this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
664 points (95.1% liked)

politics

25208 readers
2931 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
[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 4 points 29 minutes ago

So finaly, you will get Stewart instead of King

[–] ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago) (1 children)

I don’t think Stewart has any desire to run for President honestly.

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

That's what would make him good at the job

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 3 points 49 minutes ago

What's a joke is thinking you are going to get there when you haven't even seen what's going to happen during the midterms, or that there is still over a year to get to even that.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 1 points 34 minutes ago

Sure, if they let him.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Fucking yes. YES.

I wish he ran against Joe.

[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

A half eaten PB&J would've been better

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (1 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.

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

they would rather sink AOC and Bernie forever so that the political equivalent of Assistant Regional Managers can get promoted to Regional Manager.

I agree and disagree. The ability to successfully lead a government as chaotic (i.e. democratic) and large as the republic of states known as the US is very rare. It requires not only a strong physical and mental constitution, but also a wide set of skills and intuitive abilities that usually only make themselves apparent during trials by fire. Compared to the sometimes explosively violent centralizations of power that occur when the rare charismatic tyrants fight their way into power (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler), democracies grow in fits and starts as they rely upon a panjandrum of popularity contests to find talented leaders. In contrast to dynasties that fiercely burn hot with their founder's fervor then languish in subsequent generations, democracies have the potential for sustained competence as long as incumbent leaders continue to hold popularity contests with the goal of finding new leaders better than themselves from as wide a candidate pool as possible.

When the contests fail to find the rare talented leader, the process does resemble a farcical out-of-touch revolving door of mediocre middle managers like you suggest: because talented leaders are rare. And even when a talented individual does prove thenselves, they cannot cling to power lest they destroy the talent search apparatus that brought them to power in the first place and which will eventually replace them with an even more talented individual in the future. To destroy that apparatus reverts the civilization back into purity-obsessed gatekeeping fascism and boring dynastic tyranny.

So, if this decade's popularity contest is restricted to late-night comedian talk-show hosts, I say that's better than a Trump dynasty. But, I hope winners of those contests steer government to promote talent searches with larger candidate pools than they came from. That could take the form of government propaganda rewarding people to run for local elections. Without leaders consciously promoting wider popularity contests, the people of a democracy default to choosing the photogenic faces and entertaining voices they see and hear on their screens: actors like Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or game show hosts like Donald Trump.

[–] scytheon@lemmy.world -4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Trump would bulldoze Stewart and spike his ass. Make it happen!

[–] Nico_198X@europe.pub 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i can't believe you posted this for SO many reasons.

[–] helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 hour ago

The account is 30 minutes old and had made no other comments or posts.

[–] obrien_must_suffer@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

We need someone willing to fight fire with fire and John Stewart isn't it.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 35 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (15 children)

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

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (17 children)

Oh Jesus more celebrities in politics is the last thing you guys need

[–] DrDickHandler@lemmy.world 14 points 3 hours ago

Zelensky was also a comedian. It's woklrking out surprisingly okay for him given the situation.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago

I mean he worked hard for veterans rights.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 14 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

John Stewart is probably the only one I could actually get behind.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

And that's a problem. He's a really great guy and all, but his biases are obvious and he maintains the neoliberal status quo. He also acts as a pressure relief valve to air our frustrations and make us feel sane in a completely bonkers world, but that's the opposite of fighting back.

We don't need celebrity presidents, we need a fucking revolution.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

Didn't he fight for the veterans?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] TuffNutzes@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago

Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 19 points 7 hours ago

He's way too smart to accept that job.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 46 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Well when you have 24 hours news and you have repelled the law that kept them at least somewhat grounded then you have created a fucking show and so celebrities thrive.

Also electing a celebrity is not automatically a bad thing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›