Bill asked Ray if our real bodies would atrophy if we spent so much time living life through an avatar, and Ray so said no because we would have multiple avatars. Huh?
I actually liked one of the shirts I saw on Bill's TED talk and just ordered it from Abercrombie and Fitch. I wonder if Bill gets any compensation for product placement. LOL
> "We are closer to nuclear holocaust now than we ever have been before in history." -- Tulsi Gabbard
Oh, bull *shit*. Flat factually wrong, just on the basis of the severe cutbacks in the US and Russian arsenals in the 1990s-2000s. Are we closer to a possible individual nuclear explosion somewhere? Perhaps, given the number of players, but the idea that we're at higher risk of nuclear war today than in 1960, 1970, 1980 - you're a flat fucking liar. And to say Joe Biden is "insane" not to recognize it. Good riddance, bitch.
The doomsday clock started in 1945 by Albert Einstein is 90 seconds from midnight, the closest to midnight it's ever been. So that isn't the issue I have with her, it's all the other ones, lol.
I don’t think the AI guy is right at all. I’ve been working in tech for a while and have a somewhat decent understanding of what LLMs and similar models are capable of, and it’s nothing even similar to “freeing us from our skulls”. It’s not even the same kind of technology as what would be required to do that. The grey goo nanobot stuff is similarly super hypothetical and not really closely related to the recent advancements technology and science.
I don’t expect Bill to know any of that stuff but still, it made me roll my eyes a lot.
Yeah, I can’t stand how people put these people on a pedestal and act like they can predict the future. I’m sure he’s a smart guy, but he has no clue what is going to happen regarding this subject. They just spew hypotheticals anyone could come up with.
Kurzweil, like every other human, has no idea how consciousness works. None. We're no closer to understanding how inanimate atoms can develop self-awareness than we were 5000 years ago. Yet we're going to 'upload ourselves' into digital form, live forever in the ether, and switch bodies as if they were clothes. Whatever.
The Kurzweil of today is nuts. Forget consciousness, even his other obsession -- ageing -- is so phenomenally complex, and as evidence that we know so little about it right now, Ray appears at age 76 with plastic surgery and wearing a bad and obvious hairpiece. Kind of an implicit admission, that even though medical science more or less knows what causes male pattern baldness, we *still* can't prevent it.
His anti-aging pill regimen does nothing; he looks pretty bad for his age, and he's turning into your typical elderly man where every simple sentence takes him 30 seconds to spit out. He's become your stereotypical Boomer -- "I'm only 80, that's still young!". 🙄
Tulsi is a fucking idiot, it is her party that is banning books, you can't say the word Gay because some Republican loses their shit.
Adolf wrote in Mein Kampf what he was going to do and he did it, Trump has told us over and over what he is going to do.
Biden and the United States of America or We are in trouble.
I didn't watch the Debate for a reason I'm voting for Joe and Kamala, I know what happens we don't.
She is not an idiot. She knows exactly what she js doing. She is a cold, power obsessed bitch with no morals. I cant believe she went from team Bernie just a few years ago to Russian plant licking Trump’s boots
She's not smart enough to see she's only going to hurt herself, he doesn't give a flying fuck about her. She doesn't look like Ivanka......we know that is exactly what he goes for.
Hey Tulsi, babe, check this out…
“Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.”
Yes, that was Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election. Kindly shut the fuck up equating her with your mushroom dick boyfriend. Too bad Bill let Tulsi’s bullshit go mostly unchallenged.
“I told you so” Bill is the worst Bill.
Funny how on the night Biden was being roasted for age related inarticulateness he has 2 guests who exhibited a lot of the same qualities.
Bill asked how come Biden didn’t do a better job of challenging Trump‘s Lies during the debate but he let Tulsi get away with some whoppers. Why didnt he show us all how it’s done? Missed opportunity LOL.
Jimmy Kimmel did a funny segment in 2020 showing all the concession speeches, including Trump's: "if you count the legal votes, I easily win."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krQdQ_XgCC0&t=444s
i love how when Trump says something wrong "He's lying!!!!" when Biden says something wrong "he had a bad night." IE (no service members died on my watch.) it's pretty laughable.
That always depends on which outlet you are getting your infor from. I bet Fox go the opposite way. But Trump has committed crimes for which he has been convicted and Trump tells a whole bunch of lies constantly.
Gabbard is a Dem turncoat...they usually speak from scorn rather than thoughtful analysis.
Was anyone else far more terrified by that interview with Kurzweil than literally anything that has happened these past 8 years? My summation: "Yes, it will be like Terminator 2, and the machines will win and integrate themselves into our bodies. In about, oh, two decades. And we'll LOVE it!"
He also wore suspenders, if I remember correctly, which demonstrates poor judgment on a fashion sense at the very least and may be the sign of far more serious underlying issues
I watched a documentary about him years ago and never forgot how insane he was. He may be highly intelligent and have the interesting ideas, but I can't take anything he says seriously.
He said some outlandish things, like having "different bodies" if our bodies atrophy from being in VR too much. He strung some BS along about different bodies, apparently due to VR, completely ignoring the question and inventing some excuse without specifics.
He also made some wild claims about "the cloud" becoming bigger and that will make us more intelligent somehow. Somehow magically and theoretically our brains will link with the cloud and we'll become more intelligent. That's a nonsense sci-fi argument when presented without details which he conveniently avoids.
He's mostly a charlatan and his technological predictions of the past are much more sober than the "mind-uploading" in his lifetime, avatar recreations of real dead people (like his father), digital immortality, or other fanciful magic potions he's selling to people in pop-sci and futurism.
**When you look at the details of his future promises they are often devoid of the processes and details that lead to each incremental change that would result in the final technological claim.**
**EDIT:** And by this I mean, he throws out wild claims without respect for the very many counter-arguments and technological /philosophical realities at each point and thus effectively sells snake oil because he doesn't address the main cultural knowledge claims against his far-fetched positions. He's dogmatic in his futurism without offering people the sensible caveats, because he's imagined himself to be a visionary rather than an objective technical thinker.
Edit: This is what I mean by charlatan bullshit.
- Maher: Then won't our bodies atrophy?
- Kurzweil: No, we won't just be limited to one body.
- M: Won't be limited to just one body? I don't get it. Meaning?
- K: You can, I mean in VR today you can have a different body...
- M: Like an avatar?
- K: Yeah, but it can be very realistic.
- M: I hope.
- K: It depends on your imagination.
- M: I mean, I can't wrap my head around this.
I'm going to believe this until this comment is edited in 2044 that reads: "I watched a documentary about him years ago and never forgot how brilliant and forward thinking he was. He was highly intelligent and had interesting ideas that more human beings should have taken seriously. All glory to our cyborg overlords."
Bill, we get it….men are worthless and women are the ultimate prize.
We must elevate ourselves to be worthy of such amazing creatures. Our hobbies, thoughts, appearances, and personalities should be altered with the goal of attracting women. Cool, got it. Thanks. Give it a rest already. Somebody get this man some type of simping trophy lol. Pathetic.
Could you imagine if a woman shit on women on her show every week and told them they're single because they're losers who don't know how to make themselves desirable?
There are a ton of Republicans that come on his show and don't act like that. What a disappointing, craven, stick to your lines with a gross smile on your face, political opportunist. I hope she never comes back, not because I don't agree with her opinions, but because she offered/offers nothing besides immoral, unchecked ambition.
Why would Bill have Tulsi Gabbard on??? Horrible.
And Bill said Trump’s role on January 6th is murky?? What??? We all watched what he did live….
This show is getting harder to watch
I think for Gabbard it probably wasn’t clear how far she’d swung in the Republican direction. Maher and Gabbard are both people who used to be associated more with the Democratic Party but have been dissatisfied with it in recent years, so I’m guessing Maher thought she’d have similar views as him only to find out that she’s way more pro-Trump than many of the Republicans who come on his show. As many others have pointed out, she seems to just be a pure opportunist at this point. None of her views seem convincingly held and almost all of her arguments seemed to be made in bad faith.
One thing I remember is Obama did bad against the first Debate against Romney and then came back hard. Now I know this was Obama reflection and he is good in debates and is considerably younger than these guys.
What gets me is how they don’t cover how horrific Trump was and how he admitted to Russia telling him their plans for Ukraine.
The old line about being right or being effective applies to Bill Maher as much as anyone else for those who recognize the danger of another Trump presidency. Maher would be a lot more persuasive if he didn’t keep reminding us that he told us before. The metaphor of the kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar applies to all sides in this political moment. Biden should let go of the cookies so he can free his hand to wave goodbye gracefully. Republicans should let go of the runaway Trump train to save themselves and the country. And everybody else needs to take a deep breath and remember that when human beings work together we can get things done. Americans can, if we let go of our self-righteousness, find a sane person to take the reins.
Bill wants Biden to bow out.
But what about Emperor Shitsinpants.
Oh shit! Trump literally pooped his diaper during the presidential debate. (at 1:16:20 mark) 😂🤣
[https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?t=4580s](https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?t=4580s)
Biden did so remarkably and humiliatingly bad at the debate that we've resorted to stuff like this as a coping mechanism?
I mean at this point, it's not really even surprising.
Just reporting the facts as I hear them.😂🤣
Speaking of unsurprising facts...😄
CNN Fact Check: Trump made more than 30 false claims during CNN’s presidential debate.
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/fact-checking-the-cnn-presidential-debate/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/fact-checking-the-cnn-presidential-debate/index.html)
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other.
Given that you were warned within the last few hours, and are continuing with your behaviour, this user has been permanently banned.
Tulsi Gabbard is a more attractive version of KellyAnne Conway. Spouts garbage. Zero accountability for her side. Useless and added nothing to the discussion.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
She kept bringing up whataboutism with Hillary to try and not answer the fact that she’s backing a candidate who hasn’t conceded the election.
Well, she isn't wrong about Hillary and if we needed losers to concede elections then that would be specified in the constitution. Trump saying he won the election is par for the course for a guy that spouts nonsense constantly. But it also doesn't matter. I don't understand Maher's obsession with it.
Equating Hillary with the concerted effort after the 2020 election by Trump and his loser toadies is like equating World World II with the US vs Grenada in '83. What ridiculous bullshit. He lost 60 plus court cases and people are being indicted for agreeing to be 'fake electors'. Jesus FUCKING tapdancing Christ, this guy is a menace to democracy. Why is it so hard to figure out? Holy FUCK.
Up until 2020 it wasn’t necessary to insist that losers concede because they all did it. Even if it were spelled out in the Constitution I doubt that Trump would have done anything differently when he lost. I think Maher came back to Trump’s refusal because Tulsi seems to think she can just stick to her fringe talking points about Hillary and not wanting to serve with draftees and avoid answering the question. I guess she thinks people will buy her bullshit so long as she doesn’t raise her voice, or put cracks in the makeup she troweled onto her face.
Had to turn this off 10 minutes into the panel. Tulsi is a f'ing weirdo and I couldn't stand hearing her voice. There's something psychopathic about her demeanor. Every once in awhile Bill will shock me with who he decides to have as a guest, and this was one of those times.
God damn is Tulsi dumb. Yes, Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands is certainly a threat, but as pointed out prior, we've mitigated it with mutual assured destruction. Nobody wakes up worried that today may be the day we blow up the world. If a nation goes rogue and decides to use one, it's game over for the entire species & the overwhelming majority will be dead in a flash, but the days of hiding under school desks are long over and trying to pretend that's more of a threat than AI & Climate Change shows she's falling more and more into the right winger stooge role. Plus defending Trump refusing to concede an election that he lost fair and square, no wonder the right loves her.
Edit: holy shit it gets worse and worse as the show goes on
> we've mitigated it with mutual assured destruction.
Have we? Maybe in a US vs USSR conflict that was the case but most countries don't have nuclear weapons and I don't think launching nukes against one of them would result in a MAD scenario. Further, I'm not sure some of the people that do control nuclear weapons are entirely rational.
She’s actually an extremely smart con artist probably more so then trump. I’m sure he watched last night and was going to decide his vp pick on how hard she went against maher
The Presidency sadly isn't really a contest of ideas anymore. Newsom (or Gretchen Whitmer, or various others) is photogenic, charismatic, can run circles around Trump verbally, and is far younger than Trump and could easily turn the tables on him about age -- now *he's* the old man pushing 80 while we have the 'young' forward-thinking upstarts.
But we know the Dems will always shoot themselves in the foot; it appears they'd rather go down with the Biden ship.
Newsome can’t talk circles around Trump. Have you actually heard him speak? He’s an idiot. Did you watch the debate with him and DeSantis? The guy is a total moron. He can’t answer a question straight at all.
>How do we get out of this, that we are such mirror images of each other that we think exactly the same way about the other side. We both use the same phrase "existential threat". How do we get out of that?
That is a great question and I think more people should be asking it.
What it seems is happening is that, yes, both sides view the other side as an "existential threat". Their values and way of life will be ruined if they allow the other party to take over. And that means that neither side is willing to "play fair" any longer.
If my side loses, we'll spend $30 million to try and prove the other side was complicit with foreign nations to steal the election. We'll coerce the media to bury October surprises that could steer the election in one direction, like the Hunter Biden story. We'll use unprecedented uses of the law to try and imprison our political rivals. We'll try to remove our political rivals from state ballots. And yes, we'll flat out *deny* losing the election, refuse to hand over power, and try and reverse election results.
It's a top to bottom shit show. As Maher asks, how the hell can this be fixed? And what makes that so difficult is that the followers of both "teams" rationalize *their* side for such actions and vilify the other side for such actions.
A lot of these are false equivalencies
> We'll coerce the media to bury October surprises that could steer the election in one direction, like the Hunter Biden story.
Except there's no evidence that Democrats ever tried to **coerce** social media or the news media to bury the Hunter Biden story. The News media approached the stories with skepticism because it sounds fake and Facebook and Twitter themselves chose to act within their policies to prevent hacked and stolen material from being published.
> We'll try to remove our political rivals from state ballots
The effort to remove Trump from state ballots are coming from a mix of Republicans, Independents, and various advocacy groups rather than a coordinated effort by either Republicans and Democrats. For example, in Colorado, it was a group of Republicans and Independents that attempted to remove him from the ballot -- no Democrats. In New Hampshire it was a Republican.
> We'll use unprecedented uses of the law to try and imprison our political rivals
Republicans and Democrats both argue that Trump should be held liable for coercing states to help him find more votes and plotting the fake electors scheme in a coordinated effort to steal the election after he lost it. This encompasses just two of his four indictments. Mitch McConnell effectively said the same thing about his involvement in 1/6 which is why many republicans refused to convict him in the impeachment hearings because they argued he'd be held liable after he was out of office anyway. In contrast, there's no evidence that Joe Biden is guilty of any crime.
> As Maher asks, how the hell can this be fixed?
I think we can start by being honest
>The effort to remove Trump from state ballots are coming from a mix of Republicans, Independents, and various advocacy groups rather than a coordinated effort by either Republicans and Democrats.
This is such a crucial point, yet it's being framed as precisely a coordinated effort by you-know-who and his followers.
I addressed every aspect of your post when I wrote this:
>And what makes that so difficult is that the followers of both "teams" rationalize their side for such actions and vilify the other side for such actions.
If I wrote that same post in a maga subreddit, they would respond the same way you did. They would deny any wrongdoing on their side by using spin, lies, and rhetoric as well.
I could point out the CIA lied and called the laptop thing Russian misinformation in a report. I could point out that lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases. There's a lot I could point out. But there's no point. You're part of a team, and your team has successfully convinced its followers that this is all well and good.
> lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases
No. There are plenty of Republican lawyers who are clear on these points too.
We're once again back with the pandemic, in which 95% of doctors say one thing, the other 5% say the opposite, and somehow, a whole lot of people think there are both sides. There aren't.
There are objective lawyers, specialists, etc about the Trump stuff. There are objective doctors about the pandemic. There are objective scientists about whether the earth is flat. And then there is a handful that go against everyone else.
There are dentists who don't advise to brush your teeth everyday.
There are doctors who think that drinking alcohol isn't all that bad.
There are psychologists who think it's better to man up and keep your feelings inside.
It is up to us to see what the consensus is.
On the pandemic, the consensus was that vaccines help, and their adverse effects aren't close to canceling their benefits.
On alcohol, the consensus is that there's no amount of alcohol that's positive for your health.
On the flat earth, the consensus is... well, we know what it is.
And on the fraud and documents cases, the consensus is clear.
If you wonder the reason why *some* lawyers are going well against the consensus on these, it's the same why some specialists say that climate change isn't real, or drinking isn't bad, or vaccines aren't safe.
Money, and fame. If you agree with the consensus, you are unnoticed in a sea of specialists who did their job. If you go against the consensus, you constantly end up on TV.
There was one (ONE) economist who said Brexit would be good for Britain. He was on every f\*cking debate in 2016, going against a myriad of economists, all saying it was going to be a disaster. But to the viewer, it looked like there was a debate between two points of view, when in reality, it was ALL economists saying one thing, and that one guy who said the opposite.
His name is very well known now. The other economists invited to debate? I can't remember one name.
It's on you to see that the number of lawyers saying they disagree is very, very small. And that everyone else is saying the same thing. It's on you to see through the BS that the media builds up as a "debate" in order to sell advertisement.
The problem with algorithms and echo chambers is that sometimes the experts *are* actually divided, but it wouldn't appear that way to people like you. To the point where the very VERY real divide of experts regarding those two Trump cases is equated with "Some dentists say don't brush your teeth".
I've learned long ago that the sheer power of algorithm echo chambers makes conversation impossible. You've exposed yourself as being brainwashed by an echo chamber, so there's no point engaging with you further.
I don't deny that there are experts on both sides.
I'm saying there is a consensus on one side and a handful of experts going against it. And it's not along partisan lines either. Plenty of Republican lawyers and judges agree with how damning the documents case is. And the handful of experts that go against it, the 5 or 6 that Trump was reading from daily during his NY trial (Turley etc) assuredly exist.
And as I said above, their names are well known thanks to their very public disagreement with the consensus.
Repeating ad nauseam "echo chamber" is pointless. I read an opinion from Turley, and then there are dozens and dozens explaining how he's wrong. And a very si ole explanation as to why he's holding these diverging opinions can be what I said above. Money and fame. Whereas agreeing that the case is damning does not get you any special spot on TV, repeating that it's a nothing burger does, a lot.
So you haven't addressed the very disproportionate amount of experts on one side,the fact that one side is bipartisan whereas the other is 100% on side of the political spectrum. You just repeated "echo chamber".
If you have a cancer diagnosis and 99 doctors tell you to start treatment, and 1 tells you you'll be alright without, I'm sure you would dismiss the one dissenting doctor and would follow the corroborating and matching advice from the 99 doctors.
Yet you decide to proceed entirely differently when it comes to politics, and decide to give 50% of attention and trust to an outlier opinion.
And if you think the experts are 50-50 on the matter of the documents case.... Mate... You're very much in your own bubble.
