Just have him be White House Spokesperson. Perfect role for him.
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.
We need someone willing to fight fire with fire and John Stewart isn’t it.
Oh Jesus more celebrities in politics is the last thing you guys need
Zelensky was also a comedian. It’s woklrking out surprisingly okay for him given the situation.
John Stewart is probably the only one I could actually get behind.
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.
Hey. Shut up.
Trump has done exactly one thing right. He has united his entire party to accomplish their goals. They’re utter shit goals by utter shit people, but they’re accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.
Name one candidate who could do that better than Jon Stewart.
You Americans don’t see the insanity since you’re deep in it
Name one American politician you respect more than Jon Stewart.
not an american… but I feel you guys have 3: Bernie, AOC, Zohran Mamdani
Bernie is too fucking old. He was too old for the presidency 12 years ago.
AOC is too fucking young, and the moderates hate her. She has less of a chance than Harris did. She also suffers the same issue Hillary did: the GOP has been running against her for a decade already. They’ve poisoned the well on her something fierce. She would make an excellent VP, but she doesn’t have the chops to win the presidency herself.
Mamdani is ineligible to run for president, and you must have seen how much opposition he faces even from his own party. Even if he could run, he doesn’t have a chance on the national stage.
Stewart comes prepackaged with 10,000 sound bites tearing apart the GOP on every issue they’ve ever raised.
Scott Kelly and Mark Kelly (twins, both were Navy Captains, both were Astronauts, one is now a Senator from Arizona) would be good, but they aren’t progressive enough.
Who else?
You put Jon Stewart in the White House, hire his writing staff into the west wing, and we’ll have Universal Healthcare in 6 months.
I’m waiting for the insane part.
Scott Kelly and Mark Kelly (twins, both were Navy Captains, both were Astronauts, one is now a Senator from Arizona) would be good, but they aren’t progressive enough.
The most generic democrats you could support
Turn your criticism-gun toward Stewart. What have you got on him? Why shouldn’t he be president?
Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy
Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.
This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.
I feel that the root of America’s issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.
Doesn’t sound too different from the parliamentary system we have in Canada, except we divide things much more finely than into 4 quadrants.
Basically, we’re divided into “ridings” that can be a small section of a city if you’re in a dense city or multiple towns where population is sparse. Each riding votes in someone as a member of Parliament (MP). The MPs then select someone to be the figurehead that represents us (i.e. the prime minister).
I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.
We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.
Personally I think all nation states should be dissolved
The problem with this is you are screwing over liberal bastions (e.g. Chicago) in conservative zones. Or what about somewhere like New Mexico? We’d be grouped with Arizona and Texas? New Mexico is liberal and that’d kill us. The arrangement also gives even more power to sparsely populated sections of the country vs highly populated sections. It is almost like you are suggesting gerrymandering at a regional level.
Keep in mind that we already have regional representation - state governments. They don’t work great because of the lack of attention they get vs presidental elections. The here part is that states need to have power, but there are things they are insane to declare as “states rights” issues. How do we divide them up? I don’t know. We even have “majority agree” as you suggested via constitutional amendments.
I figure the division would resemble this picture. States with a fair chunk of territory straddling the dividing lines between regions can hold a popular vote, to decide which side they belong to. This roughly carves up the contiguous nation into 1/3rd portions, each having major centers in California, Texas, and New York. Obviously not perfect, but this should give all three some access to global trade and enough landmass to be useful. The important thing is for all three regions to be jockeying to be #1, but not quite succeeding, pushing each other to do better for their citizens, science, freedoms, and so forth.
In any case, my proposal makes a big assumption: that the current Constitution and Bill of Rights are replaced by a new version. It is my belief that it is likely for the United States to have a 2nd American Civil War. If that is the case, the political board as we knew it would have been overturned. Our Constitution is about 250 years old, invented in a time where the horse was the fastest mode of communication, and only 13 states existed. The framers were intelligent, but there was limits to their knowledge, simply because there wasn’t much precedent for the political order they engineered. After all, they tossed out the Articles of Confederation because they weren’t fit for purpose. The fitness and purpose of our current Constitution isn’t good enough for today’s world.
Rules to eliminate gerrymandering and the electoral college, formalizing popular voting, reworking the powers and limits of each branch, and so forth, would be needed.
yeah, texas is never gonna agree to be in club with minnesota or michigan or wisco.
it’d be cool if they did, but yeah, no.
I definitely think the US needs to split up. What’s the point of having another president though? Won’t we just end up with the same problem over time?
I do not believe so. As I said, “Figurehead President”. The way I figure, if the four regional presidents are in a deadlock about something, the Figurehead Pres can cast a tie-breaking vote. Seeing as that figurehead is elected by the four regional presidents, the figurehead should be relatively neutral. Impeachment of a bad Figurehead can be done through either popular vote of the entire nation, or three of the four regional presidents agreeing to remove the Figurehead.
IMO, the purpose of a Figurehead President is to give the appearance of a unified mission to people.
Oh just as a tiebreaker. Interesting.
Personally I don’t support any electoral system where leaders have any more or less support than the votes they receive, so I’m not sure how that would be workable in your system. For example, the outlying group would have way more electoral power per person if each leader gets one vote.
