Anybody know if Rob Reiner is okay?

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-16T15:01:44-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
Well then it’s like I said, I guess he had it coming. The president’s comments are perfectly reasonable and this is how a normal country acts in response to a famous person’s death.

At least that would be consistent with the rhetoric we heard from people surrounding Kirk

"Because he advocated gun rights, and said that there's a certain amount of acceptable losses...this is what he gets" was the tone from some folks.

If someone (in reference to me) said:
"He's the single most unfit person in the history of the country"
"He threatens the very soul of this country"
"He's a fascist"
"He makes McCarthyism look like childs play"
(all things Reiner said about Trump, see post 50)

...and I found out that person had passed, I don't know that be eager to give a "loving tribute" to them either if we're being honest.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-16T15:10:35-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
At least that would be consistent with the rhetoric we heard from people surrounding Kirk

"Because he advocated gun rights, and said that there's a certain amount of acceptable losses...this is what he gets" was the tone from some folks.

If someone (in reference to me) said:
"He's the single most unfit person in the history of the country"
"He threatens the very soul of this country"
"He's a fascist"
"He makes McCarthyism look like childs play"
(all things Reiner said about Trump, see post 50)

...and I found out that person had passed, I don't know that be eager to give a "loving tribute" to them either if we're being honest.

Shouldn't the President be above that sort of thing? If Reiner had attacked the Constitution or the rule of law, then maybe a cruel response from the President would have been justified. What we got instead was a self-centered complaint about personal attacks. Remember what Bambi's mother taught us.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-16T15:22:14-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
At least that would be consistent with the rhetoric we heard from people surrounding Kirk

"Because he advocated gun rights, and said that there's a certain amount of acceptable losses...this is what he gets" was the tone from some folks.

I’m sure some said that. I certainly never said “that’s what he gets.” I doubt Rob Reiner ever said that too. Mostly I heard people just pointing out the sheer irony of saying gun deaths are an acceptable risk for gun ownership and then becoming one of those very same acceptable gun deaths.

I mean… are we supposed to just ignore the irony in that?

ThatRobGuy said:
If someone (in reference to me) said:
"He's the single most unfit person in the history of the country"
"He threatens the very soul of this country"
"He's a fascist"
"He makes McCarthyism look like childs play"
(all things Reiner said about Trump, see post 50)

...and I found out that person had passed, I don't know that be eager to give a "loving tribute" to them either if we're being honest.

Then you don’t say anything at all. It’s really simple. I think we teach school children this basic concept?

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-16T15:27:51-0600

BCP1928 said:
Shouldn't the President be above that sort of thing? If Reiner had attacked the Constitution or the rule of law, then maybe a cruel response from the President would have been justified. What we got instead was a self-centered complaint about personal attacks. Remember what Bambi's mother taught us.

I find the people here trying to play defense for the president by making ridiculous equivalence arguments to be even worse tbh. Only an already broken society could ever elect such a low person to its highest office. We see that in the people either trying to ignore his behavior altogether or providing cover for it by trying to say both sides do the same.

d taylor · 2025-12-16T16:00:10-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Hasn't there been enough about Trump already in this thread?

Let's try to remember the Reiners and their work and how they worked to provide early assistance to all California families with kids under 5.

First 5 offers services such as health care, child care and other programs to the families of California. First 5 have about eight main goals that they strive to address. These goals are school readiness, making sure that all kids have a good transition into elementary school, quality child care in the early years so that each child receives the proper care from child care facilities, emphasis on nutrition and exercise to encourage healthy life styles, health coverage for children to ensure their vaccinations and other health needs are met starting young, dental care so that children maintain a healthy smile and even avoid things such as speech impairments, providing quality pre-schools for good brain stimulation, care for children with special needs, and even the migrant farm workers children.

-

Seems like this service was or is plagued with problems concerning money and the correct use of their funds.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-16T16:15:32-0600

Seems like this website was or is plagued with posts making assertions without evidence.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T07:24:01-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
Then you don’t say anything at all. It’s really simple. I think we teach school children this basic concept?

That was the approach Trump used when Dick Cheney passed.

Remember? The "nontroversy" about Trump's spokesperson merely saying "The President 'aware' of of Cheney's passing"

People/Pundits were critiquing the fact that he didn't offer any remarks

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/reaction-trump-cheney-death

The White House offered a muted reaction, including a perfunctory response from press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told reporters at Tuesday’s press briefing that Trump was “aware” of Cheney’s death and noted that flags have been lowered to half-staff.

The reaction was in keeping with Trump’s long-standing disdain for the former vice president.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-17T07:37:22-0600

As usual, this discussion is not about whether Trump did this or that bad thing, or said this or that bad thing. Nobody on the right cares, What they care about is only whether Trump is criticized for it.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T07:44:08-0600

BCP1928 said:
If Reiner had attacked the Constitution or the rule of law, then maybe a cruel response from the President would have been justified.

well...if we're going to be precise, one could say that Reiner did usurp at least one democratic process... at least at the state level.

Per wiki:
Reiner was a liberal activist.[32] He was a co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which initiated the court challenge against California Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage in the state.[33]

Not sure who recalls the Prop 8 Fiasco in California...

But in a nutshell, when the voters of California were asked (pre-Scotus ruling which came later)

"Is marriage between a man and a woman"

Reiner (alongside his wife, and former Clinton advisor John Podesta) teamed up to found a group specifically to undo it via getting a bunch of Hollywood A-listers to be part of a funding network to throw money at the cause of winning the expensive battle of court attrition.

This is from Politico (certainly not a right wing source by any stretch)

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/15/rob-reiner-hollywood-political-power-player-00692130

For Reiner, politics was more than a hobby. He hired political operatives – including veterans of the Clinton White House — and embedded himself into statewide campaigns and government bureaucracy to advance his goals.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T07:46:00-0600

BCP1928 said:
As usual, this discussion is not about whether Trump did this or that bad thing, or said this or that bad thing. Nobody on the right cares, What they care about is only whether Trump is criticized for it.

For me, it's more or less about calling out fake outrage and selective outrage.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-17T07:55:58-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
For me, it's more or less about calling out fake outrage and selective outrage.

Right, and of course there was nothing outrageous about Trump's message of condolence.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-17T07:59:39-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
well...if we're going to be precise, one could say that Reiner did usurp at least one democratic process... at least at the state level.

Per wiki:
Reiner was a liberal activist.[32] He was a co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which initiated the court challenge against California Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage in the state.[33]

Not sure who recalls the Prop 8 Fiasco in California...

But in a nutshell, when the voters of California were asked (pre-Scotus ruling which came later)

"Is marriage between a man and a woman"
View attachment 374615

Reiner (alongside his wife, and former Clinton advisor John Podesta) teamed up to found a group specifically to undo it via getting a bunch of Hollywood A-listers to be part of a funding network to throw money at the cause of winning the expensive battle of court attrition.

This is from Politico (certainly not a right wing source by any stretch)

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/15/rob-reiner-hollywood-political-power-player-00692130

For Reiner, politics was more than a hobby. He hired political operatives – including veterans of the Clinton White House — and embedded himself into statewide campaigns and government bureaucracy to advance his goals.

Let me get this straight: raising funds for and taking part in political activism is a usurpation the democratic process?

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-17T08:05:21-0600

Washed up failed actors and their families should stay out of politics.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T09:07:18-0600

BCP1928 said:
Let me get this straight: raising funds for and taking part in political activism is a usurpation the democratic process?

When the citizens vote a particular way, and a handful of millionaire A-listers use their money to undo the results with the help of seasoned political operative "guns for hire", yes.

If there was a vote on the matter
You and 58% of the population voted 'no'
Me and 42% of the population voted 'yes'

And I got a bunch of my millionaire friends together to all chip in to enlist the services of someone like a David Axelrod who knows how to traverse the system and has more extensive knowledge of "how the sausage is made" to challenge and undo it -- in ways that your team doesn't know how to do (and likely couldn't afford to even if you did)

That would usurpation.

I thought "money in politics" was one of those areas where I had more overlap with the left. But perhaps that whole "getting money out of politics" thing, in the eyes of some on the left, has a more limited scope than I had initially thought?

durangodawood · 2025-12-17T09:20:31-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
.....I thought "money in politics" was one of those areas where I had more overlap with the left. But perhaps that whole "getting money out of politics" thing, in the eyes of some on the left, has a more limited scope than I had initially thought?

Yes, try to change the game. But if you cant, then play the game youre in, not some other game youd prefer - which doesn't exist.

Honestly I dont know why I have to repeat this to people smart enough (I think) to know better.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-17T09:29:38-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
When the citizens vote a particular way, and a handful of millionaire A-listers use their money to undo the results with the help of seasoned political operative "guns for hire", yes.

If there was a vote on the matter
You and 58% of the population voted 'no'
Me and 42% of the population voted 'yes'

And I got a bunch of my millionaire friends together to all chip in to enlist the services of someone like a David Axelrod who knows how to traverse the system and has more extensive knowledge of "how the sausage is made" to challenge and undo it -- in ways that your team doesn't know how to do (and likely couldn't afford to even if you did)

That would usurpation.

