He also said that the danger posed by another Trump term doesn’t excuse Biden from scrutiny but “actually makes him more subject to scrutiny.”

To leftists and progressives fed up with Biden, particularly his commitment to Israel as it continues to bomb civilians in Gaza, the assessment was not just fair — it was obvious. But more centrist Democrats, including those most likely to have appended “Blue Wave” and “Resistance” labels to their social media accounts in the Trump years, were appalled at what they saw as a betrayal by one of their own.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    204
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Which “liberals?” I thought it was funny. I guess I’m not “liberal” enough? I’m voting for Biden because I’ll do anything to stop Trump, but I’m not going to pretend he shouldn’t be mocked.

    • OmnislashIsACloudApp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      9 months ago

      yeah I enjoyed it too, a couple of different friends mentioned it being funny I don’t know anyone that was upset about it.

      probably just another article about some random vocal minority complaining

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I thought it was funny too, but man is it uncomfortable knowing that it could sway people away from voting for Biden and swing the scales in favor of Trump.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The problem is of the people that watch him. The majority of them would never vote for Trump in the first place. Most of them would probably vote Biden. So being hard on Trump he’s simply preaching to the choir. Being hard on Biden. He might demoralize a few from participating. It doesn’t mean he was wrong or wrong to do it. But it is a possible concern. Though the only group to actually blame for that is the Democrats.

          I mean I’m still going to vote for them. Because I like the idea of still having elections even if they are highly flawed. You don’t get that sort of thing under full blown fascism.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        9 months ago

        It won’t, it was honest and painted Trump in a worse (and deservedly awful) light. The apologists that call the sky yellow when you can see it’s fucking blue cause much more damage by eroding public trust in the democrats.

        I prefer flawed candidates that overcome their flaws so that, hopefully, we can find a less flawed candidate next time.

      • Eggyhead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If Jon’s audience somehow got swayed into voting FOR Trump over some criticisms on Biden, they were never listening in the first place.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s a fair and comforting point. I thought Stewart was a bit heavy on criticism, but it’s not so much that I dislike the criticism, but that I’m wary it’ll lead to apathy and people not voting.

          • Eggyhead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Wish the DNC had told themselves the same before insisting which bed we lay in for another four years.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Denial and scolding/belittling/abusing people for having legitimate concerns will lose a lot more people than being honest and having a sense of humor.

      • fapforce5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s an interesting point. Jon Stewart’s job isn’t to get Biden elected. Just like Fox and MSNBC shouldn’t be their job to get their respective candidates elected. He should present things as he sees it and the people should inform themselves to select the best candidate

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s fine, and I can respect that, but damn am I scared of another Trump administration.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yeah that’s my only concern really. I don’t want people to become apathetic and not vote. I think Stewart’s message though is probably the fairest way to prevent that though. Acknowledge that yeah, Biden is old, and he’s not as sharp as he used to be. He is by no means the ideal nor dream candidate. People are right to feel iffy about him.

        But Trump means there’s really no question of who to vote for and who you should vote for. We can be honest and affirm worries about Biden while still encouraging votes for him.

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      My guess is bot farms mostly. Russia, the DNC, the RNC, et al benefit in their own ways from posting their reactions all over social media. Sure some on the far left probably didn’t make it past the first commercial break, but with an election, everyone is coming out to play

      Regardless, they are both way too old to be running again. I find it hard to believe these guys with one foot in the grave and an inability to speak coherently are our best bet.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Too fucking bad. They’re accurate and we need to accept them to avoid making the same mistake in the future.

    Biden is an absolutely awful candidate, especially if his running mate is Kamala Harris - but if it’s him vs. Trump I’ll vote for him any day.

    Democrats need to stop picking the most deeply flawed candidates they can find - Hillary Clinton being such an awful candidate is how we got Trump in the first place.

    • Poggervania@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think people forget that the Democrats literally chose Hillary instead of Sanders - like, the Democratic Party purposefully chose Hillary despite the fact Bernie was actually more popular amongst people.

