowed to talk anymore” when he said something she disagreed with. If he’d said that to her, she would have been up in arms. What a hostile asshole who didn’t seem interested in any kind of discourse. I hope she’s not on again anytime soon. 

[sistermagpie]

20 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Yeah, I didn't understand what he was getting at there.

Same thing as with Biden--that he has a really high bar for things people get to complain about when it comes to unwanted touching. If we don't know for a fact that Kavanaugh intended to rape Blasey-Ford, then we shouldn't call it sexual assault. Sure she was pulled into a room, the door was shut, she was thrown on a bed and a guy pinned her down and tried to pull off her clothes, but it's not an assault if he was just doing it as a joke. Assault isn't what's being done to the victim, it's what the perpetrator says they intended.

As usual, it's completely ironic the way he calls people snowflakes when they *do* stand up for themselves (whether in the moment or after the fact). He accuses victims of exaggerating attacks while wildly exaggerating the accusations and criticism. (Any complaint means you're calling the guy Harvey Weinstein, for instance, you show disrespect to rape victims by not understanding that boys will be boys.)

I think he was completely wrong in trying to claim that only the media thought Biden's jokes etc. were tone deaf since Biden supporters in the room thought it was funny. Seems to me the bigger test here was how Biden, who's been around for decades, would deal with changing social attitudes. He could have said he didn't intend to make anyone uncomfortable and seem to genuinely regret that he had done that. Instead he did what Bill himself thinks he should do--say his intentions were good and make condescending jokes about the PC police.

[CaliCheeseSucks]

Enjoyed the interview with Julián Castro, though I parted ways with his take on Biden. 

My blood pressure absolutely went through the roof when Bill minimized Brett Kavanaugh's behavior as just "drunken teen stuff" (not his exact words but pretty much his exact sentiment). What in the hell?

I wish they would revisit the two-person panels that were being experimented with last year. Last night would have been an excellent time to deploy it again and leave Danielle Pletka out of it.

[littlecatsfeet]

For the record, because I'm kind of an accuracy freak and wanted to make sure I heard/understood it correct,  I transcribed the conversation regarding Kavanaugh: 

Rushdie:... "I don’t think this is comparable to, you know,  a beer-fueled, violet sexual assault such as Supreme Court judges are allowed to..."

BM:  “But we don’t know if that was a sexual assault! Wait a second!" (Rushdie: “Allegedly”)(another voice: “not allegedly”) "We don’t know if that was a sexual assault! It was high school kids who were drunk. It could have been. It never sounded like it was to me.”

Then he went on to say (because it's all about him)  that he was jumped on in high school by some guys who "beat the shit outta me," “it happens”. NO BILL NOT THE SAME THING. Holy bleeping bleep. 

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, littlecatsfeet said:

Then he went on to say (because it's all about him)  that he was jumped on in high school by some guys who "beat the shit outta me," “it happens”. NO BILL NOT THE SAME THING. Holy bleeping bleep. 

And what does that even mean? That those two guys didn't beat the shit out of him (aka "assault") because they were in high school and maybe they were drunk?

[meowmommy]

I was pissed when the woman (I refuse to learn these people's names other than Salman Rushdie, who was far too good to be on the same panel as these two stooges) started with her whataboutism on shitty presidential appointments, and Bill demanded not once, but twice, name one, the woman clearly couldn't think of anyone, and the other guy jumped in and distracted the conversation away.  And Bill didn't bring the topic back.

Bill was totally not interested in a real interview with Julian Castro.  It was if he said to himself, this guy isn't going to win, I'm not going to waste my time prepping and showing enthusiasm for my guest.  Just enough to feign shock at the word "bullshit" coming from a politician (but then complaining about 45 using the word).  And Bill was wrong, while the Secretary was right, on the definition of socialism.  Government control of the means of production is socialism.  It is also a feature of communism; however, communists (theoretically) distribute earnings to workers depending on their need, while socialists do not.  Programs designed to promote societal goals, such as Medicare or Social Security, do not a socialist government model make.  Which is why the Democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot if they don't stop describing what they stand for as socialism.  Because too many voters completely conflate socialism with godless communism and you won't be able to educate them.

I just don't understand the appeal of Chelsea Handler.  

23 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

That those two guys didn't beat the shit out of him (aka "assault") because they were in high school and maybe they were drunk?

Because in those days, you were supposed to take it or you were a wimp.  Women who complained about harassment were told we were too sensitive.  Men learned never to report abuse.  It's just sad that Bill still doesn't get that having the shit beaten out of him is NOT OK and never has been.  

Edited April 6, 2019 by meowmommy
Because Mr. Rushdie is not now and never has been a member of the fish family.

[littlecatsfeet]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

And what does that even mean? That those two guys didn't beat the shit out of him (aka "assault") because they were in high school and maybe they were drunk?

It's all part of the "boys will be boys" rationale. Male teenagers 'jumping'  you, whether you were male or female,  that's all part of growing up, whatever, yawn, get over it, it's just assault & battery and ~possibly~ attempted rape, so what. I'll have to maybe go back and see what he said about it at the time (of Kavanaugh's hearings) because I sure don't remember him being *this* blatantly dismissive. 

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Bill was totally not interested in a real interview with Julian Castro.  It was if he said to himself, this guy isn't going to win, I'm not going to waste my time prepping and showing enthusiasm for my guest.  Just enough to feign shock at the word "bullshit" coming from a politician (but then complaining about 45 using the word).  And Bill was wrong, while the Secretary was right, on the definition of socialism.  Government control of the means of production is socialism.  It is also a feature of communism; however, communists (theoretically) distribute earnings to workers depending on their need, while socialists do not.  Programs designed to promote societal goals, such as Medicare or Social Security, do not a socialist government model make.  Which is why the Democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot if they don't stop describing what they stand for as socialism.  Because too many voters completely conflate socialism with godless communism and you won't be able to educate them.

Bill is never interested in a real interview with his guests. He never preps (I have noted here ad naseum that he is jealous of the accolades given to the other topical comedy shows, but is completely unwilling to do even a fraction of the work they do) and his level of enthusiasm varies proportionately to the degree that they either are old friends, big stars, or are pushing ideas he already agrees with. And for somebody that has been doing this for a long time, he has shocking gaps in his knowledge of some basic subjects.

Edited April 7, 2019 by wknt3

[CaliCheeseSucks]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I was pissed when the woman (I refuse to learn these people's names other than Salman Rushdie, who was far too good to be on the same panel as these two stooges) started with her whataboutism on shitty presidential appointments, and Bill demanded not once, but twice, name one, the woman clearly couldn't think of anyone, and the other guy jumped in and distracted the conversation away.  And Bill didn't bring the topic back.

In fairness to the point she very poorly tried to make... Of course, party and campaign loyalists are rewarded in every Administration. That is generally the rule, not the exception and it's not a Democratic/Republican thing. It's how D.C. works.

What she failed to clarify, though, was to Bill's point: Never before has an Administration so front-loaded appointments, top to bottom, not just with loyalists but either:

A) Utterly unqualified stooges who have no business running a dog walking business, never mind a major government bureaucracy/department, or

B) Utterly compromised individuals who represent the industries/areas that are supposed to be under the oversight of said bureaucracy/department and instead, once installed, dismantle or gut said bureaucracy/department's mission statement with regard to those industries/areas.

Edited April 6, 2019 by CaliCheeseSucks

[Cyranetta]

One of the moments that made my jaw drop (slightly) was when Bill proclaimed that he did not like uninvited physical contact for himself. So why then does he feel free to paw other guests uninvited on a regular basis?

[ganesh]

Ugh the woman sitting in the middle. She is the definition of insufferable. I have no idea why she was invited. She is horrible on the actual news Sunday shows. That fake affect in her voice drives me up the wall as does her constant strawman arguments she tries to pass off as insight. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by ganesh

[ganesh]

I'm fine with saying a lot of cable news is more ratings driven, and there isn't much debate yet msnbc leans left. But you can't seriously say CNN is analogous to Fox News without being delusional. And you're argument is "come on" and CNN doesn't have fact checkers? 

Edited April 7, 2019 by ganesh

[iMonrey]

Quote

It's all part of the "boys will be boys" rationale. Male teenagers 'jumping'  you, whether you were male or female,  that's all part of growing up, whatever, yawn, get over it, it's just assault & battery and ~possibly~ attempted rape, so what. I'll have to maybe go back and see what he said about it at the time (of Kavanaugh's hearings) because I sure don't remember him being *this* blatantly dismissive. 

I don't either but I think he was more wrapped up in the fact that this was a stolen Supreme Court seat rather than the merits of the accusations against Kavanaugh. And maybe (just maybe) he was smart enough not to put his foot in it at the time because I definitely think the #meToo movement scares the shit out of him. 

But now it's about Biden and it's arguably a different situation, one he feels confident about defending. So I think his defensiveness just slipped out when Rushdie brought up Kavanaugh. 

[littlecatsfeet]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I don't either but I think he was more wrapped up in the fact that this was a stolen Supreme Court seat rather than the merits of the accusations against Kavanaugh. And maybe (just maybe) he was smart enough not to put his foot in it at the time because I definitely think the #meToo movement scares the shit out of him. 

But now it's about Biden and it's arguably a different situation, one he feels confident about defending. So I think his defensiveness just slipped out when Rushdie brought up Kavanaugh. 

