Comedians weigh in on Super Tuesday’s results


First up is The Daily Show where I like the way that Noah exposes speaker Paul Ryan’s hypocritical statements that the Republican party should not be a home for prejudice, when in reality appealing to people’s prejudices is what the party has long been about.

(This clip aired on March 2, 2016. To get suggestions on how to view clips of The Daily Show and The Nightly Show outside the US, please see this earlier post. If the videos autoplay, please see here for a diagnosis and possible solutions.)

Then Stephen Colbert takes a shot.

Seth Meyers also gets to ridicule Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald Trump.

Comments

  1. says

    I get so sick of comedians making fun of Trump’s hair. There’s enough to make fun of without taking the obvious cheap shots. You can’t complain about Trump being a crass windbag and hold the moral high ground when quipping about his spray-tan.

    I’m not super impressed by the media right now; they’ve demonstrated that they are part of the problem – they can’t even assemble a good joke out of this situation? Even “three guys walk into a bar” is better than the Trump hair-shots.

  2. StevoR says

    @ 1. Marcus Ranum : Thing is whilst its unfair to criticise people for things they can’t help its a bit different for things like spray tan and hairpieces which they can control and do choose. So no, I don’t share your problem here with jokes about Trump’s orange~ness or his ridiculous toupee.

    Great clips thanks.

    That raccoon (any racoon really) would make a better President than any of the Repub’s as would Mike Moore’s ficus tree or our metaphorical drover’s dog.

  3. Holms says

    @ 1. Marcus Ranum : Thing is whilst its unfair to criticise people for things they can’t help its a bit different for things like spray tan and hairpieces which they can control and do choose. So no, I don’t share your problem here with jokes about Trump’s orange~ness or his ridiculous toupee.

    Trivial reasoning to chase trivial matters. A choice pertaining to one’s appearence is inconsequential and irrelevant to political commentary; when discussing politics, policy is what matters.

    Another way to explore that is to imagine a female candidate, or hell, make it a woman being criticised in any walk of life at all. Would you join the hooting crowd in using appearence as a means of criticism for women in the workplace?

  4. StevoR says

    @5. Holms : “..when discussing politics, policy is what matters.”

    Haven’t seen or read about any of the recent Republicans debates then Holms?

    Or read much commentary about the various people running for office in a lot of places really.

    If only that were true. Maybe. It’s not though. Personality, appearance, “finger” size, body langauge, personal histories and characteristics and so much more get at least as much airtime and discussion as policies usually more. Indeed, if policies were the foremost issue its very doubtful Trump would still be in the race at all if he even started. So, no.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *