So if Trump says that 20 years ago comment was a mistake you'd be cool with him too?

Subtlety guy - again that isn't what he said. It's gross but making those extra steps that you did - that's all you and your own head.

More proof that John Stewart retired too soon. This would be trending top news if Stewart or John Oliver had found it. Trevor Noah reduces the impact of this message.

Proof is this would be trending top news if Stewart or Oliver had said it. Trevor Noah reduces the effectiveness of this message.

People capable of subtlety and close reading would realize that I'm not a Trump supporter. Bye.

"It's ok to reduce women to their body parts when you're a comedian trying out bad jokes but not when you're a businessman who might run for president in 20 years."

Had to look twice, but the 14 there is the date and the year is 2011. So guy who wants pass on what he said 5 years ago is digging up 20 years old videos. Again, get a better messenger.

Stewart built the Daily Show brand on his humor as well as on his integrity as an above the fray social commentator. With Noah it still has half of one of those feathers in its cap. A lot of people aren't watching the show because of those tweets, and John Oliver has already taken over the mantle as the real Stewart…

I get that. And also he's not running for president. But still he isn't the best messenger for this message.

A lot of strained facial disapproval from the guy who said this: https://twitter.com/Trevorn…

I had thought Trump might eventually make Trevor Noah relevant.

I'm pretty sure the priest also calls him Matthew.

Utterly brilliant. Everything this show has been trying to do finally comes together. If you don't give this an A you don't like television.

Agent Down, Ward-facing Dog!

Some are and some aren't. Some bomb for money and some bomb for religion and some bomb for anger and…. A definition is a list of the necessary meanings of a word. Fanatic does not necessarily mean bombing people, although some who bomb are fanatics.

The definition in the dictionary would be a good place to start. It makes no mention of murdering innocents.

True. I just meant in the arc of the character this potential was always there, and we can look at his previous actions as preparing him for this moment. I just mean to disagree with those who use this as an example of poor character buildup.

I think we'll find out that the Lannisters' still have some cards left to play, otherwise it's not clear why they would inspire the loyalty of Dorne etc. at this seeming low point in their power.

He's not a fanatic, he just sees this religion stuff as his only chance of gaining what he believes to be legitimately his.

Look I'll try one more time. You're meant to look back at previous episodes now and realize what Stannis' earlier character moments were really about. A singleminded linear attempt to gain the throne. His affection for Shireen was at most a complication for his character, or maybe just a red herring, but certainly…