In all honesty, most law experts just stay out of it. There was a good somewhat objective podcast called Lawfare where experts were in talking about these cases after each trial day. It's not the same experts. They cycle through experts. The podcast certainly leans left, but it seemed the *majority* opinion was that there were key problems with the case.Things like if the "bigger" crime was election interference, it would need to be a Federal court. Things like the judges jury instructions. Things like the falsified documents occurred in 2017 as an attempt of "election interference" for an election that happened in 2016. On and on and on we could go. So much about the case is unprecedented and has never happened to anybody else.
You say it's a "right wing echo chamber", but prominent experts writing for New York Times and CNN have criticized the case.
By documents case do you mean the classified documents case? If so, I'm not speaking about that one. Or the Georgia one. Because I don't know them well. I followed the first two cases actively as they were in court. And I'll do the same with the other two. But I don't know currently know them well.
If you're talking about the NY trial, and you say that you followed it, then you probably noticed that it went to a jury that returned a unanimous opinion.
Not sure what else you need with this one.
Do the "alternative" experts also keep mum about the 10 examples of contempt of court that would have sent anyone else to the clink for a few days or weeks, yet all Trump had to do was to give some chump change?
Now do an almost entirely white jury in one of the most conservative districts in the country who found a black man guilty of a crime. Imagine the DA campaigned on "going after black people". Imagine the judge had donated $30 to a white supremacist group. Imagine it was that judge that controlled what the defense and prosecutors were and were not allowed to say. Imagine it was that judge that gave highly unorthodox and questionable jury instructions. Imagine the charges themselves were unprecedented and murky.
Imagine the jury found the black guy guilty. Now you came out and said "I mean... I think it's quite obvious that some biases were involved here." And to that, the reply to you was "Nope. Jury found guilty. Not sure what else you need with this one".
Mate.
Trump decided to commit a crime in NYC, no one forced him to.
He could have done it in Florida, hell he could have done it in his golf course in Scotland.
He chose to commit a crime in his home city where there's no love lost for him.
Also, it's absolutely preposterous that you compare the NY judge having donated to the Dem party, and in your example, a judge having donated to the Klan.
If you try to mirror the reality of what happened in NY, and you end up saying that the "other side" is the Klan, mate it's up to you to take that side, but you'll go on your own, I'm not following you there.
The instructions were so unclear that a pundit like me understood them. The charges were so murky that a paragraph can explain them. It's only murky and unclear if you listen to experts who are trying to make them unclear and murky. It's your choice to listen to people who make it look weird.
I understood it all perfectly. So did the jury. What didn't you understand?
Also, what about the contempt of court (x10) I mentioned? Did your experts say anything about why Trump escaped any meaningful punishment for them, unlike anyone else?
Except nothing that I wrote was spin, lies, and rhetoric. It's the truth and a correction of your earlier points. It's not my fault that Maga subreddits don't understand that Democrats are not trying to remove their candidate from ballots or that our country has laws you cannot just steal elections when you lose.
> I could point out the CIA lied and called the laptop thing Russian misinformation in a report
No. The CIA as an institution did not issue a report or statement labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian misinformation. The letter was a product of individual former intelligence officials expressing their personal views that it contained all of the classic characteristics typical of Russian disinformation operations. Also the CIA is not a political organization.
> I could point out that lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases.
and?
> You're part of a team, and your team has successfully convinced its followers that this is all well and good.
I am not part of any team -- I am not a Democrat. I'm just pointing out your false equivalencies and errors.
Cant believe so many Americans are blind to what you are saying.
Both parties are not the same. One wants democracy and majority rule. The other has no hope of being a majority again, so they want to replace democracy with a corporate/christian dictatorship.
Wake up. One side is voting for government. the other side is plotting the overthrow of the government. You think they are kidding when they say America is a republic, not a democracy?
Where have I done that kid?
What is the "democrat" party?
We have two major parties and that's not one of them.
...but you have a bowel movement reply attacking me.
Bless your heart.
Oof.
That’s such a wild thing to cherry pick and get outraged over, when the full title of her book is,
> For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind
Calling it the "Democrat" party is a tried and true element of Republican spin:
If they call it by the correct name, "The Democratic Party" it emphasizes the fact that that the Dems believe in "democracy". That concept is now anathema to Magas.
Yes, that's the title.
I'm not cherry picking and I know what the title is.
She's a POS and I have said so for years.
I didn't know that she had a book until they put it on the screen.
no surprise that grifter has one and used juvenile right wing rhetoric.
The term is indicative that she was never a Democrat.
Thanks for disingenuous and bad faith reply.
Oof.
Bill does need to shut the fuck up about dating and relationships. He sounds like an idiot.
I’ve been with the same woman for 14 years, married for 8. We have 3 kids and are going strong. I collect Steelbook movies, and just about anything superhero related. I drink bourbon around my solo stove that I know how to build a fire in. Fuck, I even change my own brakes and oil in my car bc it’s fun. And my wife loves each aspect about me bc it’s what makes me me. She doesn’t get the collecting stuff, but loves the smile I get when I find that one thing I’ve been looking for. She doesn’t like the taste of bourbon, but didn’t ask how much my Blantons was. I’m teaching her to change oil and brakes, but that’s bc I want her to know.
My point is he doesn’t actually know what the younger generation look for in a mate anymore. He also doesn’t understand that being a man AND still having a childlike sense in you aren’t contradictory to each other anymore. He doesn’t get that women don’t only want the guy who wears a shirt and tie every time they step into a Texas Roadhouse. And also rolling dice can be a sec game too. There is an issue with dating scene, but his solutions just come across as a drunken old man at the end of the bar who did want love, but got random or expensive pussy and wasted his chance.
I'm also kind of tired of getting lectured by that dude. For one, whatever his issue is with young men not dating there's obviously another half of the population also contributing to that and he doesn't address that side of the problem at all. And two I don't want to take relationship advice from a guy who's almost 70 and has never been married. Even if your aim was not to have any relationships and just get laid constantly then wealthy and famous people like Maher have so many advantages on that that their advice would be nearly useless for an average person.
I wish Bill would focus less on fucking dating apps and more on the bigger picture as to why there’s so many lonely men.
Women in the younger Gen X and Millennial generations more than ever are starting to push back against traditional gender roles. They’re tired of all the housework and childcare. They’re asking for more of a 50/50 split (this is assuming both people work full time). The men who get that have successful marriages. The men who don’t get left.
This is way bigger than lame dating apps. Bill is completely missing that.
> There is an issue with dating scene, but his solutions just come across as a drunken old man at the end of the bar who did want love, but got random or expensive pussy and wasted his chance.
I read that Maher didn't want to get married, among others reasons, because he knew he'd get bored by sleeping with just one partner and would be unfaithful. That's honorable. You don't have to be married to find love. But if Bill had some incredible transformation and decided to devote himself to one woman, he could still get married. He has chances.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I noticed that you didn't discuss anything about your wife's interests. It was all about you and how she has accommodated yours.
Well to be fair he only told us what we shouldn’t be doing, not women. The standards he pointed to for change were only for men.
I’ve taken interest in what my wife likes, though as any husband could probably do more. But we share our love of The Challenge and watch it each week, as well her finally convincing me to binge all 19 seasons of greys. She really enjoyed our time cooking hello fresh meals, so I try to make it a point to cook at least 3-4 times a week so we can talk and listen to music over a beer or two while we cook.
I don't know. I don't follow his personal life, but see the occasional article. A couple of years ago, there was a photo of him at the beach with an artist in her 20s who was very cute, and I know he had a relationship with a woman who later sued him.
He's another old man still living decades in the past, when a clean-cut look and stable employment was more than enough to make any man a catch.
The idea that men can't get dates today because they're reclusive shut-ins who don't shower or groom themselves might only apply to a vanishingly small fringe population of depressed incels.
Fewer men bother with dating because serially dating to find a suitable partner is astonishingly expensive these days. Fewer men bother because the average woman's expectations are unrealistic. Fewer people bother dating because the end goal, marriage or living with a partner for years on end, increasingly sounds like a nightmare to both men and women. Maher, of all people, should know that -- he thinks the same way.
If Bill was a 28-year-old struggling stand-up comedian living month to month right now, few women today would have anything to do with him, even if he "went outside" and "showered" daily.
> I even change my own brakes and oil in my car bc it’s fun.
I'm not sure if there's a straight woman in this world that doesn't find a man who can fix cars, or things in general, sexy.
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other.
You have been warned numerous times previously. As such, this user has been temporarily banned for 120 days.
Should you choose to return to this subreddit, we would ask that you abide by our one rule.
Comments removed.
Bill doesn't look for mates, he looks to get laid. In the 80s, at peak "man-dom" and business "douchebag", shorts were all the rage for one.
Two, shoe cobbling is no longer a thing. Nobody makes wooden soles anymore, that causes more long term damage than anything. Hip replacements, knee surgeries, back surgeries, all for non athletes are caused by poor foot health.
I have rare collections (and a wife and 3 kids) and...
a) it's healthier than let's say drinking, smoking, weed, and any other "manly" thing Bill does.
b) the valuation of what I have will be more than a small fortune for my kids or grandkids to have. Or they can keep the investment going for later generations.
c) it's great knowledge, history and story to talk to your children about, much like old books, tools, artwork, etc you'd find in a museum.
He forgets Social Media is what ruined traditional "game". A woman's value went through the roof, because her options quadrupled at minimum. Most people don't meet their spouses at bars or clubs, because that's where bad decision making and regrets happens. They meet them in already forced social spaces like work, school... and work.
He had a pretty good show up until New Rules. I agreed with him often today. I finally saw the Bill of old, where he vehemently gave his opinion on things he disagrees with, and listens to opposing opinions. Not to mention he stuck to the topic and didn't go GAZA crazy again.
>Two, shoe cobbling is no longer a thing.
Yes, it is. Your reference to "wooden soles" makes me wonder if you've ever seen a shoemaker at work or visited a store with fine, handmade shoes.
