Reuters tells us:
As Jon Stewart winds down his 19-year stint as host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, he and Stephen Colbert sit at the peak of American punditry despite their left-leaning view of life, the universe and everything.
In an era of diffused voices and divided politics, they are well known, widely admired, and speak to Americans in ways that no one else does, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.
This poll tracks 10 different pundits. Split evenly between conservative and liberal. It is also worth noting that four of the five on the liberal side are comedians, while none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Jon Stewart Stands at the Peak of American punditry
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 11 2015, @03:23PM
> It is also worth noting that four of the five on the liberal side are comedians, while none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes.
Satire and ridicule are perhaps the most effective weapons we have in politics. After all you aren't fighting people in politics, you're fighting ideas, and ideas tend to be hard to kill.
Sometimes it feels like the only way the powerful can be held accountable any more is through humour.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 11 2015, @03:56PM
There are other options besides laughing and crying, like being pissed-off enough to go to the voting booth.
It's probably why all those angry old codgers watching Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity are still a driving force in American politics -- often moreso the whiny punks who favor touchy-feely bullshit like amnesty and multiculturalism.
Well, if the Liberal pundits won't drive the social justice warriors to anger, at least the shameless non-stop race-baiting of local news outlets will everytime a Black man is shot or beaten to death by the police.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday May 11 2015, @04:05PM
...like being pissed-off enough to go to the voting booth.
I think it's cute that you think voting will make a difference at this point.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 11 2015, @04:21PM
Tactical voting is the cancer killing democracy.
I voted for Gary Johnson last election and will likely vote third-party next election. I may get fucked up the ass by the next Rs or Ds voted into office and congress but at least I can sleep soundly knowing I voted against them.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday May 11 2015, @06:04PM
What is somewhat sad is that beyond my mayor, city council, and school board there isn't a single elected official that I voted for that holds office, and there hasn't been since Bush left office. I still bought the BS of wasting my vote if I didn't vote for one of the major party candidates when I voted for Bush but even that was the typical hold your nose and fill in the bubble. Of those that are there to supposedly represent my views in higher office the most competent one seems to be one of the more divisive figures in the US senate but has kept a low profile. I don't think the governor of my state could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a compass. My other US senator is locally referred to as the senator of small things while my rep in the US House is a former nuclear football carrying for Regan war hawk. My rep to the state house is a right wing bible pounder who wants to legislate out of the good book and my senator to the state senate seems to be fairly decent even if he does used the think of the children or throw more money at it a bit too much.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday May 11 2015, @07:06PM
The way the MSM is in bed with the political machines means you have better odds of winning the lotto playing all 1s than any third party has of winning anything nationally.
Hell the way they have it set up now even a so called "dark horse" of 1 of the 2 completely corrupted political parties has ZERO chance of making it, for a perfect example see what they did to Ron Paul in 08, where his supported uploaded footage of some of the shenanigans (I'd call it rigging and I'm a socialist who is against pretty much everything he supports) they were pulling, like the anchor in one of the critical swing states outright telling the reporter on camera "let us know if you get any Palin or Christie footage, just toss the Paul stuff" even though he was actually ahead in that state, or those that counted the votes in at least 3 crucial counties saying "The votes we turned in was NOT what was counted, in our county Romney got virtually nothing and Paul got the majority but when the RNC reported the findings they just flipped the numbers and gave the votes to Romney" and culminating when they did the floor vote at the convention and somebody got their cell behind the podium and caught the teleprompter giving the results of the vote before the call to vote was cast showing that everything they worked for was for naught as it was decided beforehand!
To say now you can change things by voting is to say you can win at 3 card monty against a street hustler. No matter how good you focus, no matter how many times you play the game you will never win because the game is rigged and is only an illusion of chance, the outcome is already known.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 11 2015, @08:07PM
We need a new voting system [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday May 11 2015, @04:25PM
You vote DOES matter. Billions are at stake to get your vote. We should have an election every year (not just a perpetual campaign). Think of the advertisers' children!
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday May 11 2015, @06:23PM
Well, no. Your vote is only a slice of those 30 billion dollars. Ignroing the notion of "battleground" states and districts, your vote is worth about $200.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @07:53PM
You numbers are more flawed than you think.
PR strategy is based around maintaining the base and swinging the swing voters. Due to the blatantly corrupt way america tallies votes, this is all about battleground states. Most of the money goes there and most of the money is to swing the swingers.
