Didn’t really say anything new.

Surprisingly, most of the things he recommended for CV19 are already being done, even health coverage for those with CV19. Still good to see him.

and then go around with his ideas and his followers. Actually, first tell his followers to vote for Biden and not for Trump. Or, worse, a third party candidate.

As long as Bernie is criticizing Trump or Republicans, which I hear him do a lot, he makes a lot of great arguments. At this point, it’s not helpful for him to attack individual Democrats and especially not the presidential candidate.

I'm talking, will actually work ideas?

to distract the audience from the elephant taking a dump in the ring.

Then he can appear as a Senator from Vermont. Right now - I did not hear - he is probably still being introduced as a Presidential candidate.

Ironically after 40 years those ideas are considered too progressive even by Democrats.

will spend the rest of her life in a home because of the shitty coverage for rehab...also expensive. Medicare is not cheap...Italy had this system and killed off their elders... a big no thanks. We can do better. Universal coverage done the smart way. We build on the ACA, strengthen the ACA...cut costs add a Public option...but Medicare is going to have to be made better.

Communication is much better than dismissal and chastising them at every turn.

They talk to people all of the time that haven't won or are unlikely to win presidential nominations. News channels are weird like that.

Many are quite clearly hiding their preferences, and a lot of people who had a preference at one time who were reverted to Undecided when their candidates dropped out are likely no longer posting. Half of those currently posting in Primaries certainly aren't undecided.

It seems silly to ostracize, stereotype, bully, and otherwise complain about them daily.

is 300 delegates behind and will be further behind after Tuesday.

on their show.

trump getting 4 more ******* years?

BS Lost.. there's no way to the nom for him and yet he's still taking donations. I wonder if they had the nerve, like Whoopi did, to ask him what his "narrow path" is?

And parroted GOP talking points about Hunter Biden.

"During the 1996 elections, Maher ... also endorsed Bob Dole -- not because they agreed on most issues but because Dole was a 'war hero'."

https://www.salon.com/2001/08/01/maher_4/

I didn’t know that

kind of 'sacred cow,' above criticism. That is just wrong, because when the party is doing stupid stuff, I for one will not hesitate to speak up, as I did against the DNC in 2016.

That said, Maher is now a Democrat, but has definite libertarian tendencies.

As to his support of Dole back in 1990, I'm mystified. I did not know that. Not ready to disown Maher about it though, as I was a Reagan Republican forty years ago, and then woke up about 38 years ago and became a Democrat. Haven't looked back since. But you cannot castigate someone for a decision they made forty years ago. Forty years is a long time.

In addition, if you say that we should disown Maher for something he did four decades ago, the we open our candidate up to a bunch of baseless criticism. In the case of both Biden and Maher, I'd say neither have done anything that will cause me to disown them, though I guarantee you I'll be watching Biden on Social Security based on his 1999 vote against the Social Security Lockbox. But I'm not disowning him now because of that, and that won't keep me from donating to his campaign and from volunteering for his campaign.

He wants to 'put the soul back in America' and that's a pretty darned good vision.

I never said that Maher should be disowned. And BTW this purpose of this site is to support the Democratic Party.

And I will dissent if I feel the party is wrong.

It isn't now, and we must defeat Trump. But then we can bicker.

Which Maher does often as well as inviting on RW guests, asking them softball questions and not pushing back when they lie.

notably when he had some politician on and asked if the real thing with the budget wasn't to 'tackle entitlements.' Having paid full-boat into Social Security and Medicare for about 40 years (at the time), I found myself yelling at the TV.

And, in better times, of course, Maher tried to get left, right and center on his panels. But then he stopped doing that most of the time because he had a few on who just basically kept talking and yelled over everyone else. That's the way they teach their people - don't listen and if someone brings up a conflicting point or calls out a lie, just raise your voice and keep talking.

So Bill stopped doing that pretty much.

Since Trump, he's basically had a different show. He's had a few noted right wingers on - Grover Norquist, Steve Bannon among them - but mostly people to the left, and he's been critical of Trump from the get-go - even during Trump's campaign.

Remember Bill is human, like you and me. Just a guy with a stand up routine. But he learned a huge lesson about this country when he spoke the truth shortly after 911, about how the terrorists who crashed the planes were not cowards, because they gave their lives, and that it was our policies, in part, which had created that terrorism. Capitalism, then, being the root cause of terrorism, though Maher didn't say THAT.

But he was fired, banned from TV for years, and he was bitter about that, so now he transfers his anger at the American people to Muslim countries. You can (or could) see Maher making rants about the danger of Islam. But remember he was persona non grata for what, eight or nine years, before HBO picked him back up again.

Of course, he also did Religilous, which was a paean to atheism, and he often did (to my mind) inappropriate rants or tangents where he would go off and argue religion with some guests.

So there it is. Maher is human. I watch him every time because he is funny, and I learn new stuff. For example, last night he had the Zombie movie guy on, who actually was asked by the government to observe and comment on a national disaster response exercise.

Now, this is important - they were talking about how some countries are using this disaster to impose more authoritarian forms of government. Concerning our exercise, the zombie guy said no, it wasn't about that. He said the exercise was based on a terror nuclear bombing of an American city, and that they had local, state and national government, plus a bunch of lawyers, because not only was the exercise about mitigating the disaster, but also about preserving our rights in the process.

I have participated in such drills - mainly 'table' scenarios, and contributed to the writing our continuity of operation plans at a very local level. But I never thought of it that way, and would not have thought of it that way had I not seen the zombie guy on Maher. That was useful to me. And, I didn't know Seth MacFarlane has cats. I'm a cat guy too.

So, no, to answer your question, I don't shy away from someone who is parroting right-wing talking points because if I do, then I won't hear them, think them out and learn to respond appropriately to them.

A last thing - I have suggested that we have politics forums on My Neighborhood app because people need to discuss these issues at all levels, with their neighbors. My own thought is that since we're neighbors and we know we're neighbors, maybe it will restore some civility to the discourse, while at the same time educating people who would not otherwise be educated about issues that affect them. This is what it is to live as a citizen in a republic - to be able to debate well with people who do not agree with you, then achieve a compromise that allows forward movement. We don't have that at the federal level, but if more people engaged at the local level in real debate, we would have less polarization.

Long answer, I know, but it is a thoughtful one.

It was ‘ Does dissent include parroting GOP talking points?’

BTW The last episode of Politically Incorrect was July 2002 and the first episode of Real Time was February 2003. So he wasn’t banned from TV for years.

But aren't we splitting hairs? I do not recall parroting GOP talking points. And yes, I did acknowledge that Maher has done that several times during these last years. But, as I say, I believe it is vital for us to HEAR the Republican talking points so we can figure out how, on social media, in a living room debate, in a neighborhood debate, and in our local political process, to argue effectively and compelling against them.

and he was never banned from TV.

And it’s one thing to call out GOP talking points, it’s another thing to repeat them as if they are the truth. When Maher does that or give Right Winger a platform and doesn’t call them out when they lie, he just gives them legitimacy.

You said earlier that the Democratic Party shouldn’t be above criticism but that Maher should be. Quite a double standard you got there.

Last night he did a whole big monologue about how trumps approval rating is going up. Unfortunately that’s last weeks news. This weeks news is he’s dropping. Gotta use current data if you’re going to be credible.

It's OK when people disagree with each other. It is not OK to demonize people because they disagree.

One donation gets him off the hook for everything else? Bloomberg logic.

It's a poor way to win elections.

But we shouldn’t call out people’s BS either?

It doesn't do any good to barrage people with unwelcoming attitudes. We need them in the fall. It's really stupid to subject them to flames every day.

What I am doing is calling out people's BS. There is no useful end to the endless bashing.

Even if I missed something in the thread title "Why are TV hosts interested in what Sanders has to say" about this not being about Sanders, it's in the primaries forum; expect overlap.

The thread reflects the same issue going on elsewhere here; the wedging away of people we have more common ground with than we don't.

I'm sick and tired of the tribalism. I am sick and tired of the scape-goating. I am sick and tired of seeing division for the fun of having the outrage.

I don't care if it's Sanders. I don't care if it's Maher. We have actual political enemies. That list doesn't include Maher. It doesn't include Sanders.

and so were all the responses. I agree that Maher is not an enemy but he’s not really a friend either.

That's my point. We should be spending this time aligning all of these people to roll into November with the biggest blue-wave ever seen.

Instead we devote entire thread to how agonized someone feels that Bill Maher gave Bernie Sanders a fragment of airtime on his multi-guest comedy talk-show.

Jay Inslee was interviewed once the show and no one cried out in horror.

at the same time.

Why not walk to build coalitions and chew on winning election strategies?

There really is little point in making enemies of potential friends.

regardless of where they come from. Someone doesn’t get a pass because they agree with us sometimes.

most definitely not talking apples to apples.

Maher has a net worth of $100 million.

Bloomberg has a net worth of $55.8 billion.

So, way different story here. As an economist, I do believe that the very existence of billionaires represents a substantial failure in fiscal policy.

But, interestingly, I had this argument with my son just the other day, holding myself up as a model of non-greed. He popped my little balloon promptly, and said that even I want more. He said being a billionaire is about wanting just a 'little bit more' as a constant state.

I did not concede the point, though, because it seems to me that we need a tax policy in place that is confiscatory down to, say $500 million, and a hard cap for CEO compensation to $500,000 a year. No one needs to earn more than that, and no one needs to have a net worth above half a billion. They just don't.

Now, as to your other point, the fundamental question is whether we should excuse either Bloomberg or Maher from holding positions with which we disagree merely because both have donated substantially to the Democratic party.

Bloomberg is a Republican, as befits his net worth, because their policies actually benefit him, but switched to the Democratic party for convenience. Interesting. Now I don't know his real motive, because I'm not inside his head, but judging by what he has done, he made some noise about spending big money on ads against Trump even if he lost the Democratic primary, and he seems to be doing that. Here's his latest released at the beginning of last month:

At least Bloomberg doesn’t attack the Democratic Party, which has done for years.

I would like to hear that.

I was a Warren supporter until she regrettably bowed out.

Here's the thing, though, that I noticed tonight when I watched Maher interviewing Bernie:

Maher asked what Bernie would do if he were president, and he was doing fine - said we need to keep the workers getting their full paychecks and their healthcare, and enact legislation that anyone who is hospitalized or otherwise requires treatment for COVID-19 won't have to pay out-of-pocket. OK so far because we have to keep demand for goods and service up.

BUT, then Bernie went on to say that people should be able to stop paying rent, mortgages and so on. Problem with that is if they are getting their full paycheck, why would we also allow people to forego paying rent or their mortgage? That seems a bit like double dipping.

Also, Bernie did castigate Congress for giving Mnuchin $500 billion with few strings attached to throw at corporate America. And, yeah, that isn't good. At all.

BUT, Bernie said nothing about small businesses and small business owners. These people are the backbone of the economy and they are getting hit hard.

Bottom line is I think Bernie is too doctrinaire for the presidency during this crisis because we need a president who is thinking about the needs of all Americans. I think Biden is that person.

And...I'm kind of hoping he picks Stacey Abrams as his VP. I don't think he will, but she'd be fantastic. She's utterly top notch, and would be quite able to do the job if Biden for some reason could not.

A good analysis of the interview. You make some sound points about strengths and weakness Sanders displays. I agree with most of them, and do not disagree with any of them sufficiently to argue the point.





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

The rabid dislike for him and other leftward liberals on DU is unnatural and unfortunate. Like you, I don't quite think he's who I want for president. I do like the left having a voice, again.

With so many of his followers voting for Trump in 2016 or staying at home because he would not bother to strongly calling on them to vote for Hillary? A play which may well be repeated in November?

Because of him bashing the Democratic party, his intent of really destroying it, him hijacking our primaries and caucuses by not "contaminate" himself by being a Democrat?

Some day, some historian will write about how damaging Sanders has been for the Democratic party, how instrumental he has been for getting Trump in the White House with disastrous results for the whole world.

I think our strategy should be to reduce that problem, not exacerbate it.

One way is not to antagonize fellow DUers with a barrage of daily hate. Yes that barrage is unnatural and unfortunate.

First of all Democrats did put over sight on the $500 billion. Nancy already has a bi- partison group in place. Led by Jim Clyburn.

This is a short term problem but will be a disaster for many. Nancy and Democrats are already laying plans for an Infrastructure bill to help get the country out of the ditch. Mitch and company will moan and bitch but they will not dare not pass it. Trump would give his eye teeth to sign a bill.

Cuomo is now invoking FDR as to what he did. He praised Pelosi yesterday!

will go up to around $8 trillion.

You know what is strange to me, and probably a bunch of other Americans?

Here we've been told all along we cannot afford healthcare for everyone, and we're going to have to rein in so-called 'entitlements.' And that we cannot afford other safety net programs because...

But now, here the government is firing up the presses and creating trillions to keep everyone afloat. Oh, the Republicans are their usual inhumane selves, arguing that a minimum wage worker living in her car doesn't deserve a lousy extra $600 a week, but the Wall Street lizards need $500 billion. Something definitely WRONG with that picture.

And in that contest, likes to display how 'balanced' its coverage is.

Thus a losing contender will be propped up and trotted out for interviews and talk shows, even though the contest is actually concluded. This keeps up the pretense there is an ongoing race, and shows coverage is 'balanced' between the contenders.

Covering political campaigns solely as races, in terms of who is ahead and who is behind, and not in terms of what a candidate's policies are, and whether he or she shows promise of getting same enacted is one of several besetting sins of our political reporters as a class. It is not wholly due to perversity on the part of the commentariat, but flows naturally from the wide disinterest the general public displays towards the political life of the country. The people who engage in commentary for a living understand that without some 'hook' of conflict, even in an election year they would have a hard time drawing much of a crowd. As for the question of 'balance' in coverage, that is covered quite well by the old saying that 'A journalist's job, when someone says it's raining and someone else says it isn't, is not to report that opinions differ, but to step outside and see if he gets wet."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

First, I'm glad I read all postings before signing on! With Magistrate I agree 100% - the media is doing it to "keep things interesting" - the very same reason IQ45 got SO much free TV when he started his campaign, and clear through the Russian upset of 2016.

Regarding my not having stated a preference for a candidate (somebody posted the "undecided numbers" earlier in this thread): I have not posted one here because I'm trying to prevent any prejudgment by anyone caring to read my own entry. I think it helps keep "an open mind" regarding the comments that I may be making.

As for my support: I'm voting BLUE, no matter who!

When you used to sit around with your friends, smoking dope and eating KFC and Twinkies? The world shaking conversations you had?

Bernie is like one of the boys, his message sounds awesome when you are stoned, not so much later. I like his message, but I realize that most of it is a pipe dream.

He still has a voice, I don't begrudge him the right to exercise it, and I don't begrudge his followers. (I voted for McGovern) I don't blame him for trying to nudge the conversation to the left.

However, when the nomination is over, officially, then Sanders needs to bring his flock to the Democratic pasture. If not, in the future, whenever his name is spoken, people will have to turn their heads and spit.

I've always wondered who the other person was that voted for McGovern along with me!
The small amount of joy I had from all of that was that I had saved a McGovern campaign pin.
The day Nixon left I pulled it out and made a larger "background" pin around it and proudly wore it for a week or so.
It said: "TOLD YOU SO!"

Sanders has already had a bigger impact on the political environment than any other Democrat.

You keep telling yourself that while ignoring that he’s not saying one damned thing that Democrats haven’t been saying all my 58 years.

We don’t need preaching about it while being too lazy to get any of it done from the likes of a self-serving phony like BS.

law, but universal coverage which will come from adding a public option to the ACA will happen. What Sanders says, Democrats have said for years...and John Conyers had the first Medicare for All bill on the floor...and that is a fact. A Democrat had the first M4A bill on the house floor.

"The United States National Health Care Act or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (also known as Medicare for All) is a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by former Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in 2003, with 25 cosponsors."

arguing against employer-provided insurance as being a bad idea, and for reasons that we now see becoming reality. In many ways, his harping on our sub-standard health insurance system seems awfully prescient in hindsight. Sort of like Bill Maher sounding the alarm in 2016 that based on what he was hearing in the heartland, tRump was going to win the election.

For decades...how?

Not that Sanders is a D.

Then they will start ignoring him as irrelevant

that is not C-19.

JB zero times

More than usual

I mean could Chris be any more of a BS supporter?

and have something to talk about, I guess. Right now they are fixated on the virus. Bernie had something to say about it. Though I didn't listen well. I don't recall if it was really about the virus or Bernie's usual issues, which really don't apply. No matter what the health care system, it was going to be overwhelmed by the virus. Paying for the care is a whole different animal in a state of disaster.

They're interested because, like Trump, he causes controversy and that sells. The media is partly responsible for Trump being in office. They loved him during the election because of the ratings. They love him still, because of the ratings.

They are a for-profit enterprise. Never forget that.