Liberals have been defending this saying Colbert talked this over with Zohran before hand and was just giving him questions that would be asked by the media anyway as well as giving him a platform to answer these accusations.
Either this is a lie or Colbert’s brain is fried, because he was wording it in the same loaded “does the state of Israel have a right to exist?” with zero critical engagement. Colbert was indistinguishable from whatever typical zio could ask that question except for his affectation of empathy to Mamdani. If that’s what being an ally is, then it’s indistinguishable from being an enemy who has a trace of good faith.
I saw that too, Sam Seder was talking about that being a possibility. And to be honest I can kinda see it, only old people watch Colbert, Mamdani going on his show and clearing up the lies about his antisemitism (and proving he’s a zionist 🤢) was “good” PR to get some votes in
Maybe it’s cope but my feeling is that he calculated his answers to answer very loaded questions without supporting Zionism as such.
When Colbert asks if Israel has a right to exist, Mamdani says all countries do. When asked about antisemitism, Mamdani says hate in general is bad and he plans to increase funding against hate crimes - by which he could mean protecting vulnerable minorities in general, rather than dogwhistling Zionism which wouldn’t make sense given other things he has said.
I stopped watching after about 15 minutes though, so maybe he said something else that I missed.
I could see it, too. I doubt these interviews are that authentic. I was Laos against Stephen for the way he did the interview, but I’ve changed my mind and am with Sam Seder’s theory now.
Liberals have been defending this saying Colbert talked this over with Zohran before hand and was just giving him questions that would be asked by the media anyway as well as giving him a platform to answer these accusations.
Either this is a lie or Colbert’s brain is fried, because he was wording it in the same loaded “does the state of Israel have a right to exist?” with zero critical engagement. Colbert was indistinguishable from whatever typical zio could ask that question except for his affectation of empathy to Mamdani. If that’s what being an ally is, then it’s indistinguishable from being an enemy who has a trace of good faith.
Sounds like cope.
I saw that too, Sam Seder was talking about that being a possibility. And to be honest I can kinda see it, only old people watch Colbert, Mamdani going on his show and clearing up the lies about his antisemitism (and proving he’s a zionist 🤢) was “good” PR to get some votes in
Maybe it’s cope but my feeling is that he calculated his answers to answer very loaded questions without supporting Zionism as such.
When Colbert asks if Israel has a right to exist, Mamdani says all countries do. When asked about antisemitism, Mamdani says hate in general is bad and he plans to increase funding against hate crimes - by which he could mean protecting vulnerable minorities in general, rather than dogwhistling Zionism which wouldn’t make sense given other things he has said.
I stopped watching after about 15 minutes though, so maybe he said something else that I missed.
I could see it, too. I doubt these interviews are that authentic. I was Laos against Stephen for the way he did the interview, but I’ve changed my mind and am with Sam Seder’s theory now.
were those ADL letters fake?