Jimmy Kimmel returns to late night, as unfunny, as dishonest and as classless as ever.

re "lawfare against trump," bullsh*t. if we have one legal standard. the man flouted the law, raped, committed fraud, tried to conspire with foreign governments against political opponents, tried to subvert an election, ignited a coup attempt. he relied on the idea that he would get special treatment. his party would not impeach him. he would get the legal cases tossed somehow.

you did not have to "dig" into trump to find cases. he would turn to a camera and ask for russia to find hillary emails. he would ask georgia's governor to find votes. the only question became "are we going to do something about it." the catch 22 being if you don't, he's getting away with crime openly. and if you do, the partisans pout he's being subjected to the legal system.

and while he lost everything that saw a jury, he basically avoided consequences so far. he correctly assessed, as he said back in 2016, that he could shoot someone on a street corner and you would do nothing. that is a double standard for the rich and powerful.

this was the DOJ and special counsel doing their own work. biden didn't order them to investigate. they didn't need orders. it was done brazenly.

if you can't see how that is completely different than firing anyone in DOJ or FBI that did their job and were on his cases, or the president ordering DOJ to charge opposing donors, politicians, or law enforcement officials, you have checked out from reality and landed on planet partisan.

for starters, trump's investigations of his opponents are top-down dictated and tend to (in alice and wonderland manner) start with a desired sentence or retribution, then search for a crime. they are the epitome of the republican ethos that if you look hard enough at anyone they have violated some law someplace. which i thought you opposed.

and having argued we should have one standard and lawfare violates that, you become disinterested if your own politicians and law enforcement could be accused of similar things.

oh, and since you folks have short memories, comey was a republican. every FBI director ever is a republican. just like bolton was generally known as hard right.

to me that is indicative of how unless you are with the regime, you are the enemy. that includes people on the right who believe in the rule of law, or anyone who disagrees but called themslves republicans.

and since the man has no friends -- as his tiff with elon reminds -- he comes for everyone eventually. you may want to lick his scrotum. he finds you expendable.

the basic confusion on the right at the moment is carr at FCC doesn't tell me whether i can watch the man, their talent and market decide. you don't like him, so what, you're not the boss. the idea that becuse you don't enjoy him, we don't get him around, is just a different manifestation of the same imperial, monarchical, dictator impulse.

no, those 2 are actually different. first amendment is government doesn't get to choose or delete speech. "cancel" is different. it's saying we can't have social norms or make market decisions about the content of that speech.

to me at its nth degree anti-cancel is actually chilling of speech in that you don't want me allowed to say that thing you said is gross and i think you should suffer social consequences for an immoral act. there can be no "too far." there can be no "too transgressive."

this from the pseudo-moralists attacking abortion rights and trans folks as bad people.

and recent history shows that if we dismantled left wing market power re say racial slurs or gay rights, the american right does not stop at neutral, but rather starts pushing anti-blasphemy sanction, or enforcing their idea of patriotism, or for disagreeing with likud foreign policy, or the like. you don't just run the hippies off of new college of florida, you put a charlie kirk statue up on a state college campus.

flip this across to hours of political crap on fox or gutfeld and it reads kind of stupid.

to be fair, i don't necessarily disagree on content, i wouldn't mind more strictly funny shows. however, what actually happened is fox news evenings got massive ratings on the right, jon stewart got mirroring left wing ratings, and the networks looked at that landscape and thought their running room was on the left when stewart initially retired.

i like iliza. iliza puts out one off concert movies that are funny but one and done. iliza had a netflix sketch comedy show. it lasted one season.

they had taylor tomlinson after colbert. fairly funny lady. she got fired before colbert did.

recompute your little theory. if you want apolitical or less political, then watch that sort of stuff.

if i really wanted to be punchy, there is the appearance that fox with its hours and hours of politics, quite often inaccurate to the point of losing defamation cases or settlements, is fine and off limits, but we will use the FCC power against networks to silence or control their evening shows.

this is kind of what putin or orban did in their countries. you agreed with the regime, you kept your license. you disagreed, you got shut down. they would find a law or excuse and send in the swat team.

as here with carr, there is some law you can strain and strain and strain and say this was done for "legal" reasons. let's call kimmel news and call his monologue news distortion. that doesn't fit but in most dictatorships the deal is before you can debate those specifics, the opponent is in jail, or dropped out of a helicopter in the ocean, or poisoned, or has balance problems out of an open 9th story window, or the TV station is shuttered then burns to the ground, or somesuch.

since when did every single TV show have to make money? all due respect, but do you think ANYONE watches the byron allen crap that locally replaced taylor tomlinson's 1130 show? will watch whatever test pattern replaces colbert? it won't cost money. but no one will watch. what is the value of a TV network no one watches?

i think colbert made a comment like this. at a point of firing people for supposedly costing CBS money, who are the people CBS had to watch and people liked, what is really left of CBS? at which point, shifting from your narrow balance sheet perspective to company value, you spent $8b for CBS. you then started firing people. is it still worth $8b without the stars?

i am a houston dynamo fan. when the team started it was part of a conglomerate. it won a couple league titles. the company sold the team. and then it got sold again. under the new regime it is held to trying to make a profit in and of itself. the talent level dropped. we made the playoffs once in a decade. and now the attendance is down 25% since its peak. so you took a winning product that never missed the playoffs but fudged whether it was profitable within a conglomerate, and turned it into a losing team that barely ever makes the playoffs but tries hard to stick to its budget.

last, c'mon dude, a fair amount of american businesses run at a loss. the whole AI thing is running at a loss. for a long time the internet lost money. most of the streamers supposedly to take over for the money losing networks -- they lose money too. they are just hoping to outlive the networks and then you have to either pay for cable or pay for streaming. but you will pay for what used to be free tv.

and ironically, you will pay some version of the same company you used to get for free. eg you will buy hulu to watch only murders, when we now see ABC could run it as a show on their network for free. which they have in reruns. like they showed yellowstone a little on CBS. etc.

and a further irony, remember when we would buy streaming for no commercials, which was different than network, and now they are going to squeeze the orange and either extract more bucks or commercials out just the same from streaming?

but you were lecturing me about accounting.......

last last, i get kimmel's point, and i think he's actually right. right now every mass shooting thread on here within a few posts someone is self servingly speculating from zero released facts that it was a lefty. that's what he was basically getting at.

but on further thought, kimmel is foolishly playing their game. we have a mass shooting about once a week right now. and we do nothing about guns. and one party controls every institution. so shooter aside, this is one party's fault. you run the show. you see these shootings. and you err on the side of the guns.

speculating right vs left is a sideshow because the common thread is gun policy and availability which is pushed mostly by one side. who should then bear the responsibility for those results.

this is nominally about kirk. what did kirk say, paraphrasing? i guess this sort of thing is going to have to happen so we can have second amendment rights? so own it.

Last 2 shooters both conservativrs.

You ruined The Imperative Voice Real8's streak of 8 consecutive posts. That has to be a record. Boo this man (or woman)!

to elaborate on profit and loss, colbert and kimmel's salary cost.

but, they are also watched by millions. which is ad revenue. which is streaming revenue.

if you got after them to pinch pennies, and end up running a test pattern or show no one watches, then your revenues plummet, both for that time slot and in general.

the advertisers then want a big old cut on commercial prices for that slot.

and on and on.

to me this is death spiral stuff. you cut costs. people like your product less. you make less money. you cut costs more and more. fewer yet watch. and then you're done.

On the plus side, at least Kimmel is "vaccinated". Presumably, "fully vaccinated".

Sometimes the trash takes ITSELF out.

This is kind of true, but in a way it's less about Kirk or people like him and more of the community that they foster. When I look at these pundits I always go to the comments section and see what the people consuming his content are saying, and that often gives a different picture than if you were to just take his words in isolation. In the case of right wing pundits, they have a big racism problem. Maybe not then per se but look at the comments sections for any of those guys and you'll see it.

The “Imperative Voice…” has provided an example of true mental illness, getting so worked up over opinions on a message board, and spouting so many lies and ridiculous takes as to be a parody of himself. On the other hand he may be another boiler-room worker, just doing what he’s paid to do. Either way, with so many posts, so many in a row, he obviously needs help to regain what little sanity he can. Right now he provides a lot of tl/dr BS.

…. And then there’s this mentally ill man, who apparently pretends to be a Kiwi, and posts endless “I know you are, but what am I,” drivel in between his constant rants about Jakob, Trump, and how he has perfected his dildo techniques on himself.

Leftists are over-represented because the MSM is leftist, run for the most part of the grandchildren etc of the people who ran the old USSR, the people who ran the ‘Russian Revolution’. But you’re not supposed to notice.

You are right. Most people do not understand what you are writing about.

They are completely unaware of what these people have been able to do via all that “interest” money from the Fed they use as “seed money”. Their greed ruins everything they touch sooner or later. For example, look at what they’re doing to Las Vegas in terms of it collapsing because they can’t resist trying to steal every last penny. Sure, part of it is their innate hatred for the white-middle class, but their greed is astounding.

So you respond to what you can't read? With you, that makes sense.

Your mental issues don't require diagnosis. You make them self-explanatory.