      Not gonna start saying why because there’s probably a myriad of reasons, but the fact that the Democratic party had a chance to put in somebody who was at least saying really progressive stuff for the people of America that the people really liked and just chose a fucking Clinton instead should say something about the party.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think people forget that the Democrats literally chose Hillary instead of Sanders - like, the Democratic Party purposefully chose Hillary despite the fact Bernie was actually more popular amongst people.

        Tell me you don’t remember 2016 without telling me you don’t remember 2016.

        Signed, a 2016 and 2020 Bernie voter.

        • Poggervania@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          9 months ago

          As a fellow Bernie bro in 2016, do you not remember how many friggin memes were made with Bernie as Rick from Rick and Morty and how many people were talking about not wanting another Clinton in office? Only for him to pull out of the race and endorsing Hillary because Trump was actually getting waaaaay too much traction? And the fact the DNC also weren’t really jazzed with what Bernie was saying in general?

          Tell me you don’t remember 2016 without telling me you don’t remember 2016.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Only for him to pull out of the race and endorsing Hillary because Trump was actually getting waaaaay too much traction?

            Yeah, you definitely don’t remember 2016. Bernie stayed in and fought up until the national convention, and was widely criticized (unfairly) for it.

            And the fact the DNC also weren’t really jazzed with what Bernie was saying in general?

            That’s vastly different than suggesting that the Democratic Party ‘chose’ Hillary despite the fact that Bernie was ‘actually more popular’.

            We failed to get the vote out. We failed to rally voters to Sanders. That’s on us, or, perhaps, our fellow members of the electorate. Bernie was, unfortunately, never in striking range of the nomination, though he did better than almost anyone thought he would, and greatly improved his national profile.

            • Poggervania@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I did forget he fought to the bitter end till the DNC back in 2016 (jfc it’s been 8 years!), but he endorsed Hillary like, 2 weeks before the 2016 DNC.

              I’ll leave the Wikipedia link here, but the DNC actively hated what Bernie was doing and basically were pro-Clinton from the start according to that email leak from right before the convention. So the Democratic Party effectively chose Hillary because they didn’t want Bernie on because they actively disliked his campaign. He was more popular than Hillary was, but ultimately Hillary was chosen by the Democratic Party.

              • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It seems like you’re saying his trying to prevent Trump from being president was a bad thing.

                I love Bernie, but I literally never would’ve supported a candidate that didn’t commit to support the Dem candidate.

                That said, it would’ve been amazing to see Bernie act like Trump and throw major shade at the Dem party, but I genuinely don’t know if that’s have worked. It certainly could’ve but it’s hard to know if it would’ve worked on Dems like on Rs.

            • ctkatz@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              what killed bernie’s chances in 2016 was the total lack of grassroots efforts in turning out and supporting viable progressive candidates in 2010, 2012, and 2014. both the party and the base thought that with obama in, everything would be solved and there wasn’t any more work that needed to be done. instead the house got lost in 2010 and the thinking was in order to regain power the dems had to be more like republicans instead of, well you know, democrats. none of the progressive groups ever pushed their people to run for democratic party positions which would have made it easier for a bernie or similar candidate to be taken seriously.

              and that’s why we have biden: he’s a known quality, and the black women of south carolina trusted him over the other white old guy who has ideas that would probably benefit them more but were never exposed to in local political races.

              if you want the party to start shifting in your political direction, just voting isn’t going to cut it. you’re going to have to actually get involved in the local party. I wonder how many progressives would even do that or once again tune out if their pet candidate doesn’t win.

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              I think you’re really misinterpreting OP’s argument. When he says the Democratic Party chose Bernie, I don’t think he’s saying “democrats as a whole” chose Bernie, but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.

                No, that’s exactly what I’m pushing against. I mean, not that the DNC was against Bernie - it obviously was. But that his failure was due to the DNC’s interference.

                The simple fact of the matter is that Bernie was not known or popular enough at the time, and especially not compared to Clinton. We all despise Clinton now for a variety of legitimate reasons, but coming out of the Obama administration, she was pushing 65%+ approval ratings before she actually had to campaign and start talking to us hoi polloi, and had been setting the stage for a presidential run for a decade.

