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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Is he? I thought it was just other people saying he should
He explicitly implied he was considering running on Charlemagne's show. Wouldn't mean much for most people but Jon has always aggressively shut down any such suggestion and here he brought it up.
It's weird that you're implying you know he's answered the question weekly(going hard with the hyperbole) but have obviously never seen him give said answer.
link pls maybe timestamp too anybody?
Yes! And a whole movie was made and released based on the idea of someone like him running. Probally largely due to this strong, long present sentiment. It stars Robin Williams.
Yeah I know. I've seen dosens of times.
Choose one
Implicitly explied.
No! Schrödinger's cat for president!
He clearly implied. Leaving no room for confusion or doubt that he implied what he implied.
The implication was explicit. He’s considering running. No one thinks he was implying he would run for a spot on Sesame Street, or as Chief of Staff, or any other position.
You don’t think that works well enough, especially in the context of Jon’s relationship with the subject in the past?
If you must interpret the meaning of his words based on additional context, then he was implying.
If there is no need for interpretation, then he was being explicit.
Whoa, I was just discussing why I would go easy on the poor word choices here. Calm down.
Go watch the clip. In the context of Jon Stewart it's weird. He hasn't given the idea serious thought since the rally to restore sanity in ancient times.
Even Jon Stewart cannot defy the rules of logic.
Either he explicitly said "I am running for president" or he implied it by saying something other than "I am running for president."
"I'm not saying I'm running for president but I'm not not saying that, if you know what I mean"
(haven't seen the clip, just postulating)
That's not explicit. At most, it strongly implies he's running.
Pretty much whenever someone ends a sentence with "if you know what I mean", they are implying something.
It’s not about him actually running. It’s about him considering. You’re jumping ahead.
He’s never considered it an option before. But now he’s considering it.
Either way, he is either explicitly considering it or he implied that he's considering it.
It's not explicitly saying X, it's explicitly implying X. Really being explicit that they're implying the thing.
You can't explicitly imply something. You can either imply or be explicit.
Our understanding of how words work is different and that is ok. We've clearly communicated how we each interpret the phrase, so there's no misunderstanding in this case and we are unlikely to encounter the same phrase together again in the wild.
edit: root disagreement is that you believe the adverb "explicitly" cannot modify the verb "imply", whereas I believe it can. I doubt either of us will convince the other.
"Explicit" is literally defined as "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication"
Which makes sense, because "explicit" and "implicit" are antonyms. Do you think that something can "explosively implode"?