this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
342 points (94.5% liked)

politics

25197 readers
2845 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 123 points 5 hours ago (2 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 25 points 4 hours 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!

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (3 children)

It'd be a better analog if everything else Zelenskyy has done as president wasn't eclipsed by Russia invading. Would he have been considered a good president if that hadn't happened? We'll never know.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 31 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

He stepped up as a leader when his nation needed him. That is one of the best qualities to have. Anything else is just whatsboutism that can be applied to anyone.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody is questioning his bravery or accomplishments, but peacetime politics require particular skills.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 hours ago

The US is in far from normal times. It may not be a military war (yet) but this sure as hell isn’t “peacetime”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 88 points 4 hours ago (4 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 27 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (1 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 (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 52 points 5 hours ago (2 children)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 34 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 40 points 2 hours ago (3 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 29 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] themadcodger@kbin.earth 18 points 1 hour ago (5 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 (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 33 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 18 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 33 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

No.

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

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 4 hours ago (1 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 27 points 4 hours 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 18 points 4 hours 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)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago

He took a break during trump's first term. Now, he's up to bat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 hour 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.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 5 hours 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 25 points 4 hours 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)
[–] mateofeo85@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

No. We need to stop fetishizing celebrities.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 19 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Jon Stewart has his heart in the right place and even knows where the democrats are really lacking

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 hours ago

Are you familiar with Jon? He's qualified. The Rock or Tom Cruise would be poor choices. So would Mark Cuban. But Jon knows government and all the individual assholes that make it up at the top. The only other hope the democrats have is AOC. Bernie and Warren are too old.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

Having Jon only excites me in that he could get things done using his popularity. Biden got a lot done, but he used backroom deals and clever policy negotiations. But he's one of the worst communicators of our generation. And his stubbornness may have lead to Trump (no guarantees Trump would have lost, but Biden almost guaranteed he won).

Honestly, I would have been excited to have Biden a second time over Trump, and I don't love him to begin with.

Hell, at this point if Trump dropped dead and we somehow got Romney as president instead of the nut jobs in the maga party, I'd be pretty stoked.

TLDR: I want anyone who can move us back towards okay.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

People really think there will be an election in 2028?

[–] 7toed@midwest.social 11 points 1 hour ago

Well either way, ya'll better be showing up somewhere when we're supposed to be voting

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago

Don't tease me. I just can't take it.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (10 children)

I love John Stewart... but this is a terrible idea.

edit: Based on the responses to this I'm just gonna be thankful I'm not American. You guys apparently have so little clue what is actually involved in civics that you're unironically doubling down on reducing the entire system to a reality tv debacle.

His 911 advocacy is common knowledge. Bringing it up like that automatically makes him the ideal candidate to run the worlds largest economy and military is ludicrous.

Similarly people comparing Zelensky in Ukraine to a potential Jon presidency are comparing apples to coconuts.

Honestly I don't even know why I said anything. Americans slept while their democracy devolved into the world shittiest reality show. Expecting them to see the folly in tripling down on populism was clearly my mistake.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 36 points 5 hours ago (16 children)

Disagree. Democrats need someone who can make Trump look like a loser

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] CannedTuna@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

Why? He already has a history of involvement with politics. He got legislature passed to provide support for 9/11 first responders who weren’t getting medical help they needed.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Why, Zelensky has been awesome. Same deal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

No matter who the Democratic nominee is the right will attack him or her in the exact same way, calling them radical communists that want all of our boys turned into girls and all of our murderers to have taxpayer funded penthouses. I just want a candidate who understands the severity of the situation and isn't going to fuck around. Jon Stewart definitely fits the bill.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You can tell it scares the right by how quickly they showed up in this thread. Very funny to see.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I think the biggest determinant of a politician's success is their ability to delegate to the right people, and a big determinant of that is their ability to assess other people and to question them critically. Stewart’s interview skills suggest he wouldn’t be terrible at that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I think it would burn him out. So while I think he'd do a good job, I don't think he'd be the right candidate.

If we have to elect a comedian, I would prefer Colbert. Not least because it would be a really funny twist given that Trump basically bullied the network into firing him because Stephen hurt his fee-fees with his jokes. Plus, the debates would be really spicy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 9 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

I hope he still would have time to do the Daily Show on Mondays if he was president.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›