politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nice, will definitely check it out. Haven’t watched since he left really.
I tried Noah. Dudes stand up is legitimately good, but his Daily Show stuff could be summed up as "what's all that about shrug". Just wasn't the right man for the job.
Yeah, and unfortunately, some of the correspondents seemed to be more about representation than being legitimately funny. I thought Noah was affable enough, but maybe too affable, if you know what I mean. I like Jon's persona very much and the format suits him well. Craig Kilborn's version of the show was barely memorable for me. I think I Tivo'ed it just because, but once Jon made it his own, I forgot all about the prior version.
The best thing on the show in recent years has been, ironically enough, a white dude - Jordan Klepper does standout work, especially when out talking to the magabunch. But he is rarely part of the show.
Comedy Central need to give him full employment, TBH. His show only lasted about a minute there, but it was great. The other funny people on there are the one white guy that is sort of the everyman and the white woman ( I think they were both given a chance to guest host too, and did pretty good), and then there is Ronnie Chang, who is usually hilarious. Love it when he's on the screen.
As for many other guest hosts and correspondents - I don't know, I guess some audiences confuse being very loud with actually being funny, but that is not my thing.
Desi Lydic seemed to be the most comfortable in that host chair. But I'd be perfectly happy with Klepper. Hard no from me on Ronnie Chang though. He's an alright in small doses kinda guy.
For me it’s Klepper then Roy Wood Jr.
I like his "for the culture" segments for sure. I don't remember much from his guest hosting stint. Honestly, I'd take just having the show back on with nearly any of the previous hosts, but please for the love of Zeus don't give that host chair to Leslie Jones. I wish I found her even half as funny as she finds herself. Maybe she's a comedian's comedian or something, I just don't get it, though.
Don't sugarcoat it. Noah was pure garbage on the show. Makes me want to avoid anything he does like the plague.
Listened to the first half of his show via podcast for a while, mostly around the 2020 election and afterwards.
Just never hit with me. He would have some good takes, but it seemed like he was trying really hard to do Jon's shtick, and it just fell flat. Feel the same about his stand up.
I hope he continues doing something with current event commentary. Hope he finds his niche.
I first saw him on QI on BBC. I was really excited about the pick because I thought he was quite interesting. The announcement was the first I heard any press about him here.
I second your opinion.
That's because Trevor Noah was objectively a terrible choice to fill that roll.
He might of have been a fine choice to take over from Craig Kilborn's Daily Show, but not the deeply political satire show that Jon Stewart had turned it into.
His comedy isn't for me, but he's not an unfunny person. But his entire knowledge of American politics and culture seemed to mostly come from watching MSNBC, CNN, and reading the New York Times. His lack of nuance and a deeper understanding, well, it showed in the final product.
It's almost like they looked at how well Jon Oliver did as a guest host and just assumed he'd be a diverse Jon Oliver.
trevor noah wasn't bad; he just was dealt a bad hand through covid and he much preferred doing stand up than hosting gigs
My eyes! It burns!
That grammatical abomination is enough to invalidate your entire point.
Calling a typo a "grammatical abomination" is certainly one way to show everyone that you're a very smart and special individual. I personally think everyone should take you super duper seriously.
You're defending on a claim of intent, when all we have is observation and trending to go on.
How are we supposed to live up to the omniscient standard you set for us?
Can people not just proof-read their shit as if they were grown-ass adults with two brain cells to rub together? What explains the absolute inability to go back and correct mistakes, and should we magically know it's not just apathy and disrespect?
Your brain just kind of edits those mistakes out even if you do proofread. I'm sure you've seen examples like this before:
Being super harsh about it is really odd.
He's not being super harsh, he's begging for validation. He actually believes those pointless sentences convey his obvious intelligence.
I wish I was joking.
The fuck?
Seconded. Take that shit back to reddit.