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

politics

25238 readers
2751 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.world 35 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (7 children)

I don’t think Stewart has any desire to run for President honestly.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

"The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who 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 and much lamented fact that those people who most 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."

If we must have leaders, then, the corollary to Adams' Law must follow: presidents should be drafted.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 hours ago

With that quote in mind Jon Stewart may well already be the Anonymous Ruler of the Universe.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago

The Dunning-Kruger effect is probably at least partially responsible for most of the world's ills.

And our stupid brains are wired to see confidence as capability. I guess there's an evolutionary advantage to organizing even if you pick the wrong leader.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 16 hours ago

No sane capable person would. That's why all the people that make it there are there for the power or the money.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Nor should he. He's also too smart to want to trade his retirement years for becoming by default one of the most hated people in the world. This is more celebrity cult worship but from the other side.

Can we please start trying to elect qualified people instead of popular faces.

[–] obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 4 points 15 hours ago

There is no such thing as a qualified US presidential candidate. There's no job, or training, or comparable experience that can ready a person for that role. Anyone who honestly thinks they are the most capable person in the world to assume control of the largest military and the largest economy that has ever existed should immediately be disqualified from the role. You'd have to be a madman to think that. But that's all we ever get.

There's no indication that a senator, governor, or vice president makes a better president than someone with no political experience (of which there have been 6). In fact, coming through that system seems to teach people to make peace with corruption, bribery, complacence, and protecting the status quo at it's worst.

As much as I hate Donald Trump's policy, and flagrant disregard for the law, it would be hard to argue that his experience as a narcissistic game show host hasn't proven more effective at the day to day politics of implementing his policy than almost any other president of the last 40 years. It's hard to keep up with how fast he's getting disastrous shit (that we voted for) done.

And he's only in office today because 50 years of "qualified" stuffed shirts have wrung all the money, opportunity, and hope out of the middle class. Then the "qualified" people told America to vote for a clearly senile "qualified" candidate.

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That's what would make him good at the job

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. The real problem with power is that the people best suited to wield it don't seek it out.

Running for president should automatically disqualify you...

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

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.

Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[–] 5too@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

He's always expressed an active disinterest... but in the interview the article's talking about, he brought up the possibility of "the right reality host" taking over the Democratic party on his own. Then didn't deny it or push back when the interviewer asked if he meant himself.

That's the most positive I've heard him be about the possibility.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Colbert. I'm pretty sure he meant Colbert.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 hours ago

Just because he doesn't want to be president doesn't mean he shouldn't run. Every election cycle has at least one candidate who just wants to stir the water.