110

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@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive.is link

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 9 months ago

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@beehaw.org 20 points 9 months ago

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 2 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@beehaw.org 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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".

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago

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@beehaw.org 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[+] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

No, if someone is claiming that democracy is being killed, it's very important to define what that actually means. If Democracy is the simple act of some any given sub-group being allowed to vote, it's never going to 'die' in the US. If on the other hand it's the actual ability for individuals to overrule those in power via voting, then it's arguably already dead. Definitions are important.

[+] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When I say “Trump is eroding our democracy,” most people - including you - understand what I’m driving at.

I agree with Stewart on that point:

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.”

Trump is not going to end voting if he gets reelected, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement by Republicans existed long before Trump and will continue long after Trump. There is nothing that Trump is going to fundamentally change about our government.

It will be very bad if he gets elected, but the country is not over, and using hyperbolic language that implies otherwise, like "This is a question of whether democracy dies in America." (which is what the commenter I initially responded to said), is just being used to deflect from very important and valid criticism of the alternatives. More importantly, it runs the danger of creating voter fatigue; not every election can be an exceptional, emergency situation, and all of Trump's runner-ups like DeSantis and Ramaswamy, are all running the same playbook.

If the only way for America and/or Democracy not to die is for Republicans to never again become president, it's already lost, because we're in a duopoly with them (which the DNC is actively working to maintain), and it is an eventuality.

[+] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You inserted yourself into a conversation I was having, in which the other person (P03 Locke) was disputing Stewart's assertion that the country would not be over, and asserting that

This is a question of whether democracy dies in America.

That is the context in which I felt it was necessary to define Democracy.

You then jumped in and said

When I say “Trump is eroding our democracy,”

despite the fact you had not actually said that previously, and that it is a different stance from what P03 Locke said.

P03 Locke never asserted Trump was eroding Democracy, they said he would be killing it, and they said that as a direct counter to Stewart's assertion that the country would not be over, which indicates that in P03 Locke's mind, the death of Democracy is equivalent to the end of America.

In that case, it's incredibly important to define Democracy, in order to understand exactly what changes P03 Locke believes Trump will make, so we can actually assess the likely impact of those changes, and see what precisely they think qualifies as the end of Democracy.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

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@beehaw.org 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoiler

asdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[+] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

From my other comment:

This belies the fact that there is a TON of work being done, constantly, by organizers at all levels. The problem is that you cannot out-raise party-aligned Super PACs with grassroots, individual funding. You can’t reach a wider audience with door-to-door campaigning, than a Super PAC can with TV and internet ads. You can’t meet the primary debate requirements set by the parties (when they don’t just not hold debates altogether), when the parties are intentionally making those requirements impossible for grassroots campaigns to meet.

Our political system is set up to discourage political engagement. Organizing takes time, money, community, and civic-mindedness, and our society is set up to sap all of those away from the average person. You're basically just blaming the people who are overcoming those barriers, to organize and be politically-engaged, for the fact it's impossible for them to singlehandledly overcome the political apathy that the system is built to propagate.

All of your concerns are fixed when everyone pays attention for more than one out of every four years. Until that happens...

That will never happen, because as I said, our political system does not want that to happen, and works to make sure it doesn't. So what you're really saying is, "don't ever push for change within the party itself, just toe the party line".

No thanks.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 24 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 19 points 9 months ago

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

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

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 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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 5 points 9 months ago

Totally agree. It feels like an unexpected gift.

[-] HumbleHobo@beehaw.org 14 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.

[-] admin@beehaw.org 10 points 9 months ago

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@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Ah, good to know. Will do. o7

Fixed now.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 8 points 9 months ago

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

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

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

Click here to see the summary

After 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.

[-] RadioRat@beehaw.org 2 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.

this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024

110 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10179 readers

66 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:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

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

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org