The vote is for cooperation between executive branches, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Regional Houses, Courts, or the National Senate would agree to cooperate with executives. In any case, there is a 4th President - the Outer Region, which consists of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Djibuti, and other small yet significant territories. I am of the mind that with a lack of raw land and people, the Outer Regions should get some sort of outsized advantage to compensate. A president’s vote being equal to their peers is probably simple enough to do the trick.
Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.
He’s way too smart to accept that job.
Last thing we need is another fucking celebrity in the office
Fr, this all went downhill with Reagan.
Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)
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
I mean we could do a lot worse than Jon Stewart. He is exactly the type of anti establishment candidate that could possibly pull moderate conservatives into the fold. I’m not saying that’s the best or only way forward but it seems to be what the DNC are planning.
He’s been an advocate for Veterans and First Responders in Congress and at least his forward facing personality is decent.
Also he isn’t a pedo grifter.
President John Stewart
Vice President Stephen Colbert
Fuck Colbert. Sleasy ass “Liberal”.
Love Stephen, but no. Walz, AOC, one of the Kellys, maybe.
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.
Secretary of State: Chris Farley.
Colbert was a dick to Zohran about Israel, right? No thanks.
No.
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war. A good leader not only has wits, but also the voice to convince people of a vision.
Comedians have a day job of making people agree with them, without needing bribes or institution to back them.
Zelensky is actively censoring Ukraninan journalists from reporting any criticism on the war. Is this what you mean by comedians being good at making people agree with them?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/world/europe/ukraine-press-freedom.html
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war
:-|
Hey boys, found the Putin Puppet!
Oh yeah cause any critic is a Russian spy.
Slow down on the koolaid, bud.
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.
Isn’t there some thing where the pres and VP can’t be from same state?
It’s not a requirement. It’s a political strategy. If the candidate is from a “liberal elite” coastal state, then the running mate has to be from flyover country. It’s pandering.
Read the 12th Amendment. That being said, one of the two could easily pull a “Cheney maneuver” and buy a house in a different state. Problem solved.
They already live in different states; New York for AOC, New Jersey for John Stewart. They both start with ‘New’, but they are not the same state.
Seems like the 12th amendment says that EC electors cannot cast a vote for two people from their state.
They can both be from the same state and electors from all the other states except their own can vote for both of them if they win that state (Potus and VP are actually voted on as separate votes). BUT electors from their own state could only cast their votes for one of them!
Per the 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
Just another stupid thing about the Electoral College system. Say for example Newsom ran for POTUS and his VP pick was also from California. California electors could only cast their votes for one of them (obviously they’d choose to apply them to the POTUS seat. So the VP might lose to the VP of other party! So stupid. When Bush picked Cheney, Cheney was a resident of Texas and moved to Wyoming so Texas electors would be able cast their votes for him.
They could be from the same state but picking a VP candidate from another part of the country is seen as one way to balance a ticket. They could pick someone from a swing state in the hopes it would help win that state, or try to balance out the ticket on the political spectrum by picking someone further left or right than the presidential candidate. In 2008 the Democrats balanced out the young black candidate with an old conservative white VP candidate, so there are other ways to balance a ticket.
Electors cannot cast a vote for 2 people from their state according to 12th amendment. It’s not an outright ban say if it was CA or FL the VP might not get enough votes.
John lives in Jersey, actually.
Then make it so.
That’s not a requirement, it’s more a tradition because the “electoral math” is better.
The 12th amendment says that electors cannot vote for 2 people from their state.
I’m going to go with no. I appreciate Jo
hn Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.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?
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.
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.
The Beeblebrox paradox
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.
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.
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.
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.
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://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
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
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.
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.
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.
The license to grope girls of any age only belongs to white dickheads, apparently.
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.
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.
We’ve already decided our political system is basically satire so why not have fun with it?
“Jon”.
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.
Anybody that doesn’t want the job is imminently more qualified that anybody who does in my opinion.
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
Simple solution, we execute every president as they leave office! Secondary solution, we vote on whether to not execute the president as they leave office, 2/3rds majority needed to abstain the execution
The Ecksian tradition of jailing them immediately upon election has merit
Didn’t Robert basically say this on Behind the Bastards two episodes ago lol
I dont think so but it fits for him. Ive been saying it for years though.
But, you know who shouldn’t be killed in order to limit the corruptions that infect political power?
I couldn’t remember if they was Douglas Adams or Kurt Vonnegut. Both work
They both were rather hoopy
I’m not sure if this is some idiomatic usage I’ve not encountered, but “eminently” would seem more appropriate than “imminently”. If only because John’s already more qualified than he apparently needs to be.
You’re probably right. I’m a tech geek not a writer so I’d never trust my grammar.
Rite gooder docemtation
Ooo so you’re saying I’m qualified? That’s a shit job I don’t want. Fucks up your hair and ages you. Plus there’s a good chance I might send some reps I don’t like on a scouting trip to Mars.
…
Oh dang, I AM qualified!
Fairly stupid opinion considering the breadth of people that would encompass.
I mean after Trump got elected, it really did show the world that anyone can become anything, twice.
There’s no such thing as unqualified anymore. I think picking a random person off the street and having them do the job would have statistically been more likely to perform better than Trump has done so far in either term. Even if that random person chose to do NOTHING and just continue to allow the government apparatus to churn unimpeded, it would have been preferable to what we got.
I would advocate forcing him into the election even if he doesn’t want it.
Are you fucking serious?
He’d crush it IMHO.
Yes. Take my vote, all of them, forever.