Well, it wasn't that he was too smart to not put his foot in it.

On his 9/14/18 show, while the complaint was still anonymous, Maher said that the charges against Kavanaugh "make us look bad".  "“Now they’re coming at him with this accusation from someone anonymous who said that he was at a party … but sexual assault in high school from an anonymous source, I think it makes us look bad,” he said on Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”"

On his 9/28/18 show, after Blasey-Ford had come forward and testified, he said Ford's testimony was "compelling".  “When someone’s being real it shows,” he said. “Even conservatives had to admit it was incredible.” So at the point, he seemed to waver toward it being "real". He even called Kavanaugh "a liar and a drunk".

But by the next week, he had changed his tune and was huffing about Kavanaugh's privacy: 

“There are social justice warriors who are crazy enough in this country, I fight with them all the time, who… they lend enough credence to this to make people think, ‘Oh, you know what? They’re going to go after my high school record. That’s fair game now.’ And it becomes sort of a privacy thing,” argued Maher.

So in other words....if it happened in high school, it's nothing but youthful hijinks, an invasion of the perpetrators' privacy to investigate, and "we don't know if it was a sexual assault...it never sounded like it was to me". 

He's just as hypocritical and flip-flopping as the GOP politicians he sanctimoniously criticizes.  

Edited April 7, 2019 by littlecatsfeet
Grammar nerdery.

[Marci]

10 hours ago, ganesh said:

But you can't seriously say CNN is analogous to Fox News without being delusional. 

Oh, but it is. It used to be a respected news station, now it’s just as bad as Fox. I thought Fox News was horrifying when Obama was President, but now CNN is just as bad. And I think the motivation is ratings. Fox News is the leader, so CNN is following their lead. What happened to the days when News stations just reported the facts?  Political commentary is now a part of all these stations and everything is ridiculously slanted to the designated point of view.

As far as Cavanaugh goes, that woman’s case never would have stood up in a court of law. And in this country, we are supposed to say innocent until proven guilty. If other women came forward over the years and said he was sexually abusive, I’d be more inclined to think he has issues, but no one did.  Except for the woman who said she went to 10 parties where he was part of a group drugging and gang raping women. Then they finally got around to her. Good thing she kept going to these parties. My point is, men with abuse issues have allegations made consistently, year after year.  There has been nothing against him since the partying college days.  

I understand what Bill meant when he said he didn’t feel it was sexual assault. I thought that woman had serious credibility issues. She was so traumatized she didn’t do well in college? She was so traumatized she needs a special door to feel safe, to this day? Her friend didn’t remember her being there. She “escaped”, but it sounded like no one cared that she was leaving. I’m not sure who was the one with issues. Again, innocent until proven guilty, and there wasn’t enough of a case there.

[ganesh]

On 4/7/2019 at 10:59 AM, iMonrey said:

I don't either but I think he was more wrapped up in the fact that this was a stolen Supreme Court seat rather than the merits of the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Gorsuch was technically the stolen seat unless you're talking about both. There's some legit shadiness to this particular seat, but Kennedy did retire during Trump's term. 

Bill said allegations should be taken seriously, and these were so clearly not. Regardless, when accused, Kavenaugh acted like a whiny little bitch which should have disqualified him right there. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by ganesh

[sistermagpie]

23 hours ago, Marci said:

I understand what Bill meant when he said he didn’t feel it was sexual assault. I thought that woman had serious credibility issues.

Bill wasn't saying she had credibility issues. He was saying that two guys pulling a girl into a room and one of them jumping on her and pulling at her clothes like he was trying to rip them off doesn't sound like sexual assault to him because it's not sexual assault unless the guys were seriously intending to rape her. If they were just jumping her and not making a concerted effort to hold her down until she was raped (which they didn't do--in fact she thought the friend even intentionally jumped on the bed because he didn't want it to go on anymore) then it was just a prank.

Whether or not it would have stood up in a court of law is irrelevant since nobody was convicting him of anything. It did, imo, reveal how unfit the guy is to sit on the Supreme Court given the way he handled himself at the hearing, and not because he was sexually assaulting people as an adult. Even if Blasey Ford completely made up this story Kavanaugh would still have more credibility issues.

Edited April 9, 2019 by sistermagpie

[monakane]

On 4/7/2019 at 12:59 PM, iMonrey said:

I definitely think the #meToo movement scares the shit out of him. 

Yep.  I definitely think there might be some behavior that Bill is worried about coming to light.  I've always noticed that Biden is "touchy/feely" with people, but I'm reserving judgement unless I hear that his behavior was sexual.  I couldn't believe Bill was making light of the Kavanaugh accusations.   WTF?