                Bernie’s campaign was a mess at the start, because he pretty clearly was running to get his views more traction, and was surprised as anyone when he skyrocketed in popularity. He had to build a run from the ground-up, and that’s not really comparable to years of preparation. Clinton had more name recognition, more experience dealing with national political media, and appeal to a more moderate Democratic constituency in 2016 than that has developed since. Things in 2016 were not, and definitely did not feel as, fundamentally fucked that drove the normally right-wing American electorate to something vaguely resembling a center-left position. People forget, or gloss over, the changes in the political environment since.

                It was not in the cards. We all want to believe it could have happened, but the fact is that the only ‘what-if’ scenarios where Bernie wins in 2016 are radical changes, and not just “The DNC steps back and lets things take their course”.

                • Hominine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Thank you for pushing back against the highlighted narrative. I remember it well, and there was a lot of noise for Bernie online and crickets at the polls.

                • aalvare2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.

                  Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).

                  Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.

                  I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.

                  Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        There is no more reason in morally characterizing a political party than in morally characterizing a corporation. A party is a tool, a lever of political power. Look at how Trump has taken over the Republican party. They were terrible before, but he made them worse. The Democratic party used to be the party of slavery; then it was the party of FDR and a coalition driven by socialists; now it is the party of capital and neoliberalism, but still the one most capable of being taken back by the left. Organize, communicate, educate, and never give up. Control of the Democratic party can change hands again.

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think people forget that the Democrats literally chose Hillary instead of Sanders - like, the Democratic Party purposefully chose Hillary despite the fact Bernie was actually more popular amongst people.

        Got a minute (literally a minute)?

        Lawrence O’Donnell and William Greider describe the calculations of the Democratic party in “An Unreasonable Man”

        Edit: Voting blue no matter who is what keeps us stuck in an endless loop of presidential election cycles with candidates most people don’t want. Some people don’t get that, and probably never will.

      • teamevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I just read that article and that’s literally why I never wanted that stupid goddamn monster in the race. It wasn’t her fucking turn and she created so much of this mess…it was her goddamn ambition that created and fostered that orange goddamn abomination so she could get her place and turn. Fuck her… Sanders should have been nominated but her bullshit super delegates ruined the country by assuming we’re morons.

        Turns out the country is significantly dumber than anyone considered unfortunately…

        • spider@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Whoever leaked those e-mails performed a valuable public service. Unfortunately, they were demonized for it.

        • Fur_Fox_Sheikh@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Except not in a first past the post system. Voting 3rd party is just a vote for whichever of the two main parties you like least. Sucks, but that’s reality.

          • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            9 months ago

            this is election misinformation. votes for so-called third parties are counted as votes for those candidates. only votes for Republicans get counted as Republican votes and only votes for Democrats get counted as Democrat votes.

            • Fur_Fox_Sheikh@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s not misinformation to state how things end up functioning in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger’s_law?wprov=sfla1 It’s a well known thing for anyone who’s studied the tiniest bit of political science (or you know, was around in 2000 for that US election).

              The way the votes get counted only matters insofar as their tangible real world outcome. The fact that your individual vote went to a specific third party or even abstaining ends up being irrelevant. The outcomes are the same and the party you prefer least is more likely to win. Again, I’m not advocating that this is a good system, but it is our current reality and stating that to be misinformation is ignorant at best or straight up manipulative propaganda at worst.

              • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                9 months ago

                >The way the votes get counted only matters insofar as their tangible real world outcome. The fact that your individual vote went to a specific third party or even abstaining ends up being irrelevant.

                this sounds like misinformation AND voter suppression: telling people their vote won’t count.

                shame on you.

                • Fur_Fox_Sheikh@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I won’t disagree with you that it is voter suppression in the sense that it supresses votes for third parties, but I didn’t set up the system so maybe channel your anger towards more productive means other than shooting the messenger. The way things stand today, that’s how the math works out if you care to check the link I shared.

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              We’re not talking “literally” a vote for the major candidate you like least. We’re talking “mathematically” a vote for the major candidate you like least.

              Since FPTP voting systems like the US employees do not require any candidate to achieve a majority, FPTP systems eventually decay into two major parties, and voting for a third party after that decay is a vote against your own interests.

              Here’s a young CGP Grey explaining it beautifully 12 years ago.

                • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  mathematically, the vote goes +1 to the candidate for whom you vote. the rest of this is storytelling.