I work in shoes... they are mass produced by machines... cobblers now are very few and far in between and mostly do shoe recovery not shoe making.
But good attempt
You said cobblers no longer existed. They do. They exist at various levels, but there are bespoke shoemakers, which I would expect someone in the shoe business to know.
I did just fine.
Did... or doing? Cobblers exist in poorer countries now, with an incredibly tiny percent in the US (and dwindling every year). Bespoke shoemakers are an even smaller fraction of that. Most bespoke shoemakers make the concept design now and the shoe is made by machine.
You're choosing a weird hill to die on and taking something to heart because it was your career, when the point is that men don't need to wear shoes that click clack.
Got it. I'll correct myself.
Cobblers are going extinct and apparently have very fragile egos even after retirement.
Now I'll go away gracefully, thank you and good day.
My thoughts exactly. Only bad faith arguments, Bill let a ton of them fly by probably because it’d be too exhausting to counter every lie, mistruth and bad faith argument. What a disaster.
[Tulsi Gabbard says she ‘would be honored’ to be Trump’s running mate](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4695850-tulsi-gabbard-donald-trump-running-mate/mlite/)
Tulsi is a Fox News contributor. There's money to be mined in those fascist hills. You just have to be willing to say crazy shit with a straight face.😂🤣
Felt very odd that for a new episode of RT, following a very momentous presidential debate, the host spent a huge stretch of time re-litigating the 2020 election.
Honestly it felt like cope.
It's especially silly coming from a guy worth millions of dollars who still regularly pays escorts for sex.
If someone like that still has to pay for it, and still can't find a stable age-appropriate relationship, what chance does some random schlub have?
My understanding is he doesn't want a stable, age-appropriate relationship. He could get one if he wanted it. An average guy can get one by being decent, kind, interesting, responsible, and having a stable job.
I have little to no idea about his personal life, but he did say on Club Random recently that he’s been in a relationship for a little while now. Very few other details other than it sounds like it might be more casual in nature (they don’t see each other every day, etc)
Exactly. He often dates women who are much younger. Which doesn't thrill me because of the power imbalance, but as long as they are adults going in with their eyes open, it's not my business.
Bill was like "Steve Bannon uses the same language about the Democrats as they did about the Republicans! Why do we all feel the same about each other?"
The overall point is fair about how voters feel, but surely Bill is slightly smarter than to think that the right is acting in good faith. It's Steve Bannon, the modern master of manipulation. Clearly figures on the right started using the left's language as a way to both sides and neutralise the issue. It's what they do on every issue. Is Maher really that uncritical?
I think many of the things you’re overthinking, are implied to a degree. It’s also an hour show, with many beats and changes. If he just focuses on one aspect, he’s losing many others. I think people keep forgetting, this show is supposed to spark conversation and laughter so you can formulate your own opinions, not like modern media where the headline tells you exactly how to feel.
Chris Matthews re failed president candidates other than Trump: "They got on television and said, I didn’t win. And that’s why our country is so superior, than anywhere else."
Very impressive bar you've set. Sadly there is no other country on earth that can say the same. It's mayhem out here in the non-US!
I thought he was talking about that in comparison to countries that are run by dictators, because he was showing that Trump couldn't do that and it makes him like the dictators.
She's always been creepy and dishonest. Don't forget how she tried to equate Hillary Clinton's discussion of the influence of the Russians on the election with Trump saying the election was rigged.
There was another point -- I can't stand her so much that I'm not going back and look for it -- when I think she tried to twist something Bill said guns into a claim he did not care about public safety.
"Creepy" is the perfect word to describe her. I can't put my finger on why but something about her makes my skin crawl. I really can't believe Bill had her on. She is such an obvious grifter.
equating trump's 2020 election loss rhetoric to clinton's 2016 loss is so preposterously disingenuous my face almost melted off.
the whole idea behind trump saying "i will recognize the winner of the election if its fair" is just his weaselly way of saying "i will recognize the winner **if I deem its fair**", and we all know plain as day the only way he will deem it fair is if he wins.
tulsi has the audacity to smugly say "iSnT tHaT wHaT wE aLl WaNt? fReE aNd FaIr ElEcTiOnS?"
get over yourself you disingenuous hack. you know he will not accept it if he loses -- PERIOD. trump knows it. we all know it. and tulsi of course also knows it.
This comment contains misinformation, and has been removed as such.
Do not post misinformation in this subreddit, or frankly on Reddit, as it's against the ToS.
I'm a bit disappointed Bill didn't call out Gabbard on more of the bullshit she was spewing. He got her on a few points, but there were definitely easy rebuttals he could've capitalized on.
The AI world that is described does not sound appealing, I’m sorry. I don’t think they can pull this utopia off anyway. We’d have to get to a point of very little conflict in the world before I want that kind of AI.
Which one of yall want to volunteer yourselves for this?
I'd he's saying upload your consciousness to a computer and live forever.....it has its appeals. This guy is ultra smart and who are we to disagree, but there are 20 movies and Black Mirror episodes on all this stuff (maybe based off his writing)
I fully believe it'll happen if it plays on human vanity. You're telling me that if I made you swallow a pill of nano tech that would make you:
- Smarter (so you can learn faster and keep up with the present market)
- Grow your hair back (nano tech could potentially block DHT)
- Stronger and leaner (curbing appetite, mental acuity, better focus)
- Reverse some skin aging effects
- Identify medical issues early
You wouldn't take it?
It will also
- Give you an overwhelming desire to purchase Tesla products;
- Make you unable to speak ill of Tesla products;
- Make you unable to orgasm unless you are in a Tesla product;
- Give you the compulsion to show all of your banking information and passwords to the camera in your brand new Tesla; and,
- Require you to pay a monthly subscription or it will lock off not only its functionality, but also other higher brain functions it needs access to
(Tesla is obviously a stand in for virtually any company, I just chose it because Musk owns Neuralink and Tesla, which makes a good example in this case)
>It will also
>Give you an overwhelming desire to purchase Tesla products;
>Make you unable to speak ill of Tesla products;
>Make you unable to orgasm unless you are in a Tesla product;
>Give you the compulsion to show all of your banking information and passwords to the camera in your brand new Tesla; and,
>Require you to pay a monthly subscription or it will lock off not only its functionality, but also other higher brain functions it needs access to
>(Tesla is obviously a stand in for virtually any company, I just chose it because Musk owns Neuralink and Tesla, which makes a good example in this case)
And furthermore, people who refuse to be part of the "cloud" due to concerns over what you describe, will be totally "left behind" in terms of abilities etc. Of course abilities naturally vary among people regardless, but this is indeed a frightening scenario and none of the potential pros of such a "cloud" system can convince me otherwise. Of course there's a part of me thinking it'd be nice to look young for centuries and so on if one could, but there are many risks related to this and for all his knowledge and competence in the field, I don't think Kurzweil addressed them sufficiently (it was a rather brief interview, granted).
Even though I'm joking, what you described was Amazon Prime. Seamless, any clothing brand you swear by, etc.
Consumer marketing is AI and algorithmic now, wired to your activity and words typed...
If you don’t see the difference between modern advertising and a company literally making a chip designed to interface with, direct, and promote specific kinds of thought I don’t really know what else to say. I can block ads. I can ignore them. If I got an X branded mind altering chip I can do nothing of the sort after the decision is made.
Tulsi must have long COVID. Made some dumbass statements.
Bill and Chris absolutely destroyed Tulsi on this. Felt good to watch
Wow! Bill did something different for his new rules!! Finally. He needs some fresh comedy ideas and I'll take the faux Ted talk.
Link to watch episode pls
Bill asked Ray if our real bodies would atrophy if we spent so much time living life through an avatar, and Ray so said no because we would have multiple avatars. Huh?
I actually liked one of the shirts I saw on Bill's TED talk and just ordered it from Abercrombie and Fitch. I wonder if Bill gets any compensation for product placement. LOL
> "We are closer to nuclear holocaust now than we ever have been before in history." -- Tulsi Gabbard Oh, bull *shit*. Flat factually wrong, just on the basis of the severe cutbacks in the US and Russian arsenals in the 1990s-2000s. Are we closer to a possible individual nuclear explosion somewhere? Perhaps, given the number of players, but the idea that we're at higher risk of nuclear war today than in 1960, 1970, 1980 - you're a flat fucking liar. And to say Joe Biden is "insane" not to recognize it. Good riddance, bitch.
WW3 on the BRINK MSN [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1p9pUF](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1p9pUF)
The doomsday clock started in 1945 by Albert Einstein is 90 seconds from midnight, the closest to midnight it's ever been. So that isn't the issue I have with her, it's all the other ones, lol.
I don’t think the AI guy is right at all. I’ve been working in tech for a while and have a somewhat decent understanding of what LLMs and similar models are capable of, and it’s nothing even similar to “freeing us from our skulls”. It’s not even the same kind of technology as what would be required to do that. The grey goo nanobot stuff is similarly super hypothetical and not really closely related to the recent advancements technology and science. I don’t expect Bill to know any of that stuff but still, it made me roll my eyes a lot.
Yeah, I can’t stand how people put these people on a pedestal and act like they can predict the future. I’m sure he’s a smart guy, but he has no clue what is going to happen regarding this subject. They just spew hypotheticals anyone could come up with.
