this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
904 points (95.3% liked)

politics

25236 readers
3725 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
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day 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 52 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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

[–] themadcodger@kbin.earth 33 points 1 day 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)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (6 children)

President John Stewart

Vice President Stephen Colbert

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I love this idea (edit:) A LOT, but presidency ages people so fast, and I want that man to live a long, healthy, happy life.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day 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)
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 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 38 points 1 day 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)
[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bss03 15 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] obrien_must_suffer@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day 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.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (3 children)

No.

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

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 1 day 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 32 points 1 day 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?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›