Bill Maher slams Whoopi Goldberg over Iran comments on The View
Maher began by praising The New York Times for taking what he called a 'sensible liberal' stance on transgender issues, suggesting it marked a return to sanity for Democrats. But he followed up with a jab at The View, saying the next step for the party should be addressing the controversial remarks coming from its popular daytime show.
The controversy stems from a heated exchange between Goldberg and co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who highlighted Iran's documented human rights violations—such as the execution of LGBTQ individuals and arrests of women for not covering their hair. Goldberg responded by pointing to America's history of lynching and violence against Black and gay citizens, saying, 'Let's not do that… we used to just keep hanging Black people.'
Texas Representative Wesley Hunt, a guest on Maher's show, rejected Goldberg's comparison. 'I don't ever want to hear Whoopi Goldberg's conversation about how it's worse to be Black in America right now,' said Hunt, noting his success as a Black Republican elected in a white-majority district.
Hunt also emphasized generational progress in his family, stating his father grew up under Jim Crow and is now the father of a U.S. Congressman.
The episode reignited debates around race, free speech, and media responsibility, with Maher's comments adding to growing scrutiny of The View's political influence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Google, Meta escape Buffalo shooter lawsuit
Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday, reported Reuters. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' Facebook and Instagram, Google's YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The case arose from Payton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022. Relatives and representatives of victims, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed the attack, claimed the defendants' platforms were defective because they were designed to addict and radicalise users like Gendron. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other defendants included Alphabet, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, all of which Gendron used, the mid-level state appeals court said. Writing for a 3-2 majority, Justice Stephen Lindley said holding social media companies liable would undermine the intent behind Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, to promote development of and competition on the internet while keeping government interference to a minimum. While condemning Gendron's conduct and "the vile content that motivated him to assassinate Black people simply because of the color of their skin," Lindley said a liability finding would "result in the end of the Internet as we know it." "Because social media companies that sort and display content would be subject to liability for every untruthful statement made on their platforms, the Internet would over time devolve into mere message boards," he wrote. Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the defendants force-fed targeted content to keep users engaged, be it videos about cooking or puppies, or white nationalist vitriol.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
China is catching up with the United Sates
Listen to article David Autor and Gordon Hanson, two economic professors known for their research into how globalisation and especially the rise of China is reshaping the American labour market, contributed an article to the Opinion pages of The New York Times. The article was titled "Did we learn nothing from the 'China Shock'?" They wrote: "The first time China upended the U.S. economy between 1999 and 2007, it helped erase nearly a quarter of all technological jobs. Known as the 'China Shock', it was driven by a singular process — China's late 1970s transition from Maoist central panning to a market economy, which rapidly moved the country's labor and capital from collective rural farms to urban factories. Waves of inexpensive goods from China imploded the economic foundations of places where manufacturing was the main game in town... Twenty years later, these workers haven't recovered from those job losses. Although places like these are growing again, most job gains are in low-wage industries such as textiles, sporting goods electronics and auto parts." China's transition to manufacturing was complete once Chairman Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao as the supreme leader. He opened the country to the outside world and invited foreign participation in China's development. While what Autor and Hanson described in their 2013-16 research story has lost its relevance, they have begun to focus on what they call China Shock 2. This has seen the transition from China as an underdog and is successfully developing innovative sectors such as aviation, AI, telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, quantum computing, biotech, pharma and solar batteries. To quote again from the authors, "In the 1990s and 2000s, private Chinese businesses working alongside multinational corporations had turned China into the world's factory. The new Chinese model is different. China has created an agile, if costly, innovation system in which local officials such as mayors and governors are rewarded for growth in certain advanced sectors. An example of the outcome is the city of Hefei located in a poor hinterland province. By putting up venture funding, taking risks on supporting EV (electric vehicles) producers, and investing in local research and development, Hefei made the leap into the country's top industrial tier in barely half a decade." China is now the world's largest and most innovative producers of electric vehicles. BYD (EV), CATL (EV batteries), DJI (drones) and LONGi (solar wafers) are all Chinese startups, none more than 30 years' old. The rest of the world, including the United States, is ill prepared to compete with these privately owned but state-supported enterprises. If the extent to which China has drawn not only even but overtaken the United States, we might look at the study done by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think-tank. According to the Institute, the United States led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies, such as AI and cryptography, from 2003 to 2007, while China led the United States in just three. In the Institute's most recent report, the rankings were flipped. China led in 57 of 64 key technologies while the United States had the lead in only seven. Autor and Hanson are proposing a four-pronged approach to the Chinese challenge. First, the US should work with other old economies that face similar challenges such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea rather than imposing tariffs. Second, the US government should encourage China to build in America high technology plants such as those developing rare earth minerals as well as those making batteries and electric vehicles. The government should get involved in developing the industries that produce these items. At the time of the WWII, the Office of Scientific Research and Development brought major developments in jet propulsion, radar and mass-produced penicillin. Later, NASA accepted the Soviet Union challenge which sent the first astronaut to circle the earth by sending and bringing back men to and from the moon and launched the Operation Warp Speed which partnered with pharmaceutical companies to produce a Covid-19 vaccine faster than any other major vaccine had been produced. The third area of government sponsorship, the authors advocate, is for the United States to choose the battles that it can win (semiconductors) or those it cannot afford to lose (development of rare earths). The fourth priority is to prevent the devastating impacts of job loss from the next major shock. Tariffs, President Trump's preferred policy option to deal with the challenges the country faces, is not right for the actions needed. The authors conclude their assessment with the following words: "We must nourish industries that have high potential for innovation, funded by joint investments by the public and private sectors. These industries are in play globally, something China figured out a decade ago. America should stop fighting the last trade war and meet China's challenge in the current one." These ecosystems, with the government in the lead, will need supporting infrastructure: reliable and inexpensive energy generation, rare earths, modern shipping and universities with vibrant STEM programmes. This will mean pulling back from subsidising legacy sectors such as coal and oil; restoring federal support for scientific research; and welcoming rather than demonising the talented foreign arrivals into the country who would help the country they have adopted as their own to move forward. This is not the direction in which America, under Trump, is headed. President Trump acted out the programme laid out by Elon Musk, the world's richest man who joined Trump to redesign and refocus the public sector. His DOGE programme was aimed at reshaping the government but it did more damage than good. His moves reduced the country's capacity to innovate. On July 21, major newspapers took out full-page advertisements that said the following in bold letters: "America doesn't settle for second place in Science. We don't play catch up. We build what others copy. Invent what others copy. The science that wins on the battlefield and finds breakthrough in the bloodstream — that's the sharp edge of American power. American science that is funded by the federal government is launched from the flight deck. Developed by American industry. Proven on our factory floors. And tested on the front line - everyday. The only thing American science can't do. Fund itself. That depends on the wisdom and leadership of those we send to Washington." With Donald Trump occupying the White House, that is not happening.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Trump accuses Kamala Harris of paying Beyoncé and Oprah for illegal campaign endorsements
President Donald Trump has accused Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats of violating campaign finance laws by allegedly paying celebrities for political endorsements during the 2024 presidential election. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that Harris spent millions to secure public backing from prominent figures, including singer Beyoncé, TV host Oprah Winfrey, and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. He asserted that these endorsements were financially motivated rather than genuine. He went on to describe the alleged payments as 'totally illegal' and demanded legal action. 'Kamala and all of those who received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted,' Trump wrote. He warned that if such practices became normalized, public outrage would be inevitable. Trump's latest comments come as he faces criticism over his handling of case files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier at the center of multiple investigations. He has dismissed the scrutiny as politically driven and described the ongoing probe as a 'con job' by Democrats to distract from his presidency. According to The Hill, Trump has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue the release of grand jury testimonies involving Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in response to rising public pressure for transparency—including from his own MAGA supporters. The president made the statements while visiting Scotland, where he played golf at his Turnberry resort alongside U.S. Ambassador Warren Stephens and his son Eric Trump. His visit triggered protests nationwide, with hundreds gathering outside the U.S. Consulate in Edinburgh to voice their opposition. Demonstrators criticized both Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over a new U.S.-U.K. trade agreement. Trump has continued to defend his administration's performance, calling the past six months 'the BEST in Presidential history.'
