• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jon Stewart Points Out Liberal Hypocrisy in the Wake of Donald Trump’s Win

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,014
Reaction score
4,643
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
“There’s now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric.”

Jon Stewart Points Out Liberal Hypocrisy in Wake of Donald Trump’s Win | Vanity Fair

“I don’t believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago,” Stewart said. “The same country, with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience, exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected Barack Obama.”




Phew - the guy's not as nutty as Keith Olbermann. Thank goodness some sane words came out of Stewart's mouth.
 
“There’s now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric.”

Jon Stewart Points Out Liberal Hypocrisy in Wake of Donald Trump’s Win | Vanity Fair






Phew - the guy's not as nutty as Keith Olbermann. Thank goodness some sane words came out of Stewart's mouth.


Very well put by Stewart, fighting against racism and sexism and then judging a whole group as equal to the worst of that group is pure hypocrisy. Protesting a fair election after overlooking the shenanigans during the primary, more hypocrisy. Demanding that whats left of team D fight everything Trump tries to do, whether they agree with it or not, after the last 8 years, more hypocrisy. Watching them panic was amusing at first, now it's just sad.....

I still watch her concession speech at least once a day though. Good stuff.
 
If Jon Stewart ran for any office, he would likely be the only liberal I would vote for.
 
I agree 100% with what he is saying...but he seems to often be overly 'wordy'. He takes ten sentences to describe something that could easily be described in 4. But he makes a GREAT point.

The Daily Show holds not NEARLY as much interest for me since he left it.
 
If Jon Stewart ran for any office, he would likely be the only liberal I would vote for.
Stewart isn't "liberal" or "conservative", he's normal. That's why he'd struggle to succeed in US politics.
 
“There’s now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric.”

Jon Stewart Points Out Liberal Hypocrisy in Wake of Donald Trump’s Win | Vanity Fair






Phew - the guy's not as nutty as Keith Olbermann. Thank goodness some sane words came out of Stewart's mouth.




No, he's not. A perfect example of why it has always been false when other conservatives have acted like John Stewart is just this kooky liberal out to unfairly make conservatives bad. He doesn't. He calls it like he sees it, and he has pretty clear vision.

Yes, he is overall a liberal, so naturally he's going to agree with liberal policies more than conservative policies. But I'd say that's not bad bias, just normal human inclination.

Overall, he's a very fair and insightful commentator even if he's spent his life mostly doing his commenting from a comedic angle. He's a genuinely good person.
 
I agree 100% with what he is saying...but he seems to often be overly 'wordy'. He takes ten sentences to describe something that could easily be described in 4. But he makes a GREAT point.

Very few people can regularly be concise and clear with off the cuff commentary. Most people are overly verbose even in prepared commentary.
 
Thank you Jon Stewart.

The point he makes is the main point to be made after this unpleasant and obscene campaign and election.

The only thing Jon failed to mention is that many who voted for Trump were voting against Hillary and all she represents. Many who voted for Trump are not hateful bigots and racists that favor torture, they simply cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

Many voted for him in an act of desperation, not fully understanding that voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL a vote for evil.
 
Thank you Jon Stewart.

The point he makes is the main point to be made after this unpleasant and obscene campaign and election.

The only thing Jon failed to mention is that many who voted for Trump were voting against Hillary and all she represents. Many who voted for Trump are not hateful bigots and racists that favor torture, they simply cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

Many voted for him in an act of desperation, not fully understanding that voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL a vote for evil.

Agreed.

The fact that the polls say that Sanders would have creamed Trump strongly suggest that Trump did not win as much as Clinton lost.

Clinton's campaign was the equivalent of you in your Ferrari racing someone else on a moped. But the day of the race, you not only remove all your cars' spark plugs...but you slash your Ferrari's tires for good measure and get so drunk that you cannot remember your name.
 
Thank you Jon Stewart.

The point he makes is the main point to be made after this unpleasant and obscene campaign and election.

The only thing Jon failed to mention is that many who voted for Trump were voting against Hillary and all she represents. Many who voted for Trump are not hateful bigots and racists that favor torture, they simply cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

Many voted for him in an act of desperation, not fully understanding that voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL a vote for evil.

Lets not forget that many who voted for Trump in the primaries were also voting against everything Conservatives believe as well.
 
Stewart isn't "liberal" or "conservative", he's normal. That's why he'd struggle to succeed in US politics.

I would say he leans quite a bit to the left. He does call out both sides though and can argue his stands with logic. My favorite moments were when people would bring him on their shows thinking he was going to come on as a comedian but turn it around on them and make them look fools.
 
Agreed.

The fact that the polls say that Sanders would have creamed Trump strongly suggest that Trump did not win as much as Clinton lost.

Clinton's campaign was the equivalent of you in your Ferrari racing someone else on a moped. But the day of the race, you not only remove all your cars' spark plugs...but you slash your Ferrari's tires for good measure and get so drunk that you cannot remember your name.

I read an interesting article about a what if scenario and it is said that Trump had an extensive strategy planned for him had he won. It is really hard to say how they would have done against each other.

Hillary was absolutely the worst candidate to go against him though. Her support for NAFTA practically killed her in the rust belt. Calling her crooked hillary and saying how corrupt she was then to have wikileaks and the FBI stuff come out pretty much sealed the deal. It also doesn't help her case when she says she wants to raise taxes on the middle class since that is sure to get people to come out and vote for her..... .
 
I would say he leans quite a bit to the left. He does call out both sides though and can argue his stands with logic. My favorite moments were when people would bring him on their shows thinking he was going to come on as a comedian but turn it around on them and make them look fools.
I agree. I was mostly mocking the use of the term “liberal” (and by extension “conservative”) as the simplistic binary label generally only used as a term of insult (or in your case, back-handed compliment).

Stewart is a good example of the flaw in that labelling, not least because he isn’t a politician so is free to express some of the balances and nuances of reality that modern politics doesn’t allow for. Contrast with Trump who apparently felt he had to put on a mask of uncompromising extremist to get elected.
 
I agree. I was mostly mocking the use of the term “liberal” (and by extension “conservative”) as the simplistic binary label generally only used as a term of insult (or in your case, back-handed compliment).

Stewart is a good example of the flaw in that labelling, not least because he isn’t a politician so is free to express some of the balances and nuances of reality that modern politics doesn’t allow for. Contrast with Trump who apparently felt he had to put on a mask of uncompromising extremist to get elected.

I never really viewed using the terms liberal/conservative as an insult, just simply a label. Am I doing it wrong?
 
I never really viewed using the terms liberal/conservative as an insult, just simply a label. Am I doing it wrong?
You said Stewart was the only liberal you’d vote for. That suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with “liberals” to render them never worthy of being voted. That strikes me as pretty insulting, especially if you’re then going to label people as “liberal” on the basis of singular opinions, beliefs or debates.

You’re far from the worst offender in using these terms as insults and the very fact you’ve conceded on Stewart shows you’re willing and able to apply a little more rational thought and consideration. I suspect there are lots of people you’d label as “liberal” (or who would even label themselves that way) who, if you heard their political and social opinions in more detail, would reach a similar concession that you did with Stewart. After a while, you’d be able to see the label for what it is; Pretty much meaningless and a divisive barrier to actually discussing differences of option (real or imagined) and reaching rational, practical compromises. :)
 
No, he's not. A perfect example of why it has always been false when other conservatives have acted like John Stewart is just this kooky liberal out to unfairly make conservatives bad. He doesn't. He calls it like he sees it, and he has pretty clear vision.

Yes, he is overall a liberal, so naturally he's going to agree with liberal policies more than conservative policies. But I'd say that's not bad bias, just normal human inclination.

Overall, he's a very fair and insightful commentator even if he's spent his life mostly doing his commenting from a comedic angle. He's a genuinely good person.

Jon stewart used to be a flakey liberal who twisted every issue to attack conservatives.

But maybe he has changed a tiny little bit

We'll see
 
Last edited:
You said Stewart was the only liberal you’d vote for. That suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with “liberals” to render them never worthy of being voted. That strikes me as pretty insulting, especially if you’re then going to label people as “liberal” on the basis of singular opinions, beliefs or debates.

You’re far from the worst offender in using these terms as insults and the very fact you’ve conceded on Stewart shows you’re willing and able to apply a little more rational thought and consideration. I suspect there are lots of people you’d label as “liberal” (or who would even label themselves that way) who, if you heard their political and social opinions in more detail, would reach a similar concession that you did with Stewart. After a while, you’d be able to see the label for what it is; Pretty much meaningless and a divisive barrier to actually discussing differences of option (real or imagined) and reaching rational, practical compromises. :)

Crap, I made a post and then accidentally deleted it while trying to edit it.

I meant it as in even though I disagree with his views I could still vote for him. Because you can't convey tones with text I can see how that could be taken as an insult.
 
For instance I could have said:

Even though I'm pretty conservative I could see myself voting for him.


My intention was never an insult rather a declaration I don't share some of his views.
 
