politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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://www.cbsnews.com/video/warren-and-buttigieg-had-a-tense-exchange-over-fundraising-and-more-from-the-democratic-debate/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/buttigieg-leads-2020-rivals-wall-street-contributions-n1106161
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
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.