Megyn Kelly discusses the problems with the 'affirmation only' model of gender medicine - Real Time with Bill Maher (25 Oct 2024)

Have you been asleep? He has been convicted in a civil court.

George Bush/Tony Blair are not up for election, so there’s little point bringing them up here.

She thinks he's the best candidate of the two.

It's a vote for a political administration that will promote certain policies. Not a personal recommendation.

Agreed. I think anyone who doesn't get 'ranty' about the sterilisation of children without a medical evidence base of risk or benefit , abandoning all normal medical ethics, which we'll definitely look back on as a medical scandal worse than the use of lobotomies, is of dubious character frankly.

Anyone who is a decent human being who's educated themselves on this is ranty! Lots are sticking their heads in the sand because they know the truth is appalling - they're willing to sacrifice children's health for their comfort. She's right to rant!

Trump does not have convictions for rape that is untrue. I think his behaviour is similar to Bill Clinton. But none of these people are nice people. Is it better that George Bush/Tony Blair are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for lying about the Iraq war?

Megyn Kelly at a Trump rally last night explaining why she's voting Trump:

https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1853628275794317779?t=NFdZFSi0XzX1fSSxYuK8Lg&s=19

What I’m saying is it’s unethical of Megyn Kelly to promote a candidate to millions of listeners/viewers that she personally abhors. Particularly from a feminist perspective, to suggest that is okay to vote for someone who has convictions for rape, reversed Roe vs Wade, and has a mountain of misogynistic comments behind him, is perverse.

But it’s okay if the “feminists” here don’t see it the same way.

I haven’t watched any of these shows from the US, but it does seem that Bill Maher has a good approach. It is one where he can agree with some things and not others which I used to think was a normal way to engage with people.

But does that mean that he will now forever be aligned with Megyn Kelly by some people who to think along the same lines as Pesutto’s leadership team?

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Do you think that we have to like a candidate personally to think they are the best choice? What if you don't like either choice?

She's not asking him to dinner, whether she thinks he's nice isn't relevant.

That was such an interesting g moment. the audience confidently thinking they knew the right way to go, to jeer at the conseravtive women and her crazy views, only for Maher to say: no, that's actually happening.
Then silenece.

The power of the crowd.

Good on Maher. He was prepared to challenge and disgaree with MK on some topica agree on others, disagree with his audience, and still respect MK at the end of it.

We need more of that.

I like Bill Maher too.
He's not tribal and is prepared to piss off his own 'side' if he thinks they are wrong. Which is rare in current politics.

But he does makes money from being funny about his liberal views... because people agree with him and like it. Bastard.

I really enjoy listening to Megyn Kelly. I like her directness. Not many women in the politics /podcast space have her straight talking approach.

She has quite a 'male' energy, so can take them on, which I think puts some people off and can seem 'ranty'. (we'll get shrill next...) I'm quite ranty myself on some topics so that;'s proba;y why she appeals to me.

She's very open about her changing views on Trump. She is not a republican she's an independent. She’s admitted that voting for Tump has been quite difficult for her given what he did to her personally but she is so committed to the 2 issues of transing kids/ women rights and immigration, so she's voting for him anyway.
You can agree with her on transing kids and disagree with her on immigration (but even Kamala Harris is now at least pretending to agree with Trump’s immigration stance so I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore...?)

She previously worked for Fox so she's hardly new to a conservative space. And she lost her job and livelihood due to a cancel culture mob, so it's hardly surprising she's now on a libertarian platform saying what she wants, and making money because people like it.

It's hilarious that the accusation is: she's making money being anti Trump...yes because many people agree with her. It's not a conspiracy 😂

Anyway, all sunlight on this issue is valuable I think.

Yes, those in the audience who heckled her when she pointed out children are having mastectomies, as if it was a lie, only for Maher to shed the sunlight on the fact it’s true. Those audience members and those watching at home will have no choice but to reflect on the reality of what is being done, and Kelly (of all people, shock! Swoon!) is right about it.

We've established here that you have your own personal theory about Megyn Kelly's support for Trump, which you are obviously entitled to, @MessinaBloom but there isn't really much more that needs to be said about it, I don't think. No one is actually obliged to take your word for it.

Anyway, all sunlight on this issue is valuable I think.

Except, Helle, that’s not what I said.

I see other posters have already followed up on this but, since you directed it at me, I'll respond too.

What you had posted was a long answer to a different question. Surely you realised that people were asking for evidence that Kelly was being funded by Trump, not that she had switched to endorsing him (something that anyone with access to YouTube could have checked out)?

I understand the snippy response though - it's the kind of thing I do when I realise I've painted myself into a corner, even though I know I'm only going to make things worse. Good to see you've since acknowledged that it was all just a theory rather than fact.

At the end of the day it comes down to issues - not personalities. Trump has a deeply unpleasant persona and is of limited intellectual ability, and Kamala Harris comes across as flaky and out of her depth.

People who will vote for Trump will be doing so based on what he says he stands for on issues that are most important to them, often in spite of his demeanour. I imagine, though, there are a number that actually like his demeanour - he doesn't give a fuck - and that sort of attitude appeals to some.They like that he's tough and won't take any shit.

Those who will vote for Kamala mainly based on the fact that she's a black woman are obviously already sold on identity politics, and she will be the candidate most likely to deliver on that. Those that really don't like identity politics will not vote for her. I imagine those for whom abortion is the single most important issue will vote for her too.

I agree Oldcrone as you probably know.

However, considering the very same platform that these accusations about Megyn Kelly have been based on has democrat content too, this entire arc of accusation seems to fall to pieces from the first moment.

People who criticise the trans agenda get pushed out of the left wing/ liberal media. They end up only being able to get their message out using right wing platforms. They are then described as right wing mouthpieces despite any left wing views they still hold and sometimes accused (as in this case) of being paid by the right wing.

How many times have all of us posting on here been accused of being funded by the far right? This is the same thing.

@nauticant
That certainly seems a more rational explanation than @MessinaBloom's conspiracy theory.

I think that if someone is a social and political commentator and they want to be paid for that, then they will use services and media that will enable that. Considering how most very large media platforms are publicly listed, life is going to be very limited for any social and political commentator who relies on an income to choose a service that is politically pure enough to subsist on.

To vilify someone for the choice of using a commercially available platform says a great deal about the person making the claim.

How about this as a better theory? Kelly likes to have an audience for her views, and, being persona non grata in liberal media spaces, she went to a platform that wouldn't censor her or suddenly ban her, and she built up a massive audience, and according to the current dynamics of the media, this means that she gets a very handsome amount of money.

Also, she looked at the presidential race and decided that if you put the candidates in a two-horse race against each other, she thinks that, overall, Trump would be better for the country and for some issues that are very important to her. She thinks this even though she's aware of his significant flaws and strongly disagrees with some things he's said and done.

This is grown-up thinking. It's better than "that one is evil so this opposing one is good".

Your theory doesn’t hold up to scrutiny though. But it is good that you have now admitted it is just a theory.