Jon Stewart Had to Talk to Fetterman Like a CHILD in This Interview

So for you, you could agree with them 90%, but Israel is the red line. >> Absolutely. Israel for me, like I I can't ever turn my back to Israel after after where it's at. >> So and and I mean no disrespect on this, but that is not our country. So John Stewart brought John Federman on his weekly show podcast and I think this is the first time I've actually listened to Federman at length. It's an hour and a half and I listen to all of it and I've got to say this man simply is not capable of having a conversation. His brain truly is cooked and I don't know how he's able to represent the people of Pennsylvania when he he's just not all there mentally. I don't know how to say it in a nice way. cognitively speaking, he can't do the job that is required of a US senator. And all throughout the entire thing, you know, John Stewart would try to ask him a question and John Stewart challenged him as you should when you bring somebody on who has power. And nothing that John Stewart said was comprehended by John Federman. At best, you know, he would get an answer that's only tangentially related to what John Stewart was asking him about, but at worst, he'd bring up non sequittors. It was like John Stewart was talking to a [ __ ] brick wall and it was agonizing to listen to. The fact that I sat through an hour and a half of this honestly makes me hate myself. I don't know why I chose to do this to myself. And now, uh, since I'm kind, I'm going to share some clips with you all because I think it really demonstrates just how morally bankrupt the pro- genocide wing of the Democratic Party is. And I know that John Betterman isn't necessarily the best arguer for Israel since he's their weakest proponent. Nonetheless, he does drop in some basic Hosbora talking points that he memorized and they're just swatted aside easily by John Stewart in I think a really relatable way. I think that what John Stewart says and the way that he lays it out, it's resonating with or will resonate, I should say, with regular Democratic Party voters. But I just want to show you one clip in particular first before we get directly into the Israel stuff where the subject of Hassan [ __ ] comes up because John Federman brought him up and he describes Hassan [ __ ] as pro- Hamas and John Stewart makes the point that he's not necessarily pro- Hamas if he says that Hamas has committed less war crimes than Israel. That's not a pro Hamas statement. It's a matter of fact that Israel has killed more individuals than Hamas. That doesn't make you pro- Hamas. And John tried to explain to him how this caricature of the argument that Hassan [ __ ] and other pro Palestinian leftists make can be used against him. And John tries to bring an example of trans rights and how the Republicans can use that against John Federman. As you're going to see in one ear, out the other. So, let me just press play and show you what I mean here. different way. You're progay rights. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm coming up on the 13th I'm on the pro 13th anniversary. I was the first first person to to solemnize a gay marriage, you know, when it was illegal in Pennsylvania. Now, yeah. >> Beautiful. And you're uh someone who is pro trans rights or or >> I am. Absolutely. Okay. I I was I was the only Democrat that saying, you know, when when when they actively were trying to ban trans Americans from our military. >> Okay. First of all, he was not the only Democrat who was saying that you shouldn't ban trans people from the military. All Democrats were saying that you shouldn't ban trans people from the military. But these are simple yes or no questions. but he doesn't comprehend what John Stewart is trying to do and how he's trying to hold a mirror up to Federman and show him that the same thing he's doing can be done to him. But let me let me show you what John uh Stewart does. >> You know, so what the right would say about that is that you're pro- mutilation of children. That's what they would say. >> That would be their what I would >> that would be their caricature of your position. Do you agree that that's what they would say? >> What I would what I would say is what I'm saying is is right now our party is starting to elect people that are going to struggle to win in the kinds of places that are going to define who's going to win in 28. That's that's a fact. And now a lot of these ideas and a lot of these extreme views are coming from the kind of people that have never won a real competitive election in state that holds both sides, you know, and hold people accountable to explain a way forward when we live in a very divided country right now. I think the responsibility is to police to police your own ranks, you know, and it's like there's plenty of people as I've been criticizing some of the Republican views, but overall describing what garbage is garbage like P Hustle in Maine, you know, like I was, you know, like he was an absolute garbage. >> Oh. Oh, Platner. So to recap, John Stewart is trying to make a broader point about why you should not misrepresent the arguments of your political opponents because the same can be done to you, especially as a Democrat. And he just talks about something different. Well, you know, we have to condemn the extremism because they can't win elections, right? But you're helping the Republicans tank the supposed extreme candidates by saying there are they're as extreme as the Republicans say they are. Like you're helping with that. You're trying to make their inelectability supposedly a self-fulfilling prophecy. And like this is the problem throughout the entire [ __ ] interview. John Stewart can't get him pinned down on on anything. And it's not necessarily because he's like this politician who's dodging questions. It's because he's too [ __ ] stupid to answer any questions. At a different point, John Stewart asked him, and this was before this, about the ICE shutdown, uh the shutdown over ICE. And you know, he was opposed to that. He said he didn't like the Democrat shut down the government over ICE. So John Stewart tries to get him to say, "Well, what would be a better way to oppose the tyranny of ICE and use what little leverage Democrats have to reign in this administration?" And he simply could not answer the [ __ ] question. He just would like trail off in different areas. uh another portion where John Stewart and him they're, you know, they're talking about like the extremism on the left and John Stewart tries to get him to see how the failures of capitalism and the failures of the Democratic party to respond to the crisis created by capitalism has led to growth in this movement. And not a single word that John Stewart said got through to John Federman. It wasn't that he was like trying to evade what John Stewart was asking. He simply could not understand the point that John Stewart was making. Now, in this particular clip here, they go on to talk about P Hustle Graham Platner, who is completely irrelevant because his campaign is [ __ ] dead. Troy Jackson is now the nominee. So, why are you still talking about Graham [ __ ] Platner? Moving on, when we get past all of the left bashing, we reach the crux of Federman's concern with the supposedly extremist left. and it's obviously Israel. Now, I don't know why John Federman would bring up Israel because he's not capable of defending his position against John Stewart, who is obviously much more knowledgeable and intelligent than him. But I think that he's confident that his Apac talking points are going to suffice. But as you're going to see, they don't. And John Stewart, the way that he is able to break down the idiocy of Federman's argument here is genius. It's simple, but it's so effective. Just just let me press play and let you watch the master at work here. >> So for you, you could agree with them 90%, but Israel is the red line. >> Absolutely. Israel for me, like I I can't ever turn my back to Israel after after where it's at. >> So and and I mean no disrespect on this, but that is not our country. You're saying that these candidates may have great ideas for our economy. They may want to do the exact same thing you want to do. in terms of getting money out of politics. They may want to increase the social safety net. They may want to uh uh change the balance of power from capital back to labor. But if they don't agree with you on Israel, you don't want them in your party. >> Well, I don't know who you're referencing to specifically. >> No, I'm I'm I'm referencing what you just said. >> This is outrageous. Like the whole [ __ ] interview goes in this exact way. He was talking about the left being anti-Israel and then John Stewart tries to make a response and he's like, "I don't know what you're talking about, [ __ ] Just try to stay focused for five minutes." Again, like this whole thing was agonizing, but let's hear his uh answer here. >> Namely, >> so in other words, say or AOC or Bernie Sanders, I assume you agree with a lot of what they say economically. And what I'm saying is like if you are a DSA member, if you are a member of a specific political party, run under your own banner. And now I think Bill Maher said something very insightful. He said, you know, the DSA are colonizing colonizing the Democratic party. So just be Democrats if you >> I mean, you're the one who supports colonization. So shouldn't you be okay with that effort? Wouldn't you argue that colonialism isn't bad? So why is that a bad thing all of a sudden? Like they're trying to hypocrisy brand the left, but it's an idiotic argument, but yet to him he's like, "Oh, Bill Maher is speaking truth to these annoying leftists who uh refuse to just let Israel do this genocide without criticism." >> Going to run under the Democratic Party for that. Why have a DSA party for o overall? So run on that and you all understand >> it's just an organization. It's not we we have a two-party system. We don't It's like the Freedom Caucus in the Republican party. There are, you know, there's Randy Fine and Ogalas and all these nut bags that are also part of uh an area and Republicans, I'm sure, may not agree with all of them on all kinds of things, but there is no other party. I guess you could you could try it, but my point is if you don't disagree with him on a lot of things, why not use some of that energy? And even like Manny in New York is DSA, but there are things in the DSA platform that he disagrees with. And I'm assuming there's probably things in the Democratic platform that you might disagree with. Now, >> I just want to pause it before they get too far away from the third party bit. They have been scolding the left for trying to use a third party to acquire power for decades now. Right after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, Bill Maher is the one who said, "Fuck you for not falling in line and voting for her because a lot of people voted for Jill Stein instead instead." And he said, you know, if if Hillary Clinton wasn't good enough for you, then go [ __ ] yourself with a locally grown organic cucumber. And now he's saying, "Well, these new progressive Democrats aren't good enough for me." But uh they should form a third party basically. I I guess that's the pitch. Like it's incoherent. Listen, if you want us to form a third party, then you have to change the electoral system. Give us rank choice voting. Give us proportional representation. You want to shift to a system that's much more equitable and allows for more than just two parties. You want to do away with Duver's law, I'm all for it. But you [ __ ] don't want us to do that. And we don't want to do that because in a two-party system, a third party is a dead end. Like I would love to be able to sever ties with centrists, but that is a route to zero power. So we're forced to use the Democratic Party as a vehicle for electoralism if we want to have any power whatsoever. But you guys are the ones keeping us tethered to you because you know that you know there's nowhere else to go. But then when then when you say, "Oh, start your own party." You don't want to give us the tools to start our own party. You don't even want to allow third party candidates in debates. The Democratic Party teamed up with Republicans to block third party candidates because it behooves both of them to stop the third parties in this country, which hundreds of them already exist, from, you know, excelling. So, this argument is so [ __ ] disingenuous. But, uh, they're going into different territory here. I don't want to get too far off track. >> But you don't disavow the entire thing. You're literally saying it's all we can all have discussions except when it comes to Israel, which is not America. It seems like a weird line to draw. >> Well, so then well, well, with No, I I don't think that's weird. I think I I think what history demonstrates is is that when when people or a government or people turn their back to to the Jewish community, things end really badly. And it's a danger. Jewish community in Israel are not the same thing, brother man. They're not that that is not the same thing. >> No, no, no. It's like, hey, it's like if if I have to pick a side for for after 107 and after Iran, you know, I'm always I'm always going to stand with Israel. I'm always going to vote and support whatever that's necessary to protect themselves and to pro. >> Notice how he doesn't even try to entertain or grapple with what John Stewart is saying. Israel and Jewish people are not the same thing. Just in one ear, out the other. This happens the entire podcast. I [ __ ] you not. It is insufferable. >> Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, too. And the the very left never said a peep after Iran executed 30 to 40,000 young people in there just for protesting for >> and John Stewart has a phenomenal response to this. I don't even have to say it. We don't fund Iran. We have no control or complicity with what they do. And even if they are guilty of what you're saying they're guilty of, does that mean we should be able to bomb little girls in schools? There's just there's no rhyme or reason to anything he's saying. He's just bloodthirsty. He's a sociopath. >> Democracy. >> You You think that the left is pro Iran, pro not not the country, but the the regime? Uh, I I'm I'm what I'm saying what I'm saying though is like if if if anyone in the Democrat party is fine with Iran building a nuclear bomb, I disagree with that person. >> I I think most people are again I I think you're caricaturing the the issue, but I want to Is there anything you would criticize Israel about? >> And the answer is no. One more clip that I want to play for you here, though. Would you say everything Israel is doing is for their own self-defense? >> Just destroying its enemies. Yeah. Yeah. That is destroying its enemies >> or flattening a tiny area and pushing 2 million people into 30 to 35 to 40% of that territory and having a siege of that area. Is that in their self-defense? >> No. what I'm saying. It's like people forget that that Hamas were just rapists and they were terrorizing and killing civilians and then they stole five, no, how many? 250 uh people from their families and they kept them underground. And >> that's what Israel does. He talks about the 200 Israeli hostages. What about the thousands of Palestinian hostages? What about the way that I soldiers use rape in war? use rape as a form of [ __ ] torture. I mean, if you brought this up to him, he'd probably just say something about Hamas because there's really no getting through to this individual. Again, he is not cognitively capable of having any sort of conversation whatsoever. You couldn't talk to this man about a [ __ ] TV show, let alone a foreign policy issue. So, I don't know why any of us are wasting our time here. Nonetheless, uh there's more. >> And that's why they refused to give them back. And that's what forced Israel to engage in that Gaza war when they refused to uh send their people. >> And there is nothing in the prosecution of that war that gives you pause. >> The What do you mean? >> The killing of tens of thousands of children. Uh the >> absolutely awful. Absolutely. Because Hamas Hamas has embedded themselves, you know, behind these people and using the Palestinians as human shields. Sinir described the death of innocent Palestinians as a necessary sacrifice. That's how Hamas has designed that. >> There are people in Netanyahu's cabinet who have said they would like to nuke the Palestinians. Not Hamas, the Palestinians. I I I'm just I I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't understand why we can't criticize even someone that you think is an ally for actions that we deem to be morally reprehensible. Like I don't understand how you can defend the settlements in the West Bank. Like I I don't understand how you have no criticisms over their actions, over their increasingly messianic ultraright-wing government that seems to think relentless war is the like that you can bomb people out of resistance. It have you ever seen a movie called Gatekeepers? It's people that have been in Shinbet and ran the army in Israel and they're talking about how the strategy that Israel has uh of of disproportionate retaliation even though they are by far the most powerful force in that region is not a path to keep Israel safe. Have Have you seen that? What I'm saying is is that that Israel was entirely open to a two-state solution. They were offered a two-state solution. You know, I actually got a chance to talk to former President Clinton about that and reminds the people that they were offered. Now, notice how different subject just shifting it to something completely different. I don't think this is tactical. I think that his brain just cannot compute what John Stewart is saying. Like you you say that you're horrified by Israel killing children, but yet you blame everything that they do in Hamas, but when it comes to the West Bank, as John Stewart pointed out, well, you still defend what they do. There's no Hamas there. There's no Hamas in Lebanon. They could blame Hezbollah, but why do you think Hezbollah formed in the first place? is because Israel was [ __ ] bombing Lebanon. When you do things like this, there's a thing called blowback. It's actually a CIA term. When you do death and destruction throughout the world, that comes back. You force people to take up arms against you because they view you as a threat. Innocent people become radicalized because they've seen you kill their family. They've seen you take everything away from them. You've devastated their countries. So they feel like their only form of [snorts] existence must require them to take up arms because what else are they going to do? If they don't fight, they die. If they protest peacefully, they get shot in the head. I mean, back in 2018 during the Great March of Return in Gaza, IOF soldiers were sniping little kids in the head. They were making a [ __ ] game of it. So if they're peaceful, they get murdered. If they uh try to resist violently, they get murdered. So, if you're going to murder them no matter what, then why wouldn't they do everything in their power to resist as forcefully as they possibly can? Like, I'm not legitimizing or rationalizing violence. I'm just explaining, by the way, why these things happen. Actions have consequences. Things don't occur in a vacuum. If Israel wasn't occupying Palestine for decades, Hamas wouldn't have formed. So, it's just it's it's frustrating. But, I mean, these are things that John Federman is not going to be able to grapple with because he does not have the capacity to do that. So, he just like tries to do his best to memorize the talking points that Apac feeds to him. And that's that's as good as you're going to get. >> 96% of the West Bank and they get to pick 4%, you know, for part of Israel. And they had East Jerusalem as the capital. and they would have had their entire nation, you know, now now going on 26 years. Now, they reject that. They did not want a two-state solution. They have a one-state solution, and that's from the river to the sea. And that's part of why, you know, anti-semitism is run a muck in our college campuses and in the in the streets. And now they're protesters showing up in my office, at my home, and following me and screaming and calling about and claiming about genocide. And now it's not a genocide. And if there was a genocide, that's because Iran refuses to relinquish this idea that they're they can destroy Israel. Now live in peace. And now he's just he's blending so much [ __ ] together. The talking points are getting [ __ ] up. You know, the NPC dialogue tree is getting jumbled. We're seeing a bit of a glitch. Basically, he's saying, "Look, Israel can do no wrong. and anything that they do wrong, well, it's because of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran. There's just there's no convincing him because this is fundamentally somebody who does not think any Palestinian or Muslim or Arab is an equal human being. That's just what it comes down to. This man is a [ __ ] racist piece of [ __ ] >> Live your lives and stop funneling billions into Hezbollah and Hamas trying to destroy Israel. That's why don't we stop funneling billions into Israel who wants to destroy all of their neighbors? Why is it okay for us to fund terrorism, but it's not okay for Iran to fund terrorism? Aren't we being hypocritical? Shouldn't we lead by example as the world's hegemonic superpower? Again, we're the good guys. They're the bad guys. Anything we do is justified because we're the good guys. And I'm not joking. He literally said we're the good guys in this interview. I think he said it multiple times. So he just his worldview is very immature and just stupid. >> That's the honest and the the dynamic in the region. And now there will be a democratic election in Israel in October. Will Netanyahu win or not overall? But that's the true only democracy in the entire region. So it's never said that Israel is perfect. What I'm saying though, that's our special ally. And now until we're in middlei at war, I'm going to stand with our our special ally and describe the circumstances with Hamas or Ezbollah or the way Iran continues to behave. No one's saying it's not a dangerous neighborhood, but I think the behavior of that government is worth more than and as their not just special neighbor and ally, we're the ones who fund uh a great deal of it. uh you know they've Israel has made uh in the way that they've sort of indirectly funded Hamas it very difficult for moderates you know when I mean we're getting into a a whole thing here but I think you believe Netanyahu and his government are operating in good faith that they really want uh uh a peace deal and I'm saying they're not. Netanyahu has been very clear that he doesn't want a two-state solution. He said it. He said it's not going to happen. There will be no two-state solution. And yet they say that they are a democratic state. But demographics there would say they can't be a true democracy because they'd be worried about that deliluding what they consider to be uh their Jewish state. Now that's a whole other argument of whether state should be this or that. But the point being that when we went to war in Iraq or we went to war in Afghanistan, I criticized America for the way that they were prosecuting that war and the cavalier way in which we were uh uh wasting American treasure and American lives. That doesn't make me pro- al-Qaeda in the same way that if you criticize Israel for uh devastating an enormous group of people because of Hamas, not Palestinians, Hamas. They are not the same. Jews are not the same as Israel. >> They are the government that the Hamas the Palestinian people have elected. >> They elected them in what is it 2008 and there hasn't been an election since. And it was a desperate people in a siege situation. >> Yeah. Because because they elected a murderous, you know, system now, Chiron, >> so did we. We elected Donald Trump who's doing terrorism around the globe. Does that justify violence against Americans? He would say no because we're human beings. Whereas people in Palestine, they're not equal human beings to him. That's what it fundamentally comes down to. This guy is a racist. He does not believe that Arabs are equal human beings. That's the core belief system here that's driving this incoherent philosophy. He claims to be a liberal, but yet he says, "No, they have to be an apartheid state. They get to be an ethnostate, have a parttheid, and do a genocide. And if you resist it in any way, shape, or form, if you dare criticize it, you're the bigot, you're anti-Semitic. It's [ __ ] insane the logic here, the mental gymnastics that you have to do to arrive at that conclusion. I mean, you're either a simpleton, as is the case with him, or you're just lying to yourself." Chiron pulled out the the settlements uh from Gaza and then you had a double blind study. Were was Israel going to help the moderates or was it going to empower the extremists? And Israel's actions during that time empowered the extremists and undercut the moderates. And they've done that over and over and over again. [music] And you don't have to see John Stewart's response or John Fetterman's response, the bad John's response, because it's just more horseshit, more appallogia for genocide. And really, that is just a small sample of the way it went throughout the entire show. Again, it was agonizing. John tried to get him to engage in good faith when it comes to the supposed far-left he's so concerned about, but it just it couldn't happen. Not only is he a bad faith person, fundamentally, he is a stupid person who can't have this kind of a conversation at length. So, look, I'm going to link to the full thing down below down below if you want to judge for yourself. It was brutal. John Fedman very clearly is not qualified to be a United States senator. And I would say that he should resign, but we all know that that's not going to happen because we really don't get resignations in uh our government because, you know, the bar is in hell. But I I cannot wait until there's a Democratic Party primary. I I truly hope he runs in a Democratic Party primary because I don't want him to just lose his seat. I want him to get blown the [ __ ] out. He deserves to be humiliated for every single [ __ ] transgression. like this man, he got elected as a progressive and then did a switcheroo like that and genocide is fueling his shift to the right. And even if you know he correctly, as he says one time, you know, the one lie he doesn't tell is that he still votes with you know uh Democrats more than Republicans, it doesn't matter if 10% of the time you are siding with Republicans, especially where it counts the most, like the war powers. Like you're if you're saying Trump can do these illegal wars and you think that the executive branch should have the the authority to wage endless wars without constitutional approval, then that's extremely dangerous. If everything that comes out of your mouth 100% of the time is anti-left [ __ ] if you're so concerned about extremism, but you don't care about extremism on the right, in fact, you cuddle up to the fascists, then you're full of [ __ ] So yeah, that's Sean Federman. I mean, I don't even know why I'm reacting to this because it's not like anything he says is surprising. It just I had to comment on this because it was jarring to hear him speak at length. I get like 30 second sound bites here and there and that's usually all I can take, but I actually forced myself to watch the whole podcast interview and it was difficult to stomach. So, I would encourage everybody to watch it if they uh were on the fence about just how far gone John Federman was. But um it's it's clear this man his brain is mashed potatoes at this point. But credit to John Stewart for trying to hold his feet to the fire to the best of his ability. I mean there's only so much you can do when you have somebody who isn't all there. But he tried and uh I I thank him for doing that. >> Woke mom >> woke ideology. >> Woke ideology. >> Woke ideology. Woke ideology. >> Woke ideology. >> Woke test. >> Woke ideology. >> Woke Olympics. >> Woke ideology. >> Woke [music] ideology. >> Woke ideology. >> Work ideology. and weaponized wery