First time I've heard someone speak about this. I've thought about this very thing myself. I agree with every word Todd says here.

I disagree a lot. I'm still organizing my thoughts, but I realllllyyyyy disagree with Todd here.

lol @ colbert making a mockery of the pile of dookie the retarded sloth monkeys have shit all over this country.

this fuck can go eat his dick.

not onlydoes this dude need to be mocked but he should get his ass beat for being a pussy and have the gall to talk about the real world, blah blah blah. fuck this fuck. go read some nietzche motherphucker. we are who he told of.

everything is trivial. we are cynical. fuck this shit.

zzzzz, another Morning Joe clip

Such a percs show

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

That mean its a show for those who abuse pain pills? I'm no fan of the show, just wondering wtf "percs show" means.

lol, that it's the nuts. Sorry, FenwayKing rubbing off on me.

Yeah. Thinking about it more I'm not sure I agree with Todd as much as I thought when I first watched the video.

not that i disagree with chuck todd, but i just dont think it matters. the only reason he is bothered by it is because he's the one we're laughing at, so to speak. colbert is trolling the american political system, and that rightfully pisses people off who are heavily invested in it

Can we summarize what Chuck Todd is saying? Because he talks for 4 minutes and I think I can summarize it in two sentences but I feel like I missed something in the 4 minutes if I could summarize it in 2 sentences.

So basically I thought he said it was good Stephen Colbert was satirizing the political system, but he was afraid he was too partisan during his satire. Also at the same time he didn't like the satire because he still had a great respect for the system even though the people running the system do not deserve the same respect. (is that what other people got or am I off?)

Anyways, I think if Stephen Colbert satirized the system in a way that was totally was partisan he wouldn't get republicans to talk to him, but he does, look at Herman Cain today. I think he gives the conservative point of view a voice that they wouldn't generally have. Before the Colbert Report it was just Jon Stewart mocking republicans. Now Colbert mocks republicans, but people have to hear their side of it while he mocks them. At times when he has a liberal guest I find myself siding with Colbert, even though I don't know if he is serious in his argument.

Above all though I would like to disagree with Chuck Todd about him marginalizing the system. The system is fucked and deserves to be mocked. I know the idea is great but as it is, it's fucked. Mock the shit out of what we have now, it needs to be changed.

*Free Speech~

*you figure out the exceptions.

I had a feeling most of you would disagree with the premise of this video which is why I posted it. I think Todd is 100% spot on on absolutely everything he says in this vid. His strongest points from my perspective:

1. Colbert and Stewart both are both hilarious and their shows are both great to watch. "The criticism isn't of him (Colbert) it's of how we in the media and frankly what political office holders are treating him as."

2. His education of his audience of Super PACs through satire deserves praise. I think this is the best thing Colbert has done for awhile. The younger semi-politically literate crowd now has an idea of what Citizens United means. Kudos.

3. There are definitely things about politics and Washington that deserve mocking and ridicule. Testifying to Congress in character and being allowed by Congress to do that is despicable. I lost a lot of respect for Colbert that day and evidently Todd did as well. Fake running for President on television is kinda funny. Spending money on Super PAC ads attacking and mocking citizens who actually ARE running for President is not really as funny. Don't get me wrong. The ads themselves are hilarious. I even posted the serial killer Romney one. Todd here seems to think that Colbert has an agenda to hurt the GOP. I mostly on board with that, but I don't care as much about whether or not he's trying to hurt the GOP as much as I care about him further ingraining distrust in the system itself. As Todd said, when the shtick leaves television and enters the real life political process it justifiable makes us uneasy. Young people today are pretty much ok with it (as proven by the responses so far itt) because they are as a whole completely jaded and don't have much respect for the system to start with. Now the counter argument from their perspective is always "Yeah, but they made us this way! The media and politicians can't be trusted!!!" There is some merit to that but ultimately the real responsibility is more on us (young people) than we will ever admit.

4. "I worry we are going to trivialize our institutions, make people more cynical, raise an entire generation that is even more cynical than they are now to the point where we have already demonized institutions that frankly I do idolize... We complain now that the most qualified people don't run because they don't want to be the butt of jokes, well I think this is going to exasperate the process." That in my opinion is the main points to take away from this video. It's true. Most of you will defer blame from us to the media and the institutions themselves like is now commonplace among our age group, but again if there is one point of view that you associate with The Precedent from OT, it should be this: We have no one to blame for the government we have but ourselves, it won't fix itself.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Totally disagree on this point as it pertains to "what Citizens United means".

^^Expand on this please. I'm thinking I might agree with you Dyz but want to hear your thoughts first.

 

Originally Posted by Jennings7

^^Expand on this please. I'm thinking I might agree with you Dyz but want to hear your thoughts first.

He's going to talk about freedom.

Then you're wrong.

I don't even know what you're arguing. Are you saying that Citizens United didn't change or have an effect on politics and political campaigns? Oh you're not saying that? So then why are you arguing with "what ramifications Citizens United can have on politics"???

edit: this nitpick isn't fun. Find something else in my post to argue with

 

Originally Posted by The Precedent

I don't even know what you're arguing. Are you saying that Citizens United didn't change or have an effect on politics and political campaigns? Oh you're not saying that? So then why are you arguing with "what ramifications Citizens United can have on politics"???

Were there any presidential races run after campaign finance reform restricted independent spending and before Citizens United?