• Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m going to go with no. I appreciate John Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is true, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t support him as a nominee. Depending on who else would be running during the primary, he might truly be the best pick.

      • 5too@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        He’s been saying he doesn’t want the job, but did you read the article? He brought up on his own the idea of a reality show host taking over the Dems; and when Mehdi Hasan (his interviewer) asked if he meant himself, Stewart didn’t deny it. Didn’t push back.

        Just chuckled.

        It sounds to me like he’s reconsidering, and testing the waters.

    • bss03@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • 5too@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            He spent a long time as producer and director on The Daily Show as well as it’s host, and it looks like he’s got some other producer/directory credits as well.

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        He definitely shouldn’t have pretended to grab that lady’s tits while she was sleeping (I believe she was a soldier??? she was a reporter) and taken a photo, but honestly in hindsight he probably should have just apologized, and put in a lot of effort to making up for doing something like that instead of resigning.

        He did something really dumb, but he still wasn’t a rapist or a pedophile. America has set a very low bar in his absence.

      • yonderbarn@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It was more than that. He pretended to grope a girl while she was asleep and also coerced her to practice making out in preparation for a skit.

        • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You mean the right wing radio host who alleged that he made out with her? The propagandist who is in bed with the fascist party?

          Sure, the joke in that photo was in poor taste, which is why I’m shocked that the Groping Old Pedophiles didn’t absolutely love it. Right on brand for them.

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          My understanding is that she didn’t think he should resign, tho.

          I think it must be possible for anyone to be “rehabilitated” through restorative service and at least the outward appearance of inner change. If you make it impossible to “come back”, that just encourages bad actors to band together AND get worse.

          I’m not convinced that Al Franken has done enough, but I really haven’t paid attention / researched anything around him or the events since he resigned.

          • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is my take as well.

            If someone’s misdeeds mark them for life then they will have no choice but to wear the mantle of those misdeeds.

    • Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We should really get off this train of pushing only career politicians into high office. Seems like the liberals hold this high bar so we end up with old farts that don’t know how to use the bully pulpit. I don’t care at all that they have no experience in office, I care if they are smart enough to listen to their staff that does.

    • llama@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We’ve already decided our political system is basically satire so why not have fun with it?

    • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mean I feel like Walz is a pretty good example of someone who had a career and then became involved in politics.

        I don’t think you necessarily need to throw your career away, and I’m not sure we really need term limits for house and Senate seats (although 6 years between reelection is a bit ridiculous).

        There are definitely some career politicians who have proven that they earned and deserve their seat, it would just be nice to see a bit more variety in the track most people take to politics.

  • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Americans, seriously, fucking stop it. You look like the dumbest cunts in the world right now. Stop looking to celebrities to fix your problems. Look at yourself, look at how you are letting yourselves be influenced into thinking everyone else a cunt, and youre the most perfect thing to every live. This is text book how the democracy fails. Once you start thinking the other side is all cunts who are cheating, you’ll never trust the system again. Look at Trump, lost in 2020, none of his followers believed it. Its rigged, the dems stole it, etc etc etc. In 2024, Harris lost. None of her followers believed it. Musk rigged the voting boxes, MAGA stole the election, etc etc etc.

    When you lose, or when you win, youre just supposed to go on with your day. Youre not supposed to think and act like its the end of the fucking world, and that you only lost because someone else cheated. Youre supposed to look at your opposition, still as countrymen. Sure, they disagree with you on some issues, but they are still Americans, like you. But whats happening now is the same thing thats happened many times before. The extreme polarisation of party identity politics. Instead of arguing with people, you write them off as evil. You forget the core principle of democracy is compromise. You vote, you win, you lose, you get on with it. But that only works when you dont look across the aisle and see literal nazis. Look at the Spanish in the 1930s. Same thing. The saw each other as evil, it only took 6 years to go from arguments to violence in the streets to full blown civil war.

    You all need to stop doom scrolling and thinking everyone you dont agree with on every single issue is a cunt, and should be murdered. And Im not speaking to just one said, both sides are dong it. Creating the extremism thats started to turn super ugly. The United states is currently run by a paedo. Instead of this being a huge issue, what we are seeing is next to nothing being done by any of the safe guards in place. This is on you. All of you. You didnt vote for people, you voted for party. Not all of you, but enough of you. And whats worse, some of those on the right think this is the best thing ever. Which is usually what happens before Hugo Chavez types completely fuck the country.

    And if youre right wing, and going to spin some bullshit about how Chavez is left wing, please. Continue reading. Donald Trump and Hugo Chávez, though ideologically opposed show the very same political behaviours and leadership styles, particularly in their use of populism, media manipulation, and personalization of power.

    Both leaders employed a populist strategy centred on portraying themselves as avenging outsiders battling a corrupt elite to restore national greatness. They used vulgarity and humour to break political norms and forge visceral connections with their supporters. Chávez famously hosted the marathon TV show, where he improvised for hours, blending policy, personal anecdotes, and political attacks. Trump mirrored this with unscripted rallies, freewheeling speeches, and prolific use of Twitter to dominate media cycles, often attacking opponents and the press.

    Their rhetoric was marked by personal insults and inflammatory language. Chávez called opponents “assholes,” “squealing pigs,” and likened George W. Bush to “a monkey with a razor blade,” while Trump labelled critics “pussies” and “disgusting”. Both used sexualized comments for political effect: Chávez once leered at the camera telling his wife, “you’re going to get yours tonight,” and Trump bragged about his penis size.

    They also both vilified journalists, expelled reporters, and promoted their own versions of reality. Chávez built a state-funded media network to amplify his message, while Trump weaponized social media and sympathetic outlets to bypass traditional journalism.

    The also both turned their illnesses into political performances. After being diagnosed with cancer, Chávez portrayed himself as a Christ-like figure enduring suffering for his people, especially during the 2012 election. Trump, after contracting COVID-19 in 2020, staged a dramatic return from the hospital, proclaiming a “total cure” and calling the infection “a blessing from God,” using it to promote unproven treatments like Regeneron. Both turned their illnesses into political performances.

    Ultimately, while their ideologies diverged, their methods, polarization, media dominance, personalization of power, and the use of crisis for political gain, reveal a shared playbook of populist leadership.

    If anyone is looking to the future of American politics. Might I suggest a radical option? Vote for people who actually know what they are doing! John Stewart, Im sure, is great guy. Hes certainly funny, and knowledgeable. But hes not someone who knows how to be a politician. But more to the point, the last fucking thing the America needs is another old man running the country. Look to GenX, Look to Millennials. Who there speaks to the good of America, not just “your side”, but the country as a whole? Find that person, and start some grass roots shit. And never again look to populists to fill the shoes of people who should be making your lives better, not making others lives worse.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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?

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think the Jon for president think 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        most important traits in a president: conviction

        And not in the way that Trump has convictions.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve said for years that I wish he would run for any office. I’d vote for him comptroller if I could and I dont even know what that job is. But for real, he has a great mind, a good viewpoint, a take no shit attitude and a massive fan base for more than just his jokes. Plus he has already spent a lot of time as a successful advocate for 9/11 first responders and other groups that the government has failed to take care of despite their culpability in their situations. I would be shocked if he didn’t have an incredibly successful career as a Representative in the house at least. Though, I think he has no desire for that amount of stress and responsibility.

    • redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months 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.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actual experience is irrelevant to the office of the President.

      Being able to listen, learn, and discriminate between lies and truth are what matters.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well…

      Stewart dropped a line that made Hasan pause: maybe Democrats just need “the right reality host” to take over the party.
      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.

      As another commenter brought up, when the idea has been suggested in the past, Jon has unequivocally and instantly shut it down.

      Big “Hmmmmm” vibes here.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    No.

    If this is what we’ve come to where you have to be a popular TV star to win, then somebody get AOC her own TV show ASAP.