                  No shit the +1 goes to the candidate for whom you vote. No one is disputing that. The problem is, the third party candidate will not win.

                  In a FPTP system that has devolved to two parties, without a major political upheaval bringing about the death of one of the two parties, there are, realistically, only two candidates who have a chance of winning the election.

                  If you vote for neither of those two candidates, the candidate it benefits the most is the major candidate you agree with the least. This is called the “Spoiler Effect.” This is Nader taking sufficient votes from Gore in 2000 to hand the election to Bush, because Green Party voters would have, given something like the Alternative Vote or Ranked Choice Voting, ended up mostly being Gore votes.

                  This is Teddy Roosevelt running independent in 1912 and getting Woodrow Wilson, an extremely racist shitbag, elected president by taking Republican voters away from Taft.

                  And we all understand this effect, because when it looked like Trump might lose the primary in 2016 and was threatening to run anyway, Democrats were thrilled because it would guarantee a Democrat win by splitting the conservative vote.

                  This “Spoiler Effect” is what is meant when someone says that voting third party is a vote against your own interests in a FPTP system. It’s the major reason FPTP is a terrible voting system.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          So is setting yourself on fire, and it’s an equally bad idea.

          • ARk@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Congrats, you were able to exercise your free will and feel good about it. Hope you enjoy the consequences.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      He isn’t a HORRIBLE choice. He has a good chance of beating Trump and hasnt done a lot of bad things during his time. I would like someone younger and more progressive, but both sides edge towards the center.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        He had a surprisingly productive term but he’s clearly showing his age and should be stepping back as he promised during the last election. I love the shit out of Bernie Sanders but at this point he’s too old to hold an office like president… this is a hard job and both the candidates in this cycle are clearly not as sharp as they once were.

        • Soulg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          His term has been wildly productive and done more good than any president in my lifetime.

          But he’s also taking the exact wrong stance on Israel right now, combined with the typical democrats being fucking garbage at messaging, and the media helping Trump every step of the way.

          • dudinax@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I disagree with Biden about Israel, but it’s genuinely a hard decision. He thinks it’s more important for the US to be seen aiding an ally who suffered a sneak attack. Disagree with him about it, hate him for it, but he has a very good point.

            Contrast that with Donnie’s declaration that he’d let Russia attack Europe.

            We should have been harsher on Israel for the apartheid government starting decades ago. Many presidents and many congresses are to blame for that failure.

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      “I sat it out when asked, It’s my turn now”

      Unfortunately it’s not exclusive to one party, (un?)fortunately the election cycles hasn’t made us pick the winner of the “Nth Generation Political Hack” bracket yet

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      Biden’s been a great president. I talk to young Democrats who dislike him. They don’t know anything about his accomplishments. Judging him in that fashion isn’t even on their radar. They are expressing a vibe they get from those around them.

      Biden’s a hero. He beat Donnie and he made the win stick after the election. That was harder than he made it look. If the president of the US is staging a coup he’s got a lot of strings he can pull, and even a dumb guy like Donnie understands that much.

      And Harris, the young men dislike her and they don’t know anything about her. Anything. They’ve never even heard her talk. It feels suspiciously like attitudes towards Hilary Clinton, except at least people had seen Clinton in action.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Biden has been a great President and really seems true to what he said he would do. My biggest complaint is also Harris - as in Biden said he would be the centrist attempting to bring things together (and he tried harder than I would have) but the goal has to be to help establish a new generation of leadership, including actual liberals and progressives. Yeah, it not all on him but I don’t see how any have stood out. Harris had the home court advantage but why aren’t we seeing her as the presumptive heir?

  • GoddessOfGouda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Neolibs might be crying but literally everyone else is laughing

    …. Most of whom will still be voting for him. Extremely accurate criticisms aside.

    • books@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Right. I laughed my ass off, because it’s fucking true.

      We’ve got two old as shit dudes, both with shit memories, running for president.

      Sure one is the better option, but neither are great options… And imagine them in four more years

      Yikes.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right. As I keep saying, I’ll be voting for the forgetful doddering old grandpa that isn’t a treasonous rapist who says he’ll be a dictator.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, addressing it directly and with humor is exactly the way to tackle the issue. All the liberals frantically trying to gaslight about an 81 year old’s memory just look like they’re in a cult, which will actually drive voters away.

