Bill Maher: A Slow Moving Right Wing Coup

November 5, 2016


33 Responses to “Bill Maher: A Slow Moving Right Wing Coup”

  1. Colm McGinn Says:

    The ‘slow moving right wing coup’, is both candidates. To an extent, the people with real power in USA can live with either candidate. They could not live with either Stein or Sanders.
    Those elites might just have made a big mistake in de-selecting Sanders. That would only have been 1932 again.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Maher nails it again—-one of his better “Trump dumps”, and I too share his concern that the undecided won’t figure out which shoe goes on which foot in time.

      I take issue with “the people with real power in USA can live with either candidate (to some extent)”. NO ONE, whether with “real power” or no power, can live with Trump for longer than the (short) time that it would take for him to do one or more of the following:

      1) Lose his cool over some imagined slight and destroy human civilization by using nuclear weapons.
      2) Accelerate the progress of AGW because it’s good for business (and a hoax anyway) and push us past multiple tipping points, thereby ensuring the death (slow or rapid) of nearly all life on the planet.
      3) Blow up the U.S. and world economy so that he and the 1/10 of 1% can grab more $$$$, thereby enduring catastrophe for billions of humans, particularly the poorest.

      I wish people could get over their irrational hatred of Hillary and wait and see how she does as president—–saying that she is part of the slow moving right wing coup demonstrates nothing but motivated reasoning and confirmation bias due to mindless over-consumption of the right wing-nut KoolAid. She is going to have a difficult time making progress, even though she is an “establishment” type, but will likely do much better than Sanders would have—-don’t forget that Sanders WILL still be pushing her to live up to her promises and the Democrat’s platform, a role in which he is far more likely to succeed than he would as president.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Ooops! Enduring = ensuring

        (Although the ensured catastrophe will likely be enduring)

      • markle2k Says:

        Ironically, the people who tend to push a false equivalency on the left are a near mirror to the reactionaries on the right that has everyone scared. (Nationalism isn’t just a US problem)

        Seth Meyers put the equivalence in perspective here:

        • skeptictmac57 Says:

          Pretty funny because it’s true (I backed up and watched the entire clip too).
          But you have to remember, Trump supporters (many of whom also dislike him intensely) are operating from an entirely different ‘fact’ base than those who will vote for Clinton (many of who also dislike her intensely).
          That ‘fact’ base was constructed starting in the 90’s and even before. Too much to list here, but this will give you a taste if you haven’t encountered them before:

          And of course we all know about Alex Jones and his association with Trump, helping to push these and other nutty conspiracy trash.
          I have social media GOP friends who would never in a million years have wanted to vote for Trump, but who shifted to supporting him, and are putting these and other ad hoc propaganda memes on their FB pages, because they really do seem to believe them (because they want to), and WILL NOT even bother to look at the sources that fact check and debunk them.
          I am stunned and amazed at the sheer volume of the gullible people in this country concerning this election.
          Also, it is like the hood has been ripped off the segment of our nation that shrouded some of the most ugly attitudes of our population. It is both alarming and saddening.

      • vierotchka Says:

        Well, for once, I can only agree with you… to a point. 🙂

      • What exactly is it that Maher gets? That Trump is a dangerous crazy man? Brilliant!

        It would take me forever to find the exact show, but I swear he said something to the effect, Hillary is just a hard-working policy nerd.

        Challenge me on that and I’ll find it… maybe not before the election.

        He oversimplifies and talks down to his audience. I don’t believe that helps people to choose. It comes off as propaganda and says if we win we’re good for another four, pushing back the crisis while things get steadily worse. People should know what kind of animal we’re electing.

        John Pilger: Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

        • dumboldguy Says:

          So, you now accept that Trump is a dangerous crazy man? And you are going to vote for Hillary because she is the only choice for anyone with any intelligence, rationality, and moral sense? Good for you!

          As far as Maher, he is a freaking COMEDIAN, and his primary goal is getting many laughs courtesy of that laughable POS that the Repugnants allowed to float to the top of the Republican primary toilet bowl. Yes he is a liberal, and that colors his commentary, but he doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about helping anyone choose—-he just presents truths in an amusing way in order to make some big bucks. His commentary is not comparable to that of the “propagandists” that are the lying turds at Fox News, who DO lie and distort in their efforts to get you to choose “right”. If you think he “oversimplifies and talks down”, that’s more a reflection on you than on him—comedians do not tell their jokes in Latin or use long sentences and lots of big words for a good reason.

          I’ll take your word for it that Maher said something to the effect, that Hillary is just a “hard-working policy nerd”. Doesn’t sound very funny, though—-must have been said during the more serious followup discussion after ine of his “schtick” monologues, and I say good for him and her—–we could do worse than elect a HWPN as president.

          And why are you again linking to Pilger and what he said 8 months ago? He is hardly a dispassionate observer, and are you sure he hasn’t changed his tune since March? Please don’t tell me you are one of those who gives us links because they googled and found a title they liked? Like “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump”? Suuuuuuure she is, and I’ll bet she is one nasty woman too.

          • So, you now accept that Trump is a dangerous crazy man? And you are going to vote for Hillary because she is the only choice for anyone with any intelligence, rationality, and moral sense? Good for you!

            “now” as in I had previously had a different stance? You are mistaken. I’ve been resigned to the “hold your nose” option since it became apparent that Bernie was going to lose in the primary.

            So, Maher “tells the truth” and Pilger is “anything but dispassionate”, and your dismissal of Pilger flows from these “facts”? Thus, if Maher says that Hillary is a hardworking policy nerd, then that is an accurate and sufficient description of her as a politician? Nevermind Pilger’s fact and example-filled article demonstrating the opposite when logical fallacies and absurd assertions can suffice.

            “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump”? Suuuuuuure she is, and I’ll bet she is one nasty woman too.

            That is not the way I happen to feel — as I posted on an earlier thread, some weeks ago, Trump scares the bejesus out of me, Hillary is merely suicidally depressing. But that is not what we were arguing, is it, but rather, is Hillary merely a hardworking policy nerd? Or is Maher’s assessment an absurd over-simplification? I used the Pilger article because he is a capable bringer of fact (that’s his job as a documentarian… Chomsky describes him as “incisive and courageous”), but so far we have avoided bringing her record as a public servant to bear as predictive of how she would behave in office.

            I’ve been impressed with Maher’s effort to inform himself and host a serious discussion of election and societal matters, but his HWPN assessment as something to be taken seriously is, well… comical.

          • diarrheafirehose or how about Diaper Boy?

            You make my case with the first word dripping from your lips:

            Your wacky appelation for me “Eugenics Boy”, which you (correct me if I’m wrong since you didn’t deign to offer its reasoned derivation) feel I earned by making the observation that today’s youth “get it” as evidenced by the overwhelming support Sanders received from that group.

            As for the rest, nitpicks on spelling (verotchka vs vierotchka), shades of meaning (liberal leaning vs. whatever you would prefer to call a civil liberties advocacy group), inconsequential error (“associated with through collaboration” rather than “funded by”) which you splash down in a foul-smelling pile that someone has to clean up while you walk away with a satisfied grunt and a grin, all, apparently, a diversion (we really need to expand the “count” to include rhetorical ploys in general rather than limit it to logical fallacies only — a necessarily futile endeavor as you multiply your output (excrement) faster than can be counted and cleaned up.) … a diversion from engaging a fact-based discussion on Hillary’s public service record and Maher’s hilarious characterization of that record.

            To quote yourself, YEEEEEEECCCCCHHHH!!!

            Let me know when you’ve had a solid meal and gotten past your need for childish ad hominems and the rest of your dishonest rhetorical ploys and are ready to join an adult, honest conversation. While I feel certain that such a path would not suit your purpose here, whatever that may be.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            WOW! Look at Shockley attempting to fight a battle of wits when he’s only half armed! And SO nasty! This comment consists of nothing but a Gish Gallop of ad hominems and just plain vindictive bullshit. Classic Pot-Kettle stuff.

