'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...'a potential disaster for democracy'?

[Stevicus]

Mary Trump blasts Jon Stewart as ‘danger to democracy’ following his ‘Daily Show’

Apparently, Jon Stewart is back on The Daily Show. I didn't notice, but I came across this article in my newsfeed which raised some interesting points.

“These two candidates, they are both similarly challenged. And it is not crazy to think that the oldest people in the history of the country to ever run for president might have some of these challenges,” he said, referring to Trump and current President Joe Biden.

“We’re not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive or even capable. But they’re both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world,” Stewart added.

Trump's niece, Mary Trump, took issue with Stewart's commentary:

Mary Trump later reposted the clip of Stewart’s statement to X, but took issue with the comedian’s comparison of the men, tweeting: "Not only is Stewart’s 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it’s a potential disaster for democracy."

"'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...a potential disaster for democracy."

She does seemingly take after her uncle in some ways, with this kind of rhetoric of her own, where now she's calling Stewart a "threat to democracy" in classic those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us fashion. Essentially, this rhetoric is saying that no one is allowed to be objective or neutral.

Is this kind of wanton hostility towards a prospective Democratic supporter an effective way to gain hearts and minds in a tight election where only a few votes might decide it?

This kind of heavy-handed, scolding, sanctimonious, emotionally-laden rhetoric has got to stop.

It may sound clever among insulated academicians and out-of-touch ivory tower sycophants, but those of us at street level see something completely different. I think it would behoove some Democrats to understand just how tired people are becoming at hearing pampered, privileged white people who have probably never done a hard day's work in their lives presuming to tell working people what they should think and feel.

That's the disconnect that Democrats refuse to understand, and if anyone tries to explain to them (I've tried), all they do is respond with emotionalism, sanctimony, and hostility. Mary Trump says she's "angry" at Jon Stewart over this, but what does a privileged, wealthy person like her have to be angry about? Seriously. Maybe instead of giving in to emotionalism (which we've already heard far too much of), some rational, logical thinking might be in order. Just a thought.

If you're going to be angry, then at least be angry at the root problem, not the symptoms.

 

[PureX]

She wasn't calling John Stewart a threat to democracy. She is saying that Trump is a threat to democracy, and that treating Trump and Biden as equivalents in any way risks Trump gaining the power to destroy democracy.

My comment would be that we have long ago destroyed our democracy by allowing the plutocrats to decide who we get to vote for: toady for the rich A or toady for the rich B. With such an absurdly undemocratic choice decade after decade it was inevitable that one of the toadies would be insane sooner or later.

 

[Stevicus]

She wasn't calling John Stewart a threat to democracy. She is saying that Trump is a threat to democracy, and that treating Trump and Biden as equivalents in any way risks Trump gaining the power to destroy democracy.

My comment would be that we have long ago destroyed our democracy by allowing the plutocrats to decide who we get to vote for: toady for the rich A or toady for the rich B. With such an absurdly undemocratic choice decade after decade it was inevitable that one of the toadies would be insane sooner or later.

Her blog article was entitled "Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy," not "Trump's Danger To Democracy." She's specifically calling out Stewart.

But yeah, you're right. We've allowed the plutocrats to run rampant, and now, we have to deal with the mess they've caused these past 40 years. Trump is merely a symptom of that mess, not the cause of it. The real threat to America's democracy came when too many Americans decided to embrace the wrong line of thinking and a toxic philosophy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In the UK we hear this "they're all the same anyway" rhetoric all the time; from disillusioned progressives and conservatives alike.

I do consider it harmful, in that democracy should never be taken for granted; if the electorate lose faith in the power of the popular vote, who is goingto defend it when would be autocrats (like Trump) come along?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Mary Trump blasts Jon Stewart as ‘danger to democracy’ following his ‘Daily Show’

Apparently, Jon Stewart is back on The Daily Show. I didn't notice, but I came across this article in my newsfeed which raised some interesting points.



Trump's niece, Mary Trump, took issue with Stewart's commentary:



"'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...a potential disaster for democracy."

She does seemingly take after her uncle in some ways, with this kind of rhetoric of her own, where now she's calling Stewart a "threat to democracy" in classic those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us fashion. Essentially, this rhetoric is saying that no one is allowed to be objective or neutral.

Is this kind of wanton hostility towards a prospective Democratic supporter an effective way to gain hearts and minds in a tight election where only a few votes might decide it?

This kind of heavy-handed, scolding, sanctimonious, emotionally-laden rhetoric has got to stop.

It may sound clever among insulated academicians and out-of-touch ivory tower sycophants, but those of us at street level see something completely different. I think it would behoove some Democrats to understand just how tired people are becoming at hearing pampered, privileged white people who have probably never done a hard day's work in their lives presuming to tell working people what they should think and feel.

That's the disconnect that Democrats refuse to understand, and if anyone tries to explain to them (I've tried), all they do is respond with emotionalism, sanctimony, and hostility. Mary Trump says she's "angry" at Jon Stewart over this, but what does a privileged, wealthy person like her have to be angry about? Seriously. Maybe instead of giving in to emotionalism (which we've already heard far too much of), some rational, logical thinking might be in order. Just a thought.

If you're going to be angry, then at least be angry at the root problem, not the symptoms.

The more I look at both parties' stances on economic issues and foreign policy, which are two of the most pressing and crucial aspects of any party's platform, the more they strike me as far more similar than either of them tends to see or acknowledge.

Jon Stewart is not afraid to call out incompetence where he sees it. I have more respect for him than I do for Trump and Biden combined. At least Stewart has no blood on his hands, unlike both of them. My only objection to his words as quoted above is that I think criticism of both candidates should primarily focus on their respective records and positions, not on their age.

 

[PureX]

In the UK we hear this "they're all the same anyway" rhetoric all the time; from disillusioned progressives and conservatives alike.

I do consider it harmful, in that democracy should never be taken for granted; if the electorate lose faith in the power of the popular vote, who is goingto defend it when would be autocrats (like Trump) come along?

How do you have faith in the ability to vote when the selection of possibilities is rigged to get the same result election after election after election. This is how it's been in the US for many decades. And that's not democracy. It's a sham.

 

[Secret Chief]

How do you have faith in the ability to vote when the selection of possibilities is rigged to get the same result election after election after election. This is how it's been in the US for many decades. And that's not democracy. It's a sham.

I'm no fan of FPTP, but I do not consider the system rigged - fingers crossed it looks like the next government (election probably in the Autumn) will be a Labour government. And it's not a two party system either. Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP are in the mix too.

 

[exchemist]

Mary Trump blasts Jon Stewart as ‘danger to democracy’ following his ‘Daily Show’

Apparently, Jon Stewart is back on The Daily Show. I didn't notice, but I came across this article in my newsfeed which raised some interesting points.



Trump's niece, Mary Trump, took issue with Stewart's commentary:



"'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...a potential disaster for democracy."

She does seemingly take after her uncle in some ways, with this kind of rhetoric of her own, where now she's calling Stewart a "threat to democracy" in classic those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us fashion. Essentially, this rhetoric is saying that no one is allowed to be objective or neutral.

Is this kind of wanton hostility towards a prospective Democratic supporter an effective way to gain hearts and minds in a tight election where only a few votes might decide it?

This kind of heavy-handed, scolding, sanctimonious, emotionally-laden rhetoric has got to stop.

It may sound clever among insulated academicians and out-of-touch ivory tower sycophants, but those of us at street level see something completely different. I think it would behoove some Democrats to understand just how tired people are becoming at hearing pampered, privileged white people who have probably never done a hard day's work in their lives presuming to tell working people what they should think and feel.

That's the disconnect that Democrats refuse to understand, and if anyone tries to explain to them (I've tried), all they do is respond with emotionalism, sanctimony, and hostility. Mary Trump says she's "angry" at Jon Stewart over this, but what does a privileged, wealthy person like her have to be angry about? Seriously. Maybe instead of giving in to emotionalism (which we've already heard far too much of), some rational, logical thinking might be in order. Just a thought.

If you're going to be angry, then at least be angry at the root problem, not the symptoms.

But surely assertions of false equivalence ARE a threat to democracy, aren't they? They embody and encourage superficial, lazy cynicism, lead to voter apathy and gloss over crucial differences. I should have thought any voter would have a right to be angry about that, regardless of their skin colour or wealth.

Both candidates may be old men with not the sharpest mental faculties (as Reagan also was, at least towards the end), but that's about all they have in common.

 

[exchemist]

She wasn't calling John Stewart a threat to democracy. She is saying that Trump is a threat to democracy, and that treating Trump and Biden as equivalents in any way risks Trump gaining the power to destroy democracy.

My comment would be that we have long ago destroyed our democracy by allowing the plutocrats to decide who we get to vote for: toady for the rich A or toady for the rich B. With such an absurdly undemocratic choice decade after decade it was inevitable that one of the toadies would be insane sooner or later.

Yes, US politics has a particular problem with far too much money sloshing around and distorting the process. No country is immune from that but the numbers in the States are eye-wateringly awful. The money spent on campaigning is not only grotesque but has been entrenched by the Supreme Court, so it is not likely to change. And that's just the most visible part of it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Saying that both sides are the same is indeed harmful to our democracy, but not for the reason Ms. Trump thinks it is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

How do you have faith in the ability to vote when the selection of possibilities is rigged to get the same result election after election after election. This is how it's been in the US for many decades. And that's not democracy. It's a sham.

Quite often a vote involves, from some voters' perspectives, choosing the lesser of two weevils.

 

[Revoltingest]

The more I look at both parties' stances on economic issues and foreign policy, which are two of the most pressing and crucial aspects of any party's platform, the more they strike me as far more similar than either of them tends to see or acknowledge.

Foreign policy offers one major difference....
Trump is more willing to start a needless war,
based in his aborted launch of one on Iran.
Biden appears less of a vengeful hothead.

 

[Stevicus]

In the UK we hear this "they're all the same anyway" rhetoric all the time; from disillusioned progressives and conservatives alike.

I do consider it harmful, in that democracy should never be taken for granted; if the electorate lose faith in the power of the popular vote, who is goingto defend it when would be autocrats (like Trump) come along?

I would suggest that the rhetoric is a mere symptom. The cause is due to the government's policies and the toxic philosophy behind them. Why do so many people refuse to address the root cause? That's the question we should be asking, not focusing on how outraged people are about Trump. We already know that people are angry about Trump, but what else have they got to offer the people? Nothing. That's what's harmful. They have no ideas. No imagination. They can't think outside of the tight little box they've built around themselves, and now they're worried that their insular playground of luxury might somehow be threatened.

People lose faith in the system when they're struggling and facing hardship. It has absolutely nothing to do with "rhetoric." In good times, such rhetoric falls on deaf ears. Political stability is maintained through economic stability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Saying that both sides are the same is indeed harmful to our democracy, but not for the reason Ms. Trump thinks it is.

Better....
"Both sides share some problems."

 

[wellwisher]

But surely assertions of false equivalence ARE a threat to democracy, aren't they? They embody and encourage superficial, lazy cynicism, lead to voter apathy and gloss over crucial differences. I should have thought any voter would have a right to be angry about that, regardless of their skin colour or wealth.

Both candidates may be old men with not the sharpest mental faculties (as Reagan also was, at least towards the end), but that's about all they have in common.

The Democrat party thinks a Democracy comes does to voting, which happens once every one to four years, but ignore the day to day meat and potatoes of Democracy such as free speech, a Government by the people of the people and of the people. Democracy does not have a Big Brother that thinks it controls you, like the Democras party prefers. Nor does Democracy have a two injustice system that Democrats do not complain about. That is not a Democracy.

As a case in point, Biden was caught with classified files that were stored in questionable ways. Nothing will happen because he is old and may not recall having taken classified files, when he was a younger man years before running for president. Was he senile back when he was younger or was the fix in? The same benefit of the doubt is not given to Trump, who had been President, and as President could declassify anything he wanted, before he left office. Democracy does not get it backwards but is based on justice for all.

Further injustice connected to the Hur report showed up Feb 12, 2023, when Senators Grassley and Johnson Oversight, noticed 9 boxes of classified files were not mentioned in the Hur report. These had been stored in Boston, of all places; WTF. Such obvious evidence tampering; not including these, is not how Democracy works. This is how Big Brother criminals behave, who do not use Democratic principles. Biden has nothing to do with Democracy and the Democrats need not be so gullible based on the word games the Democrat Party; The New Democrat Party definition of Democracy is closer to a rigged monarchy.

Hur Report Omits Review of Nine Boxes of Biden Records Identified by Grassley-Johnson Oversight | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

What was in those 9 boxes of classified information that was moved by a Biden Lawyer and not presented to the Hur Investigation? What should happen to those involved and will iy happen in this totalitarian state of injustice and deception? Will senile Biden still get off ,if these records and there where abouts had been included? If senile Joe was able to con others to hide these boxes is he as senile as needed to get away with his crime? Should the criminals who tampered with that evidence be brought to justice or are we now a totalitarian wolf state, in Democracy clothing, that the Left base is too shallow to see?

 

[Father Heathen]

Better....
"Both sides share some problems."

Each side has it's flaws and failings, but not in equal proportions.

 

[exchemist]

The Democrat party thinks a Democracy comes does to voting, which happens once every one to four years, but ignore the day to day meat and potatoes of Democracy such as free speech, a Government by the people of the people and of rather people. Democracy does have a Big Brother that thinks it controls you, like the Democrats party prefers. Nor does Democracy have a two their justice system that Democrats do not complain about.

As a case in point, Biden was caught with classified files that were stored in questionable ways but nothing will happen because he is called old and may not recall having taken classified files, when he was a younger and before running for president. Was he senile back then too or was the fix in? The same benefit of the doubt is not given to Trump who had been president and could declassify anything he wanted before he left office.

Further injustice of the Hur report showed up Feb 12, 2023, when Senator Grassley and Johnson Oversight, notices 9 boxes of classified files were not mentioned in the Hur report. There had been stored in Boston of all places. Such obvious evidence tampering is not how Democracy works. This is how Big Brother criminals behave. Biden has nothing to do with Democracy and the Democrats need not be so gullible based on the word games; New Democrat Party definition of Democracy is now closer to a rigged monarchy.
Hur Report Omits Review of Nine Boxes of Biden Records Identified by Grassley-Johnson Oversight | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

What was in those 9 boxes of classified information that was moved by a Biden Lawyer and not presented to the Hur Investigation? Would senile Biden still get off if they had been included? Should the criminals who tampered with that evidence be brought to justice or are we now a totalitarian state, in Democracy clothing, that the Left base is too shallow to see?

ZZzzzzzz............

 

[Stevicus]

The more I look at both parties' stances on economic issues and foreign policy, which are two of the most pressing and crucial aspects of any party's platform, the more they strike me as far more similar than either of them tends to see or acknowledge.

Jon Stewart is not afraid to call out incompetence where he sees it. I have more respect for him than I do for Trump and Biden combined. At least Stewart has no blood on his hands, unlike both of them. My only objection to his words as quoted above is that I think criticism of both candidates should primarily focus on their respective records and positions, not on their age.

I agree. I think the main issue is more a philosophical one, not a battle of personalities or who is the most offensive or outrageous in polite society.

Both parties are gripped by the same mendacious, self-destructive, myopic philosophy which has squeezed working people in this country, exploited workers in other countries, and engaged in global militarism in order to artificially prop up their "global economy." Meanwhile, people are struggling to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. They have to deal with outrageous medical bills, insurance costs, deductibles, co-pays - yet Biden thinks it's a major achievement to have a cap on prescription drug costs. Whee. The Democrats also embraced and took on the reins of Nixon's and Reagan's "war on drugs" and became even more zealous and fanatical about it than the Republicans.

 

[Audie]

Of what use is your two party system since it
is the source of the division that so weakens
your country?

 

[Stevicus]

But surely assertions of false equivalence ARE a threat to democracy, aren't they? They embody and encourage superficial, lazy cynicism, lead to voter apathy and gloss over crucial differences. I should have thought any voter would have a right to be angry about that, regardless of their skin colour or wealth.

Both candidates may be old men with not the sharpest mental faculties (as Reagan also was, at least towards the end), but that's about all they have in common.

In a society which has valued free speech, freedom of expression, and an open marketplace of ideas, then ideas can be fought with other ideas. What good does it to do to get angry about it? Logic and reason can be more effective weapons than anger. In my view, the anger and emotionalism can be a greater threat to democracy, because it's a sign that people are regressing and are no longer mature enough for an open marketplace of ideas.

Of course, there are ways of dealing with unsavory ideas or assertions of false equivalence, but that also requires a bit of work and a lot of patience, which too many people don't have anymore. All they can do is get more angry or make more snarky remarks or come back with more of the same. At the very least, people should be able to EXPLAIN their position with more lucidity and elaboration than simple soundbites and throwaway one-liners.