When TDS Goes On Hiatus: What Would Jon Stewart Do?

[formerlyfreedom]

So Hiring Is Strong and Unemployment Decreases. Again. Damn you, Obama! Damn you for things getting better!

 

This is where I sputter and shake my head and get a cool graphic, right? Or should I just go to bed?

[ABay]

My July has sucked thus far, thanks in part to TDS, TCR, and @Midnight being on vacation. I'm just rocking back and forth mumbling "they'll be back Monday, they'll be back Monday."

[attica]

ABay, I feel you.  I depend on the boys for my morning breakfast-watch. Whenever they're away, I'm all aflutter to find something on the dvr that will prevent me from having to watch GMA. Or worse, Morning Joe. ::Shudders::

[A Boston Gal]

At least this week, there's been Letterman to DVR and watch in the AM. Last week, even he was gone, and we DVR'd Seth Meyers. Just not the same.

[dubbel zout]

Now we have Rick Perry refusing to shake hands with Obama, and it being praised.

 

What a jackass. Like him or not, Obama is the president, and you should show due deference to the office if not the person.

[attica]

The funny thing is that a photograph of Perry shaking Bam's hand would doom him for any future right-wing career. (I'd say election, but I'm too busy snorting my diet coke from laughing at that notion.) Because 'showing respect for the office' = RINO/soshulist to that crowd. Perry's pretty stupid, but even he's got that down.

[A Boston Gal]

It's those new super-smart glasses he's wearing that's making him so clever, isn't it?

[dubbel zout]

It just shows that the level of rudeness is getting higher and higher. Sigh.

Edited July 9, 2014 by dubbel zout

[ganesh]

Now we have Rick Perry refusing to shake hands with Obama, and it being praised.

 

When did this happen? How juvenile. You have to be able to work with people you don't like. That's what adults do.

 

I hope once Obama retires and goes on the interview circuit that he torches these people for what assholes they are. 

 

It just shows that the level of rudeness is getting higher and higher. Sigh.

 

I don't think it's so much rudeness as it is this anti intellectual/science phase we're in. It's causing people to regress and act like teens.

[trow125]

I would like to think that Jon and TDS would ignore Palin at this point. Though if the show was airing this week, Jon might not be able to resist taking a swipe at his old nemesis Tucker Carlson for running with this crazy story about Sen. Robert Menendez in The Daily Caller.

[Julia]

Tucker Carlson's mom is a Swanson, as in frozen dinners. As long as there are publications needing consumer advertising, bigger Lord Fauntleroy is going to have a job. At no point will anything he says be relevant or make sense.

[alexvillage]

 

I would like to think that Jon and TDS would ignore Palin at this point

As everyone else should

[Fremde Frau]

On Fareed Zakaria's GPS from Sunday, he opened his show with comments on the rising sentiment of fundamentalist nationalism or political identity among the citizens of many nations in the world, including stable nations that aren't war zones or under economic stress. It's bad enough here in the States, with xenophobic extremists rising to positions of political power and the religious right working hard to legislate a separation of science and state and to undo advancements in human rights, but looking at the overall world picture made me think that Earth is heading inexorably towards an era of more intense wars and religious fundamentalism, to say nothing of the growing crises of climate change, poverty, and plutocracies. As an anthropologist, I am interested in the factors at play, but as a citizen of the world, I feel sick.

 

*sigh* I need to go back to the DS archive for some pick-me-ups. This is fucking depressing.

[dubbel zout]

I saw news footage of Obama and Perry; they DID shake hands. On the tarmac, no less. Maybe those smart glasses finally beamed a bit of sense into Perry.

[alexvillage]

On Fareed Zakaria's GPS from Sunday, he opened his show with comments on the rising sentiment of fundamentalist nationalism or political identity among the citizens of many nations in the world, including stable nations that aren't war zones or under economic stress. It's bad enough here in the States, with xenophobic extremists rising to positions of political power and the religious right working hard to legislate a separation of science and state and to undo advancements in human rights, but looking at the overall world picture made me think that Earth is heading inexorably towards an era of more intense wars and religious fundamentalism, to say nothing of the growing crises of climate change, poverty, and plutocracies. As an anthropologist, I am interested in the factors at play, but as a citizen of the world, I feel sick.

 

*sigh* I need to go back to the DS archive for some pick-me-ups. This is fucking depressing.

 

Religion and wars go hand in hand. So yes, as religion fundamentalism grows, we will see more wars. I don't think religion will lead to anything like a civil war in the US but we will certainly see a lot of shit flying around

[ganesh]

There won't be a civil war in the USA but if the political make up of congress and the white house stays the same, not much useful stuff would get done just like now. I'd really like to see a third party rise up so one of the houses doesn't have a party majority.

[Fremde Frau]

I agree with you both. (I didn't necessarily mean civil wars in the US but wars in general around the world.)

 

That said, most politicians and media seem to have a single definition of terrorism ("Muslim") and are reluctant to call homegrown terrorists "terrorists" (at least as long as they are white, straight, conservative Bible-thumpers), so who really knows how far off the cliff the Tea Party will manage to push the US? My perspective may be warped, since I live in Georgia. I'll be moving within a year, and I cannot wait.

 

I'd really like to see a third party rise up so one of the houses doesn't have a party majority.

 

We need this so desperately (and not the way some news outlets seem to portray it, as a distinction between the GOP and the Tea Party).

[alexvillage]

More and more I believe that the only hope to end the oligarchy control of this country is a revolution. But I am also convinced this will not happen because we are very complacent, we care too much about money without really understanding how social justice and the risks of inequality happen, and we are generally ignorant about pretty much everything. 

The rich will become rich and not bother to even think about the poor - or they will think but not do much about it, other than small gestures to make themselves feel good.

The poor get poorer and have to comply with absurd rules to receive any aide. 

The ones in the middle, if there is a middle will dream about being rich and not do much to change things because their dreams "might become true".

 

 A third party is a great idea that has no chance of becoming a real force because of how the election laws are written. It would indeed be a great thing. 

[ChelseaNH]

I'd really like to see a third party rise up so one of the houses doesn't have a party majority.

 

While we have usually had two political parties campaigning for votes, they haven't always been the same two political parties.  Every now and then, a third (or even fourth) party shows up to realign things.  For a moment it looked like Perot might amount to something, but that was more a personality cult than a party.  I'd say we're long overdue for a reconfiguration.  Also, I would really love for Americans to have to deal with more than two significant parties at once.

[ganesh]

Oh, I don't know. There's plenty of other parties that run candidates all the time. If the 18-40something bloc decided to only vote third party, that would be a big change.

 

And why not?  Old people vote the same people because they've been there their whole lives. Young people don't have that attachment. People who don't vote always complain that 'it doesn't count or change anything.' Ok, vote for a third party then. 

[Julia]

New York has a system where third party votes for the same candidate count towards the total vote, so if, say, the Working Families party runs the Democratic party candidate on their line, Working Party votes count towards the total votes. Third parties have a lot more influence in NY than they do most places.

Unless that happens nationally, though, I think it's unlikely that the major parties are not going to fight third parties that could potentially erode their votes enough to throw the election. After all, if it hadn't been for Nader protest votes (he was last seen supporting himself with generous Republican donations), the Bush/Gore election wouldn't have been close enough for the Supreme Court to steal.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Julia

[shok]

I don't think it's so much rudeness as it is this anti intellectual/science phase we're in. It's causing people to regress and act like teens.

 

That's an insult to teens. ;)

[Victor the Crab]

Take it from someone who lives in a country that has more than two official political parties. While the idea of having multiple parties to choose from sounds like a great idea, in theory, what you end up doing is splitting the vote for one side of the political spectrum in favor of the other side. That's how it turned out here in Canada, where Stephen Harper and the Conservative party won a majority government in the last election, despite capturing less than 40% of the popular vote. It's because the Liberals and New Democrats split the left vote thus allowing the Tories to trump them both with the right.

 

And let's not forget the last time the American people were given a high profile third choice to choose for U.S. President -- Ralph Nader. If not for him, Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential election without Fox News and the Supreme Court assraping the democratic process. And the country and the world would have been a far different place without Bush II and his cronies shitting all over it.

[attica]

they DID shake hands

 

That was Take Two. Bam went back to Texas after fundraising in CO, and that was the arrival that Perry deigned to shake. Take one? Not so much.  BTW, the Daily Caller is pissed the Shake happened.  There is no purity test extreme enough for wingnuts.

[Fremde Frau]

Victor the Crab, I get what you're saying, but you make me almost want to backtrack on my post: that if the Tea Party and the GOP would run independently of each other, maybe they would split the conservative/right vote so that a liberal/left candidate would more easily win, instead of it coming down to the wire with an anyone-but-Obama candidate that nobody seemed to even particularly care for, like Romney. For better or worse, there doesn't seem to be a viable independent and/or left-leaning third party or candidate to split votes with Democrats anymore, unless the Green party musters up another Nader.

 

Too bad the Republicans can't reboot to at least as far back as the pre-Southern Strategy days and cut loose the Tea Party like the fringe, extremist party it should be. They put on airs of distinction, but who are they really fooling (outside of their own constituents) that it hasn't been one big, crap soup since Obama took office?

[dubbel zout]

they DID shake hands

   

That was Take Two.

 

Interesting; that wasn't mentioned at all.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Maybe because people acting civil with each other is expected behavior and therefore not noteworthy.

[Fremde Frau]

Not politicians. Not in the US. At least not since January 20, 2009... although there was that (totally believable and not at all politically expedient) "circle of love" moment last month.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Fremde Frau

[ganesh]

And let's not forget the last time the American people were given a high profile third choice to choose for U.S. President -- Ralph Nader.

 

It's not nothing or President though. I'm talking about a handful of congressmen. There's one independent senator. If there were even 5, that would really shake things up. A third party would need a national infrastructure, but set reasonable goals. 

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Reasonable goals? They're screwed already.

 

ETA:

Not politicians. Not in the US.

Well yeah, that's the norm. But in theory we still expect elected officials to have the maturity of someone over the age of 6.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Brandi Maxxxx

[ChelseaNH]

Old people vote the same people because they've been there their whole lives.

 

Ahem.  I am a geezer.  Not only do I not always vote for the incumbent, I have been known to throw a vote to a minor party candidate just to encourage them.  We geezers still come in a variety of flavors.

[dubbel zout]

Another geezer weighing in. I have voted the way ChelseaNH has, too.

 

Many voters (of any age) vote for the incumbent because they don't think the challenger has a chance, so it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. There's also the problem of the sleaze you know vs. the sleaze you don't. If you live in NYC like I do, you don't want to have even worse representation than you already do.

[attica]

Geez, dub, from your avatar, I would've said you lived in Monaco!  Where you're in charge! :)

[dubbel zout]

Well, I'm dead, so...

[ganesh]

I don't think old people who post regularly on internet tv message boards are typical of the AARP voting bloc that most representatives count on to ensure their incumbency. 

 

The House is apparently suing Obama over the ACA. So, I guess since repealing it isn't going to happen, this is the next logical step? I'm surprised they just don't pass articles of impeachment. 

[alexvillage]

 

Take it from someone who lives in a country that has more than two official political parties. While the idea of having multiple parties to choose from sounds like a great idea, in theory, what you end up doing is splitting the vote for one side of the political spectrum in favor of the other side.

That might be true but as it has been pointed out, there is more than presidential elections and if we see what is happening today it would be much better to have more diversity in congress (not that I put too much faith in most politicians, but it would at least give me some hope of things happening).

Different parties would possibly mean that deals would be made in a very different way. Today, conservatives MUST accept all the points that the [party dictates. The same for most liberals, although there is a tiny bit more of difference of opinion among the D's.

Maybe an important bill would not be stuck because some anti-choice assholes didn't demand an amendment that has nothing to do with the original bill, because some R's are (at least some used to be) more concerned about other issues and don't give a rat's ass about social issues 

This was one example. As I typed I realized that this is probably not very realistic. But I think you get the idea - diversity of opinions, not just following leader's bullshit 

[Julia]

The House is apparently suing Obama over the ACA. So, I guess since repealing it isn't going to happen, this is the next logical step?

 

Well, if by "logical" you mean filing a lawsuit they don't have standing to file which will be thrown out after Fox covers it 24/7 for the rest of the summer so that their low-information voters think they're doing something for their paychecks other than refusing to feed children and going on vacation, yeah, pretty much.

[ganesh]

As I typed I realized that this is probably not very realistic. But I think you get the idea - diversity of opinions, not just following leader's bullshit

 

A third party would be a way to cut out the tea party extremists as well.

 

I don't know what the difference is between filing suit and impeachment. Beyond impeachment being in the constitution. 

[Julia]

A third party would be a way to cut out the tea party extremists as well.

 

Sadly, the tea party extremists have what seems to be an inexhaustible funding source in wingnut billionaires, and we have a lot more of those than we used to. I'm not against more than two parties (I vote for most of my candidates in NY on the Working Parties ticket to keep them on the ballot and pulling the local Democrats to the left, since those votes count towards their Democratic runs), but I think that if we did move more towards a multi-party system it would be a huge boost to the Tea Party.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Julia

[Fremde Frau]

At this point, although I suspect it's unlikely outside of an actual revolution, I wish the Tea Party would just fuck off with Texas or Florida or some other state like that and form its own country so that the rest of us can go back to having a more or less functional, reasonable government. Doesn't Texas have the legal right to secede? Let them fuck off, I say, and be the "freedom panic room" for all of the Tea Party and religious right nutbags.

[shok]

The House is apparently suing Obama over the ACA. So, I guess since repealing it isn't going to happen, this is the next logical step?

 

Well, if by "logical" you mean filing a lawsuit they don't have standing to file which will be thrown out after Fox covers it 24/7 for the rest of the summer so that their low-information voters think they're doing something for their paychecks other than refusing to feed children and going on vacation, yeah, pretty much.

 

That's a very good point, plus there's the blatant hypocrisy - and the utter stupidity - of what they're filing suit against. They're claiming that Pres Obama didn't have the authority to delay the mandate for big corporations and his executive order to do so is unconstitutional. So, let me get this straight. The Republicans have spent years and years trying to block the ACA and to repeal it and have spent a ton of political capital obstructing what is turning out to be a very popular policy. So now they're complaining that Obama delayed enforcement of the law that they hate???? 

[ganesh]

Usually with big laws, the executive branch has some level of rulemaking. Like, you don't rewrite the entire Clear Air Act if the EPA needs to change the concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the air. So I thought the ACA also came with rulemaking too. I mean, the president has legal counsel. It would be massively short sighted not to consult counsel to make sure his actions on the ACA are legal. 

 

I'm still confused as to why suing is preferable to impeachment. Suing needs legal grounds, filing articles of impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House. It doesn't have anything to do with legality. It seems like they're going to come off looking really stupid. I mean, even Nixon wasn't sued and he actually committed/ordered crimes. 

[Fremde Frau]

The GOP reminds me of those "choose your own adventure" books. They keep making dumb, inconsistent choices and then backtracking as far as they can to start over again with a new chapter of idiocy because they can't risk the narrative ending and their constituents saying, "But you didn't lead us anywhere!" So they keep going nowhere and resetting the story back to zero to maintain the illusion of governance, good faith, and persecution. And when they take a wrong turn (which is every turn), they can always say, "Don't get mad at us. This is author overreach."

[BabyVegas]

I'm still confused as to why suing is preferable to impeachment. Suing needs legal grounds, filing articles of impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House. It doesn't have anything to do with legality. It seems like they're going to come off looking really stupid. I mean, even Nixon wasn't sued and he actually committed/ordered crimes. 

Several Republicans have outright said that it's because they don't file articles of impeachment because it might make it through the House but it doesn't have a prayer in the Senate. They know they'll never get a conviction, so it would just be posturing. I remember reading an article that said that and it had a quote from a House Republican, I believe, who phrased her answer like "those damn Democrats! They won't help us convict Obama and get him thrown out of office!" I'm happy Jon will be back on the air because he's so good at breaking down the crazy and pointing out exactly why what our nation's politcos do (left and right. But mostly right) is batshit insane at best. I hope he has a segment on exactly why this is just a waste of time and it's just a way for the Republicans to rile up their base and convince them that cutting off your nose to spite your face is a viable plan.

[dubbel zout]

Several Republicans have outright said that it's because they don't file articles of impeachment because it might make it through the House but it doesn't have a prayer in the Senate.

 

Suing the president also gives the Republicans something to do other than lawmaking, which they seem hellbent on not doing.

[ganesh]

Several Republicans have outright said that it's because they don't file articles of impeachment because it might make it through the House but it doesn't have a prayer in the Senate. They know they'll never get a conviction, so it would just be posturing.

 

Suing the president also gives the Republicans something to do other than lawmaking, which they seem hellbent on not doing.

 

None of this is anything but posturing. Suing Obama won't remove him from office. I figured passing articles of impeachment would pander more to their base. But yes, this is just the classic misdirection scam. It's been pretty obvious to anyone that regularly follows the news that nothing was going to get done this year. They don't want anyone to remember that there could have been something done on immigration especially now that there's a big problem.

[Wax Lion]

 

I'm still confused as to why suing is preferable to impeachment. Suing needs legal grounds, filing articles of impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House. It doesn't have anything to do with legality. It seems like they're going to come off looking really stupid. I mean, even Nixon wasn't sued and he actually committed/ordered crimes.

 

It's political, IMO. People like Boehner think impeachment would be bad for the party, the Clinton impeachment lost them the Congress in a year when they should have won. However, they also have the reality-detached base to keep happy, so they're hoping this lawsuit will satisfy that while taking so long that by the time they have to show that their case has merits, it won't really matter and no one will pay attention.

[ganesh]

Is it even constitutional?

[attica]

Who cares? They can fundraise off it! That's always more important.

[Fremde Frau]

Rick Perry is sending in the National Guard.