this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
1028 points (95.2% liked)

politics

25420 readers
2386 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Draegur@lemmy.zip 229 points 1 week ago (10 children)

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.

[–] 60d@lemmy.ca 70 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 173 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 61 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think the Jon for president thing is copium, but to be fair Jon does have two of the most important traits in a president: conviction and a good bullshit detector. Whether he'd be able to do the day to day work aside, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be able to lead the country in a better direction in a big picture sense.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

I think Jon would have the intelligence and humility to have very qualified, intelligent people to advise and challenge him.

My only concern for him is he would take it very seriously, and not be able to let anything go. He would burn himself out hard in 4 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Anybody that doesn’t want the job is imminently more qualified that anybody who does in my opinion.

[–] themadcodger@kbin.earth 35 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Maybe it was one of these guys?

(I'll be honest, I can never tell these two apart..)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 60 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (29 children)

Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SabinStargem 55 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Can you stupid fucks stop worshiping celebrities for like FIVE MINUTES.

I don't get how mindless our population is.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just have him be White House Spokesperson. Perfect role for him.

[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Exactly this.

The Dems are so bereft of charismatic folks in their ranks because their own internal power-squabbling and pressure between dusty old skeletons to keep themselves in office, that anyone who HAS the skill set has had to spend that time in the entertainment industry at best. They're so dogmatic about internal "it's your time" protocols that they would rather sink AOC and Bernie forever so that the political equivalent of Assistant Regional Managers can get promoted to Regional Manager.

Both parties are broken to shit, and this is why Dems aren't doing a single thing to fight anything, they expect to just sit back and have it handed to them later. It'll be too late by then. We need an entire wave of new blood. Fuck this 2-party system.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No.

Don't do this. Let him be. Jon deserves a break, not more work

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] misterdoctor@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hasan’s reflexive response — please, no more reality hosts — came with one notable exception: “Unless Jon, you’re thinking of throwing your hat in the ring… we can talk about that.”

Stewart laughed. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t wave it off. He just leaned back, smiled, and chuckled — the kind of non-answer that fuels speculation.

You’re saying this is Jon Stewart explicitly implying that he’s considering a run?

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 week ago

Yes. I've watched Jon for 20+ years. His answer to that question has always been explicitly, verbally "No." Often followed by a short explanation why. In context this is a huge departure for him.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'd normally say "hells no, stop electing celebrities!" but this is a person who is actually politically informed (savvy even) and at this point possibly bthenonoy person why might get the US out of this miserable shit it's in and on to a path towards an actual representative democracy.

If anything, Jon Stewart might be the only person able to get the US to stop electing celebrities in the first place

So yeah, Jon 2028!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How the fuck could he be worse than some cunt politician?

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Well....that's what conservatives said about Trump. Not saying John wouldn't be amazing though.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

I'm going to go with no. I appreciate Jo~~h~~n Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Why not? The fuck Ronnie Reagan, an actor, made it into office. Like many have indicated below Zelensky is another good example. If Stewart runs, who should be his running mate. I would choose AOC.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 week ago (10 children)

It's so cute that Americans think there will be a 2028 election.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Stuart Colbert 28'! My fingers would break I'd vote so hard for that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (6 children)

President John Stewart

Vice President Stephen Colbert

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

I'd vote for him. Even when we disagree on stuff-- a rarity-- he is still leagues better than anyone in the Pedo Party. John is more of a man and a human being than that scum sucking pig drumple thinskin could ever be.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

He's way too smart to accept that job.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Why the fuck are people so obsessed with celebrities? Elect someone actually competent for the job. Idiots.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Jon himself is not behind this idea, he constantly reminds people he's just a comedian. We need to stop confusing age, fame, whiteness, and being male with actual experience.

[–] ooterness@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

Counterpoint from Douglas Adams:

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.

I am 100% in favor of Jon Stewart for president, especially if he refuses to run.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›