Overtime – Episode #628: Noa Tishby, Andrew Yang, and Rep. Elissa Slotkin

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO late-night series, Real Time with Bill Ma.

Hello, CNN.

It's me again, and I'm here with the panel we had today, Israeli actress and activist New It's History, co-chair of the forward political party Andrew Yang, and Michigan Congresswoman soon-to-be senator representative Alyssa Slotkin.

Okay.

Should there be, the first question, very brief, should there be a primary for vice president?

Oh, then we're going back to the beginning of the Republic.

When we were

at the beginning, didn't the vice president wasn't a dude who ran with the guy, right?

He was whoever came in second place.

Second place, can you imagine?

Vice President, yeah.

Oh.

Yeah, we've called him today.

Yeah.

But I said during the show that I thought that there should be a competitive primary in the Democratic Party, which I do.

But if Joe were to run again, I think there should be a primary for who is running, mate, should be, because the fact is that person could wind up stepping into his shoes and the people should have a say.

We down with that?

No.

You don't care.

I care.

Anyway, that's not going to happen.

Why waste political power?

I don't think it should be, Primary Shore, because I think that is, as a candidate, that's your first choice as a possible president.

That shows a lot.

So you're with him or?

No, I don't think so.

It's the first choice of the upcoming president.

Okay.

What does the panel think of the new upgrades to ChatGPT?

Oh, you must have many thoughts.

Now, this is not just, ChatGPT is very recent itself.

And now they found a way to make something that we all find creepy even creepier.

Is there any benefit to this technology getting more advanced?

Well, it can write college essays in about 30 seconds, so if that's too slow for you, then you can just turn it up and then you can get it done in 10 or 15 seconds.

In all seriousness, I have friends who run firms and they're saying to me in private, look, I'm going to let go of 40% of my staff because I can now get more done with fewer people.

That's happening to a lot of repetitive white-collar jobs.

44% of U.S.

jobs are either repetitive manual or repetitive cognitive.

And it turns out the repetitive cognitive might be the first to go.

Yeah, but this is also at a moment when we cannot get enough people to work in the jobs that we have.

So while we may be trending in that direction, we have a massive problem getting our current jobs filled.

So I don't feel like we're out there.

No, no, no, you're right, Alyssa.

They're both happening at the same time.

The fact is, the labor force has shrunken by 2.5 million American workers post-COVID.

Now they're at home.

We're trying to get them back into the workforce.

And then simultaneously, this tech's going to come in and wipe out, let's say, as one example, two million Americans work in call centers right now, making $17 an hour.

Like, how long do you think that'll last?

I don't know.

You're the expert.

That's why I'm having a lot of people.

People know that.

I can't answer these questions.

That job is probably automatable today.

I just read the questions.

Was the online criticism of musician Tems' extravagant Oscar dress, which obstructed the view of audience?

Oh, I saw that picture.

Which obstructed the view of audience members fair.

If you didn't see this, yes, somebody had on a big white ruffled thing, and they were all like five people behind her were like

the Oscars.

What do you think?

I feel like the actress should probably answer that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I haven't acted in years.

Listen, it was a little extreme, but I don't think it calls for an overtime question.

There are bigger things in life that we can deal with right now.

Thank you.

I thought it was not right.

I got to remember that.

If somebody sits, purposely wears something, they know you're going to be in an audience, and you know there are going to be people behind you.

I think we don't think of it.

She's collapsible.

Like, she should have been able to do what she wants when she humps on the carpet and then collapse that thing down and put it in the

cool thing.

That's what she said.

My sense is also the stylist knew that we'll be talking about it.

So that was a test.

We are talking about her date.

Oh, yeah, exactly.

Again, you fell into the trap.

I'm just reading.

This is what this game show is.

I just read the questions from the people.

It's so interesting to know what the people are thinking of.

Give them what they want.

Right.

And that is important.

Noah, this is for you.

How can people distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism?

Good question.

Great question.

Great question.

Okay, so anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

First of all, let's get that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And I'll tell you what the difference is.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli government.

I just did that on the show.

I think that the overhaul, the judiciary overhaul, is extreme.

So there's nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli government's policies, politicians, West Bank, whatever it is that you want.

If you have

something against, if you're trying to dismantle the Jewish state, if you're trying to go against the existence of the state of Israel, that's where the line is drawn.

And sadly, there are a lot of people that are criticizing Israel, and that's totally fine, but there are a lot of people that are saying that Israel is not a legitimate country.

And that is unacceptable.

Okay.

Agree?

Yeah, I mean, on the other side of the coin, I don't think it's anti-Semitism if you care deeply about the state of the Palestinian affairs.

I mean, if you care about people, that's not anti-Semitism.

And I think that sometimes people go too far and they say any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

Every concern about the Palestinians is anti-Semitism, and that's also BS.

100%.

Politicians are so political.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox will sign a bill that bans abortion clinics across the state by the end of the year.

Is abortion under threat nationwide?

Well, duh.

I mean, yes.

I'm I'm going to say big yes.

But so this is actually closing.

Yeah, I mean, well, and also this week I see there's a federal judge in Texas who is looking to somehow rig it so that you can't get the abortion pill.

Medication.

Yeah, really.

Not just in Texas, but nationwide.

I don't even understand how that would work, but the fact that they're trying it is a little scary.

Yeah, I just, I think we should all be very, very clear that the right to have an abortion in the United States is deeply, deeply under threat.

They overturned Roe already, and already in 32 states in the country, it's very, very hard, if not impossible, to get an abortion.

And the constant onslaught now on medication, so that even in a state like Michigan, where we voted as a state to allow abortion to continue under Roe standards, it's going to potentially threaten our ability for a CVS or a Walgreens or whatever to prescribe the medication that many, many women use safely prescribed by their doctor.

It is deeply disturbing, and everyone should be involved in this if you care about this issue.

What do you say when you talk to people who are?

I mean, there's a lot of votes.

We mentioned it in the editor that there's something like 25% of Democrats are still pro.

My district is pro-life.

Your district is pro-life.

My district is pro-life, and this is how you know the country has shifted and people are thinking differently, particularly pro-life women.

They will pull me aside in an event and say, look, I'm pro-life.

I'm deeply Catholic, or this is something I feel in my faith.

I could never have an abortion.

I could never advise my children to have an abortion.

But I've never walked in another woman's shoes, and I would never tell her how to live her life.

And that is all we are asking for.

That is all we are asking for.

The vast majority of Americans actually can find common ground, even outside of their own personal beliefs.

It's our dysfunctional political system that is whipsawing us toward one extreme or the other.

On this one, it's having terrible consequences around the country for women's reproductive rights.

By the way, in Israel, abortion is paid for by the government.

Yeah.

Just saying.

And paid for by the government and a religious state.

And religious and religious state to religious, religious, religion believes in Judaism, life begins in first breath.

Right.

Whether you're into it or not, into religion or not.

But yeah.

So in Israel, I'm into breath.

I get that part.

What does the panel think of YouTube lifting its ban on Donald Trump?

Oh, no.

Yeah, I saw it.

It's strong.

That's what you really think.

So

he's been allowed back on meta and Twitter and hasn't taken advantage yet because he's trying to prop up Truth Social.

But I think that's going to change.

I think he's going to arrive on all these platforms and we'll all be collectively a little bit dumber for it.

So you would ban him?

You banned him on it?

Well, no, I mean, it's difficult because if you're a social media platform, you're like, wait a minute, he's right now the putative frontrunner of one of the two major parties.

So, you know, banning him might consist of actually, you know, like taking away someone's political speech.

And that's the bind that these companies.

Can I just say, though, there's a really interesting Supreme Court case that's being heard right now that's going to be decided on whether social media companies can be held accountable for extreme content that appears on their sites.

And it's actually not about whether Donald Trump or anyone else gets on Facebook or gets on anywhere and says these extreme things.

It's whether they have designed algorithms to monetize hate where they know that that stuff is clickbait.

They know that extreme content gets more views, more likes, more advertising dollars.

So they're monetizing the spread of extremism.

That is what the Supreme Court case is about.

I don't know which way they're going to go, but I think it's a super interesting case for the future of technology.

Who is responsible?

They shouldn't be making money off of extreme content.

They can't control Donald Trump, but they can control how they make their money.

All right, well, I have to end it there.

I don't want to have CNN late on their next commercial break.

Thank you, guys.

We'll see you next week.

Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10.

Or watch him anytime on HBO On Demand.

For more information, log on to HBO.com.