            To address only some of it:

            1) My wacky appelation (sic) (learn to spell, would you!) derives from an exchange we had some months ago on Crock when I asked if you were somehow related to THE William Shockley, the “father of eugenics”, whose theories were so beloved by Hitler and the Nazis and used by them to justify their genocide. You replied that you were not a relative of William’s, expressed surprise that I would make the connection, and DID imply that “Bill Shockley” was a pseudonym and not your real name. I did NOT press you on why you chose it rather than some more “proper” handle like “Einstein” or “Boy Genius”. Do you remember all that? I will ask now—-why did you adopt Bill Shockley (which you did admit was short for William Shockley) as a handle?

            2) You did NOT earn that appellation by “making the observation that today’s youth “get it” as evidenced by the overwhelming support Sanders received from that group”. That delusional thought that you have repeated too many times might have gotten you the name “Mindless Parrot”, though.

            3) Sloppy spelling and incoherent writing is evidence of sloppy and careless thinking. We all make typos and correct them when necessary to make meaning clear, but you often do us the discourtesy of NOT seeming to care that we are often scratching our heads and going WHAT? over what you write.

            3) What you so casually dismiss as “shades of meaning” ARE important. How can you expect us to carry on a discussion with if you do not use the proper words? I cannot believe that you equate “liberal leaning” with “civil liberties advocacy group”—-they are NOT the same, particularly in the present time when “civil liberties” has become a dog whistle term for the far right. Confusing “associated with through collaboration” with “funded by” is NOT inconsequential. Words matter!

            4) You show a skin as thin as Donald Trump’s when you start talking about “foul-smelling piles” (that you are not smart enough to “clean up”), but you DO approach truth when you speak of my exchanges with you as a “diversion”. I have often said that it’s good anti-Alzheimer’s therapy to deal with the likes of you and V here on Crock. I’ll let other Crockers decide which of us makes better sense.

            5) We don’t need to “engage in a fact-based discussion on Hillary’s public service record” since the facts have been shown to us over 25+ years and are not in dispute except by the liars on the right. And perhaps you should look up “Maher’s hilarious characterization of that record” and link it for us, since you keep repeating gibberish about it.

            6) “To quote yourself, YEEEEEEECCCCCHHHH!!!” Do you have a citation for that supposed quote from me? Didn’t say it in this thread or anywhere else.

            7) Finally, you STILL do not get it, and your repeated insistence that millennials do because they supported Sanders is proof of that. Check out the new Maher clip that Peter just posted for some (mostly) adult and (mostly) honest discussion on that.

          • William Shockley was not the father of eugenics although he may have had an interest in the idea in his later life. I know he was antisemitic, not sure if he was interested in eugenics. He was one of the three Bell Labs scientists who are credited with the invention of the transistor.

            Your memory has transmogrified.

            Yes I recall the conversation about my alias and I know that I never indicated any interest or regard for William Shockley’s off-kilter beliefs, only that I thought it was cool that one guy could almost be called the inventor of the transistor. That was my message to you during that discussion, so consciously or unconsciously you have made the whole thing up.

            5) We don’t need to “engage in a fact-based discussion on Hillary’s public service record” since the facts have been shown to us over 25+ years and are not in dispute except by the liars on the right.

            In other words, “I’m right because I’m right”. And, John Pilger, then, is a “liar on the right”. And also “hold your nose” Chomsky is one.

            Plus more, insistent, teacherly nitpicks from the name-calling, ridicule-king, complaining of mis-spelling and slight in-clarities.

            Enough of this.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, I misspoke when I called Shockley the father of eugenics, an “honor” that is properly bestowed on Francis Galton, who came up with the idea some 100 years before Shockley’s time. However, that is not as egregious an error as your saying that Shockley “MAY have had an interest in the idea in his later life”, and that you’re “not sure if he was interested in eugenics”. He wrote a freaking BOOK on the subject (and was generally crucified for it). Or are you “playing dumb” to avoid answering my question as to why you took that handle?

            Shockley is famous for two things—-his Nobel-winning work on the transistor and his half-assed eugenics beliefs. And it’s obvious that you haven’t done your homework when you say that you KNOW he was antisemitic, since his his focus was not on Jews (that was the Nazis), but on blacks. Or is that more “smokescreen”?

            My memory has transmogrified, you say? I would counter that “consciously or unconsciously” you are suffering from some major selective memory issues yourself. (And you have still failed to answer my question about why you chose “Bill Shockley” as a handle. As I said, my recollection is that you DID know of Shockley’s interest in eugenics and DID express surprise that I would have made the connection. I will leave it to other Crockers to decide whose memory is more reliable).

            Your inability to grasp what I said about Pilger and Chomsky is quite disturbing. Yes, “once a teacher, always a teacher” is quite true, and if you were my student, you’d be getting extra help after school. If you were on my teaching staff, you’d be getting some serious counseling about your inadequacies, and would be in danger of losing your teaching position. We did not allow the students to be exposed to those who could not recognize the difference between truth and untruth and were such glaring examples of sloppy thinking.

            I hope “Enough of this” means you are going to go away and leave us in peace, at least for a while. It would be a wise move on your part.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Actually, You are the one who has difficulty “letting things rest”, as evidenced by your inability to abandon your losing position on this thread and by your insistence on arguing for Rosling on the old Crock thread you linked, in spite of not having enough knowledge of human population dynamics to do so effectively.

            I AM glad you did expend the effort thou, because I now owe you an apology. My memory about the William Shockley exchange DID fail me, and I make no excuses beyond saying that I am very tired of the craziness of Trump and the Repugnants, (even to the point of mild PTSD), and your mindless hatred of Hillary set me off, to say nothing of the rather “low level” of the verbiage you spouted—-if you “mess with Bull, you feel his horns”, as the saying goes, and once the bull gets angry, he gets a bit irrational and is hard to stop.

            I reread the entire thread you linked to, and saw that we had a much more “polite” discussion then, including sharing our mutual dislike of Scott Johnson and our banning from FP, and I DID finally obtain and read Dark Money, one of the best books I’ve read in a long time.

            So, again, I’m sorry for the error, and will try to be more accurate when I next take you to task for errors of fact and logic.

  2. I’m so anxious I can barely breathe.

    I’m also one of these who just really not tolerate the false equivalences anymore. Some of us are either very damn stupid or they’re not living on this planet.

    This morning I read the single freaking most stupid article on the internet. Ms. Republican Parker at Wapo titled it “Calm down. We’ll be fine no matter who wins”.

    You should read the comments.

    a link, for those who are interested:

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Living in NO VA 30 miles from the White House, I read the WashPost 365 days a year. For a Repugnant, Kathleen Parker often makes some bit of sense in her columns.
      She did, after all, call on Sarah Palin to step down in 2008 because she was unsuited to be veep, and has been quite hard on Trump from the get-go—-to quote from one of her columns:

      “Finding Trump unfit to be president requires only a dispassionate view of those facts (a lack of knowledge, a dubious business record, questionable foreign relationships, an alleged university scam, concealment of tax returns) as well as an informed understanding of what his antics, style and temperament suggest about his character and mental health.

      “The mystery is how anyone finds him acceptable. The truth is, many who will vote for him don’t. They’ll vote Republican, not Trump, to protect the Supreme Court and apply the brakes to liberal policies.

      “These considerations apparently outweigh concerns about a free press, our near-to-boiling melting pot, and the harm Trump’s attitudes toward Muslims, among others, can bring to our nation.

      “As I recently wrote to a reader: I find Trump so uninformed, thin-skinned, volatile and divisive that opposing him has become for me a moral imperative.

      “I sincerely believe he’s a threat to our security and our nation’s equilibrium, which has been dangling by a thread since 9/11.

      “This is what I think and where I stand”.

      Since it’s all over but the voting, IMO what she is trying to do is soothe and reassure the populace and keep the country from blowing up. Just as a “good” conservative who is concerned fro the future of the republic should (and in contrast to the McConnells and McCains who are revving up their obstructionism BS.

      She does a pretty good job in this article—–except, of course, for two sentences—–that title and “If Trump wins, he’ll be held more or less in check by….”. We will NOT in any way be fine if Trump wins, and anyone who is willing to gamble that Trump could be “held in check” has not been paying attention for the last 18 months. May I be allowed to plead temporary inanity on her behalf?

      (And although I’m not yet to the point that I’m “so anxious I can barely breathe”, I will not be getting any sleep Tuesday night until it’s 100% clear that Hillary won).

      • vierotchka Says:

        Which is why it makes no difference who will win the election. Either way, we are screwed big time.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          John Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute are hardly “fair” and are certainly UNbalanced. We know that we will be screwed if Trump wins, and will have to see how Clinton does before we give any credence to Whitehead’s rantings. (And note how lightly he brushes over the influence of “dark money”—–FYI, the Rutherford Institute gets its $$$$ from the same conservative groups that are behind the “slow right wing coup”)

          • vierotchka Says:


            The Rutherford Institute is a non-profit organization based in Charlottesville, Virginia, US dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights. The organization was founded in 1982 by John W. Whitehead, who continued to be its president as of 2015.[1] The Rutherford Institute offers free legal services to those who have had their rights threatened or violated. The Rutherford Institute has a network of affiliate attorneys across the United States and funds its efforts through donations. In addition to its offer of legal services, the organization offers free educational materials for those interested in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Rutherford Institute also publishes a weekly commentary by Whitehead which is published in hundreds of newspapers and web publications, including The Huffington Post and[2]
            While once primarily concerned with the defense of religious liberties,[3] the organization later expanded its mission to encompass other constitutional issues such as search and seizure, free speech, and zero tolerance policy.[4] The institute has been described as “a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union.” (ACLU)[5] Some of the Institute’s legal actions were widely reported, including helping Paula Jones pursue a sexual harassment lawsuit in 1997 against President Bill Clinton,[6] and its defense of airline pilots and passengers affected by the Transportation Security Administration’s security procedures,[7] middle and high school students suspended and expelled under inflexible zero tolerance policies,[8][9] and the free speech rights of preachers and political protestors.[10][11] The Rutherford Institute has worked with a number of similar groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, the Cato Institute,[12] the Constitution Project, and the Liberty Coalition.[13] Whitehead was described by jazz historian and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff as “this nation’s Paul Revere of protecting civil liberties.”[14]

            More at link.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “More at link” indeed. Yes, V is certainly a good “looker upper”. But she needs to perhaps go a bit deeper than the wikipedia entries that 5th. graders frequent for a better understanding of the Rutherford Institute. Like here:


            She might also explore the financial situation if Rutherford by checking with Charity Navigator and looking for some of the mutual admiration society that Hentoff and Rutherford have been engaged in for a long time as they freely spout their OPINIONS (Some of which I DO agree with).

          • vierotchka Says:

            You do enjoy posting all manner of logical fallacies, don’t you? From straw man to ad hominems, many of your responses are rife with logical fallacies – a sign of an inferior intellect which pretends and even believes to be a superior intellect.

            In this instance, yours was a blatant Damning the Originfallacy.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Look at the Demented Rooster strut! Yes, even women can be Demented Roosters if they speak enough foolishness—-we DO make the Rooster Suit in smaller sizes and are not hung up on gender identity—-even nasty women and dotty old ladies are welcome to wear them, provided they demonstrate a sufficient level of self-delusion. V definitely qualifies.

            And V has been reading her Logic for Dummies book and doing her usual “looking up” as well. It is a “logical fallacy” for one to assume that something she finds on the web (and doesn’t understand and can’t state in her own words) is in any way meaningful. It DOES, however, nicely illustrate the concept of “….an inferior intellect which pretends and even believes to be a superior intellect”. Dunning-Kruger anyone?

          • vierotchka Says:

            Did you enjoy that bout of verbal onanism obviously followed by plain physical onanism? Was it good for you? Did you come (better go wash your hand and clean your keyboard and screen if you did)? Are you feeling better now?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As usual, V’s frustration over her inadequate knowledge base and weak intellectual abilities have caused her to go far over the line and end the discussion. Talking about verbal and mental onanism is one thing—-I have often done it when talking about Master Bates (aka Tommy Poo), but V’s saying “Did you come (better go wash your hand and clean your keyboard and screen if you did)?” is more than just the rantings of a Dotty Old Lady. It’s disgusting.

            Goodbye again, Vierotchka, you truly NASTY woman. (and you can lie all you want about wearing a Satan costume for Halloween but NOT being Satan—-this comment shows who you really are, and the horns, tail, and sulfur smell are quire obvious)

          • verotchka,

            How does Cato (Koch!) show up as a funder of a liberal-leaning organization?

            Sincere question.

            BTW, I agree with you regarding dumboldguy’s rampant, time-wasting use of logical fallacies. Do you think he is not aware of this? Maybe someone should begin doing a count.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Eugenics Boy.

            If you’re going to start flirting with the woman I once referred to as Dotty Old Lady, you should at least spell her name correctly. I DO think that you two should work together, though—-between the two of you, you almost have the brainpower and knowledge base of one person (but be careful—-she is not to be trusted—-she will turn on you in a split second if you dare to disagree with her).

            “How does Cato (Koch!) show up as a funder of a liberal-leaning organization?”, you ask sincerely?

            A sincere question for YOU. Why have you not taken a reading comprehension course by this stage in your life? No one here has suggested that Cato is a funder of the Rutherford Institute—-reread the last parts of V’s and my comments more closely—-and your characterization of Rutherford as a ” liberal-leaning organization” displays your ignorance. Or am I reading your comment wrong because it’s shallow and poorly worded?

            As far as my “rampant, time-wasting use of logical fallacies”, you wouldn’t recognize a logical fallacy if it bit you on the ass (and BTW why are you kissing Vierotchka’s?). Do some more googling or get yourself a Logic for Dummies book and get educated before you run your mouth about “logic”.

            “Do you think he is not aware of this?”, you ask? I will ask YOU if you are aware of the saying “Fight fire with fire”? Please DO be the “someone” who begins doing a count—-I give you permission to leave off the feet of your “Demented Rooster Strutting in the Barnyard Crowing about Your Imagined Superiority” suit so that you can also use your toes for tallying.

            PS While you are googling, check this out for a better understanding of the Rutherford Institute and John Whitehead;


            Then come back and talk to us about a “liberal leaning organization” (Maybe you should look up “Libertarian” too. It is not synonymous with Liberal just because the first five letters are the same. I repeat—-“John Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute are hardly “fair” and are certainly UNbalanced”, although I DO approve of some of the positions and causes he has taken up—-if you go far enough Liberal, you do come full circle and find some overlap with Libertarianism.

        • Conspiracy theorists with no redeeming qualities.

      • You’re right that she has occasionally stood up for sanity, but that statement/title just struck me and at least a couple of thousand commenters as so much false equivalence, because of course we are not going to be okay if Trump wins, and there is just no equivalence between Hillary and the big ugly groper.

        While I am not terribly fond of Hillary, I strongly believe that she will make an excellent president, and she understands and acknowledges the reality of climate change.

        Also, I lived in Northern VA (Roslyndale, Arlington and Vienna)for approx 10 years, and still miss it to this day, which is part of why I subscribe to the Post!

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I don’t think it’s fair to characterize what Parker was doing as “false equivalency”.
          She has done more than “occasionally stood up for sanity” where the the big ugly groping orange turd is concerned, and has never considered him to be even an acceptable candidate, never mind president.

          I do think she just went insane for a moment in a couple of places in her well-meaning attempt to settle everyone down. Perhaps she will realize that after the comments and all the letters to the editor that will surely come and recant.

          How long has it been since you lived in NO VA? If you have been gone for more than 15 years, you will find it to be a much more crowded and unpleasant place—-traffic is getting near unbearable.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: