Liberal Forum

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 12:21 pm

----------------------------------

Stephen Colbert of The Late Show and Greg Gutfeld of Gutfeld! are the highest-rated late-night hosts, with Colbert leading in total viewers in the 11:35 PM slot and Gutfeld topping cable news ratings. Jimmy Kimmel's Live! also performs strongly, leading the 18-49 demographic in its timeslot, while Jimmy Fallon's The Tonight Show is the most-followed and engaged late-night show on social media.

Jerra.

At the end of the day, Kimmel is being doubled by The View. That's five post-menopausal broads known for mouthy stupidity, in a FAR inferior time slot. 

Just stop. Seriously - **** stop, and really really try to think.

In a slot with doubles the viewers, he draws half the audience. He is getting spanked by five unsightly and lippy broads whose o'er-splashed gardenia toilet water is almost smellable through the television screen.

He's a **** hack. His greatest "talent" is his over-played, maudlin emotionality. His audience is QUITE small for his time slot. He's a place holder until they can find a proper, competetive host. 
 
 
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 1:15 pm

• Polarized audience: Data from the controversy reveals a clear partisan divide. While Democrats overwhelmingly disapproved of Kimmel's suspension and were happy about his return, Republicans were more likely to approve of the suspension and oppose his return.
• "Too political" perception: The same poll showed that while many Americans view Kimmel as liberal (57%), a larger group (40%) felt his approach to politics was "about right" rather than "too political" (35%). 

-------------------------------------------------------------

much to trump's chagrin, kimmel is poptular. last night the focus was on the epstein files. I would encourage everyone to watch the monologue of 10/7.

Gosh.

Who went and polarized the audience? 

Who would WANT to lose half of the audience by calling them nazis?
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 2:34 pm

which does not exist.

Correct. He's been sucking "the view" broads' asses for years. 
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 2:37 pm

his suspension had nothing do with rarings.

he was brought back because his many  fans threatened to boycott advertisors and stores.

His suspension BROUGHT ratings.

For one night.

Now he's back in the chump slot, being beaten by everyone elsein the time slot and even by five old hags in a far inferior time slot. 
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 5:32 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------

A Disney boycott was launched by some liberal viewers after ABC, a Disney-owned network, suspended late-night host Jimmy Kimmel in September 2025 for comments made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk's assassination. Many interpreted the suspension as an attack on free speech and censorship, leading to a significant wave of Disney+ and other service cancellations. Although Kimmel was reinstated, the controversy highlights broader questions about political differences, consumer action, and the financial impact of such boycotts. ---------------------------------------

Why disney brought the loser back is irrelevant to the fact that he objectively sucks, based on ratings.
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 5:44 pm

-------------------------------
Following the blackout of Jimmy Kimmel Live! by Sinclair and Nexstar, some consumers have called for boycotts of advertisers who funded the stations' programming, with brands like Allstate, Marshalls, and AT&T specifically targeted. While Sinclair and Nexstar have since agreed to reinstate the show on their ABC affiliates, the calls for boycotts and pressure campaigns on advertisers to pull their funding from these broadcasters were significant during the conflict. 

-------------------------------------------------

my idea as well.

No one cares. He still sucks. His ratings suck.
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 7:53 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 7:53 pm

his ratings are good.

fox ratings are down tho.

 

Didn't I ask you to TRY to think?

Explain how leading from the rear is "good."
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 8:04 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 8:04 pm

Are Fox News ratings down?
AI Overview
Yes, Fox News ratings have been down, with recent reports showing declines in total viewers and the key 25-54 demographic in primetime and total day for Q3 and September 2025 compared to previous periods

Fox sucks.
Kimmel sucks.
But you're stupid.
You think only fox sucks.

In fact, you think fox sucking somehow makes skimmel not suck. 
And that stupidity makes you suck.
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 9:56 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 9:56 pm

Fox sucks.
Kimmel sucks.
But you're stupid.
You think only fox sucks.

In fact, you think fox sucking somehow makes skimmel not suck. 
And that stupidity makes you suck.

last night 10-7 monolougue was epic.
it did not suck. i don't go by ratings on what sucks.

I  posted last nights  monologue.

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 10:13 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:13 pm

last night 10-7 monolougue was epic.
it did not suck. i don't go by ratings on what sucks.

I  posted last nights  monologue.

YOU don't go by ratings. Advertisers do. 

If you had any sense, you would be as annoyed by a talk show host on your "side" getting political as you would be by a talk show host on the other "side."

But you have no sense - as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know how much that little weasel sucks. 

And as I pointed out: Fox sucking doesn't change the fact that your weasel's numbers SUCK OUT LOUD. They suck actual ***. That little queer cannot even DREAM of getting fox's ratings.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm

YOU don't go by ratings. Advertisers do. 

If you had any sense, you would be as annoyed by a talk show host on your "side" getting political as you would be by a talk show host on the other "side."

But you have no sense - as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know howmuch that little weasel sucks.

 you have no problem with political fox.

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm

YOU don't go by ratings. Advertisers do. 

If you had any sense, you would be as annoyed by a talk show host on your "side" getting political as you would be by a talk show host on the other "side."

But you have no sense - as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know how much that little weasel sucks. 

And as I pointed out: Fox sucking doesn't change the fact that your weasel's numbers SUCK OUT LOUD. They suck actual ***. That little queer cannot even DREAM of getting fox's ratings.

they dont suck out loud.

they don't suck at all.
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 10:21 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:21 pm

 you have no problem with political fox.

I sure don't. For one thing, I never, ever watch that silly dog ****. For another, their actual purpose is politics. They're not late night talk show hosts. They're not SUPPOSED to appeal to a broad audience. They're after a very PARTICULAR audience. Your little queer is **** on half of the audience he is SUPPOSED to be after - and his ratings show it. 

And for a third thing, they get several times as many viewers as Kimmel. Without looking, I would wager their worst hour beats his ratings. 
 

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:22 pm

they dont suck out loud.

they don't suck at all.

That is simply a stupid utterance. 

To make that claim, you would need to show how kimmel compares favorably to anyone in his time slot. 

He doesn't.

He doesn't even compare favorably to the hags on the view, whose time slot has far fewer viewers. They're skunking the turd.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm

YOU don't go by ratings. Advertisers do. 

If you had any sense, you would be as annoyed by a talk show host on your "side" getting political as you would be by a talk show host on the other "side."

But you have no sense - as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know how much that little weasel sucks. 

And as I pointed out: Fox sucking doesn't change the fact that your weasel's numbers SUCK OUT LOUD. They suck actual ***. That little queer cannot even DREAM of getting fox's ratings.

cobert and the rest are all polical. kimmel did not push for boys in girls sports like they do on the view.

kimmel shows actual footage from senate hearings. he shows that the democrat won't get sworn in because then they have to release the epstein files and johnson has stalled that from happening.

 

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 10:25 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:25 pm

That is simply a stupid utterance. 

To make that claim, you would need to show how kimmel compares favorably to anyone in his time slot. 

He doesn't.

He doesn't even compare favorably to the hags on the view, whose time slot has far fewer viewers. They're skunking the turd.

---------------------------------
AI OverviewDuring a March 2025 episode of 
The View featuring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, host Whoopi Goldberg argued in defense of transgender female athletes competing in women's sports. Her remarks drew significant backlash and online criticism, with critics accusing her of dismissing biological differences between male and female athletes. 

///////////////Key points from the televised debate:
Response to Governor Newsom: Whoopi Goldberg's comments followed remarks by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who stated it was "deeply unfair" for trans females to compete against cisgender women. Goldberg criticized this perspective by implying it was based on ignorance about transgender bodies.
Pushback on assumptions: Goldberg challenged the assumption that trans athletes have an unfair biological advantage, arguing that such a belief "assum[es] that the women are weak and just can't do anything". She noted the strength and skill of female athletes and questioned why the issue was controversial.
Panel guest's reaction: Transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney was present as a guest on the panel and appeared visibly uncomfortable during Goldberg's extended comments.
Criticism from conservatives: The segment sparked immediate backlash, with several conservative commentators and news outlets criticizing Goldberg's stance. This included Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi, who described Goldberg's comments as a "bizarre tirade". Some critics also accused Goldberg of denying biological differences between sexes.

Cannonpointer » 08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 10:19 pm

YOU don't go by ratings. Advertisers do. 

If you had any sense, you would be as annoyed by a talk show host on your "side" getting political as you would be by a talk show host on the other "side."

But you have no sense - as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know how much that little weasel sucks. 

And as I pointed out: Fox sucking doesn't change the fact that your weasel's numbers SUCK OUT LOUD. They suck actual ***. That little queer cannot even DREAM of getting fox's ratings.

kimmel is factual. he said the sha man is suing trump and others for 40 trillion dollars. I looked it up and is true.

-------------------------------------------

Jacob Chansley, the man known as the "QAnon Shaman" for his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, filed a $40 trillion lawsuit against former President Donald Trump in late September 2025. The rambling, 26-page lawsuit names numerous other defendants, including Elon Musk, Warner Bros., and the Federal Reserve
 

/////////////Who is suing? Jacob Angeli-Chansley, representing himself.
Who is being sued? Defendants include Donald Trump, Elon Musk's X Corp., T-Mobile, Warner Bros., the Federal Reserve, the NSA, the IMF, the World Bank, and the state of Israel.
What are the claims? The lawsuit includes various accusations, such as claiming the central banking system is unconstitutional, the NSA spied on him, plot details from certain films were stolen from his writings, and Trump emailed him after the Capitol riots.
What is the demand? Chansley is seeking $40 trillion in damages and has declared himself president of a "New Constitutional Republic of the United States".
Other details: He also proposed minting a $40 trillion gold coin to address the national debt.
 

Huey » 08 Oct 2025, 7:34 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 7:34 pm

This a response to your last 3 post that are attempting to move the goal posts on the topic.  

 

What exactly are moving goal posts aimed at when all universal things only exist socially building better tomorrows evolving as specific individuals one day at a time, now?

Which 1 of 4 event horizons on this rotating planet creates the actual tomorrow each rotation of the planet life was total sum evolution completed so far?


a. Dawn to dusk
b. dusk to dawn.
c midnight to noon
d. noon to midnight
e. new moon
f. 1st quarter
g. full moon
h. 3rd quarter
i. winter solstice northern hemisphere
j. spring equinox norther hemisphere
k. winter solstice southern hemisphere
l. spring solstice southern hemisphere
m. arrival of first generation of 16 great great grandparents
n. arrival of original 2nd generation of 8 great grandparents
o. arrival of original 3rd generation of 4 grandparents
p. arrival of original 4th generation of 2 parents
q. arrival of original great great grandchildren changing population still alive each generation forward
r. arrival of 6th generation sustaining eternal separation of current population this rotation of the planet
s. regardless which species within plant or animal reproductions, predator or prey individual nature, asexual, male, female body type of current ancestral positions daily here is the topic of academic possibilities genetics never was the only source of current population.

Doing the same social behavior in every legal franchise of humanity directing typecast people defined by rule of law within the whole species each rotation over and over expecting better tomorrows 7 days a week as living never exceeded spontaneously evolving simultaneously here 52 weeks a year as conceived as something never existed before to decomposed as never duplicated twice adapting in space occupying the moment here so far.

Money never corrupted everyone living so far, power of suggesting life is more than adapting here now has been.