Zelenskyy did it. Ukraine would no longer exist as a sovereign nation today if he didn’t; it would have been entirely annexed into Russia right now.
Exactly. In the US right now, only a comedian is capable of getting the joke. It works everywhere else it’s been tried. Vote Stewart!
Nice! How could I have forgotten this guy? Great reference
How did real life end up more grimdark than Watchmen?
It’d be a better analog if everything else Zelenskyy has done as president wasn’t eclipsed by Russia invading. Would he have been considered a good president if that hadn’t happened? We’ll never know.
He stepped up as a leader when his nation needed him. That is one of the best qualities to have. Anything else is just whatsboutism that can be applied to anyone.
Nobody is questioning his bravery or accomplishments, but peacetime politics require particular skills.
The US is in far from normal times. It may not be a military war (yet) but this sure as hell isn’t “peacetime”
The question is moot. He was the right person at the right time
Would he have been considered a good president if that hadn’t happened? We’ll never know.
A quick glance back shows very much no. However, he stepped up for the war.
I’m curious why you didn’t think he was a good president.
He made a lot of very popular moves between 2019 and 2022.
I mean, Trump did it and he was a fucking TV clown. The bar is really, really, reaaaaaaally low for who can become the next US president.
Probably not. It’s pretty common in history that leaders that are great In crisises aren’t as great in peace times. But it doesn’t really matter because what Ukraine needed was the president they had.
Jon could absolutely destroy anyone on a debate stage. Mainly because it’s a popularity contest, and he’s spent his entire life learning to be popular on screen and stage. He’s also a smart guy with great insight into a lot of situations.
None of that means he would be a good president. It’s a different set of skills.
The bottom line though, would he be better than the alternative? And I hear what you’re saying. Those nazi crack monkey’s put on a hell of a show, how could Jon possibly do a better job? I’m not sure, but given the option, I think I’d give him a shot.
He would mop the floor at the debates but I’m not sure debates matter anymore. I remember “they’re eating the cats” not mattering as much as it should have.
Oh it mattered, it became a chuckle line used in memes that I couldn’t enjoy even at the time because I knew that his stupid, racist bullshit would not be interpreted in a normal way by most of the electorate.
Debates matter. Remember when Biden beat medicare?
If Jon Stewart became the Ronald Reagan of progressiveness, I wouldn’t complain.
He’s too conciliatory to win debates. He’d have to seriously change his personality because I don’t think he likes face to face conflict, given how he softballs interviews with asshats like Jeffries.
He softballs when he wants to get more guests. If he goes after every politician, they all run and hide. To see him actually debate you have to see him off his own show. He’s given very compelling addresses to congress as well.
And seriously, he’s one of the most popular TV personalities in the country. What you’re saying is you don’t like Taylor Swift’s music, so she must be a shitty entertainer. Maybe you’re just not the target audience?
Watch him mop the floor with Tucker on Crossfire.
I remember seeing that and it was funny, but arguing Tucker on ethics is like arguing quantum mechanics with a microencephalic.
None of that means he would be a good president. It’s a different set of skills.
Of course. Current Mr President is clearly way more skilled at presiding.
Yes, yes, yes. He’s not just a TV show host. He legitimately puts his time, money, and reputation where his mouth is. I have a lot of respect for Jon Stewart as a person with moral character, intelligence, and influence. I would advocate forcing him into the election even if he doesn’t want it. In fact, that he doesn’t want it is all the more reason to push. We need someone like him desperately.
Anybody that doesn’t want the job is imminently more qualified that anybody who does in my opinion.
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
– Some hoopy frood
Simple solution, we execute every president as they leave office! Secondary solution, we vote on whether to not execute the president as they leave office, 2/3rds majority needed to abstain the execution
Didn’t Robert basically say this on Behind the Bastards two episodes ago lol
I dont think so but it fits for him. Ive been saying it for years though.
But, you know who shouldn’t be killed in order to limit the corruptions that infect political power?
