Liberals Are Not Laughing About Jon Stewart's Jabs at Joe Biden
rollingstone.com
He also said that the danger posed by another Trump term doesn’t excuse Biden from scrutiny but “actually makes him more subject to scrutiny.”
To leftists and progressives fed up with Biden, particularly his commitment to Israel as it continues to bomb civilians in Gaza, the assessment was not just fair — it was obvious. But more centrist Democrats, including those most likely to have appended “Blue Wave” and “Resistance” labels to their social media accounts in the Trump years, were appalled at what they saw as a betrayal by one of their own.
Which "liberals?" I thought it was funny. I guess I'm not "liberal" enough? I'm voting for Biden because I'll do anything to stop Trump, but I'm not going to pretend he shouldn't be mocked.
yeah I enjoyed it too, a couple of different friends mentioned it being funny I don't know anyone that was upset about it.
probably just another article about some random vocal minority complaining
I thought it was funny too, but man is it uncomfortable knowing that it could sway people away from voting for Biden and swing the scales in favor of Trump.
He was just as hard if not harder on Trump in the same segment, so I don't think it would.
The problem is of the people that watch him. The majority of them would never vote for Trump in the first place. Most of them would probably vote Biden. So being hard on Trump he's simply preaching to the choir. Being hard on Biden. He might demoralize a few from participating. It doesn't mean he was wrong or wrong to do it. But it is a possible concern. Though the only group to actually blame for that is the Democrats.
I mean I'm still going to vote for them. Because I like the idea of still having elections even if they are highly flawed. You don't get that sort of thing under full blown fascism.
It won't, it was honest and painted Trump in a worse (and deservedly awful) light. The apologists that call the sky yellow when you can see it's fucking blue cause much more damage by eroding public trust in the democrats.
I prefer flawed candidates that overcome their flaws so that, hopefully, we can find a less flawed candidate next time.
If Jon’s audience somehow got swayed into voting FOR Trump over some criticisms on Biden, they were never listening in the first place.
That's a fair and comforting point. I thought Stewart was a bit heavy on criticism, but it's not so much that I dislike the criticism, but that I'm wary it'll lead to apathy and people not voting.
Doesn't really matter does it? A vote is a vote.
Wish the DNC had told themselves the same before insisting which bed we lay in for another four years.
That's an interesting point. Jon Stewart's job isn't to get Biden elected. Just like Fox and MSNBC shouldn't be their job to get their respective candidates elected. He should present things as he sees it and the people should inform themselves to select the best candidate
That's fine, and I can respect that, but damn am I scared of another Trump administration.
Yeah that's my only concern really. I don't want people to become apathetic and not vote. I think Stewart's message though is probably the fairest way to prevent that though. Acknowledge that yeah, Biden is old, and he's not as sharp as he used to be. He is by no means the ideal nor dream candidate. People are right to feel iffy about him.
But Trump means there's really no question of who to vote for and who you should vote for. We can be honest and affirm worries about Biden while still encouraging votes for him.
The ones on Twitter that are sourced in the article. This is a non story.
People complaining on Twitter, say it ain’t so.
My guess is bot farms mostly. Russia, the DNC, the RNC, et al benefit in their own ways from posting their reactions all over social media. Sure some on the far left probably didn't make it past the first commercial break, but with an election, everyone is coming out to play
Regardless, they are both way too old to be running again. I find it hard to believe these guys with one foot in the grave and an inability to speak coherently are our best bet.
Probably saw 2 people on twitter and then they just expanded and said all liberals?
So they saw both of the remaining Twitter users, makes sense
Well said and agreed 100%.
It's not hard to grasp really is it.
Too fucking bad. They're accurate and we need to accept them to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
Biden is an absolutely awful candidate, especially if his running mate is Kamala Harris - but if it's him vs. Trump I'll vote for him any day.
Democrats need to stop picking the most deeply flawed candidates they can find - Hillary Clinton being such an awful candidate is how we got Trump in the first place.
I think people forget that the Democrats literally chose Hillary instead of Sanders - like, the Democratic Party purposefully chose Hillary despite the fact Bernie was actually more popular amongst people.
Not gonna start saying why because there’s probably a myriad of reasons, but the fact that the Democratic party had a chance to put in somebody who was at least saying really progressive stuff for the people of America that the people really liked and just chose a fucking Clinton instead should say something about the party.
Tell me you don't remember 2016 without telling me you don't remember 2016.
Signed, a 2016 and 2020 Bernie voter.
Pretty sure they mean the DNC, not the voters.
As a fellow Bernie bro in 2016, do you not remember how many friggin memes were made with Bernie as Rick from Rick and Morty and how many people were talking about not wanting another Clinton in office? Only for him to pull out of the race and endorsing Hillary because Trump was actually getting waaaaay too much traction? And the fact the DNC also weren’t really jazzed with what Bernie was saying in general?
Tell me you don’t remember 2016 without telling me you don’t remember 2016.
Yeah, you definitely don't remember 2016. Bernie stayed in and fought up until the national convention, and was widely criticized (unfairly) for it.
That's vastly different than suggesting that the Democratic Party 'chose' Hillary despite the fact that Bernie was 'actually more popular'.
We failed to get the vote out. We failed to rally voters to Sanders. That's on us, or, perhaps, our fellow members of the electorate. Bernie was, unfortunately, never in striking range of the nomination, though he did better than almost anyone thought he would, and greatly improved his national profile.
I did forget he fought to the bitter end till the DNC back in 2016 (jfc it’s been 8 years!), but he endorsed Hillary like, 2 weeks before the 2016 DNC.
I’ll leave the Wikipedia link here, but the DNC actively hated what Bernie was doing and basically were pro-Clinton from the start according to that email leak from right before the convention. So the Democratic Party effectively chose Hillary because they didn’t want Bernie on because they actively disliked his campaign. He was more popular than Hillary was, but ultimately Hillary was chosen by the Democratic Party.
It seems like you're saying his trying to prevent Trump from being president was a bad thing.
I love Bernie, but I literally never would've supported a candidate that didn't commit to support the Dem candidate.
That said, it would've been amazing to see Bernie act like Trump and throw major shade at the Dem party, but I genuinely don't know if that's have worked. It certainly could've but it's hard to know if it would've worked on Dems like on Rs.
what killed bernie's chances in 2016 was the total lack of grassroots efforts in turning out and supporting viable progressive candidates in 2010, 2012, and 2014. both the party and the base thought that with obama in, everything would be solved and there wasn't any more work that needed to be done. instead the house got lost in 2010 and the thinking was in order to regain power the dems had to be more like republicans instead of, well you know, democrats. none of the progressive groups ever pushed their people to run for democratic party positions which would have made it easier for a bernie or similar candidate to be taken seriously.
and that's why we have biden: he's a known quality, and the black women of south carolina trusted him over the other white old guy who has ideas that would probably benefit them more but were never exposed to in local political races.
if you want the party to start shifting in your political direction, just voting isn't going to cut it. you're going to have to actually get involved in the local party. I wonder how many progressives would even do that or once again tune out if their pet candidate doesn't win.
I think you’re really misinterpreting OP’s argument. When he says the Democratic Party chose Bernie, I don’t think he’s saying “democrats as a whole” chose Bernie, but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.
No, that's exactly what I'm pushing against. I mean, not that the DNC was against Bernie - it obviously was. But that his failure was due to the DNC's interference.
The simple fact of the matter is that Bernie was not known or popular enough at the time, and especially not compared to Clinton. We all despise Clinton now for a variety of legitimate reasons, but coming out of the Obama administration, she was pushing 65%+ approval ratings before she actually had to campaign and start talking to us hoi polloi, and had been setting the stage for a presidential run for a decade.
Bernie's campaign was a mess at the start, because he pretty clearly was running to get his views more traction, and was surprised as anyone when he skyrocketed in popularity. He had to build a run from the ground-up, and that's not really comparable to years of preparation. Clinton had more name recognition, more experience dealing with national political media, and appeal to a more moderate Democratic constituency in 2016 than that has developed since. Things in 2016 were not, and definitely did not feel as, fundamentally fucked that drove the normally right-wing American electorate to something vaguely resembling a center-left position. People forget, or gloss over, the changes in the political environment since.
It was not in the cards. We all want to believe it could have happened, but the fact is that the only 'what-if' scenarios where Bernie wins in 2016 are radical changes, and not just "The DNC steps back and lets things take their course".
Thank you for pushing back against the highlighted narrative. I remember it well, and there was a lot of noise for Bernie online and crickets at the polls.
I was all-in for Bernie, but there's often a difference between what we want and what is happening. It was honestly a miracle that Bernie ended as well as he did in 2016.
Now, 2020? 2020 we had a shot, but we were out-politiked. Not illegitimate, since politics inherently involves politiking, but I am salty about that still.
I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.
Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).
Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.
I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.
Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.
Losing by less is still losing. And the superdelegates have always just been a sneaky way to run up the numbers. They switched to Obama when he won more delegates to make it look like the party is united behind its nominee. We can't know for sure they'd have done that with Bernie, but that's because he didn't get more pledged delegates.
This was never true, just more of the misinformation that was rampant in the Bernie political spaces. Clinton won most of the early states, and where Bernie won was usually not by much while Clinton had some southern blowouts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Sorry... you're basing this all on memes?
There is no more reason in morally characterizing a political party than in morally characterizing a corporation. A party is a tool, a lever of political power. Look at how Trump has taken over the Republican party. They were terrible before, but he made them worse. The Democratic party used to be the party of slavery; then it was the party of FDR and a coalition driven by socialists; now it is the party of capital and neoliberalism, but still the one most capable of being taken back by the left. Organize, communicate, educate, and never give up. Control of the Democratic party can change hands again.
I'd never vote for Biden. But I'll vote against Trump any chance I get.
voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West is voting against Trump AND Biden
Voting for YOUR MOM is also voting against Trump AND Biden.
Except not in a first past the post system. Voting 3rd party is just a vote for whichever of the two main parties you like least. Sucks, but that's reality.
this is election misinformation. votes for so-called third parties are counted as votes for those candidates. only votes for Republicans get counted as Republican votes and only votes for Democrats get counted as Democrat votes.
It's not misinformation to state how things end up functioning in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law?wprov=sfla1 It's a well known thing for anyone who's studied the tiniest bit of political science (or you know, was around in 2000 for that US election).
The way the votes get counted only matters insofar as their tangible real world outcome. The fact that your individual vote went to a specific third party or even abstaining ends up being irrelevant. The outcomes are the same and the party you prefer least is more likely to win. Again, I'm not advocating that this is a good system, but it is our current reality and stating that to be misinformation is ignorant at best or straight up manipulative propaganda at worst.
>The way the votes get counted only matters insofar as their tangible real world outcome. The fact that your individual vote went to a specific third party or even abstaining ends up being irrelevant.
this sounds like misinformation AND voter suppression: telling people their vote won't count.
shame on you.
I won't disagree with you that it is voter suppression in the sense that it supresses votes for third parties, but I didn't set up the system so maybe channel your anger towards more productive means other than shooting the messenger. The way things stand today, that's how the math works out if you care to check the link I shared.
i'd say telling people their votes won't count is shitty, especially when they are literally counted.
I never said they won't be counted, just that it doesn't matter if your goal is to get as similarly minded a group elected. You made up that claim, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that's because we view the goal of voting through very different lenses. If that isn't your goal and it's just to "see number go up" as it seems then sure you're 100% right. Depends on what is important to you. To me practical results matter more than getting to feel morally smug.
Either way, lots of your responses (not just to me in this thread) are sounding right out of right wing playbooks so I'm gonna say so long since I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
>To me practical results matter more than getting to feel morally smug.
i don't believe in voting for people unless i want them to have the office. it's not about being morally smug, it's about voting for a candidate i want to win.
>Either way, lots of your responses (not just to me in this thread) are sounding right out of right wing playbooks
pigeonholing
>so I’m gonna say so long since I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith. but have a nice day i guess.
We’re not talking “literally” a vote for the major candidate you like least. We’re talking “mathematically” a vote for the major candidate you like least.
Since FPTP voting systems like the US employees do not require any candidate to achieve a majority, FPTP systems eventually decay into two major parties, and voting for a third party after that decay is a vote against your own interests.
Here’s a young CGP Grey explaining it beautifully 12 years ago.
mathematically, the vote goes +1 to the candidate for whom you vote. the rest of this is storytelling.
No shit the +1 goes to the candidate for whom you vote. No one is disputing that. The problem is, the third party candidate will not win.
In a FPTP system that has devolved to two parties, without a major political upheaval bringing about the death of one of the two parties, there are, realistically, only two candidates who have a chance of winning the election.
If you vote for neither of those two candidates, the candidate it benefits the most is the major candidate you agree with the least. This is called the “Spoiler Effect.” This is Nader taking sufficient votes from Gore in 2000 to hand the election to Bush, because Green Party voters would have, given something like the Alternative Vote or Ranked Choice Voting, ended up mostly being Gore votes.
This is Teddy Roosevelt running independent in 1912 and getting Woodrow Wilson, an extremely racist shitbag, elected president by taking Republican voters away from Taft.
And we all understand this effect, because when it looked like Trump might lose the primary in 2016 and was threatening to run anyway, Democrats were thrilled because it would guarantee a Democrat win by splitting the conservative vote.
This “Spoiler Effect” is what is meant when someone says that voting third party is a vote against your own interests in a FPTP system. It’s the major reason FPTP is a terrible voting system.
>This is Nader taking sufficient votes from Gore in 2000 to hand the election to Bush, because Green Party voters would have, given something like the Alternative Vote or Ranked Choice
Voting, ended up mostly being Gore votes.
gore won that election. the supreme court appointed bush.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t have been able to do so had Gore more demonstrably won Florida, which he would’ve done without Nader. That’s the point.
>The Supreme Court wouldn’t have been able to do so had Gore more demonstrably won Florida, which he would’ve done without Nader. That’s the point.
there is no way to prove this.
>This “Spoiler Effect” is what is meant when someone says that voting third party is a vote against your own interests in a FPTP system.
voting for biden or trump is explicitly voting against my interest. my interest is in neither of them having power.
>the third party candidate will not win.
where did you get your crystal ball?
SkyMall, but it’s a bit hazy on predicting the future. My assurance that the third party candidate won’t win instead comes from paying a modicum of attention to US politics and not being disingenuous.
your insinuation of disingenuity is bad faith.
No, it isn't. It's abstaining.
Congrats, you were able to exercise your free will and feel good about it. Hope you enjoy the consequences.
So is setting yourself on fire, and it's an equally bad idea.
self immolation is not voting
He isn't a HORRIBLE choice. He has a good chance of beating Trump and hasnt done a lot of bad things during his time. I would like someone younger and more progressive, but both sides edge towards the center.
He had a surprisingly productive term but he's clearly showing his age and should be stepping back as he promised during the last election. I love the shit out of Bernie Sanders but at this point he's too old to hold an office like president... this is a hard job and both the candidates in this cycle are clearly not as sharp as they once were.
His term has been wildly productive and done more good than any president in my lifetime.
But he's also taking the exact wrong stance on Israel right now, combined with the typical democrats being fucking garbage at messaging, and the media helping Trump every step of the way.
I disagree with Biden about Israel, but it's genuinely a hard decision. He thinks it's more important for the US to be seen aiding an ally who suffered a sneak attack. Disagree with him about it, hate him for it, but he has a very good point.
Contrast that with Donnie's declaration that he'd let Russia attack Europe.
We should have been harsher on Israel for the apartheid government starting decades ago. Many presidents and many congresses are to blame for that failure.
“I sat it out when asked, It’s my turn now”
Unfortunately it’s not exclusive to one party, (un?)fortunately the election cycles hasn’t made us pick the winner of the “Nth Generation Political Hack” bracket yet
Biden's been a great president. I talk to young Democrats who dislike him. They don't know anything about his accomplishments. Judging him in that fashion isn't even on their radar. They are expressing a vibe they get from those around them.
Biden's a hero. He beat Donnie and he made the win stick after the election. That was harder than he made it look. If the president of the US is staging a coup he's got a lot of strings he can pull, and even a dumb guy like Donnie understands that much.
And Harris, the young men dislike her and they don't know anything about her. Anything. They've never even heard her talk. It feels suspiciously like attitudes towards Hilary Clinton, except at least people had seen Clinton in action.
Biden has been a great President and really seems true to what he said he would do. My biggest complaint is also Harris - as in Biden said he would be the centrist attempting to bring things together (and he tried harder than I would have) but the goal has to be to help establish a new generation of leadership, including actual liberals and progressives. Yeah, it not all on him but I don’t see how any have stood out. Harris had the home court advantage but why aren’t we seeing her as the presumptive heir?
We've seen what happens when a party refuses to scrutinize their own candidate. Learn that lesson part.
I'm pretty fuckin liberal and i thought it was more than due. Biden is far more competent than Trump when he's feeling well but you can see the slips and very sudden demeanor changes coupled with what looks like instant onset exhaustion. He just crashes sometimes.
I was however a little annoyed that after almost no Israel discussion that whoever from the Economist looked directly at the camera and said Joe Biden was like the best person to have in office when it comes to Israel. The best? We could think of no one else?
Yup. When Biden is ‘on’ he’s great - passionate but not a blowhard, and sharp enough to apply his decades of political experience. But the Presidency is a really, really stressful and 24/7/365 ‘on-call’ job with landmines like “Global Thermonuclear War” and “Bipolar Great Power Competition” lurking on the field of play. Just as we recognize the value of experience and have set a minimum age limit, there needs to be a top limit as well
I have to admit the way Stewart approached the age question really hit. He pointed how old he looked and how many years older both candidates are. I so agree: I completely see Jon Stewart only wanting to do one show a week and only until November and he is years older than me. I really don’t see having the energy for president
Obama visibly aged like thirty years during his two terms, it’s rough on everyone but he showed it because he was on the younger side for Presidents
Jacinda Arden had the stomach to call it quits when she wasn’t able to meet the continuous demands, and good on her for having the self awareness and putting the country before her prestige. We need to encourage gracefully bowing out, and criticize wannabe Liches who are giving proxy votes from hospice wards as they cling to power and ego.
Yes, he’s the best person to have in office. Maybe I’m talking out of my ass from not remembering that part of the discussion but the context is the presidential race and there are really two possibilities. Of the candidate for President that have any chance of winning, Biden is clearly the best choice we could have in office
When people typically talk about the "best" person who could be in office, they don't mean out of the candidates running in the election. They're talking about all the possible candidates that the DNC could have put forward to run for President this time around, instead of Biden.
Neolibs might be crying but literally everyone else is laughing
…. Most of whom will still be voting for him. Extremely accurate criticisms aside.
Right. I laughed my ass off, because it's fucking true.
We've got two old as shit dudes, both with shit memories, running for president.
Sure one is the better option, but neither are great options... And imagine them in four more years
Yikes.
Right. As I keep saying, I'll be voting for the forgetful doddering old grandpa that isn't a treasonous rapist who says he'll be a dictator.
Yeah, addressing it directly and with humor is exactly the way to tackle the issue. All the liberals frantically trying to gaslight about an 81 year old's memory just look like they're in a cult, which will actually drive voters away.
He's old, probably too old, but Trump is not only worse in general, but demonstrably worse on that very issue. It sucks that our choice is which declining man should be the leader of the free world, but that's the question we're faced with.
I hope so. Another drumpf term will be a disaster
Who wasn't laughing? It was hilarious. Jon Stewart's points were spot on all around.
People who require uncritical support of their candidate.
He was right on all points.
But people obviously missed the point he made about the choice is still between a old Biden or old lunatic. So it's not some 50/50 both sides bullshit
in a way, I wonder if JS was egging the mainstream media on to highlight the difference themselves, to distinguish a key difference - one's an imperfect solution, the other is a deranged tyrant criminal. Yeah, do the math.
Good? Jon Stewart always took no prisoners. If you're offended now then you weren't paying attention before.
I don’t understand what people were thinking when Stewart came back? I mean he was always merciless to anyone’s failings regardless of party, it’s just that the republicans provided so much more fodder for him vs the Dems who at least on the surface went in with good intentions most of the time. It was usually him attacking the Dems for their failures in meeting their own standards vs attacking the republicans for having no standards at all.
Democrats are a lot further right than they were for his first go round.
Not a good look for an article to start with such a hot take. Anyone who thought Stewart never took aim at Democrats couldn't have been a fan because they must have never watched his fucking show.
I would guess they know that? Stewart will likely do what he did when Hillary was running. Spend 9 months bad mouthing Biden and then wonder why the hell he didn't win in the end, but feel sanctimonious that it couldn't possibly be anything he did while Texas murders a few thousands migrants at the border.
So Hillary lost because of Stewart's criticisms and not because her own team prompted trump up under the illusion that he could never win?
thank you
Yes, betrayal - because the US devolved so much into tribalism, that any critique of "their own", no matter if justified or not, is a betrayal and taboo.
You see, our side can do no wrong and is perfect. It's their side that's wrong, always. We're the good guys, and they're the bad guys - how could Jon betray the only side that's good, noble and completely faultless? That clearly means he's with them and not with us, because nuance is a foreign loan word that we don't need, and everything is black and white!
Fucking sad and depressing - glad I get to look at it from the outside, but still...
I'm not American but I can see why the left going after Biden now is not a good idea. It's just gonna lead to a Trump win. I hate Biden, the guy has blood on his hands from his constant support of the drug war. But you should have thought of that before. Either back him now, and get a better candidate going. Or go after Biden now and lose to Trump. And then you'll get nothing done.
Biden should never have been the Democrats pick, Clinton either, but it's too late for all that now.
what happened to "it's ok if bernie doesn't win you just gotta vote for biden and push him left when he's in office" because this is not that.
They lied to us. They we're never going to let us even try to push.
The Inflation Reduction Act did turn out to be the most leftist climate policy in history, and it was so potent that it forced European countries to adopt similar policies too. That's probably the best example of Biden being pushed left.
Leftist means a fundamental restructuring of ownership over the economy and means of production. 'Not destroying the planet' is not a leftist position, it's simply a position common among leftists because we dont want our kids to die. Shows how far the overton window has been pushed right when things like fixing bridges that are decades out of spec and trying to not kill the planet is considered leftist.
That definition of leftist is outdated, frankly. In the modern day there's a whole lot more associated with it.
I would posit actually that the original definition is solely economic because at the time political thinkers and economists were solely men, and not interested in minorities and women's rights.
To a republican leftism is anything they don't like. That doesn't make it true simply because half the country says it. That word has meaning, the overton window is being pushed to convince you it does not.
Let's extrapolate, lets say not killing the planet is a leftist position, what's the democrat position then? Only kill a little of the planet?
No no no. You see, Union Buster Biden actually is the progressive champion and you're a Russian bot for saying otherwise
Tbf apparently he kept working with them after that and got them what they wanted.
Still supporting baby killers though
It's fucked. Life's fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. Everything's fucked. It's fucked to the point it can't be unfucked. It's completely, and thoroughly fucked.
It's better than 1942
Until it isn't.
He basically helped create the current atmosphere during his tenure on the daily show. It's poetic justice I suppose.
Just look on here whenever I post an article critiquing Biden. I get called every name in the book. Russian bot, China bot, Trumper etc
To be faaaaaiiiirrr, you do kinda only post that stuff. Mix it up a bit like me and they'll stop calling you a Russian bot and start calling you just plain crazy
Depends on the article and what it's advocating for. Anything advocating for not voting or voting third party (unfortunately equal to not voting in the American electoral system) will get shit from me... Biden is the worst option available to us except Trump. Trump is a fucking existential crisis.
"If you don't vote for Biden that's a vote for Trump!"
"If you don't vote for Trump that's a vote for Biden!"
Yeah that's how the 2 party system works. Until a third party is strong enough (hint: they need downticket seats) to overtake another party, voting third party is worthless.
Ah, so you understand - good.
The logic is flawed
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. The logic isn't flawed the system we're working within is flawed and unjust. Voting for one of the two leading candidates is the only logical option within this system.
If you want to change the system then fuck yea - I'm with you brother... but I honestly don't know how to accomplish that other than primarying in candidates that support RCV or proportional representation... once we get to the general election you vote for whichever of the two choices is less awful. If you don't then bad shit happens - if Trump hadn't been elected we'd still have Roe v. Wade and that difference is fucking important in an intimate way to a lot of people's lives.
Biden fucking sucks and I hope he'll be our next president.
I go back to this video and still nothing has changed. It's even worse now...
https://youtu.be/TNrUyd6zlDQ
I am only disappointed because his big comeback was sold to us as a man against MAGATARDS.
If you didn't laugh at Stewart's criticism, you're no better than a Bill Maher or new york times liberal.
We're in a weird spot. On the one hand, legitimate criticisms should always be welcome especially when directed at our elected officials. In a healthy democracy we would vote out people who disappoint or underperform. On the other hand, we don't have a healthy democracy and one side is determined to vote for a man with the most extensive list of abhorrent behavior ever documented in the nation's history. Criticizing Biden just makes it more likely that a super close race will go to Trump, who is unquestionably worse than Biden.
Part of me wants to say "let's get the Trump threat behind us and THEN we can work on building a healthier democracy," but that isn't how a healthy democracy works! If we compromise on our values to get rid of someone we disagree with, are we the baddies? It's a frustrating and scary place to be.
“The ends justify the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have are means.”
U.K. LeGuin
Who cares? Like me, personally, I think too much is being made of the age thing for Biden (and not enough for Trump) but Jon Stewart is not some party spokesman. If he wants to go Enlightened Centrist "BOTH SIDES are too old!" for comedy he can. His job is the comedy, not the election.
He's also just correct. Just because Trump is such a scum human doesn't make Biden's three star rating into a five star. It just means three stars is better than this opponent's zero.
And it’s not like the entire show was about Biden age. Jon Stewart does have a clear preference and does find reason so skewer one side of the political spectrum more than the other but we shouldn’t expect nor even want blind allegiance
That episode was scathing and I love it.
The show was really funny. This post was a good excuse to watch the monologue again. Looking forward to next Monday's show.
Of course they're upset, this is post-Trump America after all! You're not allowed to criticize both sides equally! You HAVE TO pick a side and support them fully no matter what bullshit spews out of their mouths! It's a law now! The whole thing falls apart if we're not all running around screaming for blood like a bunch of lunatics!
Like how you’re getting downvotes because you’re speaking the truth.
US politics is literally “democrat bad” or “republican bad”, and both are apparently immune from criticism from anybody unless you’re criticizing the opposite team. Trump and the Republican party is unquestionably fucked up for being fascists, but that shouldn’t mean we can’t scrutinize whatever the hell the Dems are doing - and what they are not doing as well. We should hold our government accountable for what they do because we’re the goddamn people.
I say this as somebody who will vote Democrat - not because I actually want Biden, but because I don’t want Trump or a modern-day Republican as President.
Our candidate is so far from what voters want that we run articles about how great the economy is and how much awesome shit he got through to try to convince voters because the alternative is a nightmare. Someone just came in and said the things that we've been deliberately ignoring. Oh noez! DAMAGE CONTROL. DAMAGE CONTROL. DAMAGE CONTROL.
I actually think it would have been damaging to pretend that Biden is perfect. People who can be convinced to vote one way or another aren't blind to the flaws of the current administration, pretending that everything is rosy will switch them off and they'll stay home.
Providing honest criticism, where warranted, of both sides and acknowledging the very real concerns around Biden is more likely to keep people engaged and informed. Despite how flawed Biden is, any sane, informed voter chooses him over Trump every time.
As a Canadian, I was laughing my ass off
And they all started chanting "four more years" from their couches to drown out any discontentment with Biden.
Not all of us, bud.
I voted for Biden and shall again, because the alternative is despicable, corrupt, treasonous, rapey, evil, and just fuckin' wrong, and so is their candidate.
The Dems don't have another candidate that has any chance of beating Pumpkin Tits, because the Dems still believe in time-outs instead of spankings, politically, and they don't want their rich donors to clutch their pearls.
(If the Dems' balls were ever to descend, that might be a different story, but here we are. )
Jab away, Jon.
Stop trying to make a story of this.
The old adage says "progressives need to fall in love; conservatives need to fall in line."
It means conservatives and their focus on loyalty means they neither express or accept any criticism of their party's leadership. Progressives, though, always exist in that sea of doubt and always need to be convinced of the validity of their candidate because they're always reassessing.
TL;DR -- this outrage over negative comments is a little too fanboy, a little too accepting for actual progressives. It's not their way. This outrage that is being reported means there's more conservatives learning how to be progressive and need some help. Let them in the idea that doubt is okay and not to be angry about the disloyalty.
Yes I am!
Unless we get people into office that will actually address inequality and wealth distribution nothing will get better. This interview with Gary Stevenson hits it on the head. https://youtu.be/DVvoyRpxG-A?feature=shared
This is the best summary I could come up with:
At one point, Stewart showed Biden — at a press conference to address a Justice Department probe that characterized him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” — mixing up the countries of Mexico and Egypt.
Literary icon Joyce Carol Oates, famous for her unfiltered Twitter takes, was likewise unimpressed with Stewart’s performance at the Daily Show desk, calling it “surprisingly unoriginal” in its focus on the presidential candidates’ age: “‘Both sides identical: too old,’ she tweeted, asking, “this is funny or helpful — exactly how?”
“Balance and humor return!” declared Elon Musk, who, since acquiring Twitter in 2022, has been stewing in the far-right misinformation and racist conspiracy theories that now run rampant on the barely moderated platform.
Throughout the episode, the host referenced the former president’s many criminal indictments, multiple civil rulings affirming that he committed sexual assault, and attempts to undermine the democratic process — while noting Biden had none of these issues as a candidate.
In his long absence from the flagship Comedy Central talk show, it’s possible that part of his audience chose to remember him more as a prime hater of President George W. Bush — especially during the Iraq War — or a true-blue counterweight to the rabid Fox News-style neoconservatism lampooned in The Colbert Report.
It’s already clear that his skewering Trump as incoherent, clownish and dangerously unsuited to the highest office in the land is not enough to placate this voting bloc, which would do well to realize that Stewart’s job has never been to favor, endorse, or champion a particular candidate: he’s there now to vent a collective frustration with a pair of unpopular politicians and rattle the system that has once again put them forward as our two best options.
The original article contains 1,004 words, the summary contains 293 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
He wasn't wrong to say those things, but it was really scary watching it.
Thinking "it's ethical that he do this, but what will it cost us?"
How many votes? How many fractions of a % of the total vote did this push away from Biden?
If the candidate is so weak that a TV show comedy segment can take votes away...
The "not a nazi" platform is strong.
But is it strong enough?
Good, fuck 'em
has anyone listened to jon stewart's political takes when he wasn't reading them off a teleprompter? remember, when colbert had his capitol rally to make a point about what (the republicans in) congress was doing, stewart joined in with his rally watering down the impact of the initial rally because he thought colbert was doing a giant bit.
jon stewart has generally had terrible political takes. it's just that during his heyday it was the no drama obama years and there generally wasn't anything to both sides on the democratic side so liberals didn't hear him badly try to equivocate the two parties.
then again I've never watched the daily show, even the kilborne years so what do I know.
I think your memory of how that rally evolved is deeply flawed. Colbert was always in character... He announced his rally as the march to keep fear alive.
Time and place, Jon...
We're on the cusp of an actual fascist uprising in America, let's not disparage the guy standing in the way of that, yeah?
I'd rather vote for the liberal comedian, tbh.
3 steps toward fascism instead of 5 isn't standing in the way.
Ooh save us from the guy who wants to sidestep congress to back genocide, guy who sidesteps congress to back genocide!
No we're not. We are just on the cusp of four shitty years. People are overreacting to a demented old man. There's a long list of things the crazy fucker wants to do, and an extremely short list of things he will actually be able to do.
The media silos are feeding everyone panic pablum with a chaser of hysteria pills. We've had bad presidents before and everyone lived through them.
It's really easy to call alarmism - it means nobody has to do anything about the problem and no one is to blame. We've got politicians quoting Mien Kampf almost verbatim, but sure, it's just an overreaction 🙄
No it means exactly what the definition for alarmism says. You can choose to believe "it means nobody has to do anything about the problem and no one is to blame".
And quoting Mein Kampf only means that the politician in question is either mentally disturbed or dog whistling.
Life must be nice with blinders on, buddy... 🙄
The dude spent the pandemic insisting the lab leak theory was absolutely true because “they named the lab after Covid, it has to have come from there!” which is both wrong (the lab is named the Wuhan Institute of Virology) and stupid because even if it was named after the class of disease they study, that doesn’t prove anything.
Covid broke a lot of people’s brains, and he seems to be one of them.
Source on him talking about this throughout the pandemic? Only thing I’m aware of is him going on Colbert’s show post-lockdown.
On that occasion, to some extent, I’m pretty sure he was just joking, given that he gives his entire speech in a comedic tone and doesn’t fight Colbert back on mostly anything he replies with.
I love the man and he helped shape my political perspective but that Colbert interview didn't seem like he was joking.
That’s fair. I don’t think he was 100% joking either, I just don’t think he was absolutely convinced of the lab leak theory.
The way I see it: either it was a) just a bit, or b) a bit that was fueled by his frustration that the lab leak theory hasn’t been outright disproven (though I think him saying it’s “more than likely” would still be irresponsible), or c) him being serious and trying to make a joke out of it, or d) none of the above.
I think c) is totally worthy of criticism. Just not as much so under a) or b).
I’m still interested in a source of that not being the only time he defended the lab leak theory.
I don't begrudge anyone for believing that Covid-19 came from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. History shows that governments will make every effort to avoid standing up and telling their citizens a difficult truth. The lab leak theory is a fruit of rampant dishonesty in government. It's directly the fault of the government that conspiracy theories like this exist, and it's hypocritical for governments to bemoan those theories and the people who believe them.