politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Mocking Fascists; Making them look foolish and ridiculing them, works. It's even more effective than just holding their feet to flame like Kamala.
This is probably why Jon Stewart is looking at running. Someone like him or Jordan Klepper is the worst case scenario.
The best strategy the democrats had was calling republicans weird, but then it just got cut off as it was gaining traction.
It’s been telling seeing how quickly many news sources abandoned any semblance of honesty when their owners tightened up on the reins.
In the last two years I completely changed which sources I get news from, now I’m paying for more smaller sources and completely avoiding aggregators like Google or Apple news.
It was too successful, and their oligarch handlers wanted fascism.
Yeah. They shouldn’t worry about that as long as they bring receipts.
Good leadership includes pointing out when those around you are acting like jackasses.
Because the Dems obeyed their consultants then, as they have for a couple of decades now, and still are.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/vampire-consultant-class-wants-democratic-party-blood-and-money
Is he? I thought it was just other people saying he should
He explicitly implied he was considering running on Charlemagne's show. Wouldn't mean much for most people but Jon has always aggressively shut down any such suggestion and here he brought it up.
By explicitly implied, you mean he laughed and didn't explicitly deny it when asked, then changed the subject. Also keep in mind he's been asked this question publicly probably once a week for the last 20 years.
I mean, it's possible. I'll just wait until he actually confirms he's exploring it.
It's weird that you're implying you know he's answered the question weekly(going hard with the hyperbole) but have obviously never seen him give said answer.
link pls maybe timestamp too anybody?
He's been asked all the time since the George W. Bush administration. Incidentally the comments sections for The Daily Show have been filled with comments about it since their videos were first put on YouTube. Here's a random time he was asked. I found it in 5 seconds.
https://youtu.be/RQMDZTAQsYE
Yes! And a whole movie was made and released based on the idea of someone like him running. Probally largely due to this strong, long present sentiment. It stars Robin Williams.
Yeah I know. I've seen dosens of times.
Choose one
Implicitly explied.
He clearly implied. Leaving no room for confusion or doubt that he implied what he implied.
The implication was explicit. He’s considering running. No one thinks he was implying he would run for a spot on Sesame Street, or as Chief of Staff, or any other position.
You don’t think that works well enough, especially in the context of Jon’s relationship with the subject in the past?
You keep using these words... I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
If you must interpret the meaning of his words based on additional context, then he was implying.
If there is no need for interpretation, then he was being explicit.
His relationship to the subject in the past has been an utter lack of interest in running for any kind of office, and has never even attempted it on a local level or expressed a desire to.
How about we all get the dick of celebrityhood in general out of our collective mouths and just let the man tell us what he has planned if he has something planned.
Whoa, I was just discussing why I would go easy on the poor word choices here. Calm down.
No! Schrödinger's cat for president!
Go watch the clip. In the context of Jon Stewart it's weird. He hasn't given the idea serious thought since the rally to restore sanity in ancient times.
Even Jon Stewart cannot defy the rules of logic.
Either he explicitly said "I am running for president" or he implied it by saying something other than "I am running for president."
"I'm not saying I'm running for president but I'm not not saying that, if you know what I mean"
(haven't seen the clip, just postulating)
That's not explicit. At most, it strongly implies he's running.
Pretty much whenever someone ends a sentence with "if you know what I mean", they are implying something.
It’s not about him actually running. It’s about him considering. You’re jumping ahead.
He’s never considered it an option before. But now he’s considering it.
Either way, he is either explicitly considering it or he implied that he's considering it.
It's not explicitly saying X, it's explicitly implying X. Really being explicit that they're implying the thing.
You can't explicitly imply something. You can either imply or be explicit.
Our understanding of how words work is different and that is ok. We've clearly communicated how we each interpret the phrase, so there's no misunderstanding in this case and we are unlikely to encounter the same phrase together again in the wild.
edit: root disagreement is that you believe the adverb "explicitly" cannot modify the verb "imply", whereas I believe it can. I doubt either of us will convince the other.
"Explicit" is literally defined as "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication"
Which makes sense, because "explicit" and "implicit" are antonyms. Do you think that something can "explosively implode"?
He's not, he wisecracks about it here and there to farm a little engagement, but I don't think anyone expects him to suddenly become the wiley dealmaker and negotiator between members of the parties he despises. A lot of people on the left have the same exact celebrity infatuation as MAGA do, it just takes a slightly different form. Liberal audiences are engaged and laugh at thoughtful irony and scathing shower-arguments delivered to captive audiences. The right laughs at MAN FALL DOWN GO BOOM.
Even if he were suddenly to pull off his mask and show that he has electability (political capital), he would be running on a liberal platform not much different than establishment dems have been doing for years because they have the same base: liberals. I mean, honestly a lame-duck Stewart administration would be preferable over literally everything we are looking at on the horizon, but I do think we can do a lot better than more celebrity worship.
Stewart's rhetoric is cathartic to libs and leftists frustrated with the right, but he's never been a champion of socialism or a radical, it's just jokes. He admits this, it's his power and strength and putting him in the seat of power would actually take that strength away.
I once heard "There's a reason neo-nazis idolize the nazi brother from American History X and not the Nazis in Springtime for Hitler." One takes the neo-nazi ideology seriously and provides counter arguments. The other is making Nazis look lame.
He's not, he's never expressed any strong desire to outside of jokes and fantasy scenarios, this hype is the same bullshit celebrity worship and WWE theater that got Trump elected.
So you’re saying there’s a chance.
I would honestly take a lame-duck Stewart administration where nothing gets passed and nothing happens politically over what the GOP has planned for the next decade. But that's also why he's unlikely to be backed by a major party or progress far into primaries and haha we might not even have another "fair" election.
Trump has passively destroyed late night TV simply by being the only thing they joke about now. I honestly don't think writers even remember what they did before Trump.
I'd rather Stewart continue with his activism. Colbert on the other hand...
Isn't he Canadian?
Look I can see that comment being made in person, but this is a pretty easily researched question being posed asynchronously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert
He was born in Washington, D.C.
I really had it in my head that he was Canadian, so didn't think I needed to. Thanks for the correction.
Not sure who I'm confusing him with.
Please God bring back Sam Kinison
What a perfect anti-Trump candidate
IDK I feel like he'd just get into a screaming match with Alex Jones. Honestly that'd be fun to watch.