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

politics

25236 readers
3855 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 157 points 1 day ago (6 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 58 points 1 day 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 33 points 1 day 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.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

most important traits in a president: conviction

And not in the way that Trump has convictions.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day 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.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Debates matter. Remember when Biden beat medicare?

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago

I would say the most important skill is listening to experts, and knowing when you aren't one. Jon has this down.

You don't want a president who thinks they're an expert in everything. You want one who knows that aren't and is willing to bring experts in to guide them.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago

If Jon Stewart became the Ronald Reagan of progressiveness, I wouldn't complain.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] svtdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Watch him mop the floor with Tucker on Crossfire.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world -1 points 17 hours ago

I remember seeing that and it was funny, but arguing Tucker on ethics is like arguing quantum mechanics with a microencephalic.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

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?