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

politics

26585 readers
2064 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
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

Better than Newsom

[–] RDAM_Whiskers@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Please for the love of anything!

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 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.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] EvilEdgelord@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Please elaborate...I gotta hear this

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Why, Zelensky has been awesome. Same deal.

[–] CannedTuna@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

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 (10 replies)
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

The dude that chastised those calling out fascism because "it's what we voted for"? Yeah, that's a terrible idea.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 months ago

There are certainly worse candidates. Stewart still seems like he has a soul, unlike most republicans.

[–] heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

Yes. Take my vote, all of them, forever.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Maybe. But the time for Jon Stewart was 2024. There wasn't a single person alive in a better position to take down Trump.

[–] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

I mean, he passes more bills than most.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes. He would make the hard choices we would understand we needed to make. Not the choices of self-preservation most all politicians make.

Edit: would we be willing to sacrifice him to force him into the position? It would probably wreck the man…

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›