Bill Maher Richsplains Liberalism to Progressives: “Go F*ck Yourselves” - General

[video=youtube;MfpuWd_t7MQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfpuWd_t7MQ[/video] (Actually be warned that contain some language and annoying "jump laughs" in some his videos) And this is [I]The Humanist Report[/I] (that is getting popular in months) with some mixed mature and radical progressive views. (And one more thing if you bias (Cone and Raidyr you too) feel souring, Just boxed it and I would leave your alone.)

He surely did not divide them. They divided themselves.

[QUOTE]Multimillionaire Maher, who works for Time Warner—Hillary Clinton’s 10th largest donor—took the time to #richsplain liberalism to progressive peasants. According to Bill, being liberal entails you peasants shutting up and accept the crumbs given to you by the Democratic Party, and if you refuse to fall in line, then you're a bad person—and you should feel bad![/QUOTE] What a great video description. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/j3Papkr.png[/IMG] Your sarcasm meter might be malfunctioning.

I mean he's fucking right You have to look at what your realistic options are, figure out which one will give you the best result, and go for it. Life is fucking complicated. Compromise is just a necessary part of getting things done. It's frustrating seeing people act as though letting shit fall apart because they're too "principled" to do anything constructive is the moral thing to do. It's nothing more than self righteous masturbation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52227789]I mean he's fucking right You have to look at what your realistic options are, figure out which one will give you the best result, and go for it. Life is fucking complicated. Compromise is just a necessary part of getting things done. It's frustrating seeing people act as though letting shit fall apart because they're too "principled" to do anything constructive is the moral thing to do. It's nothing more than self righteous masturbation.[/QUOTE] What I don't like is how people insist Clinton was a perfect candidate who didn't do anything other than be a woman to lose the election. No, she really wasn't a great candidate. She was sketchy as hell, and ran off a platform of having a vagina. If it wasn't her words, it was definitely the media's, who blindly defended her and completely ignored all of her policies.

People who voted for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson didn't hand the election to Trump. Hillary Clinton handed the election to Trump. Perhaps instead of bashing progressives, Maher (and the Democrat party leadership) should look to the working class Americans that defected to the Republicans in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan in order to see the issues they actually care about and how a future Democratic candidate can reach out and appeal to them.

The way I look at things, people shouldn't be fucking over each other when there's this volatile administration at the helm of one of the strongest powers in the world. It doesn't matter who won or lost last year, though we should remember how it got to that point over the course of 2015, 2016, and before such, as right now it's clear that the current driver is going to crash the car into the lake. The focus should be on restraining the administration and the forces that empowers it, in order to replace it with something ultimately far more stable. There must also be a focus on what to do to prevent such an event from occurring again via seeing what brought it there in the first place. There needs to be a vast reworking of elections from the government of the smallest city to that of the government of the country as a whole. It's something that's going to be hard, but it has the possibility of growing something that could put the country in a far better place than it was previously.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52227885]People in office work for their voters, not the other way around. Like lets not forget, the whole reason "I have public and private positions" Clinton was so brazenly awful a candidate is because she was gaming that "vote for the lesser evil" thing. Look up the pied piper emails. Why the fuck should candidates get office by just riffing on their opposition instead of being a competitive advocate for themselves? "Not Donald Trump" is not the fucking standard we should hold the most important political office on earth to. This lesser of the two evils attitude convinced the Clinton Camp they were accountable to no one.[/QUOTE] We sure showed them by putting this fucking catastrophe into motion. At least at the end of it all we'll be able to comfort ourselves with the thought that we upset a bunch of out of touch upper class morons.