I thought "money in politics" was one of those areas where I had more overlap with the left. But perhaps that whole "getting money out of politics" thing, in the eyes of some on the left, has a more limited scope than I had initially thought?

There was plenty of money on both sides of the issue. I don't suppose you would consider the possibility that Proposition 8 really was unconstitutional? Never mind, I expect that Reiner's support of civil marriages for gays fully justifies the nature of Trump's "eulogy" to you.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T09:37:36-0600

BCP1928 said:
As usual, this discussion is not about whether Trump did this or that bad thing, or said this or that bad thing. Nobody on the right cares, What they care about is only whether Trump is criticized for it.

I think some of that could, in part, due to the fact that this endless non-stop cycle of threads in the theme of...

"Here's another bad thing Trump did, let's just talk about that and literally nothing else"
"Anything anything else other than just all agreeing in unison 'yes, Trump bad' is off-topic"

It's a discussion and debate forum.

This expectation of "let's throw up 5 outrage threads per day, and then the only acceptable responses are "yes, Trump bad" and "people who voted for Trump are bad, and should've voted democrat", and then everyone else has to sit quietly in the corner, is absurd.

...and at a certain point, just comes across as a beating a dead horse attempt to pressure people into voting the other way.

What are people actually expecting?

What? Do they think that there's some magical number of outrage threads that'll finally turn people? "Boy, this one more brick up on the Trump bad wall could be the one that finally gets them to see the error of their ways and bow to our will"

When in fact, his support base is largely a rebuke of that. There was a good stretch of 15-20 years where the US political ecosystem was "The Republican position is just the Democratic position of 5 years ago", and republicans basically just had to grit their teeth and take it while all of entertainment and most of the academic types sat around and portrayed anyone as a "low-IQ country bumpkin" if they voted for Bush or McCain, or they were "racist simpletons who hated poor people" if they voted for Romney.

At a certain point, they wanted a counter-puncher who made the other team just as mad as the other team had been making them for a decade.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-17T09:49:25-0600

durangodawood said:
Yes, try to change the game. But if you cant, then play the game youre in, not some other game youd prefer - which doesn't exist.

Honestly I dont know why I have to repeat this to people smart enough (I think) to know better.

Prop 8 was a unique situation, that wasn't even the typical "money in politics" stuff where they try to influence how people will vote.

That was sort of on a different level where it was targeting something that had already been voted on.

Where a citizen led ballot initiative gets put up for a vote... passes, and then a bunch of millionaires celebs get together to hire a former white house chief of staff to help them reverse it like it never happened, that's, as a said, sort of on a whole different level. Typically challenges to citizen led ballot measures are more in the theme of "adopt and amend"

You can imagine...

Citizen led ballot initiatives were pretty big over the past few years (for both pot legalization, and locking in abortion rights). If a bunch of uber-rich fundamentalists all chipped in to hire someone like a Karl Rove to negate it like the vote never happened, that would be viewed as a usurpation.

durangodawood · 2025-12-17T09:58:45-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Prop 8 was a unique situation, that wasn't even the typical "money in politics" stuff where they try to influence how people will vote.

That was sort of on a different level where it was targeting something that had already been voted on.

Where a citizen led ballot initiative gets put up for a vote... passes, and then a bunch of millionaires celebs get together to hire a former white house chief of staff to help them reverse it like it never happened, that's, as a said, sort of on a whole different level. Typically challenges to citizen led ballot measures are more in the theme of "adopt and amend"

You can imagine...

Citizen led ballot initiatives were pretty big over the past few years (for both pot legalization, and locking in abortion rights). If a bunch of uber-rich fundamentalists all chipped in to hire someone like a Karl Rove to negate it like the vote never happened, that would be viewed as a usurpation.

That all assumes the initial prop 8 campaign was pure citizen outpouring with no "usurpers" playing the money game.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-17T10:17:03-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Prop 8 was a unique situation, that wasn't even the typical "money in politics" stuff where they try to influence how people will vote.

That was sort of on a different level where it was targeting something that had already been voted on.

Where a citizen led ballot initiative gets put up for a vote... passes, and then a bunch of millionaires celebs get together to hire a former white house chief of staff to help them reverse it like it never happened, that's, as a said, sort of on a whole different level. Typically challenges to citizen led ballot measures are more in the theme of "adopt and amend"

You can imagine...

Citizen led ballot initiatives were pretty big over the past few years (for both pot legalization, and locking in abortion rights). If a bunch of uber-rich fundamentalists all chipped in to hire someone like a Karl Rove to negate it like the vote never happened, that would be viewed as a usurpation.

And all have to stand the test of constitutionality. Even laws about civil marriages for gays.

Anybody know if Rob Reiner is okay?

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stuck on a ship.

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads