this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
133 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10177 readers
25 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
remington
alyaza
TheRtRevKaiser
Gaywallet
JuBe
JCPhoenix
kalanggam
circularfish
knokelmaat
133
Jon Stewart skewers Biden, Trump in ‘Daily Show’ return: ‘What the f‑‑‑ are we doing here?’ (thehill.com)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by t3rmit3 to c/politics
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive.is link

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I didn't like the false equivalency that was oozing from this episode.

“It actually makes him more subject to scrutiny,” Stewart said.

This is why liberals lose. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Democrats take a tiny issue and use it as an excuse to not vote. Republicans vote to a fault.

Come Election Day, Stewart said, “If your guy loses, bad things might happen, but the country is not over. And if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.”

When a fuckhead who tried to incite an insurrection, fan the flames to murder the VP, steal boxes and boxes of classified documents, leak classified information that got CIA agents killed, along with the 150 other high crimes, is still trying to run for president, it isn't a matter of whether "your guy" loses.

This is a question of whether democracy dies in America.

If Jon has lost sight of that, he doesn't deserve an audience.

[–] HumbleHobo 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate that you haven't lost the context in which this election is taking place in which one of the candidates tried to overthrow the government. But I think slighting Stewart for not being more alarmist is misunderstanding him. He was never another MSNBC talking head that screams about how the world is coming to and end because of something that the right did. He was always a grounded voice of reason that would give insight into specific issues.

If he starts screaming about how Trump is the devil and going to destroy everything, whether that is right or wrong, it would be completely not his stylenand also be ineffective. He takes people down by criticizing people by using their own words taken in good faith to show them not acting in good faith.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

Honestly, Jon should start taking lessons from Seth Meyers. His "A Closer Look" series have been killing it for the past few years.

It's not about screaming about how Trump is the devil. It's about making him look like an absolute, total idiot who can't even tie his own shoes.

[–] t3rmit3 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

This is a question of whether democracy dies in America.

If the people in charge have the ability to end democracy, how can democracy be claimed to exist in the first place? Democracy is supposed to be our capability as individual citizens to regulate the people in power, but if they can turn that switch on or off, we don't actually have that capability except as they choose to allow us to.

The power of democracy is vested with the citizenry. It is up to us whether it lives or dies. Only we, through inaction, can determine if any given leader is allowed to take or remain in office. Currently we have a duopoly that plays at being enemies, casting back and forth between the dictator and the 'stalwart defender of democracy' (whose selection by the DNC must always be respected one more time, lest the dictator take hold again).

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

Useless and false platitude.

Republicans literally have been splitting in half ever since Trump lost in 2020. They ousted their own Speaker, and are now trying to oust McConnell via public opinion. They had 2 primary candidates (DeSantis and Haley) who actually got national attention, and a decent-ish number of votes. What part of that is "in line"?

If the bar for "in-line" is the party forcefully backing one candidate, the DNC is far more aligned behind Biden.

If you look in conservative political spaces, they literally say the same thing about Democrats being the ones who "fall in line". In both cases, it's just a means to quash democratic discussion of candidates.

My opposition to Biden is not about "falling in love" with someone else, it's about my belief that Biden is going to lose us the election and put Trump back in office. Perhaps you shouldn't be dismissive and condescending towards other people's choices when you know nothing about them? Perhaps they're actually trying to save the US from Trump as well?

Or you can just write them off as being silly people who "lose" for "falling in love".

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If the people in charge have the ability to end democracy, how can democracy be claimed to exist in the first place? Democracy is supposed to be our capability as individual citizens to regulate the people in power, but if they can turn that switch on or off, we don’t actually have that capability except as they choose to allow us to.

The simple answer to your question is by the people taking a person who very overtly says that he has no desire to preserve democracy and in fact has already sought to overturn it once before and then proceeding to return that person to office in order to do just that.

We do have the ability to regulate the people in power by not voting for them in the first place. If we take the ability and use it to give power to someone who wants to do away with democracy, that's pretty much on us.

Ultimately, any frustration with Biden - and I acknowledge that valid ones absolutely do exist - must be squared against the fact that we have to put a candidate up against Trump. Whether Biden is the person with the best odds against him is an objective and empirical one, though also one that's hard to accurately study and answer. Disapproval polls are certainly one source of info, but they do not necessarily mean that any other potential alternative would do better. It is very possible for large amounts of people to disapprove of Biden but ultimately disapprove of Trump even more. We can't actually personify "broadly generic and popular Democrat" into a real human, and even if we could, that's basically Biden, so unless there exists an actual specific person who is both broadly popular and with more political clout than Biden who's also interested in running, the practical choice is Biden against Trump, no matter how much ink people want to spill on the matter.

Edit: On a more pragmatic matter, I absolutely agree that telling progressives to shut up, stop complaining, and vote for Biden is not a particularly effective style of messaging.

[–] t3rmit3 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

We do have the ability to regulate the people in power by not voting for them in the first place.

So if there are only 2 people on the ballot, and you don't want either, what are your options? If the DNC is actively working to prevent others from getting on the ballot, leaving us with only 2 bad choices, and you go along with it, you haven't actually 'regulated' anything. Dangling a false choice in front of people to create the illusion of agency is nothing new, and it's very much what US politics at the national level is.

Want to 'regulate' the ability of the US president to enable a genocide in Gaza? Too bad, because all of the candidates that the parties will let you vote for, will all enable the genocide. Believing you actually have real control over the US government is a lie you tell yourself.

use it to give power to someone who wants to do away with democracy

No one here is talking about voting for Trump, and the rhetoric of 'not voting for Biden puts Trump in office' runs directly counter to your argument that we have the ability to regulate who gets into office, because you're explicitly arguing that it's a binary choice and it's a moral imperative to put one of those people in power.

I can't both have to vote for Biden as a moral imperative to stave off the death of democracy, and also not have to vote for him, in order to regulate his ability to wield US strategic power to further a genocide. It's a false choice that's been forced by the political parties' shutting-out of other parties and candidates, but pushing a button every 4 years makes you feel like you had an impact.

any frustration with Biden... must be squared against the fact that we have to put a candidate up against Trump

Of course, which is why my real anger is directed at the DNC. They didn't learn their lesson in 2016. They put Trump in power by shoving through their preferred candidate, despite her being mind-bogglingly unpopular. Biden eked out a win in 2020 because people hated Trump enough and he was still fresh in their minds, but the reality on the ground now is that Trump has been gone for a while, and most peoples' lives have not gotten markedly better under Biden. Biden's promise that "Nothing will fundamentally change" has proven true, and I think there are too many voters who will not turn out in force to vote against Trump this election, just as they didn't in 2016. And Biden is wildly unpopular, to boot.

Just to be clear; if Biden is the candidate in the General election, I will probably vote for him(because what the hell else can I do? Any actual good candidates were bullied out of running). But at this point, I don't think he's going to win. I think the apathy towards his insubstantive actions, combined with the very valid and justified anger over his aid in the genocide in Gaza, is going to lose him the election. It doesn't matter what politically-engaged people like you and I think, if the average person isn't on board with him, and they're not.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the people in charge have the ability to end democracy, how can democracy be claimed to exist in the first place? Democracy is supposed to be our capability as individual citizens to regulate the people in power, but if they can turn that switch on or off, we don’t actually have that capability except as they choose to allow us to.

It's never a binary on/off switch. Democracy dies through slow corrosion. If we let Trump off with all of those crimes he committed, and allow him to get re-elected, all of those crimes are now unenforceable.

Well, unenforceable for the rich and powerful. The poor has a different system of justice.

Republicans literally have been splitting in half ever since Trump lost in 2020. They ousted their own Speaker, and are now trying to oust McConnell via public opinion. They had 2 primary candidates (DeSantis and Haley) who actually got national attention, and a decent-ish number of votes. What part of that is “in line”?

DeSantis, Haley, and all of the Speaker nonsense has been infighting with old-guard rich assholes who want to break government more subtlety than how Trump and the rest of the Tea Party idiots do things. The GOP has been trying to steer out of this Trump trainwreck ever since it's started, and they don't have the control over their own populace than they used to. But, that's not a good thing because everything that the GOP represents has been going even further extremist.

But, do you know what happens when these candidates drop out? They immediately fall in line. They kiss Trump's ass so hard that no callous insult he made at him is unforgivable. Hell, Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of helping in the JFK assassination, and Ted was like, "Yeah, we should totally vote for this guy!"

[–] t3rmit3 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

It’s never a binary on/off switch. Democracy dies through slow corrosion.

There are a lot of ways to define what qualifies as Democracy: is it the mere presence of voting? Is it the impact of that voting? Is it equal/ universal voting rights? Is it the ability to enforce voting outcomes? Or the ability for voters to choose what is voted on?

Some of those are clear binaries, and some of those are gradations or thresholds.

Personally, I think it has to be a combination of universal voting rights, voter-led ballot control(i.e. choosing what to vote about), and enforceability.

To me, we've been failing as a democracy for a long time.

If we let Trump off with all of those crimes he committed, and allow him to get re-elected, all of those crimes are now unenforceable.

The unenforceability of those laws is not determined by his reelection, they're determined by the actual court cases charging him with crimes. We do not have the ability to force SCOTUS to allow him to be held accountable, and comforting ourselves that we actually can, merely by not re-electing him, means you already realize the laws are not going to be enforced against him in the "Justice" System.

But, do you know what happens when these candidates drop out? They immediately fall in line.

Which is exactly what every Democrat challenger does as well.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] WebTheWitted 4 points 9 months ago

Thank you for taking the time to write out such a well reasoned rebuttal. I'm always on mobile and simply don't have the stamina, but I appreciate all the points you've laid out.

I am always sad when I see the left wing criticisms of the "both sides" argument on Lemmy. Like, I don't necessarily disagree, but I find the whole premise of one side vs another as some of the worst tendencies in democracy at work. I refuse to equate left vs. right == democracy. It's bigger than that.

And speaking of democracy, I think it's really important that everyone be unbiased around what constitutes a threat to democracy. Yes, J6 was objectively bad, and I don't trust Trump to put his big boy pants on in round two. But I'm also alarmed at the lengths to which this legitimate fear is used as a justification for antidemocratic strategy from the DNC.

No matter their political ideology, when people start letting fear inform every decision - and justify their worse impulses - I get reeaaaalll nervous, as should we all.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] t3rmit3 27 points 9 months ago

I'm not a huge fan of The Hill (to put it lightly), but Judy Kurtz is one of the least-bad writers there, and this story actually quoted much more of Stewart's remarks than any others I could find.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

it’s like he never left. I’m so glad he’s back.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I agree with the second part: I'm so glad he's back on. But I disagree with the first part. I found it weirdly surreal and reflection-inducing.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

ok, yeah, it hit me weird for a couple of minutes, don’t get me wrong. what I meant was that he slipped effortlessly back into the role, seamlessly— not that I didn’t notice that he was gone nor that it wan’t weird to see him back again after 9 years, lol

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

Totally agree. It feels like an unexpected gift.

[–] remington 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have copyright laws that this site must abide by. Please, in the future, post archive links instead of copy/pasting entire news articles. Thank you.

[–] t3rmit3 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Ah, good to know. Will do. o7

Fixed now.

[–] HumbleHobo 15 points 9 months ago

He's back baby!

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've learned one thing over these last nine years, and I was glib at best and probably dismissive at worst about this. The work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunch pail shit job, day in and day out, where thousands of committed, anonymous, smart, and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues till they get a positive result. And even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds.

So the good news is I'm not saying you don't have to worry about who wins the election. I'm saying you have to worry about every day before it and every day after forever.

-- Jon Stewart Tackles The Biden-Trump Rematch That Nobody Wants - @19:20

This was incredibly validating for me.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 9 points 9 months ago

The long winter is over! He's back, baby!

[–] RadioRat 5 points 9 months ago

Really hope there will be follow-up call to action and education on civic engagement and organizing. But not counting on it.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 9 months ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryAfter a nine-year absence, the 61-year-old comedian returned to hosting duties on the Comedy Central show to raucous applause Monday.

The cable network announced last month that Stewart would sit at the anchor desk on Monday nights, with a rotating lineup of other hosts on other weekdays.

Stewart took aim early in his monologue at Biden and his response to special counsel Robert Hur’s classified records report that drew attention to the president’s age and cognitive ability.

“Biden’s lost a step, but Trump regularly says things at rallies that would warrant a wellness check,” Stewart said to laughs.

“They are the oldest people ever to run for president — breaking by only four years the record that they set the last time they ran!” Stewart exclaimed.

Striking a more sober tone, Stewart said: “What’s crazy is thinking that we are the ones as voters who must silence concerns and criticisms.

Saved 65% of original text.