[QUOTE=Penultimate;52227824]What I don't like is how people insist Clinton was a perfect candidate who didn't do anything other than be a woman to lose the election.[/QUOTE] Who suggested that. Certainly not Scorpio. Certainly not FP. I don't even see that sentiment in the bowels of r/politics, CTR headquarters during 2016. Maybe tackle the arguments presented to you in lieu of strawmen. Saying "I don't like how people insist Clinton was a perfect candidate" to farm agrees off of fucking Facepunch is the perfect illustration of what Scorpio means by masturbation. [QUOTE=Penultimate;52227824]No, she really wasn't a great candidate. She was sketchy as hell, and ran off a platform of having a vagina. If it wasn't her words, it was definitely the media's, [B]who blindly defended her and completely ignored all of her policies.[/B][/QUOTE] Her emails were the most widely covered news story of 2016 by every mainstream media source. As for ignoring policies I think you have that one back asswards. She was the only one who got policy coverage. The media ignored Sanders during the primary and never pressed Trump hard enough on specifics, letting him get away with vague bullshit about making Mexico pay for a wall and pulling out of NAFTA. Clinton was treated like someone who had been in politics her whole life while Trump was treated like a novelty until it was too late. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Hidole555;52227902]People who voted for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson didn't hand the election to Trump. Hillary Clinton handed the election to Trump. [/QUOTE] When he said he wasn't talking about the election he probably meant it literally. He could be just tlaking about the general sentiment that still exists on the left that somehow Clinton would have been just as bad as Trump. People were making those arguments before the election sure but the fact that they are still making them means that it's inevitable that someone like Maher is going to point out how absurd they are. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] He isn't bashing progressives, he is bashing [I]stupid[/I] progressives, because if you still hold to the idea that Clinton would have been as bad as Trump you are [I]stupid[/I].

people like Bill Maher shouting at progressives to ignore their principles and fall in line make me retroactively regret caving in and voting for h-dawg [editline]p[/editline] I don't like the language the guy in the video uses, and I don't necessarily agree with his assessment of Hillary's policy, but he's at least right in that people like Bill don't even try to understand the reasons that she lost to Trump. The more they refuse to recognize the problems in our system, the more I will regret my vote.

Bill Maher is one of those people who can have a good point sometimes but just comes across as a cunt when he tries expressing that point.

[QUOTE=1STrandomman;52228308]people like Bill Maher shouting at progressives to ignore their principles and fall in line make me retroactively regret caving in and voting for h-dawg[/QUOTE] In the immediate fallout of the election and revelations about Clintons campaign both during the primaries (where she siphoned money meant for state parties to her own campaign) and during the election (where she all but ignored rust belt states) I expressed regret for voting for her. That regret last until about the third day of Trump's presidency. I'm more than comfortable stating that what Clinton and the DNC did to not only Sanders and their own party, but to Americans, was detestable, and Clinton being rewarded with victory would have been an injustice, it would have been to the net benefit of this country in comparison to Trump.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52228364]In the immediate fallout of the election and revelations about Clintons campaign both during the primaries (where she siphoned money meant for state parties to her own campaign) and during the election (where she all but ignored rust belt states) I expressed regret for voting for her. That regret last until about the third day of Trump's presidency. I'm more than comfortable stating that what Clinton and the DNC did to not only Sanders and their own party, but to Americans, was detestable, and Clinton being rewarded with victory would have been an injustice, it would have been to the net benefit of this country in comparison to Trump.[/QUOTE] I definitely agree that she would have been better; that's why I voted how I did. ...but we shouldn't just accept it as normal that people should have to vote against their interests, and Hillary is the perfect example why. She built her campaign around being the lesser of two evils, and people are still arguing that she should have won on that basis despite all of the problems she had. I'm not an accelerationist; I don't think we should throw out everything we've built in the hopes of building something better from the ground up, but I also recognize the problems inherent in what we've built. If you ignore those problems and blame the voters instead, we will just end up having to choose the lesser of two evils again next election cycle.

[QUOTE=1STrandomman;52228412]I definitely agree that she would have been better; that's why I voted how I did. ...but we shouldn't just accept it as normal that people should have to vote against their interests, and Hillary is the perfect example why. She built her campaign around being the lesser of two evils, and people are still arguing that she should have won on that basis despite all of the problems she had. I'm not an accelerationist; I don't think we should throw out everything we've built in the hopes of building something better from the ground up, but I also recognize the problems inherent in what we've built. If you ignore those problems and blame the voters instead, we will just end up having to choose the lesser of two evils again next election cycle.[/QUOTE] The amount of people who ignore the problems of her as a candidate, the campaign, and the DNC are vastly outstripped by the amount of people who think people ignore her problems and blame the voters. Like this is what Maher said about Clinton [I]last month.[/I] [video=youtube;B9MOyME7ijg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9MOyME7ijg[/video] [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE]It verifies every bad thing that anyones ever thought of the Clintons[/QUOTE] --Not words uttered by someone who thinks Clinton didn't have problems. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52227719] (And one more thing if you bias (Cone and Raidyr you too) feel souring, Just boxed it and I would leave your alone.)[/QUOTE] Who did you vote for in the Democratic primaries? Or did you just immediately jump to Jill Stein?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52228432]Who did you vote for in the Democratic primaries? Or did you just immediately jump to Jill Stein?[/QUOTE] Bernie Sanders in my state, duh. And for Jill part is between second to four days of DNC event that Jill actually protests alongside with Bernie/Bust crowds. Which actually bother to look her site (and her (un)official social groups) and she has almost similar issues to him but little or less good as Bernie's issues. After that, I keep my words to defending myself from vocal more toxic shillies then you Raidyr and straightly focus on voting her until election day.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52228473]Bernie Sanders in my state, duh.[/QUOTE] I voted for Sanders too. So tell me exactly what you think my bias is. [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52228483]I think this thread is getting side tracked with the "which of these two is worse" because no one here has said (as far as I can tell) 1. Trump is the lesser evil 2. they're advocating accelerationism Secondly it doesn't matter what some nobody on FP thinks, at the end of the day the election is about convincing a diverse set of people (voters) into voting for a candidate. Whatever your personal opinions on the matter are, Clinton failed to attract enough voters, and the terrible things she did, said and embodies aren't "irrelevant" to the electorate because Trump is worse. Call voters dumb if you want, you have to deal with them either way.[/QUOTE] This thread got immediately side tracked because people on this board are fundamentally incapable of separating arguments that Clinton would have been better for a leftist than Trump from the belief that Clinton is the perfect candidate. I posted a [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1563433"]thread[/URL] about the Comey letter in Polidicks which featured a line explicitly saying Clinton made multiple mistakes during the campaign that were each individually bigger deals than the Comey letter and you still had someone who obviously didn't read the article say that it was "pure speculation" which was starred in kind by people who also, presumably, never read the article either. If anyone is shouting into the void, calling people dumb, it's those people. Not people like Maher, who are making entirely logical and rational arguments that, [B]holy fuck what a shock[/B], still aren't being challenged in either thread Chad made. Because why argue a point when you can just lazily repeat the same recycled post you made last August about how much Clinton sucks and bask in your righteousness and ratings because [B][I]everyone including Bill Maher agrees with you. [/I][/B]

this might be the most annoying video title/thumbnail combination of the year

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52228432] --Not words uttered by someone who thinks Clinton didn't have problems. [/QUOTE] He's still wrong in complaining about the voters.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52227753]What a great video description. [/QUOTE] I skipped over this but good shit. Talking about how Maher works for Time Warner, who is supposedly Clinton's 10th largest donor (Don't bother putting a source for the inane bullshit you say on the internet, you need space for your Patreon link!) carries the obvious implication that he is shilling for her while totally ignoring and obfuscating the criticisms he has levied against her in the past. Your source sucks OP.

[QUOTE=1STrandomman;52228412]I definitely agree that she would have been better; that's why I voted how I did. [B]...but we shouldn't just accept it as normal that people should have to vote against their interests[/B], and Hillary is the perfect example why. She built her campaign around being the lesser of two evils, and people are still arguing that she should have won on that basis despite all of the problems she had. I'm not an accelerationist; I don't think we should throw out everything we've built in the hopes of building something better from the ground up, but I also recognize the problems inherent in what we've built. If you ignore those problems and blame the voters instead, we will just end up having to choose the lesser of two evils again next election cycle.[/QUOTE] Except under First Past the Post, that is absolutely normal. There are two candidates, under normal circumstances, one of those two candidates is going to win. Neither of them is likely to be your ideal candidate, so you vote for the one that is least against your interests. This isn't a new idea. I don't know what it is about this that people struggle with, this is just how that system works. I don't like it and I have meant very few people that do, but them's the breaks. You work with what you've got until you can get something better. Certainly voters and those refusing to vote aren't entirely or even significantly to blame, but they still share a piece. Like it or not, they are a part of this system as much as Hillary is and, though they have significantly less influence over it than Hillary had, they still had a role. I don't believe in ignoring problems. Hillary was shady and shallow and hedged her bets upon a broken system, but those that saw her as the better candidate, but still refused to vote are a problem in and of themselves, because even without FPTP, even without the electoral college, no matter how good of a system you build, democracy is built on compromise - and refusing to do so in a democracy is fatal.

