145

Direct video: Jon Stewart Tackles Harris & Trump's Debate and What This Means for the Election | The Daily Show https://youtu.be/KtHn59wqdBc

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 2 weeks ago

I’m so glad he’s back.

I yelled at my TV when she was bragging about Dick Cheney’s endorsement.

[-] whereisk@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago

It was directly targeted to the people were supporting Nikki Haley and the very few principled republicans left. “You don’t have to support this disgusting man just because you’re Republican. These famous republicans don’t”. It was a smart move to gather extra support.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

True. And fuck off Dick Cheney.

[-] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What about the people with principles that remember the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died in the Iraq War that Dick is directly responsible for? Its fucking gross

There’s a ton of other Republicans they could’ve name dropped other than goddamn Dick Cheney. I think even most Republicans hate him.

[-] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago

It was a smart move. You don't just snub a guy that has no problem blasting a guy with some bird shot.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Dick Cheney was the 2000s Trump. Still an evil man who should never be praised.

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

He's a bit smarter than Trump, and arguably more evil. I often thought it him as a bit of an Emperor Palpatine. Trump's more of a man baby.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 4 points 2 weeks ago

There's just some endorsements you don't want.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 16 points 2 weeks ago

That's not a recap, that's a humoristic piece based off of the debate. I haven't seen the debate, but I've seen the piece, and I still don't know anything about the debate except that bit about dog-eating migrants

[-] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

You're right, that's not a recap, but I watched both and it does pretty well capture the spirit of how the debate went. Yes, you'll need to watch it, or an actual recap, to get the details of what the two said about the various other topics, but what Stewart highlighted was very representative of the rest of it.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ok. I'll probably watch it anyway

[-] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Go for it. It's... exhausting and frustrating, but worth a watch.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah it was kind of pandering in a way idk he's done before. I actually watched clips from the old episode where dick cheney had just shot someone and it's so different

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

the debate had a lot of humorous crazy talk so don't be so sure. That being said I have not seen the jon steward yet but can't wait to watch tonight hopefully.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

Variety Magazine - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Variety Magazine:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://variety.com/2024/tv/news/jon-stewart-donald-trump-kamala-harris-presidential-debate-response-1236140400/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
145 points (95.0% liked)

politics

18933 readers
4240 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS