Liberal Forum

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 11:01 pm

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

Dummy, the view is political. Late night chat shows are meant to be TOPICAL. The view targets a particular audience. Late night chat shows are meant to appeal to ECERYONE.

You clearly cannot think at all. I wondered why the **** you slathered me with all that grease about whoopie doing what she is paid to do. You don't GET it. Whoopie's JOB is to run her **** about that ****. It's what her audience pays for and therefore what her SPONSORS pay her for.

Not so much with Kimmel. Just try, darlin. Just TRY to think. You can do it.

jerrab » 08 Oct 2025, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Oct 2025, 11:01 pm

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.

I have no idea what this ^ refers to.

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.

This ^ is simply a protestation of stupidity. 

It's like you're assuring me you're stupid, and when I say, "Are yas sure?", you respond my showing me the notary's seal on your Affidavit of Stupidity in support of your Writ of Retardation. 
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Oct 2025, 10:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Oct 2025, 10:32 pm

Dummy, the view is political. Late night chat shows are meant to be TOPICAL. The view targets a particular audience. Late night chat shows are meant to appeal to ECERYONE.

You clearly cannot think at all. I wondered why the **** you slathered me with all that grease about whoopie doing what she is paid to do. You don't GET it. Whoopie's JOB is to run her **** about that ****. It's what her audience pays for and therefore what her SPONSORS pay her for.

Not so much with Kimmel. Just try, darlin. Just TRY to think. You can do it.

I have no idea what this ^ refers to.

kimmel is going to show how mtg wants the epstein files released and he does not care if people like it or not. watch the view, don't tell me to.

Cannonpointer » 09 Oct 2025, 10:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Oct 2025, 10:32 pm

Dummy, the view is political. Late night chat shows are meant to be TOPICAL. The view targets a particular audience. Late night chat shows are meant to appeal to ECERYONE.

You clearly cannot think at all. I wondered why the **** you slathered me with all that grease about whoopie doing what she is paid to do. You don't GET it. Whoopie's JOB is to run her **** about that ****. It's what her audience pays for and therefore what her SPONSORS pay her for.

Not so much with Kimmel. Just try, darlin. Just TRY to think. You can do it.

I have no idea what this ^ refers to.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jimmy- ... 236544810/

jerrab » 10 Oct 2025, 1:18 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:18 am

kimmel is going to show how mtg wants the epstein files released and he does not care if people like it or not. watch the view, don't tell me to.

I don't give a **** what kimmel is going to do. I know what he is NOT going to do.

He is NOT going to do a proper late night comedy show. That would mean being essentially apolitical, ala Johny Carson, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brian, Craig Ferguson, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Dick Cavette, etc. These people all do (or did) political jokes. But they poked light fun - they did not advocate. Late night audiences do not want to be preached at. They're trying to relax. And you may argue, Hey, HIS audience likes that ****. Okaaay. But his audience is TINY. So, yeah - you put the majority of felchers and boy touchers and coprophiliacs into the mix, and you can get yourself a "core" audience of maybe a million Americans. Advertizers want more. No one has EVER delivered numbers that low - not even dry monologist Tom Snyder,who had four to five times Kimmel's audience numbers in a worse time slot and at a time when this country had about fifty million fewer people. 

What you cannot seem to grasp is two things - and in both cases, because of willful self-deception or dishonesty:

1. The phenomenon of late show hosts alienating half of America is very new and not fated to last very long since it costs a lot of money toput on such shows and advertizers are kind of insistent that they want more than half of America to consider using their products; and

2. That little ****-***'s ratings are pathetic, and have been for a long time. Before they fell to half of their peak, he was in last place. Now, he is in last place with much lower ratings. And before you mouth-**** another scintillating rejoinder like, "Nuh uh," or, "He's doing great," just understand that everyone on the board, left,right, and center, knows that is a lie. It just makes you look stupid and childish. I would even say churlish and utterly unconcerned with the accuracy ofyour claims. 

Math does notlie. But you do - clearly.

Cannonpointer » 10 Oct 2025, 1:47 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:47 am

I don't give a **** what kimmel is going to do. I know what he is NOT going to do.

He is NOT going to do a proper late night comedy show. That would mean being essentially apolitical, ala Johny Carson, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brian, Craig Ferguson, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Dick Cavette, etc. These people all do (or did) political jokes. But they poked light fun - they did not advocate. Late night audiences do not want to be preached at. They're trying to relax. And you may argue, Hey, HIS audience likes that ****. Okaaay. But his audience is TINY. So, yeah - you put the majority of felchers and boy touchers and coprophiliacs into the mix, and you can get yourself a "core" audience of maybe a million Americans. Advertizers want more. No one has EVER delivered numbers that low - not even dry monologist Tom Snyder,who had four to five times Kimmel's audience numbers in a worse time slot and at a time when this country had about fifty million fewer people. 

What you cannot seem to grasp is two things - and in both cases, because of willful self-deception or dishonesty:

1. The phenomenon of late show hosts alienating half of America is very new and not fated to last very long since it costs a lot of money toput on such shows and advertizers are kind of insistent that they want more than half of America to consider using their products; and

2. That little ****-***'s ratings are pathetic, and have been for a long time. Before they fell to half of their peak, he was in last place. Now, he is in last place with much lower ratings. And before you mouth-**** another scintillating rejoinder like, "Nuh uh," or, "He's doing great," just understand that everyone on the board, left,right, and center, knows that is a lie. It just makes you look stupid and childish. I would even say churlish and utterly unconcerned with the accuracy ofyour claims. 

Math does notlie. But you do - clearly.

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

https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/th ... ings-drop/

If you’ve seen headlines about Jimmy Kimmel Live! losing “half its audience,” you might assume the late-night host’s post-suspension bump has vanished. It hasn’t.The White House and some news outlets have highlighted a week-to-week ratings decline—and they’re not wrong. According to Live+3 figures for the week of Sept. 29–Oct. 4 (see below), Kimmel averaged 42% fewer total viewers and was down 52% in the advertiser-coveted 18–49 demographic compared to the prior week.But those numbers only tell half the story. Jimmy Kimmel‘s return from suspension on September 23rd was a televsion event—one that dominated headlines and drew record-breaking ratings.If you compare Kimmel’s numbers last week to two weeks earlier, he was actually up 45% in total viewers and 52% among younger adults. That was enough to make Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week’s winner in the 11:35 p.m. time slot for the second consecutive week.Yes, Fox News fans, Greg Gutfeld still drew more total viewers (it airs at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT). But among the shows we track —Gutfeld! included—Kimmel delivered the highest share of television viewers and the largest 18–49 audience, the number advertisers care about most.
 

jerrab » 10 Oct 2025, 1:41 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:41 am

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jimmy- ... 236544810/

So Kimmel had ONE high point where he managed to get something like his old audience numbers - which were dismal even at that peak, compared to his time-slot competition. Bully for him.

I am supremely confident that it has not crossed your mind that the reason this made a headline in Variety is that it was an exception to the rule. 

That 2.2 was two things: anomolous, and STILL far behind the competition. 2.2 million viewers in that time slot sucks. At his peak, Kimmel sucks in the ratings. At his absolute peak, he is being soundly beaten by a late morning time-slot show run by five boring menopausal hags. 

You don't have to like it. No one said you should. Clearly, gay boys are your thing - and that's fine. But the incessant lying and denial of basic math just makes you look stupid. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Oct 2025, 1:47 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:47 am

I don't give a **** what kimmel is going to do. I know what he is NOT going to do.

He is NOT going to do a proper late night comedy show. That would mean being essentially apolitical, ala Johny Carson, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brian, Craig Ferguson, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Dick Cavette, etc. These people all do (or did) political jokes. But they poked light fun - they did not advocate. Late night audiences do not want to be preached at. They're trying to relax. And you may argue, Hey, HIS audience likes that ****. Okaaay. But his audience is TINY. So, yeah - you put the majority of felchers and boy touchers and coprophiliacs into the mix, and you can get yourself a "core" audience of maybe a million Americans. Advertizers want more. No one has EVER delivered numbers that low - not even dry monologist Tom Snyder,who had four to five times Kimmel's audience numbers in a worse time slot and at a time when this country had about fifty million fewer people. 

What you cannot seem to grasp is two things - and in both cases, because of willful self-deception or dishonesty:

1. The phenomenon of late show hosts alienating half of America is very new and not fated to last very long since it costs a lot of money toput on such shows and advertizers are kind of insistent that they want more than half of America to consider using their products; and

2. That little ****-***'s ratings are pathetic, and have been for a long time. Before they fell to half of their peak, he was in last place. Now, he is in last place with much lower ratings. And before you mouth-**** another scintillating rejoinder like, "Nuh uh," or, "He's doing great," just understand that everyone on the board, left,right, and center, knows that is a lie. It just makes you look stupid and childish. I would even say churlish and utterly unconcerned with the accuracy ofyour claims. 

Math does notlie. But you do - clearly.

kimmel does not preach he gives people a chance to see what goes on in the senate that they will not see otherwise.

he lets people make up their own mind.

jerrab » 10 Oct 2025, 1:49 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:49 am

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

https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/th ... ings-drop/

If you’ve seen headlines about Jimmy Kimmel Live! losing “half its audience,” you might assume the late-night host’s post-suspension bump has vanished. It hasn’t.The White House and some news outlets have highlighted a week-to-week ratings decline—and they’re not wrong. According to Live+3 figures for the week of Sept. 29–Oct. 4 (see below), Kimmel averaged 42% fewer total viewers and was down 52% in the advertiser-coveted 18–49 demographic compared to the prior week.But those numbers only tell half the story. Jimmy Kimmel‘s return from suspension on September 23rd was a televsion event—one that dominated headlines and drew record-breaking ratings.If you compare Kimmel’s numbers last week to two weeks earlier, he was actually up 45% in total viewers and 52% among younger adults. That was enough to make Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week’s winner in the 11:35 p.m. time slot for the second consecutive week.Yes, Fox News fans, Greg Gutfeld still drew more total viewers (it airs at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT). But among the shows we track —Gutfeld! included—Kimmel delivered the highest share of television viewers and the largest 18–49 audience, the number advertisers care about most.

Here is your blog saying the opposite:

AI Overview
Late night television ratings saw a viewership spike for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in Q3 2025, averaging 2.84 million viewers and increasing 14% year-over-year. Meanwhile, Fox News' Gutfeld! continues to dominate its 10 p.m. slot with high total viewership, though LateNighter reported a week-to-week decline in Jimmy Kimmel Live!'s audience after a post-strike bump. 
 
Latenighter.com is publicly calling itself out. 
 
 

jerrab » 10 Oct 2025, 1:57 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:57 am

kimmel does not preach he gives people a chance to see what goes on in the senate that they will not see otherwise.

he lets people make up their own mind.

Again, your dishonesty is on full display. No one on this board has not seen him literally crying after kamala lost to trump. 

And he preached a sermon. Just stop with the lying. It makes you look stupid and dishonest.
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Oct 2025, 1:55 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:55 am

So Kimmel had ONE high point where he managed to get something like his old audience numbers - which were dismal even at that peak, compared to his time-slot competition. Bully for him.

I am supremely confident that it has not crossed your mind that the reason this made a headline in Variety is that it was an exception to the rule. 

That 2.2 was two things: anomolous, and STILL far behind the competition. 2.2 million viewers in that time slot sucks. At his peak, Kimmel sucks in the ratings. At his absolute peak, he is being soundly beaten by a late morning time-slot show run by five boring menopausal hags. 

You don't have to like it. No one said you should. Clearly, gay boys are your thing - and that's fine. But the incessant lying and denial of basic math just makes you look stupid.

the 18-49 group are the ones who buy things   -------------------------------------------------------
That was enough to make Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week’s winner in the 11:35 p.m. time slot for the second consecutive week.Yes, Fox News fans, Greg Gutfeld still drew more total viewers (it airs at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT). But among the shows we track —Gutfeld! included—Kimmel delivered the highest share of television viewers and the largest 18–49 audience, the number advertisers care about most.

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

this was the best week ever.
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Oct 2025, 1:58 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 1:58 am

Here is your blog saying the opposite:

AI Overview
Late night television ratings saw a viewership spike for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in Q3 2025, averaging 2.84 million viewers and increasing 14% year-over-year. Meanwhile, Fox News' Gutfeld! continues to dominate its 10 p.m. slot with high total viewership, though LateNighter reported a week-to-week decline in Jimmy Kimmel Live!'s audience after a post-strike bump. 
 
Latenighter.com is publicly calling itself out.

-----------------------------------------------
For the week of September 29, 2025, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was the top-rated late-night show, averaging 2.20 million total viewers and topping the demographic for late-night. The most-viewed night of the week was Monday, October 6, with 2.86 million viewers, and the show's week of live tapings from Brooklyn also garnered over 34.1 million views on its YouTube channel

Cannonpointer » 10 Oct 2025, 2:03 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 2:03 am

Again, your dishonesty is on full display. No one on this board has not seen him literally crying after kamala lost to trump. 

And he preached a sermon. Just stop with the lying. It makes you look stupid and dishonest.

dishonesty is steve johnson refusing to swear in the democrat because she will vote to release the epstein fils bcause then they will have to release them

//////////////////Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday had a heated, face-to-face exchange with two Democratic senators over the government shutdown and the swearing-in of Arizona’s Democratic Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva, who will be the 218th signature on an effort to end-run Johnson and force a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.

Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly were talking to reporters outside Johnson’s office about what they said was the speaker’s failure to swear-in Grijalva. House GOP leadership has said they will swear in Grijalva when the House returns for votes.

But Gallego accused Johnson of wanting to “cover up for pedophiles on the Epstein list, and number two, put his members in a really rough position when it comes to voting and extending these ACA tax credits.”

Johnson came out of his office at one point to argue he hasn’t scheduled Grijalva’s swearing in because she was elected after the House was out of session, unlike some previous examples. The speaker also made clear he wouldn’t bring the House back, and therefore swear in Grijalva, until Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government and pass the clean, short-term stopgap through Nov. 21.

“So I am anxious to administer the oath to her, as soon as you guys vote to open up the government,” Johnson said to Kelly and Gallego at one point.

Kelly and Gallego argued to Johnson that he swore in two Florida Republicans during a previous pro forma session.

But Gallego shot back: “You don’t want to be on the Epstein discharge.”///////////////////https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... s-00598080
 
 

https://youtu.be/4J7WBkE19B8?si=fDagBroBPqzIvazJ

//////////////////Some Democrats, along with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have charged there’s another reason Grijalva’s swearing-in has been delayed: the Epstein files. Grijalva would provide the last needed signature to advance a bipartisan effort led by Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to direct the Department of Justice to release the full tranche of files it has connected to Epstein, who died by suicide while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019.

“The government is in full shutdown and the Republicans are refusing to call the House back into session,” Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said Friday on X. “Want to know why? Because we have secured the final vote on releasing the Epstein Files and they don’t want it out.”////////////

Johnson has said he supports releasing more of the files but opposes Khanna and Massie’s measure, citing the need to protect survivors’ personal information and the House Oversight Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Epstein matter. Khanna and Massie are aiming to circumvent leadership’s opposition with a procedural tool called a discharge petition to force a vote on the House floor. In a widely attended rally and news conference at the Capitol in early September, Epstein survivors said they supported the resolution. https://19thnews.org/2025/10/epstein-fi ... wearing-in  -------------------------------------------

///////////////////// I hope I am wrong about this but the bill is something the dems would never accept and maybe some people would rather the government stay shut down so the epstein files don't get released.
 

https://youtu.be/4J7WBkE19B8?si=YJYsTCpHYKah4NTu

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... s-00598080

Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday had a heated, face-to-face exchange with two Democratic senators over the government shutdown and the swearing-in of Arizona’s Democratic Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva, who will be the 218th signature on an effort to end-run Johnson and force a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly were talking to reporters outside Johnson’s office about what they said was the speaker’s failure to swear-in Grijalva. House GOP leadership has said they will swear in Grijalva when the House returns for votes.But Gallego accused Johnson of wanting to “cover up for pedophiles on the Epstein list, and number two, put his members in a really rough position when it comes to voting and extending these ACA tax credits.”Johnson came out of his office at one point to argue he hasn’t scheduled Grijalva’s swearing in because she was elected after the House was out of session, unlike some previous examples. The speaker also made clear he wouldn’t bring the House back, and therefore swear in Grijalva, until Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government and pass the clean, short-term stopgap through Nov. 21.“So I am anxious to administer the oath to her, as soon as you guys vote to open up the government,” Johnson said to Kelly and Gallego at one point.

Kelly and Gallego argued to Johnson that he swore in two Florida Republicans during a previous pro forma session.
 

jerrab » 10 Oct 2025, 4:32 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 4:32 am

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... s-00598080

Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday had a heated, face-to-face exchange with two Democratic senators over the government shutdown and the swearing-in of Arizona’s Democratic Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva, who will be the 218th signature on an effort to end-run Johnson and force a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly were talking to reporters outside Johnson’s office about what they said was the speaker’s failure to swear-in Grijalva. House GOP leadership has said they will swear in Grijalva when the House returns for votes.But Gallego accused Johnson of wanting to “cover up for pedophiles on the Epstein list, and number two, put his members in a really rough position when it comes to voting and extending these ACA tax credits.”Johnson came out of his office at one point to argue he hasn’t scheduled Grijalva’s swearing in because she was elected after the House was out of session, unlike some previous examples. The speaker also made clear he wouldn’t bring the House back, and therefore swear in Grijalva, until Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government and pass the clean, short-term stopgap through Nov. 21.“So I am anxious to administer the oath to her, as soon as you guys vote to open up the government,” Johnson said to Kelly and Gallego at one point.

Kelly and Gallego argued to Johnson that he swore in two Florida Republicans during a previous pro forma session.

And Jimmy Kimmel’s ratings are stilled down.  ;)

Huey » 10 Oct 2025, 5:14 am » wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2025, 5:14 am

And Jimmy Kimmel’s ratings are stilled down.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 583446007/