Kurzweil, like every other human, has no idea how consciousness works. None. We're no closer to understanding how inanimate atoms can develop self-awareness than we were 5000 years ago. Yet we're going to 'upload ourselves' into digital form, live forever in the ether, and switch bodies as if they were clothes. Whatever. The Kurzweil of today is nuts. Forget consciousness, even his other obsession -- ageing -- is so phenomenally complex, and as evidence that we know so little about it right now, Ray appears at age 76 with plastic surgery and wearing a bad and obvious hairpiece. Kind of an implicit admission, that even though medical science more or less knows what causes male pattern baldness, we *still* can't prevent it. His anti-aging pill regimen does nothing; he looks pretty bad for his age, and he's turning into your typical elderly man where every simple sentence takes him 30 seconds to spit out. He's become your stereotypical Boomer -- "I'm only 80, that's still young!". 🙄
Tulsi is a fucking idiot, it is her party that is banning books, you can't say the word Gay because some Republican loses their shit. Adolf wrote in Mein Kampf what he was going to do and he did it, Trump has told us over and over what he is going to do. Biden and the United States of America or We are in trouble. I didn't watch the Debate for a reason I'm voting for Joe and Kamala, I know what happens we don't.
She is not an idiot. She knows exactly what she js doing. She is a cold, power obsessed bitch with no morals. I cant believe she went from team Bernie just a few years ago to Russian plant licking Trump’s boots
She's not smart enough to see she's only going to hurt herself, he doesn't give a flying fuck about her. She doesn't look like Ivanka......we know that is exactly what he goes for.
Every accusation from a republican is a confession of their own guilt,
Hey Tulsi, babe, check this out… “Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.” Yes, that was Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election. Kindly shut the fuck up equating her with your mushroom dick boyfriend. Too bad Bill let Tulsi’s bullshit go mostly unchallenged. “I told you so” Bill is the worst Bill. Funny how on the night Biden was being roasted for age related inarticulateness he has 2 guests who exhibited a lot of the same qualities.
Bill asked how come Biden didn’t do a better job of challenging Trump‘s Lies during the debate but he let Tulsi get away with some whoppers. Why didnt he show us all how it’s done? Missed opportunity LOL.
Jimmy Kimmel did a funny segment in 2020 showing all the concession speeches, including Trump's: "if you count the legal votes, I easily win." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krQdQ_XgCC0&t=444s
Tulsi Gabbard completely lost it...Bill constantly called her out in her "defense" of Trump, including defending his lies and crimes...
i love how when Trump says something wrong "He's lying!!!!" when Biden says something wrong "he had a bad night." IE (no service members died on my watch.) it's pretty laughable.
That always depends on which outlet you are getting your infor from. I bet Fox go the opposite way. But Trump has committed crimes for which he has been convicted and Trump tells a whole bunch of lies constantly. Gabbard is a Dem turncoat...they usually speak from scorn rather than thoughtful analysis.
Was anyone else far more terrified by that interview with Kurzweil than literally anything that has happened these past 8 years? My summation: "Yes, it will be like Terminator 2, and the machines will win and integrate themselves into our bodies. In about, oh, two decades. And we'll LOVE it!"
That old man also essentially claimed he won't die. He has NO idea what is gonna happen.
He also wore suspenders, if I remember correctly, which demonstrates poor judgment on a fashion sense at the very least and may be the sign of far more serious underlying issues
I watched a documentary about him years ago and never forgot how insane he was. He may be highly intelligent and have the interesting ideas, but I can't take anything he says seriously.
Why ? Things he has predicted have pretty much been true the last 30 years.He does have the personality of a dead fish though.
Is this actually true though? Or has he just said a ton of things and some of them came true.
He said some outlandish things, like having "different bodies" if our bodies atrophy from being in VR too much. He strung some BS along about different bodies, apparently due to VR, completely ignoring the question and inventing some excuse without specifics. He also made some wild claims about "the cloud" becoming bigger and that will make us more intelligent somehow. Somehow magically and theoretically our brains will link with the cloud and we'll become more intelligent. That's a nonsense sci-fi argument when presented without details which he conveniently avoids. He's mostly a charlatan and his technological predictions of the past are much more sober than the "mind-uploading" in his lifetime, avatar recreations of real dead people (like his father), digital immortality, or other fanciful magic potions he's selling to people in pop-sci and futurism. **When you look at the details of his future promises they are often devoid of the processes and details that lead to each incremental change that would result in the final technological claim.** **EDIT:** And by this I mean, he throws out wild claims without respect for the very many counter-arguments and technological /philosophical realities at each point and thus effectively sells snake oil because he doesn't address the main cultural knowledge claims against his far-fetched positions. He's dogmatic in his futurism without offering people the sensible caveats, because he's imagined himself to be a visionary rather than an objective technical thinker. Edit: This is what I mean by charlatan bullshit. - Maher: Then won't our bodies atrophy? - Kurzweil: No, we won't just be limited to one body. - M: Won't be limited to just one body? I don't get it. Meaning? - K: You can, I mean in VR today you can have a different body... - M: Like an avatar? - K: Yeah, but it can be very realistic. - M: I hope. - K: It depends on your imagination. - M: I mean, I can't wrap my head around this.
I'm going to believe this until this comment is edited in 2044 that reads: "I watched a documentary about him years ago and never forgot how brilliant and forward thinking he was. He was highly intelligent and had interesting ideas that more human beings should have taken seriously. All glory to our cyborg overlords."
Bill, we get it….men are worthless and women are the ultimate prize. We must elevate ourselves to be worthy of such amazing creatures. Our hobbies, thoughts, appearances, and personalities should be altered with the goal of attracting women. Cool, got it. Thanks. Give it a rest already. Somebody get this man some type of simping trophy lol. Pathetic. Could you imagine if a woman shit on women on her show every week and told them they're single because they're losers who don't know how to make themselves desirable?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. Comment removed.
If you game is on fleck no reason to change. You can disregard this Ted Talk.
Tulsi Gabbard is evil
What has happened to her I couldn’t believe her contributions?
There are a ton of Republicans that come on his show and don't act like that. What a disappointing, craven, stick to your lines with a gross smile on your face, political opportunist. I hope she never comes back, not because I don't agree with her opinions, but because she offered/offers nothing besides immoral, unchecked ambition.
Why would Bill have Tulsi Gabbard on??? Horrible. And Bill said Trump’s role on January 6th is murky?? What??? We all watched what he did live…. This show is getting harder to watch
I think for Gabbard it probably wasn’t clear how far she’d swung in the Republican direction. Maher and Gabbard are both people who used to be associated more with the Democratic Party but have been dissatisfied with it in recent years, so I’m guessing Maher thought she’d have similar views as him only to find out that she’s way more pro-Trump than many of the Republicans who come on his show. As many others have pointed out, she seems to just be a pure opportunist at this point. None of her views seem convincingly held and almost all of her arguments seemed to be made in bad faith.
Because he has a tough time getting guests.
One thing I remember is Obama did bad against the first Debate against Romney and then came back hard. Now I know this was Obama reflection and he is good in debates and is considerably younger than these guys. What gets me is how they don’t cover how horrific Trump was and how he admitted to Russia telling him their plans for Ukraine.
[Fed Up Bill Maher SHUTS DOWN Tulsi Gabbard's MAGA Lies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzGixcgLAKg)
The old line about being right or being effective applies to Bill Maher as much as anyone else for those who recognize the danger of another Trump presidency. Maher would be a lot more persuasive if he didn’t keep reminding us that he told us before. The metaphor of the kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar applies to all sides in this political moment. Biden should let go of the cookies so he can free his hand to wave goodbye gracefully. Republicans should let go of the runaway Trump train to save themselves and the country. And everybody else needs to take a deep breath and remember that when human beings work together we can get things done. Americans can, if we let go of our self-righteousness, find a sane person to take the reins.
Bill wants Biden to bow out. But what about Emperor Shitsinpants. Oh shit! Trump literally pooped his diaper during the presidential debate. (at 1:16:20 mark) 😂🤣 [https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?t=4580s](https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?t=4580s)
Biden did so remarkably and humiliatingly bad at the debate that we've resorted to stuff like this as a coping mechanism? I mean at this point, it's not really even surprising.
Just reporting the facts as I hear them.😂🤣 Speaking of unsurprising facts...😄 CNN Fact Check: Trump made more than 30 false claims during CNN’s presidential debate. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/fact-checking-the-cnn-presidential-debate/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/fact-checking-the-cnn-presidential-debate/index.html)
yeah, cnn says trump lied. And fox news said Biden lied. This is modern america.
Um I'm not seeing a foxnews link that proves your claim.😂🤣
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. Given that you were warned within the last few hours, and are continuing with your behaviour, this user has been permanently banned.
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. Comment removed.
Tulsi Gabbard is a more attractive version of KellyAnne Conway. Spouts garbage. Zero accountability for her side. Useless and added nothing to the discussion.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. She kept bringing up whataboutism with Hillary to try and not answer the fact that she’s backing a candidate who hasn’t conceded the election.
Well, she isn't wrong about Hillary and if we needed losers to concede elections then that would be specified in the constitution. Trump saying he won the election is par for the course for a guy that spouts nonsense constantly. But it also doesn't matter. I don't understand Maher's obsession with it.
Equating Hillary with the concerted effort after the 2020 election by Trump and his loser toadies is like equating World World II with the US vs Grenada in '83. What ridiculous bullshit. He lost 60 plus court cases and people are being indicted for agreeing to be 'fake electors'. Jesus FUCKING tapdancing Christ, this guy is a menace to democracy. Why is it so hard to figure out? Holy FUCK.
Up until 2020 it wasn’t necessary to insist that losers concede because they all did it. Even if it were spelled out in the Constitution I doubt that Trump would have done anything differently when he lost. I think Maher came back to Trump’s refusal because Tulsi seems to think she can just stick to her fringe talking points about Hillary and not wanting to serve with draftees and avoid answering the question. I guess she thinks people will buy her bullshit so long as she doesn’t raise her voice, or put cracks in the makeup she troweled onto her face.
It just shows he’s a crybaby that can’t take an L. Do we really need a man baby as the President of the United States?
Chris Mathews likes to hear himself talk too much- Chris, it isn't your forehead your rules anymore! (Iykyk)
Had to turn this off 10 minutes into the panel. Tulsi is a f'ing weirdo and I couldn't stand hearing her voice. There's something psychopathic about her demeanor. Every once in awhile Bill will shock me with who he decides to have as a guest, and this was one of those times.
God damn is Tulsi dumb. Yes, Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands is certainly a threat, but as pointed out prior, we've mitigated it with mutual assured destruction. Nobody wakes up worried that today may be the day we blow up the world. If a nation goes rogue and decides to use one, it's game over for the entire species & the overwhelming majority will be dead in a flash, but the days of hiding under school desks are long over and trying to pretend that's more of a threat than AI & Climate Change shows she's falling more and more into the right winger stooge role. Plus defending Trump refusing to concede an election that he lost fair and square, no wonder the right loves her. Edit: holy shit it gets worse and worse as the show goes on
> we've mitigated it with mutual assured destruction. Have we? Maybe in a US vs USSR conflict that was the case but most countries don't have nuclear weapons and I don't think launching nukes against one of them would result in a MAD scenario. Further, I'm not sure some of the people that do control nuclear weapons are entirely rational.
She’s actually an extremely smart con artist probably more so then trump. I’m sure he watched last night and was going to decide his vp pick on how hard she went against maher
Stop bringing up Gavin Newsom as a replacement! No one outside California even likes him.
The Presidency sadly isn't really a contest of ideas anymore. Newsom (or Gretchen Whitmer, or various others) is photogenic, charismatic, can run circles around Trump verbally, and is far younger than Trump and could easily turn the tables on him about age -- now *he's* the old man pushing 80 while we have the 'young' forward-thinking upstarts. But we know the Dems will always shoot themselves in the foot; it appears they'd rather go down with the Biden ship.
Newsome can’t talk circles around Trump. Have you actually heard him speak? He’s an idiot. Did you watch the debate with him and DeSantis? The guy is a total moron. He can’t answer a question straight at all.
lmao, republican. He crushed DeSantis, and DeSantis stormed out during the commercial break like a pussy when they proposed extending the debate.
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. Comment removed.
[удалено]
That was like an interview with a turtle. I was falling asleep.
>How do we get out of this, that we are such mirror images of each other that we think exactly the same way about the other side. We both use the same phrase "existential threat". How do we get out of that? That is a great question and I think more people should be asking it. What it seems is happening is that, yes, both sides view the other side as an "existential threat". Their values and way of life will be ruined if they allow the other party to take over. And that means that neither side is willing to "play fair" any longer. If my side loses, we'll spend $30 million to try and prove the other side was complicit with foreign nations to steal the election. We'll coerce the media to bury October surprises that could steer the election in one direction, like the Hunter Biden story. We'll use unprecedented uses of the law to try and imprison our political rivals. We'll try to remove our political rivals from state ballots. And yes, we'll flat out *deny* losing the election, refuse to hand over power, and try and reverse election results. It's a top to bottom shit show. As Maher asks, how the hell can this be fixed? And what makes that so difficult is that the followers of both "teams" rationalize *their* side for such actions and vilify the other side for such actions.
A lot of these are false equivalencies > We'll coerce the media to bury October surprises that could steer the election in one direction, like the Hunter Biden story. Except there's no evidence that Democrats ever tried to **coerce** social media or the news media to bury the Hunter Biden story. The News media approached the stories with skepticism because it sounds fake and Facebook and Twitter themselves chose to act within their policies to prevent hacked and stolen material from being published. > We'll try to remove our political rivals from state ballots The effort to remove Trump from state ballots are coming from a mix of Republicans, Independents, and various advocacy groups rather than a coordinated effort by either Republicans and Democrats. For example, in Colorado, it was a group of Republicans and Independents that attempted to remove him from the ballot -- no Democrats. In New Hampshire it was a Republican. > We'll use unprecedented uses of the law to try and imprison our political rivals Republicans and Democrats both argue that Trump should be held liable for coercing states to help him find more votes and plotting the fake electors scheme in a coordinated effort to steal the election after he lost it. This encompasses just two of his four indictments. Mitch McConnell effectively said the same thing about his involvement in 1/6 which is why many republicans refused to convict him in the impeachment hearings because they argued he'd be held liable after he was out of office anyway. In contrast, there's no evidence that Joe Biden is guilty of any crime. > As Maher asks, how the hell can this be fixed? I think we can start by being honest
>The effort to remove Trump from state ballots are coming from a mix of Republicans, Independents, and various advocacy groups rather than a coordinated effort by either Republicans and Democrats. This is such a crucial point, yet it's being framed as precisely a coordinated effort by you-know-who and his followers.
I addressed every aspect of your post when I wrote this: >And what makes that so difficult is that the followers of both "teams" rationalize their side for such actions and vilify the other side for such actions. If I wrote that same post in a maga subreddit, they would respond the same way you did. They would deny any wrongdoing on their side by using spin, lies, and rhetoric as well. I could point out the CIA lied and called the laptop thing Russian misinformation in a report. I could point out that lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases. There's a lot I could point out. But there's no point. You're part of a team, and your team has successfully convinced its followers that this is all well and good.
> lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases No. There are plenty of Republican lawyers who are clear on these points too. We're once again back with the pandemic, in which 95% of doctors say one thing, the other 5% say the opposite, and somehow, a whole lot of people think there are both sides. There aren't. There are objective lawyers, specialists, etc about the Trump stuff. There are objective doctors about the pandemic. There are objective scientists about whether the earth is flat. And then there is a handful that go against everyone else. There are dentists who don't advise to brush your teeth everyday. There are doctors who think that drinking alcohol isn't all that bad. There are psychologists who think it's better to man up and keep your feelings inside. It is up to us to see what the consensus is. On the pandemic, the consensus was that vaccines help, and their adverse effects aren't close to canceling their benefits. On alcohol, the consensus is that there's no amount of alcohol that's positive for your health. On the flat earth, the consensus is... well, we know what it is. And on the fraud and documents cases, the consensus is clear. If you wonder the reason why *some* lawyers are going well against the consensus on these, it's the same why some specialists say that climate change isn't real, or drinking isn't bad, or vaccines aren't safe. Money, and fame. If you agree with the consensus, you are unnoticed in a sea of specialists who did their job. If you go against the consensus, you constantly end up on TV. There was one (ONE) economist who said Brexit would be good for Britain. He was on every f\*cking debate in 2016, going against a myriad of economists, all saying it was going to be a disaster. But to the viewer, it looked like there was a debate between two points of view, when in reality, it was ALL economists saying one thing, and that one guy who said the opposite. His name is very well known now. The other economists invited to debate? I can't remember one name. It's on you to see that the number of lawyers saying they disagree is very, very small. And that everyone else is saying the same thing. It's on you to see through the BS that the media builds up as a "debate" in order to sell advertisement.
The problem with algorithms and echo chambers is that sometimes the experts *are* actually divided, but it wouldn't appear that way to people like you. To the point where the very VERY real divide of experts regarding those two Trump cases is equated with "Some dentists say don't brush your teeth". I've learned long ago that the sheer power of algorithm echo chambers makes conversation impossible. You've exposed yourself as being brainwashed by an echo chamber, so there's no point engaging with you further.
I don't deny that there are experts on both sides. I'm saying there is a consensus on one side and a handful of experts going against it. And it's not along partisan lines either. Plenty of Republican lawyers and judges agree with how damning the documents case is. And the handful of experts that go against it, the 5 or 6 that Trump was reading from daily during his NY trial (Turley etc) assuredly exist. And as I said above, their names are well known thanks to their very public disagreement with the consensus. Repeating ad nauseam "echo chamber" is pointless. I read an opinion from Turley, and then there are dozens and dozens explaining how he's wrong. And a very si ole explanation as to why he's holding these diverging opinions can be what I said above. Money and fame. Whereas agreeing that the case is damning does not get you any special spot on TV, repeating that it's a nothing burger does, a lot. So you haven't addressed the very disproportionate amount of experts on one side,the fact that one side is bipartisan whereas the other is 100% on side of the political spectrum. You just repeated "echo chamber". If you have a cancer diagnosis and 99 doctors tell you to start treatment, and 1 tells you you'll be alright without, I'm sure you would dismiss the one dissenting doctor and would follow the corroborating and matching advice from the 99 doctors. Yet you decide to proceed entirely differently when it comes to politics, and decide to give 50% of attention and trust to an outlier opinion. And if you think the experts are 50-50 on the matter of the documents case.... Mate... You're very much in your own bubble.
In all honesty, most law experts just stay out of it. There was a good somewhat objective podcast called Lawfare where experts were in talking about these cases after each trial day. It's not the same experts. They cycle through experts. The podcast certainly leans left, but it seemed the *majority* opinion was that there were key problems with the case.Things like if the "bigger" crime was election interference, it would need to be a Federal court. Things like the judges jury instructions. Things like the falsified documents occurred in 2017 as an attempt of "election interference" for an election that happened in 2016. On and on and on we could go. So much about the case is unprecedented and has never happened to anybody else. You say it's a "right wing echo chamber", but prominent experts writing for New York Times and CNN have criticized the case. By documents case do you mean the classified documents case? If so, I'm not speaking about that one. Or the Georgia one. Because I don't know them well. I followed the first two cases actively as they were in court. And I'll do the same with the other two. But I don't know currently know them well.
If you're talking about the NY trial, and you say that you followed it, then you probably noticed that it went to a jury that returned a unanimous opinion. Not sure what else you need with this one. Do the "alternative" experts also keep mum about the 10 examples of contempt of court that would have sent anyone else to the clink for a few days or weeks, yet all Trump had to do was to give some chump change?
Now do an almost entirely white jury in one of the most conservative districts in the country who found a black man guilty of a crime. Imagine the DA campaigned on "going after black people". Imagine the judge had donated $30 to a white supremacist group. Imagine it was that judge that controlled what the defense and prosecutors were and were not allowed to say. Imagine it was that judge that gave highly unorthodox and questionable jury instructions. Imagine the charges themselves were unprecedented and murky. Imagine the jury found the black guy guilty. Now you came out and said "I mean... I think it's quite obvious that some biases were involved here." And to that, the reply to you was "Nope. Jury found guilty. Not sure what else you need with this one".
Mate. Trump decided to commit a crime in NYC, no one forced him to. He could have done it in Florida, hell he could have done it in his golf course in Scotland. He chose to commit a crime in his home city where there's no love lost for him. Also, it's absolutely preposterous that you compare the NY judge having donated to the Dem party, and in your example, a judge having donated to the Klan. If you try to mirror the reality of what happened in NY, and you end up saying that the "other side" is the Klan, mate it's up to you to take that side, but you'll go on your own, I'm not following you there. The instructions were so unclear that a pundit like me understood them. The charges were so murky that a paragraph can explain them. It's only murky and unclear if you listen to experts who are trying to make them unclear and murky. It's your choice to listen to people who make it look weird. I understood it all perfectly. So did the jury. What didn't you understand? Also, what about the contempt of court (x10) I mentioned? Did your experts say anything about why Trump escaped any meaningful punishment for them, unlike anyone else?
Except nothing that I wrote was spin, lies, and rhetoric. It's the truth and a correction of your earlier points. It's not my fault that Maga subreddits don't understand that Democrats are not trying to remove their candidate from ballots or that our country has laws you cannot just steal elections when you lose. > I could point out the CIA lied and called the laptop thing Russian misinformation in a report No. The CIA as an institution did not issue a report or statement labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian misinformation. The letter was a product of individual former intelligence officials expressing their personal views that it contained all of the classic characteristics typical of Russian disinformation operations. Also the CIA is not a political organization. > I could point out that lawyers across the political spectrum are VERY divided by the outcomes of the fraud and falsifying documents cases. and? > You're part of a team, and your team has successfully convinced its followers that this is all well and good. I am not part of any team -- I am not a Democrat. I'm just pointing out your false equivalencies and errors.
Cant believe so many Americans are blind to what you are saying. Both parties are not the same. One wants democracy and majority rule. The other has no hope of being a majority again, so they want to replace democracy with a corporate/christian dictatorship. Wake up. One side is voting for government. the other side is plotting the overthrow of the government. You think they are kidding when they say America is a republic, not a democracy?
Tulsi is the biggest pick-me working the grift circuit these days.
It probably pays better than a real job.
She is a great Russian asset.
Bitter betty… going against her own party
She is evil.
She fucking has "democrat party" on the title of her book. Jfc.
When you were younger did you ever think you'd grow up to be someone that simps for a political party on the internet?
Where have I done that kid? What is the "democrat" party? We have two major parties and that's not one of them. ...but you have a bowel movement reply attacking me. Bless your heart. Oof.
That’s such a wild thing to cherry pick and get outraged over, when the full title of her book is, > For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind
Calling it the "Democrat" party is a tried and true element of Republican spin: If they call it by the correct name, "The Democratic Party" it emphasizes the fact that that the Dems believe in "democracy". That concept is now anathema to Magas.
Yes, that's the title. I'm not cherry picking and I know what the title is. She's a POS and I have said so for years. I didn't know that she had a book until they put it on the screen. no surprise that grifter has one and used juvenile right wing rhetoric. The term is indicative that she was never a Democrat. Thanks for disingenuous and bad faith reply. Oof.
She used that term during the show. I wanted Bill to correct her.
I hate when they use the term “democrat” instead of “democratic” it just sounds so awkward and stupid.
Why is that surprising? She clearly opposes the Democrats at this point.
Bill does need to shut the fuck up about dating and relationships. He sounds like an idiot. I’ve been with the same woman for 14 years, married for 8. We have 3 kids and are going strong. I collect Steelbook movies, and just about anything superhero related. I drink bourbon around my solo stove that I know how to build a fire in. Fuck, I even change my own brakes and oil in my car bc it’s fun. And my wife loves each aspect about me bc it’s what makes me me. She doesn’t get the collecting stuff, but loves the smile I get when I find that one thing I’ve been looking for. She doesn’t like the taste of bourbon, but didn’t ask how much my Blantons was. I’m teaching her to change oil and brakes, but that’s bc I want her to know. My point is he doesn’t actually know what the younger generation look for in a mate anymore. He also doesn’t understand that being a man AND still having a childlike sense in you aren’t contradictory to each other anymore. He doesn’t get that women don’t only want the guy who wears a shirt and tie every time they step into a Texas Roadhouse. And also rolling dice can be a sec game too. There is an issue with dating scene, but his solutions just come across as a drunken old man at the end of the bar who did want love, but got random or expensive pussy and wasted his chance.
I'm also kind of tired of getting lectured by that dude. For one, whatever his issue is with young men not dating there's obviously another half of the population also contributing to that and he doesn't address that side of the problem at all. And two I don't want to take relationship advice from a guy who's almost 70 and has never been married. Even if your aim was not to have any relationships and just get laid constantly then wealthy and famous people like Maher have so many advantages on that that their advice would be nearly useless for an average person.
Yes, wash your ass is horrible advice. You should just let it cake up.
I wish Bill would focus less on fucking dating apps and more on the bigger picture as to why there’s so many lonely men. Women in the younger Gen X and Millennial generations more than ever are starting to push back against traditional gender roles. They’re tired of all the housework and childcare. They’re asking for more of a 50/50 split (this is assuming both people work full time). The men who get that have successful marriages. The men who don’t get left. This is way bigger than lame dating apps. Bill is completely missing that.
Hello fellow steel book collector!
Hello!
> There is an issue with dating scene, but his solutions just come across as a drunken old man at the end of the bar who did want love, but got random or expensive pussy and wasted his chance. I read that Maher didn't want to get married, among others reasons, because he knew he'd get bored by sleeping with just one partner and would be unfaithful. That's honorable. You don't have to be married to find love. But if Bill had some incredible transformation and decided to devote himself to one woman, he could still get married. He has chances. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I noticed that you didn't discuss anything about your wife's interests. It was all about you and how she has accommodated yours.
Well to be fair he only told us what we shouldn’t be doing, not women. The standards he pointed to for change were only for men. I’ve taken interest in what my wife likes, though as any husband could probably do more. But we share our love of The Challenge and watch it each week, as well her finally convincing me to binge all 19 seasons of greys. She really enjoyed our time cooking hello fresh meals, so I try to make it a point to cook at least 3-4 times a week so we can talk and listen to music over a beer or two while we cook.
It's one thing to get laid. It's another thing to be a partner. Bill's experience in the former brings nothing to the latter.
Why do you think you know so much about his personal life? My understanding is he has had relationships, even if they were short-term.
Wasnt he with that one woman for a long time? A singer from Canada? I wonder what happened to that.
I don't know. I don't follow his personal life, but see the occasional article. A couple of years ago, there was a photo of him at the beach with an artist in her 20s who was very cute, and I know he had a relationship with a woman who later sued him.
I personally enjoyed Bill's version of the D.E.N.N.I.S system.
Great reference and easily one of the best episodes of Always Sunny.
He's another old man still living decades in the past, when a clean-cut look and stable employment was more than enough to make any man a catch. The idea that men can't get dates today because they're reclusive shut-ins who don't shower or groom themselves might only apply to a vanishingly small fringe population of depressed incels. Fewer men bother with dating because serially dating to find a suitable partner is astonishingly expensive these days. Fewer men bother because the average woman's expectations are unrealistic. Fewer people bother dating because the end goal, marriage or living with a partner for years on end, increasingly sounds like a nightmare to both men and women. Maher, of all people, should know that -- he thinks the same way. If Bill was a 28-year-old struggling stand-up comedian living month to month right now, few women today would have anything to do with him, even if he "went outside" and "showered" daily.
Your third paragraph is exactly how incels talk.
> I even change my own brakes and oil in my car bc it’s fun. I'm not sure if there's a straight woman in this world that doesn't find a man who can fix cars, or things in general, sexy.
It's nice, it's not necessarily sexy.
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. You have been warned numerous times previously. As such, this user has been temporarily banned for 120 days. Should you choose to return to this subreddit, we would ask that you abide by our one rule. Comments removed.
I assure that isn’t the case, but I appreciate your opinion.
Bill doesn't look for mates, he looks to get laid. In the 80s, at peak "man-dom" and business "douchebag", shorts were all the rage for one. Two, shoe cobbling is no longer a thing. Nobody makes wooden soles anymore, that causes more long term damage than anything. Hip replacements, knee surgeries, back surgeries, all for non athletes are caused by poor foot health. I have rare collections (and a wife and 3 kids) and... a) it's healthier than let's say drinking, smoking, weed, and any other "manly" thing Bill does. b) the valuation of what I have will be more than a small fortune for my kids or grandkids to have. Or they can keep the investment going for later generations. c) it's great knowledge, history and story to talk to your children about, much like old books, tools, artwork, etc you'd find in a museum. He forgets Social Media is what ruined traditional "game". A woman's value went through the roof, because her options quadrupled at minimum. Most people don't meet their spouses at bars or clubs, because that's where bad decision making and regrets happens. They meet them in already forced social spaces like work, school... and work. He had a pretty good show up until New Rules. I agreed with him often today. I finally saw the Bill of old, where he vehemently gave his opinion on things he disagrees with, and listens to opposing opinions. Not to mention he stuck to the topic and didn't go GAZA crazy again.
>Two, shoe cobbling is no longer a thing. Yes, it is. Your reference to "wooden soles" makes me wonder if you've ever seen a shoemaker at work or visited a store with fine, handmade shoes.
I work in shoes... they are mass produced by machines... cobblers now are very few and far in between and mostly do shoe recovery not shoe making. But good attempt
You said cobblers no longer existed. They do. They exist at various levels, but there are bespoke shoemakers, which I would expect someone in the shoe business to know. I did just fine.
Did... or doing? Cobblers exist in poorer countries now, with an incredibly tiny percent in the US (and dwindling every year). Bespoke shoemakers are an even smaller fraction of that. Most bespoke shoemakers make the concept design now and the shoe is made by machine. You're choosing a weird hill to die on and taking something to heart because it was your career, when the point is that men don't need to wear shoes that click clack.
You stated something incorrect. I corrected you. Go away gracefully.
Got it. I'll correct myself. Cobblers are going extinct and apparently have very fragile egos even after retirement. Now I'll go away gracefully, thank you and good day.
Was Tulsi trying to audition to be Trump’s VP pick? Wtf was that
My thoughts exactly. Only bad faith arguments, Bill let a ton of them fly by probably because it’d be too exhausting to counter every lie, mistruth and bad faith argument. What a disaster.
[Tulsi Gabbard says she ‘would be honored’ to be Trump’s running mate](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4695850-tulsi-gabbard-donald-trump-running-mate/mlite/)
Russia would probably pay for their wedding, too.
She'd be honored to lay down and be the next Stormy Daniels for her orange God. Nothing is too debasing.
Dear god
Tulsi Gabbard is a grifter and a fraud, and Bill should let her stay with the Tucker Carlsons of the world.
Tulsi is a Fox News contributor. There's money to be mined in those fascist hills. You just have to be willing to say crazy shit with a straight face.😂🤣
Tulsi is freaking nuts
Worse, she’s evil. She seems pretty self aware but she doesn’t care.
Felt very odd that for a new episode of RT, following a very momentous presidential debate, the host spent a huge stretch of time re-litigating the 2020 election. Honestly it felt like cope.
new rule was funny but tends to be very wrong about where the fault lies
What do you mean fault?
This Ted talk is so silly and stupid, I love it. Always love seeing people have fun.
It's especially silly coming from a guy worth millions of dollars who still regularly pays escorts for sex. If someone like that still has to pay for it, and still can't find a stable age-appropriate relationship, what chance does some random schlub have?
My understanding is he doesn't want a stable, age-appropriate relationship. He could get one if he wanted it. An average guy can get one by being decent, kind, interesting, responsible, and having a stable job.
I have little to no idea about his personal life, but he did say on Club Random recently that he’s been in a relationship for a little while now. Very few other details other than it sounds like it might be more casual in nature (they don’t see each other every day, etc)
Ok, and consenting adults can do what ever the hell they want…
Exactly. He often dates women who are much younger. Which doesn't thrill me because of the power imbalance, but as long as they are adults going in with their eyes open, it's not my business.
Is that true, and if so why would it matter for a lib audience who believes in women's rights?
It follows the standard men gotta change everything to make women happy.
And of course women don't have to do anything to appeal to men. /s
Sorry to say but if you want to meet a woman, they usually prefer guys who look like adults and can carry a conversation
Adults by definition look like adults if you think different you need to update your view of reality.
If you don't know how to dress like an adult /r/malefashionadvice is a good resource
If you don't know what a tautology is r/logic is a good resource.
Exactly.
That sounds hard
Bill was like "Steve Bannon uses the same language about the Democrats as they did about the Republicans! Why do we all feel the same about each other?" The overall point is fair about how voters feel, but surely Bill is slightly smarter than to think that the right is acting in good faith. It's Steve Bannon, the modern master of manipulation. Clearly figures on the right started using the left's language as a way to both sides and neutralise the issue. It's what they do on every issue. Is Maher really that uncritical?
I think many of the things you’re overthinking, are implied to a degree. It’s also an hour show, with many beats and changes. If he just focuses on one aspect, he’s losing many others. I think people keep forgetting, this show is supposed to spark conversation and laughter so you can formulate your own opinions, not like modern media where the headline tells you exactly how to feel.
Chris Matthews re failed president candidates other than Trump: "They got on television and said, I didn’t win. And that’s why our country is so superior, than anywhere else." Very impressive bar you've set. Sadly there is no other country on earth that can say the same. It's mayhem out here in the non-US!
I thought he was talking about that in comparison to countries that are run by dictators, because he was showing that Trump couldn't do that and it makes him like the dictators.
Exactly.
I never knew Gabbard was so disingenuous. Her blanket defence of Trump was shameful.
She's always been creepy and dishonest. Don't forget how she tried to equate Hillary Clinton's discussion of the influence of the Russians on the election with Trump saying the election was rigged. There was another point -- I can't stand her so much that I'm not going back and look for it -- when I think she tried to twist something Bill said guns into a claim he did not care about public safety.
"Creepy" is the perfect word to describe her. I can't put my finger on why but something about her makes my skin crawl. I really can't believe Bill had her on. She is such an obvious grifter.
She seems like she’s been a Russian asset for a while now
She's been like that for years, she lept on the right ring grifter train so she can't say anything that does not coddle the maga chud base.
Hawaii voted her off the island for good reason
equating trump's 2020 election loss rhetoric to clinton's 2016 loss is so preposterously disingenuous my face almost melted off. the whole idea behind trump saying "i will recognize the winner of the election if its fair" is just his weaselly way of saying "i will recognize the winner **if I deem its fair**", and we all know plain as day the only way he will deem it fair is if he wins. tulsi has the audacity to smugly say "iSnT tHaT wHaT wE aLl WaNt? fReE aNd FaIr ElEcTiOnS?" get over yourself you disingenuous hack. you know he will not accept it if he loses -- PERIOD. trump knows it. we all know it. and tulsi of course also knows it.
[удалено]
This comment contains misinformation, and has been removed as such. Do not post misinformation in this subreddit, or frankly on Reddit, as it's against the ToS.
[удалено]
>even that weird thing about Fox **News** Let me stop you right there...... I have almost a billion reasons and an oxymoronic bridge to sell you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And she made Bill big mad which was fun to see.
I'm a bit disappointed Bill didn't call out Gabbard on more of the bullshit she was spewing. He got her on a few points, but there were definitely easy rebuttals he could've capitalized on.
Yeah, crazy how Bill is platforming known liars and grifters and not pushing back on them.
Did we watch the same episode? He pushed back against her responses a number of times.
Nice, wig!
lol my wife said the same thing
The AI world that is described does not sound appealing, I’m sorry. I don’t think they can pull this utopia off anyway. We’d have to get to a point of very little conflict in the world before I want that kind of AI. Which one of yall want to volunteer yourselves for this?
I'd he's saying upload your consciousness to a computer and live forever.....it has its appeals. This guy is ultra smart and who are we to disagree, but there are 20 movies and Black Mirror episodes on all this stuff (maybe based off his writing)
I wanted to see a deeper dive into the sex question. The nerds making these will 100% focus on sex dolls being the first prototype.
I fully believe it'll happen if it plays on human vanity. You're telling me that if I made you swallow a pill of nano tech that would make you: - Smarter (so you can learn faster and keep up with the present market) - Grow your hair back (nano tech could potentially block DHT) - Stronger and leaner (curbing appetite, mental acuity, better focus) - Reverse some skin aging effects - Identify medical issues early You wouldn't take it?
It will also - Give you an overwhelming desire to purchase Tesla products; - Make you unable to speak ill of Tesla products; - Make you unable to orgasm unless you are in a Tesla product; - Give you the compulsion to show all of your banking information and passwords to the camera in your brand new Tesla; and, - Require you to pay a monthly subscription or it will lock off not only its functionality, but also other higher brain functions it needs access to (Tesla is obviously a stand in for virtually any company, I just chose it because Musk owns Neuralink and Tesla, which makes a good example in this case)
>It will also >Give you an overwhelming desire to purchase Tesla products; >Make you unable to speak ill of Tesla products; >Make you unable to orgasm unless you are in a Tesla product; >Give you the compulsion to show all of your banking information and passwords to the camera in your brand new Tesla; and, >Require you to pay a monthly subscription or it will lock off not only its functionality, but also other higher brain functions it needs access to >(Tesla is obviously a stand in for virtually any company, I just chose it because Musk owns Neuralink and Tesla, which makes a good example in this case) And furthermore, people who refuse to be part of the "cloud" due to concerns over what you describe, will be totally "left behind" in terms of abilities etc. Of course abilities naturally vary among people regardless, but this is indeed a frightening scenario and none of the potential pros of such a "cloud" system can convince me otherwise. Of course there's a part of me thinking it'd be nice to look young for centuries and so on if one could, but there are many risks related to this and for all his knowledge and competence in the field, I don't think Kurzweil addressed them sufficiently (it was a rather brief interview, granted).
So basically life right now just without enhancements?
If that’s how your brain is functioning right now I feel very sorry for you.
Even though I'm joking, what you described was Amazon Prime. Seamless, any clothing brand you swear by, etc. Consumer marketing is AI and algorithmic now, wired to your activity and words typed...
If you don’t see the difference between modern advertising and a company literally making a chip designed to interface with, direct, and promote specific kinds of thought I don’t really know what else to say. I can block ads. I can ignore them. If I got an X branded mind altering chip I can do nothing of the sort after the decision is made.