The Ecksian tradition of jailing them immediately upon election has merit
I couldn’t remember if they was Douglas Adams or Kurt Vonnegut. Both work
They both were rather hoopy
I’m not sure if this is some idiomatic usage I’ve not encountered, but “eminently” would seem more appropriate than “imminently”. If only because John’s already more qualified than he apparently needs to be.
You’re probably right. I’m a tech geek not a writer so I’d never trust my grammar.
Rite gooder docemtation
Ooo so you’re saying I’m qualified? That’s a shit job I don’t want. Fucks up your hair and ages you. Plus there’s a good chance I might send some reps I don’t like on a scouting trip to Mars.
…
Oh dang, I AM qualified!
Fairly stupid opinion considering the breadth of people that would encompass.
I mean after Trump got elected, it really did show the world that anyone can become anything, twice.
There’s no such thing as unqualified anymore. I think picking a random person off the street and having them do the job would have statistically been more likely to perform better than Trump has done so far in either term. Even if that random person chose to do NOTHING and just continue to allow the government apparatus to churn unimpeded, it would have been preferable to what we got.
I would advocate forcing him into the election even if he doesn’t want it.
Are you fucking serious?
He’d crush it IMHO.
Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
I mean for a country that fought the monarchy you have sure been making the president the king. Your ceremonies for them have always reminded me of monarchy.
Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.
This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.
I feel that the root of America’s issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.
The problem with this is you are screwing over liberal bastions (e.g. Chicago) in conservative zones. Or what about somewhere like New Mexico? We’d be grouped with Arizona and Texas? New Mexico is liberal and that’d kill us. The arrangement also gives even more power to sparsely populated sections of the country vs highly populated sections. It is almost like you are suggesting gerrymandering at a regional level.
Keep in mind that we already have regional representation - state governments. They don’t work great because of the lack of attention they get vs presidental elections. The here part is that states need to have power, but there are things they are insane to declare as “states rights” issues. How do we divide them up? I don’t know. We even have “majority agree” as you suggested via constitutional amendments.
I figure the division would resemble this picture. States with a fair chunk of territory straddling the dividing lines between regions can hold a popular vote, to decide which side they belong to. This roughly carves up the contiguous nation into 1/3rd portions, each having major centers in California, Texas, and New York. Obviously not perfect, but this should give all three some access to global trade and enough landmass to be useful. The important thing is for all three regions to be jockeying to be #1, but not quite succeeding, pushing each other to do better for their citizens, science, freedoms, and so forth.
In any case, my proposal makes a big assumption: that the current Constitution and Bill of Rights are replaced by a new version. It is my belief that it is likely for the United States to have a 2nd American Civil War. If that is the case, the political board as we knew it would have been overturned. Our Constitution is about 250 years old, invented in a time where the horse was the fastest mode of communication, and only 13 states existed. The framers were intelligent, but there was limits to their knowledge, simply because there wasn’t much precedent for the political order they engineered. After all, they tossed out the Articles of Confederation because they weren’t fit for purpose. The fitness and purpose of our current Constitution isn’t good enough for today’s world.
Rules to eliminate gerrymandering and the electoral college, formalizing popular voting, reworking the powers and limits of each branch, and so forth, would be needed.
I feel like this map must be some sort of trolling for people that have any understanding of the United States. I could write a doctoral thesis for how badly this would disenfranchise people, screw over others economically, and involves taking over territory that isn’t even fully American.
Let’s just talk about your “territories” region. It is somehow supposed to compete on the world stage when it has less population than New York? Far less accessible resources? Peoples that may not even want to be part of the US given a choice?
The Western area is taking over tons of Native American land and have no water.
The middle area has the same population problems (except Texas) and the territories. Plus, they largely rely on Federal tax dollars and that would dry up.
The Eastern section would be dominated by the North East and people in the South would rather die than be lumped in with them.
I could go on?
All of this for what? Some sort of global representation? Each state already represents itself globally. For smaller regions of representation? Well, these are still huge (and uneven) regions that ignore population.
The major issue is that land doesn’t vote. Take away the electoral college and first pass the post voting and, suddenly, America works much better.
The big strength of the Outer Region, is politics and location - by occupying key spots far away from the American mainland, that inherently means that they are key points where trade, military basing, and other such things are concerned. Also, many territories don’t have state rights - which should be corrected by making them into proper states, or releasing them from America’s grasp. On top of that, the Outer Regions could get a special perk - any territorial acquisitions the US makes, by default goes to the Outer Region. If Cuba willingly joined the USA, that is where they would go. If Mexico was somehow conquered, that too becomes part of the Outer Region. This makes the mainland regions less willing to take the nation to war, unless it is important. If the rewards of conquest went to the smallest brother, the bigger brothers are less inclined to shake down nations.
Anyhow, I think the problem of territory and population count would start resolving itself as decades pass. Each region is meant to compete with each other, and by extension, that means effectively using their lands to house people, produce resources, and so forth. Thing is, people can still freely migrate anywhere within the states, so a badly lead region will have them losing population to other regions and the states therein.
Alongside my assumption of a reworked Constitution, is that economics itself will receive a dedicated section where UBI is guaranteed. This would allow people to have greater political and economic agency, since they are not tied down to land by work nor means. If they got free basic shelter, food, healthcare, and transport, citizens can just pick up stakes to find greener pastures. Without being able to hold people hostage through requiring work, each region needs to have good living conditions to attract people into their respective lands. This is not dissimilar to the times of the Black Death, where laborers had the freedom to choose the circumstances of work, because the lords had to jockey to get the skills of a limited supply of workers.
Doesn’t sound too different from the parliamentary system we have in Canada, except we divide things much more finely than into 4 quadrants.
Basically, we’re divided into “ridings” that can be a small section of a city if you’re in a dense city or multiple towns where population is sparse. Each riding votes in someone as a member of Parliament (MP). The MPs then select someone to be the figurehead that represents us (i.e. the prime minister).
I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.
We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.
That would never work. So each state has their own army? What are the training standards? What about not giving any troops but then wanting help.
Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state…but the regional government can hold a program. For example, “we train 6,000 of Colorado’s state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time.”
The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.
Personally I think all nation states should be dissolved
yeah, texas is never gonna agree to be in club with minnesota or michigan or wisco.
it’d be cool if they did, but yeah, no.
I definitely think the US needs to split up. What’s the point of having another president though? Won’t we just end up with the same problem over time?
I do not believe so. As I said, “Figurehead President”. The way I figure, if the four regional presidents are in a deadlock about something, the Figurehead Pres can cast a tie-breaking vote. Seeing as that figurehead is elected by the four regional presidents, the figurehead should be relatively neutral. Impeachment of a bad Figurehead can be done through either popular vote of the entire nation, or three of the four regional presidents agreeing to remove the Figurehead.
IMO, the purpose of a Figurehead President is to give the appearance of a unified mission to people.
Oh just as a tiebreaker. Interesting.
Personally I don’t support any electoral system where leaders have any more or less voting power than the votes they receive, so I’m not sure how that would be workable in your system. For example, the outlying group would have way more electoral power per person if each leader gets one vote.
The vote is for cooperation between executive branches, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Regional Houses, Courts, or the National Senate would agree to cooperate with executives. In any case, there is a 4th President - the Outer Region, which consists of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Djibuti, and other small yet significant territories. I am of the mind that with a lack of raw land and people, the Outer Regions should get some sort of outsized advantage to compensate. A president’s vote being equal to their peers is probably simple enough to do the trick.
Lets divide the presidency into 3 roles. We can call it a triumvirate.
I mean, at least a two way division between head of state and head of government is pretty common.
true. its actually not the most horrible idea on paper, but I was making a half-joke about the fall of the roman republic and is descent into the imperial era and autocracy. The use of a triumverate system during the republic era is cited as a big transition in the decline of the Roman republican system of government. It heralded the end of 500 years of democracy. Even the rich lost their political power eventually, and all that mattered is what an idiot emperor thought.
How unlikely is it at this point that Trump would try to appoint his successor, and that it’d be one of his kids? Seems possible to me.
Tetrarchy or bust.
We can call it a triumvirate.
This won’t end well.
Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president
Its a fine branch to have. But definitely needs an overhaul after Trump. He exposed the “good faith” loop holes we have and they need to get fixed
Ok sure, fantastically realistic solution for 3 goddamn years from now. We will “just” eliminate the highest seat in our government. Problem solved. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
I think people are seeing now that our system of government is broken beyond repair. Maybe it will take more than 3 years but we need to change far more than who sits on the throne.
You could take a page from the book of your sister republic. 7 person executive council. Currently the members come from 4 parties, 2-2-2-1.
Which one is that?
Switzerland. After the Sonderbundskrieg they took inspiration from the US Constitution in some things to reform Switzerland as a Republic, instead of just a Confederation. For example the two chamber parliament. The way the Senate represents the states with equal weights our Ständerat represents the Cantons with equal weights. A big difference is that Switzerland later adopted proportional representation, so we didn’t suffer the same mathematical trend to a two party system.
Some more info in English here: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/sister-republics-what-the-us-and-switzerland-have-in-common/73368873
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war. A good leader not only has wits, but also the voice to convince people of a vision.
Comedians have a day job of making people agree with them, without needing bribes or institution to back them.
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war
:-|
Hey boys, found the Putin Puppet!
Oh yeah cause any critic is a Russian spy.
Slow down on the koolaid, bud.
Zelensky is actively censoring Ukraninan journalists from reporting any criticism on the war. Is this what you mean by comedians being good at making people agree with them?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/world/europe/ukraine-press-freedom.html
I mean, there are precedents…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(2015_TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy is a Ukrainian politician and former entertainer
God it escapes me…
There was another politician whose only real claim to fame was some b-teir TV and movie spots…
I think they had a cameo in home alone II
Removed by mod
Yes, he created Servant of the People.
I loved when Al Franken was my senator. He was a sacrifice to main the high road against some shithead right-wing pedophile whose name I forgot. There’s been so many since
Can you stupid fucks stop worshiping celebrities for like FIVE MINUTES.
I don’t get how mindless our population is.
A lot of people here are condemning celebrity in US politics, and I get it… but at this point in time we might need someone who is already famous yet consistent and trustworthy. Stewart has shown himself to be a good person for decades. He’s also politically informed, progressive, and whip smart.
We need a candidate who wants real change for the betterment of the working class. Somehow people thought that was Trump… I guess because he said he would be, a few times? And people were hoping hard? And not looking at his track record at all? Also racism? More importantly though: people didn’t think that candidate was Harris, who got pushed through by the Democratic party and ran an uninspiring campaign. Those people didn’t vote. Those people were excited about candidates like Bernie, who’s track record on class issues is indefatigable. Those people could potentially be excited about Jon Stewart tearing shit down for the actually betterment of the poor, and might trust that he would try.
That’s my read, anyway. A Mamdani could come along and stir up some real enthusiasm, but I think it’s harder for a no-name without a proven record to win a national election. Last time that happened we ended up with Obama, and people still feel burned by his lack of progressive action.
No.
Don’t do this. Let him be. Jon deserves a break, not more work
Read the article. This has come up before and Jon always says no. Here he implies he’s considering pretty explicitly. Zelensky has done pretty well for a man who played penis piano on TV.
Fuck that. If he’s the one that can do it, then he NEEDS to do it.
I’m going to go with no. I appreciate Jo
hn Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.I will raise the point that he REALLY doesn’t want the job. One thing about leaders is that the person who most wants it is often least qualified for the position. The reverse is true as well. As much as I agree about pop stars in politics, he has a record of political action and commitment. He’s not just talk.