      He’s old, probably too old, but Trump is not only worse in general, but demonstrably worse on that very issue. It sucks that our choice is which declining man should be the leader of the free world, but that’s the question we’re faced with.

  • recapitated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    9 months ago

    We’ve seen what happens when a party refuses to scrutinize their own candidate. Learn that lesson part.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m pretty fuckin liberal and i thought it was more than due. Biden is far more competent than Trump when he’s feeling well but you can see the slips and very sudden demeanor changes coupled with what looks like instant onset exhaustion. He just crashes sometimes.

      I was however a little annoyed that after almost no Israel discussion that whoever from the Economist looked directly at the camera and said Joe Biden was like the best person to have in office when it comes to Israel. The best? We could think of no one else?

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yup. When Biden is ‘on’ he’s great - passionate but not a blowhard, and sharp enough to apply his decades of political experience. But the Presidency is a really, really stressful and 24/7/365 ‘on-call’ job with landmines like “Global Thermonuclear War” and “Bipolar Great Power Competition” lurking on the field of play. Just as we recognize the value of experience and have set a minimum age limit, there needs to be a top limit as well

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          I have to admit the way Stewart approached the age question really hit. He pointed how old he looked and how many years older both candidates are. I so agree: I completely see Jon Stewart only wanting to do one show a week and only until November and he is years older than me. I really don’t see having the energy for president

          • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Obama visibly aged like thirty years during his two terms, it’s rough on everyone but he showed it because he was on the younger side for Presidents

            Jacinda Arden had the stomach to call it quits when she wasn’t able to meet the continuous demands, and good on her for having the self awareness and putting the country before her prestige. We need to encourage gracefully bowing out, and criticize wannabe Liches who are giving proxy votes from hospice wards as they cling to power and ego.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, he’s the best person to have in office. Maybe I’m talking out of my ass from not remembering that part of the discussion but the context is the presidential race and there are really two possibilities. Of the candidate for President that have any chance of winning, Biden is clearly the best choice we could have in office

        • AscendantSquid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          When people typically talk about the “best” person who could be in office, they don’t mean out of the candidates running in the election. They’re talking about all the possible candidates that the DNC could have put forward to run for President this time around, instead of Biden.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Good? Jon Stewart always took no prisoners. If you’re offended now then you weren’t paying attention before.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t understand what people were thinking when Stewart came back? I mean he was always merciless to anyone’s failings regardless of party, it’s just that the republicans provided so much more fodder for him vs the Dems who at least on the surface went in with good intentions most of the time. It was usually him attacking the Dems for their failures in meeting their own standards vs attacking the republicans for having no standards at all.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    He was right on all points.

    But people obviously missed the point he made about the choice is still between a old Biden or old lunatic. So it’s not some 50/50 both sides bullshit

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      in a way, I wonder if JS was egging the mainstream media on to highlight the difference themselves, to distinguish a key difference - one’s an imperfect solution, the other is a deranged tyrant criminal. Yeah, do the math.

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Yes, betrayal - because the US devolved so much into tribalism, that any critique of “their own”, no matter if justified or not, is a betrayal and taboo.

    You see, our side can do no wrong and is perfect. It’s their side that’s wrong, always. We’re the good guys, and they’re the bad guys - how could Jon betray the only side that’s good, noble and completely faultless? That clearly means he’s with them and not with us, because nuance is a foreign loan word that we don’t need, and everything is black and white!

    Fucking sad and depressing - glad I get to look at it from the outside, but still…

    • ULS@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s fucked. Life’s fucked. I’m fucked. You’re fucked. Everything’s fucked. It’s fucked to the point it can’t be unfucked. It’s completely, and thoroughly fucked.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      He basically helped create the current atmosphere during his tenure on the daily show. It’s poetic justice I suppose.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, betrayal - because the US devolved so much into tribalism, that any critique of “their own”, no matter if justified or not, is a betrayal and taboo.