I think Hillary and progressive voters share the blame for what's happening, because they both made the same mistake: They refused to acknowledge that Trump had a chance to win, and what might happen if he did. Hillary assumed that her victory was so assured that she didn't even need to campaign. It was an incredibly foolish thing to do and it cost her dearly. But on the other hand, as feel-good as it may be to know that you stuck to your principals, it's a naive and frankly selfish way to look at the situation. Risking the very groundwork for the progress you've been fighting for just so you can have a clear conscience is a terribly irresponsible way to handle a situation like this. When you've got Bernie telling people to vote Hillary, citing the danger of a Trump presidency, and progressive voters start turning against him, it shows just how entitled and irrational many of them were.

[QUOTE=Rufia;52228618]Except under First Past the Post, that is absolutely normal. There are two candidates, under normal circumstances, one of those two candidates is going to win. Neither of them is likely to be your ideal candidate, so you vote for the one that is least against your interests. This isn't a new idea. I don't know what it is about this that people struggle with, this is just how that system works. I don't like it and I have meant very few people that do, but them's the breaks. You work with what you've got until you can get something better.[/quote] yeah, I get it. That's why I voted for hillary and advocate for change instead of protest voting, I just regret it when people like Bill Maher open their mouths. [quote]Certainly voters and those refusing to vote aren't entirely or even significantly to blame, but they still share a piece. Like it or not, they are a part of this system as much as Hillary is and, though they have significantly less influence over it than Hillary had, they still had a role. I don't believe in ignoring problems. Hillary was shady and shallow and hedged her bets upon a broken system, but those that saw her as the better candidate, but still refused to vote are a problem in and of themselves, because even without FPTP, even without the electoral college, no matter how good of a system you build, democracy is built on compromise - and refusing to do so in a democracy is fatal.[/QUOTE] I disagree that this result comes down to a failure to compromise in a way that justifies focusing on the voters, and I think trying to frame it that way is at best a distraction.

[QUOTE=Penultimate;52227824]What I don't like is how people insist Clinton was a perfect candidate who didn't do anything other than be a woman to lose the election. No, she really wasn't a great candidate. She was sketchy as hell, and ran off a platform of having a vagina. If it wasn't her words, it was definitely the media's, who blindly defended her and completely ignored all of her policies.[/QUOTE] This is revisionist, mostly due to reasons outlined by Raidyr's excellent post, but more simply just because Hillary was pretty run of the mill. The worst aspect of her candidacy was that she was painfully uncharismatic, but she was no more sketchy than any other office holder, was not blindly defended by the media (quite the opposite), and had a genuine platform and plenty of reasonable policies that were overshadowed by the media narrative on both sides of the aisle. Her campaign is another story entirely, which I think was very poorly run and had a number of critical errors on her camp's part, but as a candidate she was fairly ordinary if not above average for a career politician, which I suppose was her downfall given the context of the election.

Guys complains about Bill being unable to 'get' ""progressive"" politics because of money while broadcasting from a fiber optic connection and about 200 grand worth of audio setup. [QUOTE] I'll take [B]"I'M FUCKING TONE DEAF TO THE POINT OF BEING A CARTOON"[/B] for 1000, Alex[/QUOTE] When progressivists realize that [I]any[/I] platform, including theirs, is neither absolute nor 100% correct on any matter to every person on planet earth, they may actually start to make progress that doesn't include utterly meaningless upvotes and likes.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52228877][B]This is revisionist[/B], mostly due to reasons outlined by Raidyr's excellent post, [B]but more simply just because Hillary was pretty run of the mill[/B]. The worst aspect of her candidacy was that she was painfully uncharismatic, but she was no more sketchy than any other office holder, [B]was not blindly defended by the media[/B] (quite the opposite), and [B]had a genuine platform and plenty of reasonable policies that were overshadowed by the media narrative on both sides of the aisle[/B]. Her campaign is another story entirely, which I think was very poorly run and had a number of critical errors on her camp's part, but as a candidate she was [B]fairly ordinary if not above average for a career politician[/B], which I suppose was her downfall given the context of the election.[/QUOTE] Most all this look pretty revisionist with a rash of a cult of personality-like justification in most of the parts. One yea the media attack her in Primaries until she won the Democratic nomination, And then in general election, media defending either Trump and Hillary for ratings. But the second paragraph looks to make sense that her staffers are lazy but she also slow to realized that this isn't a political movie that most people instantly less likely go to her because of she not Trump herself and special in same time.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52228926]Where does the selective pressure come in then? If every candidate the DNC shits out is given the fast track to office every single time they run against a GoP candidate then there is little incentive for them to actually drive the country forward and make real change. The Democrats have to be able to lose, they need to be able face consequences if they make retarded decisions. I don't mean to suggest accelerationism, that they "have to" to lose, but holy fuck the candidate for the left in 2016 that said in secret to a bunch of wallstreet investors that the positions she espouses are [B]just a front to cover her actual agenda. [/B] To just TL;DR it, I'm not so concerned about 2016, or Clinton so much as I am scared of a degradation of the left in the long term. If she had won the Democrats would have been vindicated and likely have stayed their current course if not becoming even more brazen provided they can find another pied piper to signal boost in 2020. It's about more than just the results and aftermath of just one election.[/QUOTE] This would have been fine had she been running against anybody [I]other[/I] than Trump. Hell if she was running against Pence I probably wouldn't have fought so hard for her. But Trump was an exceptional danger, and should not have been allowed into office.

[QUOTE=Rufia;52228618]Except under First Past the Post, that is absolutely normal. There are two candidates, under normal circumstances, one of those two candidates is going to win. Neither of them is likely to be your ideal candidate, so you vote for the one that is least against your interests. This isn't a new idea. I don't know what it is about this that people struggle with, this is just how that system works. I don't like it and I have meant very few people that do, but them's the breaks. You work with what you've got until you can get something better. Certainly voters and those refusing to vote aren't entirely or even significantly to blame, but they still share a piece. Like it or not, they are a part of this system as much as Hillary is and, though they have significantly less influence over it than Hillary had, they still had a role. I don't believe in ignoring problems. Hillary was shady and shallow and hedged her bets upon a broken system, but those that saw her as the better candidate, but still refused to vote are a problem in and of themselves, because even without FPTP, even without the electoral college, no matter how good of a system you build, democracy is built on compromise - and refusing to do so in a democracy is fatal.[/QUOTE] And we're never [b]going[/b] to get anything better if we keep showing the people in power that this shitty, broken, awful system that provides candidates that represent no one but their own personal interests will continue to work in their favor. The only people who actually have the power to change the way the system works are the people who benefit from it the most, as long as you continue to show them that they can hold your vote hostage and get away with it with no consequences every single time, they aren't going to fix the problem because we aren't making it a problem for them personally.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52229033]And we're never [b]going[/b] to get anything better if we keep showing the people in power that this shitty, broken, awful system that provides candidates that represent no one but their own personal interests will continue to work in their favor. The only people who actually have the power to change the way the system works are the people who benefit from it the most, as long as you continue to show them that they can hold your vote hostage and get away with it with no consequences every single time, they aren't going to fix the problem because we aren't making it a problem for them personally.[/QUOTE] so the solution is to instead show them that the real pathway to success is to be the loudest, most insulting, most selfish, least competent person possible and appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52228342]Bill Maher is one of those people who can have a good point sometimes but just comes across as a cunt when he tries expressing that point.[/QUOTE] Yea pretty much and he still just pissing off lot his own leftist audience in recent times besides this like one time, he falling to Milo's trick in that debate as an example.

Coercing voters will never work. The fact that Donald fucking Trump is POTUS should be all the proof of that anyone ever needs. If the Democrats had any substance whatsoever, they would have won easily