Summary
In an emotional monologue, John Oliver urged undecided and reluctant voters to support Kamala Harris, emphasizing her policies on Medicare, reproductive rights, and poverty reduction.
Addressing frustrations over the Biden administration’s Gaza policy, he acknowledged the struggle for many voters yet cited voices like Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, who supports Harris despite reservations.
Oliver warned of the lasting consequences of a second Trump term, including potential Supreme Court shifts.
Oliver said voting for Harris would mean the world could laugh at this past week’s photo of an orange, gaping-mouthed Trump in a fluorescent vest and allow Americans to carry on with life without worrying about what he might do next.
Lol, like what? Does liking a sport and hating and exposing the corruption of it’s organizers equate to supporting it’s organizers? https://youtu.be/DlJEt2KU33I?si=WJAc7yVePsn0GwaA
…and apparently understanding the frustration with the EU but calling leaving it insane and urging people to vote against brexit is “supporting” it? https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?si=JsEMq6gV7-tp5y7k
Like are you even trying? Nobody is perfect, John Oliver included, and I’m sure there are reasons to dislike him but could you at least chose topics he hasn’t released multiple YouTube full clips of episodes of his show where he literally contradicts your point?
Does he? For one, he clearly supported Brexit no matter what the semantics of it are. The main point is he’s so wrapped up in his identity he can’t separate himself from predictable issues that sometimes raise eyebrows (again, Brexit VS the referendum come to mind). Someone not being perfect doesn’t equal self-irreconciliation. The main theme with him, if anything, is matching what he’s a stereotype of. Seeing him “cry for Harris” sounds like that on steroids and just the level he goes to by doing that, which I wouldn’t even call good form when it’s not his country who he’s crying over the candidates of, is the only biggest surprise from him all year, which isn’t a great thing to have to say.
Does he what?
What do you mean by the word “semantics” in this sentence? I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Here are some examples of John Oliver opposing Brexit:
guardian, 2019
Last Week Tonight, Jun 2016
Last Week Tonight, Brexit ii
Last Week Tonight, Brexit iii
John Oliver publicly, repeatedly opposed Brexit, using his considerable platform to do so. With respect, you are talking out of your anus.
You seem to want to paint John Oliver as a stereotype, and then claim that this is all he is. I find that reductive, ignorant and distasteful. Here is someone who addresses issues varying from presidential accountability to gambling laws, national, international and global issues, with compassion, logic, humanity and humour. And you try to boil him down to a stereotype. You’re not even able to define the stereotype you’re trying to invoke. It would be funny if it weren’t shameful.
No, I’m talking out of his.
He was using a massive literary device about it but it’s still there, hence “semantics” (yeah I know what it means, who else does?)
Having a diversity of issues to speak on doesn’t mean he isn’t typical about them. I gave a gist, meaning there is more to what he says, but that doesn’t mean the gist doesn’t apply, or what type of person, then, does being teary-eyed about a candidate we all knew he would pick invoke then, when we are facing the most complicated election in US history? Not the best time for a fandom to project shame and that what someone is saying is considered shameful.
What?
Like what??
That video is him mostly gently middle of the road hand holding about how he thinks it’s a bad decision but he won’t say it to directly cause he is always scared of backlash and thinks his job as comedian is to ruffle no feathers.
I don’t like him very much but… No? You are actually way off here and somehow reading something way more out of this in a way I don’t understand as an outside observer.
Giving a gist is not being right. I just really think you need to take a moment and reconsider your base and set some foundation. And not presuming we see what you see when looking for your proof.
That’s because you’re arguing from a standpoint of reality and engaging with a person acting in bad faith. They know they’re wrong, shit they started off with wholesale lies the opposite of what we can see with our own eyes.
I think it’s hard for people to know they are wrong.
They know what they know. It just might be wrong.
I don’t want to start at assuming that cause if I did that during an experiment we might miss something that we don’t expect. And people don’t respond well to an already shut door and shouting. We know people regress into their positions harder most of the time too.
I believe you got to give them an out and hope they take it. If they don’t so be it but if you never gave them an open door how can they move on?
It could easily be read in the reverse way… with him using something that resembles sarcasm to promote-not-promote it. Especially if read literally by the viewer from a transcript, with the pros specifically designed to not help him. It’s how rhetoric works, from all sides.
If you don’t believe me about the stereotype bit, name any outlook he has spoken on and I can give a description of why it fits that charge.
Apparently not that easy if you are alone in it right?
Maybe consider you are missing something. It’s not wrong to not side with everyone else but it should make you stop and consider it and then you can continue if you want. I’m just trying to give you the moment for reflection.
I agree that middle of the roading is not helpful and can normalize terrible things by act of just making them seem less terrible cause it was right next to better options but that’s not the same as directly advocating for it.
And we already aren’t sure you are comprehending their position with the right tone, I’m not sure more examples will help your case. Or even what you are trying to say as none of us are seeing it with you.
It’s ok to pause and get yourself and your points together. I hope you find what’s worth being committed to and what’s ok to drop and let go of cause right now I think you are confused and could use it.
Look at some of the comments then. I’m not the only one.
Given that your think he’s pro-fifa and pro-brexit, I very much doubt you could pinpoint his stance on much of anything.
All of us have given sources. And try me.
Did we watch the same video?
He says that yes, EU isn’t perfect, but Britain would be absolutely crazy stupid to leave. He says it multiple times, in different ways, but the point remains.
As explained, yes.
It is his country, though. He holds dual citizenship.
He’s not in America though, so it doesn’t change anything. He’s in the UK. The US president holds no reach over him. No matter who becomes president, he’s going to wake up in the UK when it’s all done and it’s going to be as if it was just a blip for him.
He lives in New York, you simpleton
Notice I said “in”, not “lives in”, as in he can hop back and forth. This is starting to sound like a fandom.
What the heck? But he’s not “in” the UK either. He films in the US and lives in the US and performs in the US.
You are changing definitions of things and somehow you have decided fandom is a slur? I get it. I don’t like modern fandoms but like very different culture from people just trying to correct you on basic blunders.
I just don’t actually get your points at all. You could think we were deflecting or apologizing for him. But fandom?
…and any of that is supposed to mean this person everyone says has dual citizenship is always in the US? If he didn’t have dual citizenship and entirely changed his citizenship to “American”, that would be one thing. I’m not the one changing definitions.
An American could fly to Japan on holiday, an Italian could take the train to Germany, a Chinese national could boat to Singapore. Just because you can go somewhere else doesn’t change were you reside.
He could leave. So could lots of others, it’s not exactly a simple thing and not exactly a unique to him thing. You still care about your house when you leave home.
You are now changing the goal on what you said cause you still feel like you don’t want to be wrong but it’s really ok. I won’t judge you for backing off the ledge.
You said he wasn’t in the US, but he is. You imply he doesn’t care but that’s an opinion you can’t prove without being him. Just move on. You owe nothing to this argument and gain nothing for it. I hope you can, cause I already am.
Hope you get a moment to breath.
How is he not in America if he lives and works there and has done for a long time?
The same way it’s possible someone might not currently be in their house even though they live in their house.
Is he currently living in the UK?
Even so, the US president holds reach over his livelihood in NYC as well as his job in an American company.
If that held a lot of relative weight due to his circumstances, that would be one thing.
That is one thing.