      Just look on here whenever I post an article critiquing Biden. I get called every name in the book. Russian bot, China bot, Trumper etc

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        To be faaaaaiiiirrr, you do kinda only post that stuff. Mix it up a bit like me and they’ll stop calling you a Russian bot and start calling you just plain crazy

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Depends on the article and what it’s advocating for. Anything advocating for not voting or voting third party (unfortunately equal to not voting in the American electoral system) will get shit from me… Biden is the worst option available to us except Trump. Trump is a fucking existential crisis.

        • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          “If you don’t vote for Biden that’s a vote for Trump!”

          “If you don’t vote for Trump that’s a vote for Biden!”

          • Neato@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah that’s how the 2 party system works. Until a third party is strong enough (hint: they need downticket seats) to overtake another party, voting third party is worthless.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I understand where you’re coming from, I really do. The logic isn’t flawed the system we’re working within is flawed and unjust. Voting for one of the two leading candidates is the only logical option within this system.

                If you want to change the system then fuck yea - I’m with you brother… but I honestly don’t know how to accomplish that other than primarying in candidates that support RCV or proportional representation… once we get to the general election you vote for whichever of the two choices is less awful. If you don’t then bad shit happens - if Trump hadn’t been elected we’d still have Roe v. Wade and that difference is fucking important in an intimate way to a lot of people’s lives.

                Biden fucking sucks and I hope he’ll be our next president.

  • pastabatman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    We’re in a weird spot. On the one hand, legitimate criticisms should always be welcome especially when directed at our elected officials. In a healthy democracy we would vote out people who disappoint or underperform. On the other hand, we don’t have a healthy democracy and one side is determined to vote for a man with the most extensive list of abhorrent behavior ever documented in the nation’s history. Criticizing Biden just makes it more likely that a super close race will go to Trump, who is unquestionably worse than Biden.

    Part of me wants to say “let’s get the Trump threat behind us and THEN we can work on building a healthier democracy,” but that isn’t how a healthy democracy works! If we compromise on our values to get rid of someone we disagree with, are we the baddies? It’s a frustrating and scary place to be.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      9 months ago

      “The ends justify the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have are means.”

      U.K. LeGuin

  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    9 months ago

    ONE-TIME FANS WHO perhaps remember comedian Jon Stewart only taking satirical swipes at conservatives while host of The Daily Show

    Not a good look for an article to start with such a hot take. Anyone who thought Stewart never took aim at Democrats couldn’t have been a fan because they must have never watched his fucking show.

    • ferralcat@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      I would guess they know that? Stewart will likely do what he did when Hillary was running. Spend 9 months bad mouthing Biden and then wonder why the hell he didn’t win in the end, but feel sanctimonious that it couldn’t possibly be anything he did while Texas murders a few thousands migrants at the border.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Who cares? Like me, personally, I think too much is being made of the age thing for Biden (and not enough for Trump) but Jon Stewart is not some party spokesman. If he wants to go Enlightened Centrist “BOTH SIDES are too old!” for comedy he can. His job is the comedy, not the election.

    • skulblaka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      He’s also just correct. Just because Trump is such a scum human doesn’t make Biden’s three star rating into a five star. It just means three stars is better than this opponent’s zero.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        And it’s not like the entire show was about Biden age. Jon Stewart does have a clear preference and does find reason so skewer one side of the political spectrum more than the other but we shouldn’t expect nor even want blind allegiance

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Of course they’re upset, this is post-Trump America after all! You’re not allowed to criticize both sides equally! You HAVE TO pick a side and support them fully no matter what bullshit spews out of their mouths! It’s a law now! The whole thing falls apart if we’re not all running around screaming for blood like a bunch of lunatics!

    • Poggervania@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Like how you’re getting downvotes because you’re speaking the truth.

      US politics is literally “democrat bad” or “republican bad”, and both are apparently immune from criticism from anybody unless you’re criticizing the opposite team. Trump and the Republican party is unquestionably fucked up for being fascists, but that shouldn’t mean we can’t scrutinize whatever the hell the Dems are doing - and what they are not doing as well. We should hold our government accountable for what they do because we’re the goddamn people.

      I say this as somebody who will vote Democrat - not because I actually want Biden, but because I don’t want Trump or a modern-day Republican as President.