Agree, but “thinking he’s too old” does not mean “won’t vote for.” I think he too old, and I’ll walk over crushed glass if it would help get Biden re-elected. Because, as you say, the stakes are too high.
Honestly, i think Biden has been great, and i will probably donate time to his campaign. Despite thinking he’s too old. No candidate is perfect. Biden is too old, but is also terrific.
Yes, I should have made that clear. He’s been fantastic. Good instincts, lots of experience, and surrounded by competent people.
That’s fair, and I think a lot of people will agree with you. 73% of Democrats say he’s too old to run, but most of them will vote for him. But is it enough? Among indepentents, the number is over 90%.
Robert F. Kennedy is a nut, but a November poll had him beating both Trump and Biden among independents (36% Kennedy, 31% Trump, 30% Biden). Both Republicans and Democrats are losing members, and the ranks of independents are growing. Both parties are screwing up, and the people are noticing. John Stewart is just pointing out the obvious.
I think that was Stewart’s point. He noted that being on top of politics is a 24/7/365 game for everyone (I am paraphrasing) and not something to only be concerned about on election day. More broadly, I think he was illustrating that when we do not pay close attention, we find ourselves with these kinds of choices.
I think Stewart may see his role now is to more broadly address the issues facing politics in the US rather than just rant on the dumb thing of the day (which he will leave to the other host). Just a WAG…it’s only been one episode.
That said I have no doubt Stewart would vote for a comatose Biden before Trump.
Very glad Stewart is back though.
This logic doesn’t make sense at all to me. If a fact is not true, but someone is having trouble convincing people that it’s false, then that’s all the more reason not to spread it. If you brought it up at all, it would be to refute it.
Stewart didn’t merely acknowledge what happened (that Biden tripped over his words) and laugh at it. He used it to claim that Biden had “lost a step.” That’s an accusation of senility. Biden tripped over his words, something he’s done most of his life, because he has a stutter. And Stewart ignores that and instead pushes the senility narrative. And his subsequent comments show he believes it himself, since he was telling others in the campaign to prove him wrong. His claim was that he’s telling the truth people don’t want to hear.
Sure, he follows it up by saying Trump is worse. But that’s not news, so people aren’t going to talk about that as much. And, even if they do, it comes off as “both sides” since he put the Biden thing first and repeating a Republican narrative. Even Fox is pushing it.
Before this, Stewart was a lot better at avoiding spreading Republican talking points. I’ve criticized another political comedian for the same issue. And I’ve always used Stewart as the example of how to address things without doing so. It sucks that he fumbled so badly.
I just hope the consequences ultimately are no worse than having a lackluster first episode back.
Nitpick over a perennial annoyance – it’s Jon Stewart. Short for Jonathan.
I hope that it was a fumble, and not part of a new style.
I think it’s fair to say that Trump’s niece, Mary, isn’t endorsing Jon Stewart’s remarks:
Not only is Stewart’s ‘both sides are the same’ rhetoric not funny, it’s a potential disaster for democracy.
I’ve really wanted to reply again, but I was gently admonished by @What_Exit to not get too political in a CF thread and want to be respectful of that, so I will be very careful here:
First, don’t get me wrong about Jon Stewart. I think his advocacy for 9/11 responders since he retired from the Daily Show makes him a goddam hero.
The thing that disappointed me about his first ep back though, wasn’t that he took a higher-level, both-sides approach to the issue. That always was kind of his thing. When co-host Jordan Kleppert made an appearance, he even jokingly mocked Jon’s “outmoded 90s style both-siderism”.
I always appreciated Jon’s ability to cut through all the spin, obfuscation and general BS of an issue, break it all down, and get to the heart of what it is really about in a way that was satirical and funny, but also deeply insightful. But I feel like, instead of getting to the heart of things here, he succumbed to the existing false narrative (IMO), at least to some degree. Whether he didn’t express his point well enough, or whether he really believes the narrative he seemed to (at least partially) support, will remain to be seen.
hidden by WE? see next post
Because she’s too busy endorsing herself. I read her book (if she even wrote it). She was in her 30s complaining about not getting enough money for an allowance, or bitching about not getting the greatest name brand gifts from Uncle Donald for Christmas. Spoiled brat, but people know where the money is, and will kiss her ass, because not doing so must mean they’re Russians!
A question came up to help clarify what is allowed in this thread:
Cafe threads on the Daily Show are tough as they are almost inherently somewhat political.
So where the politics come into the thread it needs to be directly about what Jon (or other hosts) say or outside comments like the one @DavidNRockies posted about the hosts and related to the show.
Outright pittings belong in the pit. Talk about Trump vs. Biden not related to the show belong outside of the Cafe.
Additionally, looking at the last post, potential hijack not about the show like @MortSahlFan do not belong in this thread. I will hide it in fact.
Is it his new style though? Maybe we are not remembering well what his show was actually like nine years ago.
All in all, it seemed that nobody incensed by Stewart’s comments on Biden recalled his history of jabbing at Democratic leaders over the years, from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Al Gore to Barack Obama. 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.
The trouble for Stewart’s erstwhile liberal fans is that he’s still not beholden to party orthodoxy, and will be on TV week in, week out, until November. 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. If that offends, it might be worth reminding yourself: don’t shoot the messenger. - SOURCE
My point though, and I’m probably not making it well enough, is not that I’m disappointed Stewart is equally lampooning both sides-- I said in my previous post that he always did that. But Stewart used to do it in a way that revealed the truth under all the BS.
In his criticisms of Biden, one point Stewart was making was that, if Biden really is on the ball, the Biden Admin should make that more clear. He said the members of Biden’s Admin had been defending him by saying that he was very much engaged and in control of policy meetings. Then why not show that, Stewart said, instead of having Biden make TikTok videos? The reason, I’d say, is because ordinary voters, especially young potential voters, don’t want to watch policy debates, they want to watch TikTok videos.
In other words, I felt that Stewart was saying, Biden does appear to be losing it, and if that’s not the case, it’s up to the Biden Admin to prove it, not for the mainstream media to get their story more correct. Whereas I think the reality is more that the right pushing this narrative of Biden losing it has been effective to the point that the mainstream media, including now Stewart himself it seems, has swallowed that (IMO) false agenda.
But the reality (again, IMO) is that Biden, while yes, being very old, is still a very effective leader, and in fact all of the ageist shortcomings attributed to Biden are actually much more prevalent in trump (in addition to all the awful things about trump that are not age-related that Stewart only lightly touched on). I wish Stewart had gone more in this direction.
5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jon Stewart - Return to the Daily Show - The Pit Edition
Moderating: And this is getting too political for a Cafe thread even about the Daily Show as you’re are now off the Daily Show itself.
With regard to some of the recent posts here, Jon Stewart described his interest in coming back to the show to do a weekly stint as something along these lines: that in the runup to the election, there was a lot of political commentary that he wanted to make, and Apple was reluctant to let him do it on his previous show.
I’m inclined to agree that in his first episode there seemed too much both-sides-ism that cast Biden in a poor light. But to keep some perspective on it, Stewart isn’t here exclusively to promote Biden, or indeed for that purpose at all. He’s here to make political commentary with a humourous touch. We should fully expect that as the show goes along the facts will show Biden to be the clear choice, but we shouldn’t be surprised or excessively offended when Biden takes some flak, too. This is a comedy show with a political focus, not an advertisement.
I thought Apple was worried about what Stewart might say about China? (vague memory…I certainly could be wrong about that)
That was mentioned as one part of it, it seemed to be more than just that though.
China and AI… which is why Stewart mentioned both at the beginning.