So in summers: the swingers in the swing states get the most pounding...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ikanreed on Monday May 11 2015, @08:46PM
Okay, so, like, I explicitly acknowledged that important distinction. I get why numbers are wrong. Why are they "wronger than I think"?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @09:28PM
a) You gave a bogus figure and give the reason its bogus.
b) I point out that PR campaigns focus on swing voters in swing states specifically.
Conclusion: You were wronger than this sentence and your original admission of wrongedness.
The fact that I have to explain this makes your quotes seem pretty stupid now, huh?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @10:30PM
You can mod it flamebait all you want, I will still be right.
And my karma is astronomical so mark this one down also...
Ironically you marked it flamebait but mine is not the burn.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday May 12 2015, @04:54AM
And this one is still true also...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 11 2015, @06:24PM
Your vote DOES matter. Billions are at stake to get your vote. We should have an election every year (not just a perpetual campaign). Think of the advertisers' children!
In the U.S., voter turnout has not, at least since 1948, been over 65% of eligible voters. An election in which in which the turnout reached 90-95%, regardless of who won, would send shock waves through the system and might actually get politicians paying attention to the people rather than just the dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:26AM
Not if it was a 50:50 split between R and D.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @05:22PM
This is exactly why the angry old people get paid attention to the most, because they vote. For people like this guy, it is considered cool not to vote. He gets to feel like he's smarter than everyone and make condescending remarks like this, when in fact he is just exposing how much of a dumbshit he is. It does matter and there are differences. Look at Obamacare. That is a huge fucking program that makes a difference to millions of people. Both parties are not of the same mindset. Just because there doesn't seem to be much traction with the issues that you care about doesn't mean the two parties are the same. The same with the media. Just because you don't hear the stories reported such that they jibe with your political viewpoint doesn't mean the media is biased or "bought off."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @05:32PM
Both parties are similar enough when it comes to matters of freedom and the constitution that they are both worthless. Vote third party or don't bother voting at all, as voting for evil scumbags harms us all. As for me, I'll only vote for candidates that completely oppose mass surveillance (not just the NSA's, but other forms of it like license plate readers and Stringrays), completely oppose the drug war (Not just the war on marijuana; all drugs must be legalized.), oppose DUI checkpoints, want to eliminate the TSA entirely, want to end FCC censorship and all forms of obscenity laws, oppose all forms of warrantless wiretapping, oppose all these wars we're getting ourselves into, oppose constitution-free zones, oppose draconian copyright laws, and just generally want to follow the constitution rather than ignore it to give the government more power. If you vote for candidates that are not like this, you are the problem and it would be better if you don't vote at all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @06:05PM
I'm fine with not voting at all, but in that case at least turn in a blank fucking ballot.
If you don't show up, they know they can safely ignore you. If you turn in a blank ballot, they don't get to know that. The added time taken is about 30m per year.
Now, if you want to form an educated opinion, that takes longer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @09:57PM
Some people have been told that there is "mandated voting" in Australia.
Strictly speaking, that isn't true.
You are required to show up at the polls and sign in.
Once they hand you a ballot, you can
- stick that unmarked ballot directly into the box (as you suggest).
- mark every square on the ballot and stick it in the box.
(This is better IMO than a blank ballot that someone with evil intent can easily alter.)
- write FUCK $DAMNED_POLITICIAN in giant letters on it and stick it in the box.
If you don't show up and sign in, there is a fine of an hour or two's wages.
...and isn't it interesting how some people will piss and moan out loud or in an online forum then--when it really counts--don't want their voices heard and don't cast a ballot?
-- gewg_ (who tends to vote 3rd party)
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:20AM
An an aussie, I have staunchly defended our compulsory voting regime against all those who have tried to tear it down as an afront to freedom, liberty etc etc.
If you don't cast your vote, you have no legitimate right to piss and moan about the people who end up running the country. They are all too happy to whine loudly about the politicians, but they cant be arsed to do the one thing that matters to try and hold them accountable.
Sure, these days it doesnt seem to matter much whether you vote right, left, centre, or just scrawl "fuck them all sideways with a bargepole" on the ballot form, but at least going in to vote actually shows you give a shit about how you want your country run.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 12 2015, @02:34AM
If you don't cast your vote, you have no legitimate right to piss and moan about the people who end up running the country.
That right is called "freedom of speech", and yes, they would have that right if they failed to vote. And no, even if they didn't vote, that wouldn't make their observations incorrect, as arguments stand on their own merit. You might argue that if they want to see things change, they should vote for candidates who will implement changes. I would agree. But saying they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote makes no sense no matter how I look at it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 12 2015, @03:08AM
"Ah, but Mr. Anderson, how can you vote for a candidate who will implement changes, if such a candidate cannot get on the ballot?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @04:27AM
Perhaps you should have read my comment fully, before claiming something that does not exist in the context to which you are replying. I draw your attention to "As an aussie".
Now, unlike the US, we do not have "the right to free speech" enshrined in our constitution. It's not even listed as a common law principle in our country. It is, however, staunchly defended by threat of beating politicians to death with a cricket bat, should they try to remove our "free" speech.
In the US, you may have a "legal" right to whinge, bitch and moan about whoever gets into power, but if all you do is whinge, bitch and moan, instead of acting as a force of change, then that "right" is only a legal one, and not a legitimate one.
Get out and vote. Hold your politicians accountable for their actions towards you, and your society. To do otherwise is the equivalent of telling your parents you're going to hold your breath until they buy you that candy bar.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @06:01AM
And, the Aussie wins! Yeah! Now you were saying about internet freedom and not being a nation of criminals, and that Bufo toads are _not_ a problem? But good on ya, mate! Free speech is not free! I like that slogan.
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:26AM
We're not a nation of criminals. We are a nation that has descended/evolved from criminals. Working class criminals I hasten to add.
Upper class criminals (d)evolve into politicians.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:39AM
Yes, of course. This is why America and Australia have so much in common. They both are equally opposed to Bloody Poms. (Americans don't call them that, but share the sentiment.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:47PM
...until a baby is born to the royal family.
...or a commoner marries into that inbred lot.
...or that commoner dies in a car wreck.
We fought a revolutionary war to dump the lot but there is a certain portion that still feels a need to fawn over aristocratic overlords.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 13 2015, @11:54PM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:26PM
Perhaps you should have read my comment fully, before claiming something that does not exist in the context to which you are replying. I draw your attention to "As an aussie".
I don't care if you're an aussie, because even you have free speech rights, even if they're not in some constitution.
In the US, you may have a "legal" right to whinge, bitch and moan about whoever gets into power, but if all you do is whinge, bitch and moan, instead of acting as a force of change, then that "right" is only a legal one, and not a legitimate one.
It's fully legitimate either way.
Get out and vote.
I did say that that's a good idea for the people who want change.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @11:18PM
If everyone who didn't bother do vote in 2012 had turns up and written "Fuck You", the president with a landslide - twice as many votes as Obama - would be a Chinese bloke. Don't you DARE tell me that voting doesn't work your fucking terrorist commie fascist.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 11 2015, @10:47PM
That is a huge fucking program that makes a difference to millions of people.
I think the detractors such as myself wholly agree. We just don't agree that the difference is positive. There's a lot of people with pre-existing conditions and whatnot. There's also a lot of people without. And there are other aspects of the economy which we want to have around which are impacted such as every manner of business, the ability of the government to carry out important services like police protection or road systems, and just having a future that is better than the present.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:38PM
For people like this guy, it is considered cool not to vote.
That assumes that I don't vote.
Granted, the ballot I turn in is almost completely blank, but I do go to the polls. If there's only an R or a D, I leave it blank.
Depressingly often, there is only one candidate. I leave that one blank as well.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:36AM
It isn't anger that they are channeling it is fear. Humor is the best motivator of Stewart/Colbert's key demographics, younger more liberal leaning people. Fear is the best motivator for older conservatives. We have known this since 2001, media beats the fear drum constantly. The Limbaugh/Hannity demographic has been primarily motivated by fear for pretty much ever. It is only post 2001 that it has become truly effective. Fear the terrorists (that kill .001% the as many Americans as cars, guns, or heart disease); fear immigrants, because they will take your jobs; fear Obamacare because.. hmm.. only the rich deserve healthcare (even though a well run social health system will cut costs for everyone by encouraging people to get preventative care instead of waiting and ending up in the emergency room); fear the gays... because... uhh.. Hannity is a closet homosexual? I have no idea on that one. It always seems to me that the more a Republican bang the anti-gay drum the more likely they are banging... oh nevermind.
And before people jump all over my on the Obamacare thing. Yeah, it is a clusterfuck, mostly because half of congress wants the thing to fail for political reasons. Yes, I think the states should and could do it better. But I know the states won't fucking do it without a federal mandate. Perhaps if people tries to work for a compromise on how to do it instead of both parties being "my way or the highway", we could get shit done. But the ship has sailed on getting shit done about 20 years ago.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:25AM
(even though a well run social health system will cut costs for everyone by encouraging people to get preventative care instead of waiting and ending up in the emergency room)
Obamacare is not a well-run social health system; it's corporate welfare, plain and simple. We should've gone with single-payer, not this insurance company scam that still leaves millions uninsured and confuses many people with its overly complex implementation. Yet, last I checked, Obama came out against single-payer, so there goes the "He's just easing us into single-payer!" theory.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:01PM
Like I said, I agree it is a disaster and single payer would be beter. But anyone pretending that Republicans voting against Obamacare simply because they would rather have single payer is a straight up lie. They would have voted that down too, and any other national healthcare scheme that parted from the status quo. Both parties were getting significant money from the existing health insurance framework in order to maintain the gravytrain as long as possible.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @04:03PM
> After all you aren't fighting people in politics, you're fighting ideas, and ideas tend to be hard to kill.
If we had a comedy-industrial complex we would be flooding the internet with jokes about ISIS and al qaeda. So much cheaper, so much less opportunity for blowback (never have to worry about jokes of mass deconstruction falling into the wrong hands). But we don't so investing the money in people who understand the society and make cultural relevant jokes is just more than we can afford.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 11 2015, @05:12PM
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."
(Letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, May 16, 1767)
― Voltaire
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday May 11 2015, @10:43PM
Satire and ridicule are perhaps the most effective weapons we have in politics.
And if you don't have any legitimate basis for your viewpoint, they often are the only weapon you have. Being a comedian means you never have to be right.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:15AM
If there's no truth in it, it's not funny, and it's not an effective weapon. That's the beauty of it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 12 2015, @08:27PM
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:45PM
> I didn't say comedy had to be funny.
Let me guess, you're a conservative.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:00AM
But really, there is this unwarranted assumption that comedy has to be funny. I notice this attitude on occasion when someone is losing an argument on SN or those other sites. They start cutting jokes and wittily insulting those who disagree. I gather they think they're being funny and that somehow making jokes adequately compensates for not having a thing to say, but it's a sad thing to see.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:05PM
> But really, there is this unwarranted assumption that comedy has to be funny.
Unwarranted? Surely funniness is the defining trait of comedy. What's funny is highly subjective, granted, but saying "Comedy doesn't have to be funny" is like saying "Erotica doesn't have to be sexy" or "War doesn't have to be violent" or "Food doesn't have to be edible."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @12:23AM
while most multinationals are vulnerable to boycotts, sabotage, and other public protests
lol, funniest joke of the week!
My observation wasn't funny or even incorrect, but it became "funniest joke" because the AC author had no basis on which to rationally argue against it. This is the form of a lot of comedy of which I speak. People often don't have a good reason to disagree, so they bitterly mock it instead.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 15 2015, @11:10AM
I suspect your sarcasm meter is incorrectly calibrated. In your example AC isn't making a joke (well, kind of), and doesn't genuinely think that you are. AC was deliberately misinterpreting your comment as a joke in order to imply that what you said was so ridiculous that you couldn't possibly have been speaking seriously. AC does have a point, but didn't bother to spell out his/ her arguments of provide links, presumably because s/he thought they would be obvious. Or maybe because s/he is lazy. Actually, I suspect it's mostly the latter.
I am not AC so I don't know and I'm not going to bother doing his/ her research, but I'd guess the point s/he is trying to make is either:
A) Multinationals are effectively immune to boycotts etc because they can use mass-brainwashing of the public (aka advertising) and/or re-branding to make public image problems simply go away. They can use political connections to prevent or mitigate sabotage / mass protests. Consider how many people choose to boycott Wal-Mart, or MacDonalds, or Disney for various reasons. Do those companies really seem to be suffering significantly? How many people boycotted/ protested BP following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Are BP on their knees begging for forgiveness?
or
B) The vast bulk of the general public is so apathetic and uneducated about the complex ethical issues surrounding their purchasing habits that public action on the scale required to dent multinationals is so rare as to be practically non-existent. So what if twelve million dirty hippies decide to boycott Nestle when there are several billion more customers lined up around the world?
If I could be bothered to dig up some links these would probably be points worth arguing but again, I'm not AC and only marginally less lazy than him/her.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @06:49PM
In your example AC isn't making a joke (well, kind of), and doesn't genuinely think that you are. AC was deliberately misinterpreting your comment as a joke in order to imply that what you said was so ridiculous that you couldn't possibly have been speaking seriously.
Which is a joke. This also is a standard rhetorical maneuver by comedians. I bet I could find one or two examples from a typical Jon Stewart night.
AC does have a point, but didn't bother to spell out his/ her arguments of provide links, presumably because s/he thought they would be obvious.
If only we knew for sure. There's a way that the AC could have done that and avoid all this meaningless speculation. They could even have been funny in the process.
I am not AC so I don't know and I'm not going to bother doing his/ her research, but I'd guess the point s/he is trying to make
The thing is, the AC didn't try to make that point. It's just unfounded conjecture on your part that they even understood the argument well enough to make such points.
My point here is that humor and comedy can be and are misused easily. Sure, it can be used to illustrate the truth of some ill or evil and it can be quite engaging and memorable (for example, we still remember the gerrymander [wikipedia.org] and honor the senator who "spoke to Buncombe" [wiktionary.org]). But it can also be a tool of sloth, used by the lazy to insult or belittle without even a little bit of content. My take is that many of the people lauding the use of humor are of this listless sort, unable or unwilling to put together a more serious argument (even one using humor!).
So I have to roll my eyes when I read stories of the truthiness of humor, especially blatantly partisan (and clueless) ones ("none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes" - well I doubt any of the supposedly liberal ones were trained either). It's good to have a sense of humor, but merely going through the motions of making a joke doesn't make you funny.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AntiAntagonist on Monday May 11 2015, @03:25PM
The link given in the blurb didn't work. I believe they wanted to link to this poll [reuters.com].
(Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Monday May 11 2015, @04:06PM
Doesn't really matter, it's one of the worst pieces of HTML crap I've seen. Don't they have editors at Reuters anymore?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Tuesday May 12 2015, @03:27AM
Thanks, I've updated the link in the story.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday May 11 2015, @03:27PM
A bare minimum level of honesty about the state of American politics becomes something you just can't take seriously. A point that stands out is that we had an elected senator go onto the senate floor and filibuster reading a children's book with literally the exact opposite message of his filibuster.
I honestly don't think we've gotten more vacuous and desirous of infotainment as a culture, but that national politics have become so much more farcial that comedy is the only way to approach it.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Monday May 11 2015, @03:58PM
citation needed. or at least give us enough info to google this story!
(Score: 4, Informative) by snick on Monday May 11 2015, @04:46PM
He is what passes for an intalekshual in the US of F'n A [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by quacking duck on Monday May 11 2015, @04:53PM
Pretty sure the senator is Ted Cruz, reading Green Eggs and Ham during a fillibuster against Obamacare, and irony/hypocrisy of using that particular book is that a character protests and whines that he doesn't like green eggs and ham, but once he actually tries them he finds he likes it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @09:47PM
Cruz had heathcare coverage through his wife and her job at Goldman Sachs.
She went on hiatus and he lost his coverage AND WENT ONTO OBAMACARE.
It's a shame that intellect is wasted on an unfunny clown.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:54AM
At least he was not holding the book upside down, like some other former candidates for President of the United States who hailed (loosely) from Texas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @03:49PM
This poll tracks 10 different pundits.
Split evenly between conservative and liberal.
Add 1 independent to each.
Stir until indistinguishable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @04:07PM
Trying to see how this relates to tech. Someone help me here.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 11 2015, @06:27PM
Trying to see how this relates to tech. Someone help me here.
I don't get your point. If you want stories strictly related to tech maybe you should try Pipedot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @06:31PM
Welcome to the new /.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:42AM
In order to compete in this harsh market, we strive to be just like the competition :D
Well at least this site updates frequently, pipedot goes silent for days on end.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 11 2015, @08:10PM
Trying to see how this relates to tech. Someone help me here.
Trying to see why relating to tech is a factor. Someone help me here.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @10:03PM
Is this not a tech/science news site?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 11 2015, @10:05PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:39AM
https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?start=15 [soylentnews.org] Looks pretty tech/science to me, but like /. with the odd celeb/politic article to inflame commenters because that's what gets clicks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:59AM
Do you only want tech news?
We aim for around 70% technology and science stories with the remainder being a mix of content with general interest to our community.
Source: https://soylentnews.org/faq.pl [soylentnews.org]
I guess I shouldn't get too frustrated, you obviously came from the site that invented the term RTFA.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:22AM
General interest to our cashflow
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:36AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:48AM
https://soylentnews.org/topics.pl [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @11:11PM
No :(
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 11 2015, @04:12PM
sit at the peak of American punditry despite their left-leaning view of life...
How does having left leaning views prevent one from being a pundit?
Is it material to the actual left/right "axis" or have we simply defined it as a person whose views we disagree with?
In my sematical opinion a pundit is a mouthpiece for a view regardless of which direction it leans.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @05:26PM
>> sit at the peak of American punditry despite their left-leaning view of life...
>
> How does having left leaning views prevent one from being a pundit?
It doesn't. It makes it harder to sit at the peak.
Give it a rest already. Nobody gives a damn about your OCD for "sematics."
Just send yourself an email instead of posting that crap.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 11 2015, @06:39PM
Give it a rest already. Nobody gives a damn about your OCD for "sematics."
Had an opportunity for funny there at my expense... You loosed it though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday May 11 2015, @04:46PM
That's because most of the conservative pundits are jokes!
There's a real reason for that though: Liberalism tends to be much more questioning of individuals with authority, while accepting institutions with authority. Conservatism, on the other hand, tends to be fairly loyal to individuals with authority, even if those individuals run roughshod over institutional authority. Most of political comedy is about tearing down individuals with authority (e.g. making fun of the names "Dick Armey" or "Congressman Weiner"), so it's more suited for a liberal audience.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:11AM
Comedy is chaos and anarchy, conservatism is order and hierarchy. They're polar opposites.
Imagine Margaret Dumont making jokes at Groucho's expense. Or a version of "The Big Lebowski" where the millionaire is the protagonist. That's conservative comedy.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:15AM
I always thought Larry the Cable Guy was conservative comedy - notice that almost all the targets are powerless rednecks though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 12 2015, @03:14AM
Hail Eris
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday May 11 2015, @06:02PM
Wow, everything I say about the prog left is confirmed by this poll. That the progs are creatures of emotion, repulsed by serious reasoning, incapable of thinking much. That the left has practiced Entryism to conquer the 'Commanding heights of the culture' so as to push their propaganda through mass entertainment instead of serious debate. All of it.
First lets look at the Right's punditry, taking this poll as accurate for purposes of discussion. With the exception of the embarrassing Bill O'Reilly, the others are first rate intellects, capable of and regularly producing serious discussion along comedy and the showmanship required to attract and sustain a mass audience. Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck mix varying degrees of humor with the serious discussion but their programs and books are driven by serious discussion of current events. In Beck's case the humor is mostly limited to his radio program as the TV show is almost always serious... often too much so. Limbaugh and Coulter actually write their own material.
Now look at the left. The only serious intellect those poor saps have is Maddow who, while about as funny as Ebola in a kindergarten, is a serious thinker on the progressive left. As for Colbert, Stewart and Oliver they are merely readers of other Party member's jokes.... and are usually only OK themselves in comedy potential and have the intellects of children if left to their own devices. Maher does have the occasional flash of intellect but his average is also sub par.
Progressivism is indeed the marching morons. The power of ranked masses of mediocrities yelling slogans in unison. Progressivism can't allow excellence even among its own visible leadership because the very idea some might be smarter, funnier, better causes too many badfeelz in the rank and file. The actual thinking leadership must stay quietly offstage.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by snick on Monday May 11 2015, @06:23PM
Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh
Whole-ly Fuck. That is messed up. If I had to make a list of the most cartoonishly moronic folks on the right ... that might be the list. To complain about progressives being "creatures of emotion" and then wax lyrical over a list of folks who are at the top of the heap when it comes to spewing fear and hate ... My hat's off to you, mr. troll.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @10:10PM
Adding empathy to the emotional spectrum is, apparently, a weakness to be mocked by the Reactionaries.
It strikes me that if Wrong-Wingers do actually put thought into the decision-making process, that consists of WWJD?--then doing the opposite.
...but maybe I'm just jaded after 3-plus decades of Reaganism.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 11 2015, @06:23PM
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." - Milton Friedman
Back when Obamacare was being debated, the left didn't frame the debate as something that would work, but that those that opposed it were heartless, merciless beasts. It was the right that had principled stances, such as the right not to buy insurance, or the comatose doctrine of limited powers.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 11 2015, @06:32PM
Back when Obamacare was being debated...
But wait, according to jmorris the right's pundits don't use slogans! How is it possible that people refer to the Affordable Care Acts by such a name?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 11 2015, @06:35PM
It was the right that had principled stances, such as the right not to buy insurance, or the comatose doctrine of limited powers.
The only "principles" involved were that Obama must not look good, that no government programs should prove better than private industry (might put to lie the "it's better to privatize" myth) and that nothing even remotely like socialism should succeed. Any other principles such as those you mention are immediately cast aside when it benefits the interests of those on the right.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 11 2015, @06:48PM
The only "principles" involved were that Obama must not look good,
jmorris is trying to be funny! It is the only possible explanation. This is the point of the FA: conservatives are incapable of humor, the best they can do is be racist, they mistake making fun of others for being funny. jmorris is an excellent example of this. Too bad about Bill O'Reilly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by snick on Monday May 11 2015, @06:36PM
So ... that whole Death Panels thing ... We're just dropping that down the memory hole?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @10:37PM
The actual Left (not the Dems who are a tiny bit less Wrong-Wing) recognized Obamacare as Romneycare rehashed.
It was|is a giant giveaway to the most inefficient insurance corporations on the planet and actual Lefties didn't|don't want any part of it.
What an actual Lefty wanted was for Bill Clinton to have started ratcheting down the age of eligibility for Medicare[1] by 5 years with each Congressional session.
If such an effort had been sustained, by now every American would be 100 percent covered from birth by a single public system, the way they do it in the Advanced Countries.
[1] The most cost-effective heath insurance program in the USA.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Monday May 11 2015, @08:22PM
That the progs are creatures of emotion, repulsed by serious reasoning, incapable of thinking much.
Heh.
Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck mix varying degrees of humor with the serious discussion but their programs and books are driven by serious discussion of current events.
HAHAHA!!
The only serious intellect those poor saps have is Maddow who, while about as funny as Ebola in a kindergarten, is a serious thinker on the progressive left.
Heh.
As for Colbert, Stewart and Oliver they are merely readers of other Party member's jokes.... and are usually only OK themselves in comedy potential and have the intellects of children if left to their own devices.
Hahahahaha!
The power of ranked masses of mediocrities yelling slogans in unison.
HAHAHAHA!!!
Progressivism can't allow excellence even among its own visible leadership because the very idea some might be smarter, funnier, better causes too many badfeelz in the rank and file. The actual thinking leadership must stay quietly offstage.
Heehee.
I have to admit, this is the best work of satire I've read in a long time. Kudos!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:19AM
Here's the thing: you are the mirror image of the things you hate. When you see the other side as emotional and unmoved by reason at the very same time, they see the same in you.
The truth is, you see right through each other, but you can't see through yourself. The truth is, the human intellect grapples with and fails to subdue the deeper problems that society faces, and political ideologies are just a way of maintaining the delusion of control needed to maintain sanity.
Competing ideologies are stable in the sense that both sides genuinely believe they have enough credible evidence supporting their side and discrediting the opposite side and as new information is generated both sides either accept the information or mark it as somehow tainted by the opposing camp. This process is self reinforcing and maintains the stability of the frameworks while doing nothing to resolve any persistent disputes.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 11 2015, @07:26PM
Just one thing about calling Jon Stewart left leaning. The right had some good points, but in recent decades they have bogged themselves down in a big swamp where there is no difference between facts and propaganda. It's so bad that many of them aren't sure whether facts matter! There's plenty to criticize about the left, but the right has gone off the rails, abandoned facts, and made themselves unable and unworthy to balance the left. The balance is broken. It's become very hard to think and act rationally and be thought a conservative.
The party of Abraham Lincoln really began dying in the 1960s when 2 things happened: LBJ lead the Democrats into giving up the South to end Jim Crow and enact the Voting Rights law. The fool Republicans embraced what the Democrats gave up. That the position was in a metaphorical swamp and one they should not have touched with a 10 foot pole didn't matter, they only saw votes and happily waved Confederate flags and wore KKK uniforms in front of crowds they thought would like that sort of thing. Anyone who accuses Democrats of flip-flopping ought to think about that whopper of a flip-flop. Abe must have turned over in his grave.
The other cancer in the Republican party was the embrace of religious conservatives, starting with Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy for 1964. Republicans used to see value in science and research if only as a means of winning wars. The atom bomb, Allied code breaking successes, and weapons engineering all showed the power of knowledge and science. The moon landings reiterated that. Now they are full of religious fundamentalists who want to wear blinders so that they might not see things that might contradict their beliefs. Projects like the Hubble Space Telescope do not appear to have any immediate military use and threaten to reveal things that might be distasteful and challenge dogma. They've turned the party so anti-science that they can scarcely twitch without banging into another contradiction they created. To overcome those problems they've had to not just play stupid, but embrace and become the stupid. Thus the turn towards propaganda, because honest facts won't do.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday May 11 2015, @09:09PM
LBJ lead the Democrats into giving up the South to end Jim Crow and enact the Voting Rights law.
As you were saying about confusing fact and propaganda. Here ya go again. What if everything you were taught about that part of history were provably wrong?
Lets start with the big one. What if LBJ didn't switch from fillibustering civil rights legislation to promoting it as a plank in the Great Society because he was a grinchy racist whose heart grew two sizes that day... but was instead just a grinchy racist who had an especially grinchy plan. Combined with the welfare state, civil rights would be a meaningless feint and add up to an enslavement better than any of his prior cross burning associates could have ever dreamed. With the extra evil bonus of having his victims voting for their victimization.
What if your, despite being popular wisdom, theory of the 'Souther Strategy' is total bunk. Lets go to the tape. At the Presidential level, the Strategy is most often leveled at Nixon. Regardless of his many sins, political naif is not one commonly leveled against him. We are expected to have forgotten enough history to make plausible the idea that a progressive Republican from CA would be able to make Southern racist Democrats (remember, they would vote for a yeller dog over any damned Republican) suddenly shift their vote to him over the Dixicrat candidate running as a stalking horse for the exact purpose of providing a safe harbor for racists who were angry at the Democrats. As for Reagan, his victory in the South is unremarkable because he was racking up unprecedented victories EVERYWHERE. On the Senate, Congressional, Governors, state legislatures and local politics the South remained a One Party region for decades beyond LBJ, the conversion to Republican rule didn't even really begin in earnest for twenty plus years after LBJ so it is pretty hard to attribute it to anything he did.
As for the anti-religious bigotry, I'm just going to let that stand on its own, can't really improve on it by dissecting it. Guess we know where the bigots still live... where they always did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @09:39PM
What if your, despite being popular wisdom, theory of the 'Souther Strategy' is total bunk.
Only one thing to say, what if it is not? Wait a minute, are you projecting the anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming strategy?
As for the anti-religious bigotry, I'm just going to let that stand on its own,
But you see, it is not bigotry when it is anti-stupidity; we are talking about people who are only religious because they would be opening raping and murdering (instead of trying to not get caught), and because it gives them cover for being racists (which is the real point of the "maybe it is real" Southern Strategy).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:34AM
But you see, it is not bigotry when it is anti-stupidity
Right. So how much did you say that bridge was again?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @03:05AM
This is one of those great new conservative tactics - label the opposition as what conservatives are actually guilty of doing. They're doing right now with their hatred of marriage equality, calling those who oppose their intolerance of same sex marriage as intolerant. Religion, especially the conservative brand of it, is a bastion of bigotry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday May 12 2015, @04:25AM
Not at all anti-religious. I am decrying stupidity in the name of religion, not religion itself. These religious fundamentalists who want to teach Intelligent Design/Creationism in science class as if it was a valid theory are an embarrassment to Christianity. Despite all the noise they make, their faith is very weak, based as it is on events and signs that they take as scientific-like proof, rather than the knowledge that the supernatural is not provable and therefore one must instead rely on faith. So they see science and religion as enemies and opposites. Very 1 dimensional "if you're not with us, you're against us" thinking.
As for bigotry, try the Westboro Baptist Church.
LBJ's action took a good twenty years to trickle down and send the southerners into the welcoming arms of the GOP big tent. Nixon and Ford were the last of the pragmatic, pro-business Republican leaders, basically in the same mold as Eisenhower. Bush senior was at heart a politician, going whichever way the wind blew. He would have been pro-business, but he meekly followed the path Reagan had taken. Dole also pandered to the religious fundamentalists. Bush junior did much more than merely pander, he wholeheartedly embraced them, made himself and the Republican party one with them.
Junior's presidency was one disastrous and stupid mistake and misstep after another. It was the worst since Hoover. Makes Nixon's Watergate troubles look small and petty. 9/11 was perhaps when he was at his best. He should have stopped there with the warring, but he didn't. The War of Choice is enough to forever mar his record, but there is also the economy. It could be argued that the Dot Com crash wasn't really his fault as he hadn't been in office very long when that broke, but the Great Recession most certainly was. What I find hilarious is how the Republicans contort the facts to blame the Great Recession on Clinton and even Carter! Republicans were the ones who championed market deregulation which figured prominently among the causes of the market crash of 2008. Then there were all kinds of anti-science moves, such as the ban on stem cell research, the propaganda campaign to deny that there was Climate Change, and giving a closet Creationist, George Deutsch, authority over top scientists. They tried to impose their morals on others, by being hostile to abortions, homosexuals, and interfering with the Terry Schiavo case.
It's going to take years for the Republicans to recover from all that. They weakened and discredited themselves so much that they could not stop Obamacare. It's possible they won't recover, and the Republicans will collapse as the Whigs did in the 19th century. A natural constituency for them is Hispanics, most of whom are more devout than whites, but the idiots have alienated them by lumping them in with illegal aliens who must be kicked out immediately. What then, if they collapse? Will the Democrats become the right leaning party, facing off against a left leaning coalition of Greens and Pirates?