Lets not forget that many who voted for Trump in the primaries were also voting against everything Conservatives believe as well.

You misunderestimate the American People.

The vast majority of Americans are practical people, we're not necessarily ideologues. What is "conservative" or "liberal" on any given day may vary according to the talking points of the party leaders and the commentary of the talking heads, but common sense remains relatively constant from one day to the next.

The American People knew in advance what we were getting with Hillary, and then she showed it to us again each and every day during the campaign. Lies, deceit, underhandedness, and then to the corruption, one scandal after another, day after day, every day a new one. That's Hillary, she's always been that way and that's just the way she is and there's no changing her.

If you were following the polls early in the campaign, you heard that Hillary had a huge lead. So the choice was basically between Hillary and whoever was behind Door #2. And the rest is history, Trump beat out 16 other Republicans and got more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history, and that's because he talked common sense. It may have "sounded" outrageous, to some people, and some people heard way more than he actually said, and some people pretended they heard way more than he actually said.... and all this was not lost on the American People. And then towards the end it became so blatantly obvious that you couldn't miss it (even if you weren't paying attention) - poll numbers going from 16 to 2 in one week, things like that... and once again, all this contrivance was not lost on the American People.

So, apparently, this is where the Democrats put their money - contrivance. Everything from the Hollywood factor to outright lies. And this is what Hillary showed us, and she never tried to show us anything different.

There were plenty of people who voted for Trump because they decided that Hillary Clinton was an entirely dangerous person, far too capricious and whimsical to be allowed back into the White House. You know, for all her bluster about Donald Trump being "unfit", we find out that she is the one who throws psychotic rages after midnight, and finds it impossible to appear for an important 3am meeting.

It seems to me the American People are mostly feeling pretty grateful right now (except for a few college kids, and a few paid protesters, whose numbers are entirely insignificant). America dodged a bullet. We could have been really, really screwed with Hillary as president. The corrupt Orwellian liberals could have had the Supreme Court for the next 30 years, and then we go beyond money is speech, beyond buildings are people... you know... maybe war becomes peace and lies become truth, that sounds about right for the Democrats.

Instead, the American People spoke, and the Republicans have all three branches of government for many years to come, because it's going to take years for the Democratic Party to recover from the devastation that was just handed to it. Think of it like the Neo-Cons, it took about 8 years for the Republican party to get back on the radar after the '08 election, and that sounds about right for the Democrats at this point, 8 years.

The Dems just don't seem to get it - the entire campaign they were trying this "racist, sexist" stuff against Donald Trump, and it didn't work. So here they are, trying the "racist, sexist" stuff again. It's amazing, it really is - I mean, it's not going to work this time either. It won't work next time either. But I'm sure the libbies will keep beating their heads against the wall.... yuk. :)

There were a few libs who got it right away. Chuck Todd from NBC had his light bulb moment in real time, on the air. He was on with three others and you could see he got it and they didn't. And then you have idiots like Van Jones who's leading a conference on how the Progressives can do better in '18. One of his friends should take a moment to inform the poor gentleman he's wasting his time.
 
Jon stewart used to be a flakey liberal who ywisted every issue to attack conservatives.

But maybe he has changed a tiny little bit

We'll see

He didn't twist every issue, he attacked the issues from his view point. Generally yes it would be an attack on conservatives but he would be just as quick to attack liberals if he felt that they were wrong.

At least that was how I viewed it.
 
I meant it as in even though I disagree with his views I could still vote for him. Because you can't convey tones with text I can see how that could be taken as an insult.
Not an insult towards him, an insult to everyone and anyone labelled (by you, themselves or others) as “liberal”. My objection is to taking a simple term with no clear definition that is applied to loads of people all around the world, often with entirely negative connotations, and attributing a specific characteristic or consequence to it, and thus by extension, every single one of them (in this case, that you’ve never vote for them).

I’ve been labelled “liberal” many times – I don’t accept it but it’s applied all the same. Without knowing anything about me what-so-ever, your statement has automatically dismissed me as a valid candidate for any elected position. You wouldn’t vote for me, full stop. Now I don’t actually believe you’re personally that divisive (as your exception for Stewart shows) but the fact even you fall so easily in to the simplistic divisive labelling just demonstrates how pervasive the trend is and why those of us capable of being better than that need to actively oppose it.
 
He didn't twist every issue, he attacked the issues from his view point. Generally yes it would be an attack on conservatives




but he would be just as quick to attack liberals if he felt that they were wrong.

At least that was how I viewed it.

except that being a liberal himself he almost never thought they were wrong
 
Back
Top Bottom