Full Extended Jon Stewart Interview

[RonPaulVolunteer]

http://rpflix.com/2449

No glitches...

[Article V]

That's terrific! I've already shared it!!!

[neverseen]

Man, he did great through out the whole thing. Looked MUCH better in the full version with out the crappy editing job.

[ClayTrainor]

Looked MUCH better in the full version with out the crappy editing job.

I was just about to say the same thing.

[Sola_Fide]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.

Actually he is a very smart guy. You may not agree with him all the time but he's quite intelligent.

[nolvorite]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.We can all agree that the interview was pretty good though

[Carehn]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.

I don't know. I think he is asking the questions most of his viewers would bring up or find interesting. He is being a good provider of entertainment and thats why he makes more money then both of us.

He is left wing though. Dumb Jon Stewart.

[Sola_Fide]

Actually he is a very smart guy. You may not agree with him all the time but he's quite intelligent.

What I meant is something Tom Woods has said in the past...basically that its easy to appear intelligent when you are making fun of everyone. Gullible people sometimes mistake jokes for intelligent criticism. Jon Stewart has no intelligent critique of our position.

[FA.Hayek]

In my opinion Jon Stewart is extremely bright. He is very left-leaning, which I think is what causes most conservatives to not like him, but he at least brings good arguments to the table (unlike most of the liberal talking heads). I think he is wrong in attributing the recent housing bubble collapse and wall street insanity on the free market (along with the depression and the industrial revolution), but such is the sentiment of most liberals.
Otherwise Jon has always been fair to Ron Paul, has always given Ron time to talk and is a good boost for the campaign.

[KingNothing]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.

Please. He just isn't a hardcore Libertarian. He's got an open mind. What else matters?

[nobody's_hero]

Jon Stewart is intelligent, but naive. He is intelligent because he doesn't lower himself to the level of liberals who claim that republicans who want to abolish the welfare system are just 'uncaring and selfish.' Stewart left Ron Paul a huge opening in this interview to show how free-markets reduce poverty, and Ron Paul pounced on it!

Yet, Stewart is naive in that he still clings to the belief that humans outside of government need to be regulated by humans inside of government, as if becoming a politician somehow grants a person some godlike wisdom and immunity from failure.

I think one argument that needs to be adapted when debating liberals is not to place so much blame on government (which usually ends up turning them off before they've heard you out), but rather, 'how can we change government back to being an arbiter of justice?' Ultimately, you have to have people in government who believe in property rights or nothing we do will make a bit of difference.

If it were me, I would argue that we need less regulation regarding pollution, and instead put our resources towards more court systems in which a person who has been wronged by a polluting corporation could take their case to court. Now, liberals will probably argue that this is a 'reactive approach,' since the damage has already been done. But what in our justice system (the way it was intended to operate), isn't reactive? Nothing. Trying to prevent all bad behavior with regulations is an exercise in futility, and furthermore, it feeds the assumption that all men are bad and must be carefully watched or else they are going to do something horrible (guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty).

What the law does offer, instead, is a means to seek retribution/compensation for the victims of fraud, theft, etc. We need to get back to that, because what we have now is a system that offers too much regulation and practically NO justice.

[Bruehound]

it feeds the assumption that all men are bad and must be carefully watched or else they are going to do something horrible.

Once again, Hobbes or Locke. Make your choice.

[nobody's_hero]

Once again, Hobbes or Locke. Make your choice.

Locke.

I believe that most men are good. I mean, if not, people who commit mass shootings would be normal and the people who don't would be the weird ones. Society doesn't seem to think like that, though. Maybe they cannot analyze the ratio of people who did not shoot someone this week to the few who did. It tends to put things into perspective.

(government fearmongering plays a huge role in distorting the problems, we know)

[evadmurd]

Under the 'left-right' paradigm, Jon Stewart is extremely left. But he is definitely more of a libertarian than a statist. Certainly not purely libertarian, but libertarian leaning. Since the left-right paradigm is nonsense, I believe he is a much greater friend than he is an enemy to our campaign. While we won't be entirely satisfied with his occasional coverage, we should foster the relationship as much as possible. I think the campaign recognizes that as well.

Thanks for tube.

[kahless]

No offense to guy making a few bucks with that site but I recommend viewing it here http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Good way to thank them for having Ron on.

Show Viacom that having Ron Paul on equals advertising profits. He is then more likely to end up on other properties that Viacom owns.

[Revolution9]

Once again, Hobbes or Locke. Make your choice.

I prefer the works of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby myself. I realized when I got older and read aloot of these philosophers and such that were supposed to be paradigm shattering I was non-plussed as I already knew this stuff since I was young. I recently figured out when CaptainAmerica posted panels from early Captain America comics where I got alot of my underpinnings on how the world works politically and in conflict and that there are arch criminals.

Rev9

[libertybrewcity]

Jon Stewart is not that bright.

If he was a libertarian he wouldn't have a show. AND then he wouldn't have been able to give RP a platform to reach millions of viewers.

[Tunink]

:)

[KingNothing]

Locke.

I believe that most men are good. I mean, if not, people who commit mass shootings would be normal and the people who don't would be the weird ones. Society doesn't seem to think like that, though. Maybe they cannot analyze the ratio of people who did not shoot someone this week to the few who did. It tends to put things into perspective.

(government fearmongering plays a huge role in distorting the problems, we know)

I personally don't care if man is good, bad, or somewhere in between. I just want to be left alone.

[KingNothing]

I love that Jon made an effort to be completely respectful of Paul. He wanted Paul to know that he wasn't being flippant.

I thought that was funny, because Paul loves Jon. Paul respects him, and I don't think he'd ever take offense to Jon asking the thoughtful questions that Libertarians receive from the left.

[Fredom101]

Great interview. Many of the major points were articulately explained by RP.

Stewart is just flat wrong about the industrial revolution, but that's a tough one to argue, because everyone seems to believe the myth of the wild wild west.

[fisharmor]

Great interview. Many of the major points were articulately explained by RP.

Stewart is just flat wrong about the industrial revolution, but that's a tough one to argue, because everyone seems to believe the myth of the wild wild west.

Yeah, he's getting his info from select sources.
Kids used to work in factories. Then someone said "they should be in school".
The kids didn't want this. The parents didn't want this. The factory owners didn't want this.
But they convinced the factory owners by promising much more pliant workers when their "education" was complete.
Corporatism and fascist shenanigans were rampant at that time, and RP was right to bring it up.
It would have been nice, though, if he had offered some examples for Stewart for when libertarianism has actually been implemented.

[Wesker1982]

lol, I don't trust the people, but I trust the people they vote for?... :p

[D.A.S.]

That was a great interview all around. I think Jon Stewart is very bright, and he asked exactly the questions that general voting public doesn't understand about Ron Paul's thinking.

Believe it or not, Ron's positions are complicated to a lot of people, the people who have been conditioned to the civilization as they know it. Ron's positions are sort of a civilization changer in many ways, and so people get very nervous when he talks about changing things that much.

I wish more interviews like this one would come out to educate the people.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Only one +Rep? Really? I worked till 4:30am getting this online for you all :D :P

[D.A.S.]

Only one +Rep? Really? I worked till 4:30am getting this online for you all :D :P

It won't let me give you any more rep right now... Maybe later on :-)

[Johncjackson]

Please. He just isn't a hardcore Libertarian. He's got an open mind. What else matters?

A lot of the people here criticizing people aren't libertarian, either, and spend a lot of their time criticizing libertarians and other fellow RP supporters. Being open minded doesn't rank very high for them, either. Whenever someone is attacked, at this point, I just ignore it.

[slamhead]

In my opinion Jon Stewart is extremely bright. He is very left-leaning, which I think is what causes most conservatives to not like him, but he at least brings good arguments to the table (unlike most of the liberal talking heads). I think he is wrong in attributing the recent housing bubble collapse and wall street insanity on the free market (along with the depression and the industrial revolution), but such is the sentiment of most liberals.
Otherwise Jon has always been fair to Ron Paul, has always given Ron time to talk and is a good boost for the campaign.

I don't see Stewart as a huge liberal. He like Ron Paul has been consistent with his views and argues his points. I respect him for that. He is a bright guy. Ron just needs to start clarifying that many of the things the federal government is involved in now can be handled by the states. The liberals look to the fed for everything. We need to convince them local government is better in handling concerns of the people given the chance.

[RonPaulFever]

Dammit! They cut out all the best stuff! :mad:

[John F Kennedy III]

Amazing piece.

+ rep to Ron Paul and Jon Stewart :p

[S.Shorland]

The interview as shown was awful.The actual thing in full is great.Sorry Ron,I was mislead by editing.

[Tod]

I dunno, I didn't think Dr. Paul did a very good job addressing Jon's point about middle ground between an overbearing government and free market solutions to environmental issues. It's like he just didn't really answer the question, in my mind. The question is so simple to ask but the answer is so involved that without having previously come up with a concise straightforward example that everyone can relate to and understand.....

Another recent thing I didn't like was during Dr. Paul's interview with the Judge on the streets of NYC the other day. The Judge said something about how the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong but Dr. Paul didn't even mention that he voted in favor of the Afghanistan war.....it completely slid past, glossed over. I thought Dr. Paul should have stuck his hand out and said, "But, but..." and then rebutted the Judge's statement and explained what SHOULD have gone down with Afghanistan.

[The Midnight Ride]

The interview as shown was awful.The actual thing in full is great.Sorry Ron,I was mislead by editing.

No, no, no! You have to remember who the audience is. It explained many of the libertarian positions that often go unaddressed in mainstream interviews. I am in grad school and this interview is what people are talking about today. Granted it is a small sample but for many it has become Ron Paul as the first choice and Obama as the second. That should say something. His consistency and sincerity are unmatched.

This interview allowed the viewer to see him as a person who has a strong philosophical belief backing his views. This gets votes!

[gjdavis60]

One can easily argue that politics in this country is a lot more about brand loyalty than actual ideas. In times of economic stability it is almost impossible to get people to think beyond the team sports metaphor, and so that is the kind of marketing we find in most political campaigns. But when things are going poorly and people are worried, you actually have a chance to engage them intellectually, if only a slight chance, and if only for a moment or two.

I believe Stewart's interest in Ron's positions reflects a broader moment of doubt in the general population about everything they have been taught about government and the economy. With the economy in such terrible shape, and things spiraling downward ... and with so much evidence of ignorance or outright deceit in the political class, I think a lot of people, even progressives, are open to a different perspective. Even if they won't admit it.

I am reminded of Peter Schiff's compelling testimony to Congress recently and the subsequent interview of Dennis Kucinich on Peter's radio show (http://www.dailypaul.com/180110/dennis-kucinich-interview-on-the-peter-schiff-show) where Kucinich seemed genuinely interested in Schiff's lucid, yet so not progressive, perspective on government and the economy. You get the sense by listening to Dennis that he may actually be considering what Peter is saying!

I'd love to see people like Schiff and Woods get more MSM face time. While I love Ron, I think their direct, slightly more confrontational approach would work better sitting across from slick media personalities like Mahr, Stewart, Maddow, O'Donnell, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. And I think they could persuade a significant number of people to consider Ron's candidacy.

[Keith and stuff]

Jon asked nothing but soft questions. Ron Paul could have done a better job. Oh well. At least Jon was nice enough to give Ron Paul a chance to reach out to the 20-40 year old liberals and independents that make up much of Jon's audience.

Even Ron Paul needs to be reminded to craft his message to his audience and he didn't do that at all in this interview. Jon isn't the audience, it is the 20-40 year old liberals and independents and such that watch the show.

[PauliticsPolitics]

In regard to those criticizing the original TV edit:
While I agree that the full interview is more comprehensive, and a lot of good stuff did not make it onto the show, this was edited the same as all Daily Show interviews. There are two types of interviews, one-segment and two-segment. Jon Stewart gave Ron Paul a two-segment interview, and whenever this show does interviews of this length, they simply cut out the middle and leave the beginning and end fully intact. This was the case for the Ron Paul interview. I believe this is a relatively fair way of editing, as opposed to chopping up the whole thing. If an interview is chopped up drastically, the editor can have a lot of influence over the content and how the person comes off. Also, Jon Stewart made it very clear that the interview was edited, and pointed out several times that the full version is online. So we really should not complain about the edit. The entire interview is 17:24 in length, and The Daily Show is only allotted 21:40 total (commercials fill out the rest of the half hour). The edited interview was still 11 minutes in length (over half of the show). The bottom line is that this whole appearance was totally fair, and generally a great thing.

[Keith and stuff]

The entire interview is 17:24 in length, and The Daily Show is only allotted 21:40 total (commercials fill out the rest of the half hour). The edited interview was still 11 minutes in length (over half of the show). The bottom line is that this whole appearance was totally fair, and generally a great thing.

I don't know how great the appearance was for Ron Paul but it truly made Jon look wonderful in the eyes of the open minded conservatives and libertarians that watched it.

[PauliticsPolitics]

I don't know how great the appearance was Ron Paul but it truly made Jon look wonderful in the eyes of the open minded conservatives and libertarians that watched it.
Are you saying this is a bad thing? Jon Stewart realizes that the shows primary demographic (18-35 year-olds) now-a-days includes a lot of "open-minded conservatives and libertarians" and that a Ron Paul spot is profitable for the show. That is a great indicator of the progress of Ron Paul's message. There is no doubt that The Daily Show is a profit-minded enterprise (as it should be) - it's great that Ron Paul and such "open-minded" conservative and libertarian ideas are now proving profitable within such a format. Why shouldn't Jon Stewart want to appeal to such a crowd?

[nobody's_hero]

I personally don't care if man is good, bad, or somewhere in between. I just want to be left alone.

I agree. I was just giving some insight into how we could better mold our arguments when engaging liberals. Honestly, I feel that the entire 'big government' push is a result of a fundamental belief that most people are either incompetent or evil. If the left viewed the people as being good and at least somewhat competent, then the number of people pushing for more government intervention would drastically decrease.

[JoshS]

lol they edited out rp destroying stewart for about 7 mins straight

[kejonn]

The saddest thing about this interview is that Stewart is more respectful than any person on Fox would ever be of Ron. In fact, it seems that whenever I catch a random interview of Ron on a liberal leaning station, they are usually more respectful than anyone on right wing radio/television. No wonder Ron Paul has so much trouble getting traction in the GOP.

[Texan4Life]

great interview.. thx

[robskicks]

WOW, some real negativity. Ron Paul Rocked this interview. He's not perfect, no one is, jesus.
We're gonna win this thing!!!! Whether you like how Ron Paul does it or not!!

[InTradePro]

Stewart asks some challenging questions but you can tell it's like Ron has been over it for about 20 years.

[Keith and stuff]

Are you saying this is a bad thing? Jon Stewart realizes that the shows primary demographic (18-35 year-olds) now-a-days includes a lot of "open-minded conservatives and libertarians" and that a Ron Paul spot is profitable for the show. That is a great indicator of the progress of Ron Paul's message. There is no doubt that The Daily Show is a profit-minded enterprise (as it should be) - it's great that Ron Paul and such "open-minded" conservative and libertarian ideas are now proving profitable within such a format. Why shouldn't Jon Stewart want to appeal to such a crowd?

Jon went way out of his way to be more than fair to Ron. Jon gave a long interview and asked easy questions. He even complimented Ron over and over again.

Ron, on the other hand, IMO, didn't make an effort to target his message to the audience.

[ShT]

I didn't find this interview convincing. Although Paul is definitely a charismatic humorous person (especially for an old man), he seemed to avoid the question "Do you have an example of a free society that has been successful ?" by using the usual stereotyped formal politician language. The question was straightforward so the answer should have been on the same level. I agree that it's not something easy to do, Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom used the medieval Icelandic society as an example of a private justice but it may be boring to mention this on this kind of show. Maybe a good answer would have been the Internet. It's something massively used by billion of people all around the world and the government hardly has control of it. Besides, it's something popular to the young generation (the target of The Daily Show)