The Beeblebrox paradox
This is true, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t support him as a nominee. Depending on who else would be running during the primary, he might truly be the best pick.
He’s been saying he doesn’t want the job, but did you read the article? He brought up on his own the idea of a reality show host taking over the Dems; and when Mehdi Hasan (his interviewer) asked if he meant himself, Stewart didn’t deny it. Didn’t push back.
Just chuckled.
It sounds to me like he’s reconsidering, and testing the waters.
I’d go for al franken. He was a very intelligent person who was a good senator. The me too movement took him down. He stood too close to a girl/ fan during a photo shoot. He then. Resigned. After all that uproar the country knowingly elects pedophiles and rapists
He definitely shouldn’t have pretended to grab that lady’s tits while she was sleeping (
I believe she was a soldier???she was a reporter) and taken a photo, but honestly in hindsight he probably should have just apologized, and put in a lot of effort to making up for doing something like that instead of resigning.He did something really dumb, but he still wasn’t a rapist or a pedophile. America has set a very low bar in his absence.
It was more than that. He pretended to grope a girl while she was asleep and also coerced her to practice making out in preparation for a skit.
You mean the right wing radio host who alleged that he made out with her? The propagandist who is in bed with the fascist party?
Sure, the joke in that photo was in poor taste, which is why I’m shocked that the Groping Old Pedophiles didn’t absolutely love it. Right on brand for them.
The license to grope girls of any age only belongs to white dickheads, apparently.
My understanding is that she didn’t think he should resign, tho.
I think it must be possible for anyone to be “rehabilitated” through restorative service and at least the outward appearance of inner change. If you make it impossible to “come back”, that just encourages bad actors to band together AND get worse.
I’m not convinced that Al Franken has done enough, but I really haven’t paid attention / researched anything around him or the events since he resigned.
This is my take as well.
If someone’s misdeeds mark them for life then they will have no choice but to wear the mantle of those misdeeds.
I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn’t a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he’d certainly be better than someone that’s “simply” well-known and well-liked.
I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don’t think they should generally be the candidate. I’d actually prefer a “career politician” that has a career they celebrate.
On the other hand, someone who doesn’t have the background and has a good head on their shoulders is just the right kind of person to be a figurehead instead of a driver. The idea SHOULD be that they surround themselves with a competent cabinet and advisors to offload the requirement for deep personal expertise. For someone who isn’t an expert, that should make them more inclined to ask for help. Of course… current tv personality excluded.
The the office holder is where the power resides and where the decision is made – they aren’t a figurehead after the swearing-in, no matter what their role was in the campaign.
But, sure, depending on their background how “good” their head is, they certainly don’t have to previously have been a chief executive to make a good president.
I’m mostly unaware of Jon Stewart’s roles other than being on-camera / eye-candy, except for possibly some non-scripted interview questions (with him on either side). But, from the entertainment world, I think a directing experience probably does exist in the same “space” as chief executive.
He spent a long time as producer and director on The Daily Show as well as it’s host, and it looks like he’s got some other producer/directory credits as well.
If Jon Stewart was the nominee, I’d vote for him. I’d honestly prefer him to someone like Buttigieg bc he seems more genuine, but I wish America would just give a scientist or an economist (or really anybody that can make educated decisions about the policies being created) a shot before we turn to another TV star. I know it’s never going to happen in my lifetime, but that would be my preference.
Interesting. I think Buttigieg is one of the most genuine people in politics. Do you recall the moment you first noticed him lacking the quality?
Probably around 2020
https://time.com/6255811/elizabeth-warren-buttigieg-monopoly-antitrust/
To be fair my problem with him is the same problem I have with most politicians. I would vote for him if it came down to him vs Vance no question, but just seems like at the end of the day his loyalty is with his donors before anyone else.
This definitely didn’t help change my mind on how genuine he seems https://www.commondreams.org/news/just-tell-us-what-you-believe-buttigieg-torched-over-non-answer-on-israel-palestine
Please accept a giant thank you for the clear and helpful answer. To me he seems genuinely centrist and in support of “the status quo but slightly better”. I can certainly see how accepting donations from big finance while talking about regulating finance can feel disingenuous. Trying to support Israel as a strategic ally while also denouncing genocide is an impossible line to walk and hate watching him try but he does seem to be genuine in his sad attempt.
I like AOC, Bernie Sanders, Kat Abughazaleh, and Zohran Mamdani more than Buttigieg but I love how he speaks and I still feel like I could happily support him.
When I say career politician, I mean the not so great aspect of politicians. Jon Stewart actually seems like a genuinely caring and empathetic person, and I would prefer someone like that to someone who is willing to compromise their values for a check.
I would vote for him if he was the nominee, it’s just not ideal to keep having TV stars at the helm of a country. He probably would make some really well informed and bad ass cabinet picks. I’m kinda picturing him as the anti-Reagan.
If we eliminate career politicians with term limits you can expect to see more celebrities, billionaires, CEOs etc running.
If you want normal people to run and you don’t want career politicians, elections need to be publicly funded and your job needs to be guaranteed when your term is done similar to maternity leave and military service. Otherwise who is going to throw their career away and go to Washington besides celebrities and people who are already rich?
I mean I feel like Walz is a pretty good example of someone who had a career and then became involved in politics.
I don’t think you necessarily need to throw your career away, and I’m not sure we really need term limits for house and Senate seats (although 6 years between reelection is a bit ridiculous).
There are definitely some career politicians who have proven that they earned and deserve their seat, it would just be nice to see a bit more variety in the track most people take to politics.
“Jon”.
We’ve already decided our political system is basically satire so why not have fun with it?
Just have him be White House Spokesperson. Perfect role for him.
I love John Stewart… but this is a terrible idea.
edit: Based on the responses to this I’m just gonna be thankful I’m not American. You guys apparently have so little clue what is actually involved in civics that you’re unironically doubling down on reducing the entire system to a reality tv debacle.
His 911 advocacy is common knowledge. Bringing it up like that automatically makes him the ideal candidate to run the worlds largest economy and military is ludicrous.
Similarly people comparing Zelensky in Ukraine to a potential Jon presidency are comparing apples to coconuts.
Honestly I don’t even know why I said anything. Americans slept while their democracy devolved into the world shittiest reality show. Expecting them to see the folly in tripling down on populism was clearly my mistake.
Disagree. Democrats need someone who can make Trump look like a loser
He wouldn’t be running against Trump anyway.
One can hope
And if Trump did try to pull a third term, I’d hope the democrats would have the guts to put Obama up again.
At least we hope he won’t be
I think even if he isn’t, which is not as sure a thing as it should be, Trumpism will still be a central facet of the campaign and needs to be thoroughly defeated, reversed, and ridiculed. Whoever the Republican candidate is will be running to be a continuation of Trumpian fascism and cannot stray too far from it, so being ready to win that battle, not with politicianspeak but passion and charisma, will be important.
Disagree. Each and every political party needs to focus on finding leaders that have made their name through action, not through commentary and grandstanding. We don’t need another TV president with infinite experience hiding behind words and cameras, we need a person that can fulfil the executive function of the executive branch government.
I mean… of the TV personalities out there who could potentially run for office… John Stewart has actually put his money and hard work where his mouth is.
Nice. +1 to viable exceptions then.
Jon Stewart has taken actual political action and enacted change because of it (eg. for 9/11 survivors).
deleted by creator
We are here now and going to lose our country because one side doesn’t care about criticism like this. They do what strengthens their power and ignore people like you.
deleted by creator
I mean you are just showing your whole ass here that you really don’t know what you are talking about.
You realize that Jon Stewart literally spent almost a decade lobbying both sides of congress to get support for 9-11 first responders. He’s literally gotten laws passed through congress.
Which is a more significant contribution than fucking Buttigeig or any other number of political animals that get trotted out when its time for us to be told who its “allowed” to run for president. Ire for someone like Stewart is ridiculous if we’re also expected to take a small college town mayor (like Buttigeig who couldnt even win a down-ballot state race).
And honestly, a real political read and understanding of where people are at is the most important quality right now, Jon has that in spades.
deleted by creator
You just don’t know what you are talking about.
The other side is effectively a monolith. They all fall in line on messaging and talking points. They take money from billionaires, they gerrymander shamelessly, if there is a hurdle that exists due to convention or tradition they tear it down. They have no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to grow their power. So, one day they will have ALL of the power. And people like you will still be criticizing your own side for trying to find an effective leader that is willing to upset the weak, ineffective status quo of their own party.
deleted by creator
“it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” -Douglas Adams.
He doesn’t want the job. He’d be the best President since Teddy Roosevelt.
deleted by creator
👆
This attitude right here is the attitude that put Trump into office.
Why? He already has a history of involvement with politics. He got legislature passed to provide support for 9/11 first responders who weren’t getting medical help they needed.
deleted by creator
See, this whole “I wont support anyone short of the absolutely perfect candidate” is just the most bizarre thing to me. Like a man dying of thirst in the desert unwilling to drink unless he knows the water is bottled spring water blessed by the pope and certified by at least 3 notaries.
Stewart would be better than probably anyone else the Dems would run next election.
deleted by creator
But that is the sentiment, no? If he did run you wouldn’t support him because he’s a comedian and any political work he’s done holds no weight in your eyes.
It’s the same bullshit as with Kamala. People wouldn’t vote for her because of x y z issues so instead we got the worst fucking clown and government in the history of the US, because god forbid the candidate available isn’t the most perfect ideological fit.
No matter who the Democratic nominee is the right will attack him or her in the exact same way, calling them radical communists that want all of our boys turned into girls and all of our murderers to have taxpayer funded penthouses. I just want a candidate who understands the severity of the situation and isn’t going to fuck around. Jon Stewart definitely fits the bill.
*Jon
I think the biggest determinant of a politician’s success is their ability to delegate to the right people, and a big determinant of that is their ability to assess other people and to question them critically. Stewart’s interview skills suggest he wouldn’t be terrible at that.
deleted by creator
Jon Stewart has been working politics for decades as essentially a pundit. I get that you want to think your politicians are better and educated for the position but that’s a lie you’re telling yourself.
There is not one nation on this earth who’s politicians are chosen for being exceptionally qualified. Politics is at it’s core theater. Because while you may(think) you’re always chosing based on logic that logic is always perception driven.
Also money. Duh.
Please elaborate…I gotta hear this
I wish I wasn’t American with this BS.
You’re right, except I’d say comparing apples to screws or something. Zelenskyy and Stewart, Ukraine and the US like our situations…. Are only similar in that they are in fact people and those are in fact nations.
Also, yes can we stop electing …… tv personalities?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s so cute that Americans think there will be a 2028 election.
deleted by creator
Jon Stewart has his heart in the right place and even knows where the democrats are really lacking
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Are you familiar with Jon? He’s qualified. The Rock or Tom Cruise would be poor choices. So would Mark Cuban. But Jon knows government and all the individual assholes that make it up at the top. The only other hope the democrats have is AOC. Bernie and Warren are too old.
Having Jon only excites me in that he could get things done using his popularity. Biden got a lot done, but he used backroom deals and clever policy negotiations. But he’s one of the worst communicators of our generation. And his stubbornness may have lead to Trump (no guarantees Trump would have lost, but Biden almost guaranteed he won).
Honestly, I would have been excited to have Biden a second time over Trump, and I don’t love him to begin with.
Hell, at this point if Trump dropped dead and we somehow got Romney as president instead of the nut jobs in the maga party, I’d be pretty stoked.
TLDR: I want anyone who can move us back towards okay.
This is more fetishizing good people. Something that is in severely short supply.
