A lot of people here are condemning celebrity in US politics, and I get it… but at this point in time we might need someone who is already famous yet consistent and trustworthy. Stewart has shown himself to be a good person for decades. He’s also politically informed, progressive, and whip smart.
We need a candidate who wants real change for the betterment of the working class. Somehow people thought that was Trump… I guess because he said he would be, a few times? And people were hoping hard? And not looking at his track record at all? Also racism? More importantly though: people didn’t think that candidate was Harris, who got pushed through by the Democratic party and ran an uninspiring campaign. Those people didn’t vote. Those people were excited about candidates like Bernie, who’s track record on class issues is indefatigable. Those people could potentially be excited about Jon Stewart tearing shit down for the actually betterment of the poor, and might trust that he would try.
That’s my read, anyway. A Mamdani could come along and stir up some real enthusiasm, but I think it’s harder for a no-name without a proven record to win a national election. Last time that happened we ended up with Obama, and people still feel burned by his lack of progressive action.
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.
Can you stupid fucks stop worshiping celebrities for like FIVE MINUTES.
I don’t get how mindless our population is.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a standup comedian and I think he’s doing a pretty good job as president.
Zelensky was the star of a sitcom about a public school teacher who becomes president, and cleans up government corruption.
Ukraine was incredibly corrupt, filled with Russian stooges who were looting the country blind, and the people wanted Zelensky’s character as president. That character was fictional, so Zelensky was the next best thing, and it turns out that he took his job as seriously as his TV character.
There is still a long road ahead, but I believe that they can weed out the last problems. they need to get out of the soviet mentality, and that happens best with cooperation with EU.
I am not saying a celebrity couldn’t do a good job, I just want people to use their minds instead of throwing someone on a pedestal who has expressed no interest OR political capital in the system.
I don’t know Zelenski’s history but Ukraine was a massively complicated and broken situation and Zelenski was basically forced into a prominent and center-stage position by events outside his control, we’ll never know if he could have navigated the political theater without the country going into a wartime lockdown.
Well, we’ve already had Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, arguably Al Franken (he was on SNL), not to mention the Cheeto Bandito. Clint Eastwood and even Jerry goddamned Springer both made it as far as mayor. There are probably tons of others I’m forgetting.
So that ship has likely sailed, I’m sorry to say. Too late; we’re already stupid.
Springer went the opposite direction. He was a lawyer and a politician, and after his career fizzled, he went into media. He was an actual news anchor before he got a national reputation for hosting a trashy TV show.
I would argue that most of those celebrities-turned-effective-politician (Franken was not effective long-term, he bowed out for stupid reasons) each had a lot more than face recognition, they were also snakes and scum or narcissists and I just don’t see Stewart in the crowd. He hasn’t expressed desire for politics, he has been an advocate and has been a great orator and journalist in his own way, but he is a different kind of person who wants different things, this means a distinct lack of political capital.
As a non-American, this baffles me.
Jon Stewart is not a “celebrity”. It’s not like electing Jim Carrey to be president. He’s shown himself to be politically savvy and informed on policy and just generally thoughtful and intelligent many times. He seems like he’d make a good politician, and also he has a massive following already.
this baffles me.
The “left” has absolutely failed to produce any candidate willing to fight for socialized healthcare, workers rights, anti-genocide, proper immigration, lifting up the poor, increased salaries and taxing the rich.
Stewart has been bipartisanly slinging shit at every politician doing stupid shit for years. He’s politically educated absolutely amazing at speaking.
Our political system is on rails, we are only capable of fielding corporate shills, and only in two flavors: the ones that want to kill the poor and immigrants, and the ones that just want them to almost but not quite starve.
It is quite impossible to third-party someone organically; it may not even be possible to third party someone with money and connections.
Either way, you won’t have to worry about it, they’ll dismantle enough of the vote (already underway) that it doesn’t matter what people do, we’re going to stay on these rails until a true uprising happens. And we’ll probably live to see armed atlas bots patrolling the streets mowing down ‘dissidents’. It’s only a matter of time.
Permitted, systemic destruction of our education system via exploiting the idea of “fierce independence” I guess from reality itself, over the last half century or so.
Fierce independence and rugged individualism…just like everybody else!
Im not sure how this request is relevant to the topic. No one is talking about nominating Ashton Kutcher. This is not someone who’s famous because they’re pretty or act well, he’s famous for his mind, and just happens to also be funny. So I have to believe all these comments calling him a “celebrity” are knee-jerk reactions or in bad faith.
It’s not at all bad-faith or knee-jerk, it’s the premise behind the idea that just because you see a character someone plays on television for a long time that you trust them and think them capable and a more desirable outcome. This is the same brain-rot that got us Trump and fawning over someone more towards your “side” doesn’t make the situation less rotten.
I think ANYONE would be better than Trump but if anything, that’s where the bad-faith is happening here, the notion that just because shit is so bad right now that we can start selecting any clown and further this slide into bullshit nonsense political theater. Why not youtube streamers or late night talk show hosts like Colbert? Why are those LESS appealing than John Stewart even though they ostensibly have the same exact qualifications? Why NOT Ashton Kutcher then? The arguments for someone like him are the same arguments for Stewart. They are television characters.
There’s probably no stopping it, our population has gotten too dumb to understand that recognizability does not equal best outcomes and policy power. Which Stewart has hardly any of; political capital is something Trump has tons of, and so do many less charismatic and less well-known politicians, and if you don’t know how political capital works… then yeah, your best bet is electing someone based on how much you recognize their face. Democracy is cooked. The branches of government are over.
But no one knows what any politician is really like off camera. We do know what Stewart’s record is though, and he actually has fought for at least one political matter in court and before Congress, and successfully. He is at the very least a thinker. You can’t possibly be a good comedian and not be, a legitimate debater, and he can rally a crowd. It is not the same thing as supporting your average Hollywood celebrity, because he isn’t one.
Again, Ashton Kutcher has also done many of these things. I don’t get why we are drawing a line between actor-activists when they’re all just actors and play characters on television.
So far the issue of political capital has been going over everyone’s head here. I would love to stand corrected and see someone like Stewart suddenly reveal he’s been sowing the seeds of power for years in a deliberate manner AND has the actual desire to rally specific power groups in the nation. But it’s VERY late in the game for that kind of surprise. Even Harris had more chips on the table.
This insistence that having the tepid support of moderate liberals who barely watch the news is somehow more valuable than dedicated, ideological activists is why we have Trump leading a literal warband of Orcs without opposition across the country.
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.
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.
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.
most important traits in a president: conviction
And not in the way that Trump has convictions.
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.
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.
Debates matter. Remember when Biden beat medicare?
If Jon Stewart became the Ronald Reagan of progressiveness, I wouldn’t complain.
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.
None of that means he would be a good president. It’s a different set of skills.
Of course. Current Mr President is clearly way more skilled at presiding.
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.
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?
Watch him mop the floor with Tucker on Crossfire.
I remember seeing that and it was funny, but arguing Tucker on ethics is like arguing quantum mechanics with a microencephalic.
I’d normally say “hells no, stop electing celebrities!” but this is a person who is actually politically informed (savvy even) and at this point possibly bthenonoy person why might get the US out of this miserable shit it’s in and on to a path towards an actual representative democracy.
If anything, Jon Stewart might be the only person able to get the US to stop electing celebrities in the first place
So yeah, Jon 2028!
I want to say no celebrities or billionaires so badly, but if you believe that nearly ALL politicians are irredeemably corrupt, then that’s where we have to go for the people with the money and/or name recognition to win.
If you are going to vote for someone other than a politician, than an intelligent person who has spent the last couple of decades closely following politics and commenting on it every night might be a good option, provided they have the morals for it. I generally don’t think much of the morals of billionaires or celebrities, but they’re far better than MAGAs. At least they aren’t enthusiastic traitors and pedophiles.
Well… Ideally, politics would be a boring job. Make small incremental improvements. No political parties, just guys (and gals and whatnot more) that can put themselves to be elected, and when elected, they get to do, a job for a few years or so. After that, they can go back to whatever else they want to do.
It should be boring
Hell, people shouldn’t put themselves on a list to be elected, let’s just pick a guy and if you’re tagged, you’re it for a year or so
Requirements are that you have at least studies in the subject matter and have 10 years experience in the field.
I dunno, I’m just writing silly ideas here but anything is better than all the political systems we have now
Let’s not forget his relentless lobbying in congress and the senate for the first responders of 9/11. He had the balls to tell politicians the truth without sugar and never gave up because it was the right thing to do and he could.
deleted by creator
Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
I mean for a country that fought the monarchy you have sure been making the president the king. Your ceremonies for them have always reminded me of monarchy.
Lets divide the presidency into 3 roles. We can call it a triumvirate.
I mean, at least a two way division between head of state and head of government is pretty common.
true. its actually not the most horrible idea on paper, but I was making a half-joke about the fall of the roman republic and is descent into the imperial era and autocracy. The use of a triumverate system during the republic era is cited as a big transition in the decline of the Roman republican system of government. It heralded the end of 500 years of democracy. Even the rich lost their political power eventually, and all that mattered is what an idiot emperor thought.
How unlikely is it at this point that Trump would try to appoint his successor, and that it’d be one of his kids? Seems possible to me.
Tetrarchy or bust.
We can call it a triumvirate.
This won’t end well.
Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president
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.
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.
I feel like this map must be some sort of trolling for people that have any understanding of the United States. I could write a doctoral thesis for how badly this would disenfranchise people, screw over others economically, and involves taking over territory that isn’t even fully American.
Let’s just talk about your “territories” region. It is somehow supposed to compete on the world stage when it has less population than New York? Far less accessible resources? Peoples that may not even want to be part of the US given a choice?
The Western area is taking over tons of Native American land and have no water.
The middle area has the same population problems (except Texas) and the territories. Plus, they largely rely on Federal tax dollars and that would dry up.
The Eastern section would be dominated by the North East and people in the South would rather die than be lumped in with them.
I could go on?
All of this for what? Some sort of global representation? Each state already represents itself globally. For smaller regions of representation? Well, these are still huge (and uneven) regions that ignore population.
The major issue is that land doesn’t vote. Take away the electoral college and first pass the post voting and, suddenly, America works much better.
The big strength of the Outer Region, is politics and location - by occupying key spots far away from the American mainland, that inherently means that they are key points where trade, military basing, and other such things are concerned. Also, many territories don’t have state rights - which should be corrected by making them into proper states, or releasing them from America’s grasp. On top of that, the Outer Regions could get a special perk - any territorial acquisitions the US makes, by default goes to the Outer Region. If Cuba willingly joined the USA, that is where they would go. If Mexico was somehow conquered, that too becomes part of the Outer Region. This makes the mainland regions less willing to take the nation to war, unless it is important. If the rewards of conquest went to the smallest brother, the bigger brothers are less inclined to shake down nations.
Anyhow, I think the problem of territory and population count would start resolving itself as decades pass. Each region is meant to compete with each other, and by extension, that means effectively using their lands to house people, produce resources, and so forth. Thing is, people can still freely migrate anywhere within the states, so a badly lead region will have them losing population to other regions and the states therein.
Alongside my assumption of a reworked Constitution, is that economics itself will receive a dedicated section where UBI is guaranteed. This would allow people to have greater political and economic agency, since they are not tied down to land by work nor means. If they got free basic shelter, food, healthcare, and transport, citizens can just pick up stakes to find greener pastures. Without being able to hold people hostage through requiring work, each region needs to have good living conditions to attract people into their respective lands. This is not dissimilar to the times of the Black Death, where laborers had the freedom to choose the circumstances of work, because the lords had to jockey to get the skills of a limited supply of workers.
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.
That would never work. So each state has their own army? What are the training standards? What about not giving any troops but then wanting help.
Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state…but the regional government can hold a program. For example, “we train 6,000 of Colorado’s state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time.”
The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.
Personally I think all nation states should be dissolved
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 voting power 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.
Its a fine branch to have. But definitely needs an overhaul after Trump. He exposed the “good faith” loop holes we have and they need to get fixed
Ok sure, fantastically realistic solution for 3 goddamn years from now. We will “just” eliminate the highest seat in our government. Problem solved. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
I think people are seeing now that our system of government is broken beyond repair. Maybe it will take more than 3 years but we need to change far more than who sits on the throne.
You could take a page from the book of your sister republic. 7 person executive council. Currently the members come from 4 parties, 2-2-2-1.
Which one is that?
Switzerland. After the Sonderbundskrieg they took inspiration from the US Constitution in some things to reform Switzerland as a Republic, instead of just a Confederation. For example the two chamber parliament. The way the Senate represents the states with equal weights our Ständerat represents the Cantons with equal weights. A big difference is that Switzerland later adopted proportional representation, so we didn’t suffer the same mathematical trend to a two party system.
Some more info in English here: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/sister-republics-what-the-us-and-switzerland-have-in-common/73368873
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy
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.
they would rather sink AOC and Bernie forever so that the political equivalent of Assistant Regional Managers can get promoted to Regional Manager.
I agree and disagree. The ability to successfully lead a government as chaotic (i.e. democratic) and large as the republic of states known as the US is very rare. It requires not only a strong physical and mental constitution, but also a wide set of skills and intuitive abilities that usually only make themselves apparent during trials by fire. Compared to the sometimes explosively violent centralizations of power that occur when the rare charismatic tyrants fight their way into power (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler), democracies grow in fits and starts as they rely upon a panjandrum of popularity contests to find talented leaders. In contrast to dynasties that fiercely burn hot with their founder’s fervor then languish in subsequent generations, democracies have the potential for sustained competence as long as incumbent leaders continue to hold popularity contests with the goal of finding new leaders better than themselves from as wide a candidate pool as possible.
When the contests fail to find the rare talented leader, the process does resemble a farcical out-of-touch revolving door of mediocre middle managers like you suggest: because talented leaders are rare. And even when a talented individual does prove thenselves, they cannot cling to power lest they destroy the talent search apparatus that brought them to power in the first place and which will eventually replace them with an even more talented individual in the future. To destroy that apparatus reverts the civilization back into purity-obsessed gatekeeping fascism and boring dynastic tyranny.
So, if this decade’s popularity contest is restricted to late-night comedian talk-show hosts, I say that’s better than a Trump dynasty. But, I hope winners of those contests steer government to promote talent searches with larger candidate pools than they came from. That could take the form of government propaganda rewarding people to run for local elections. Without leaders consciously promoting wider popularity contests, the people of a democracy default to choosing the photogenic faces and entertaining voices they see and hear on their screens: actors like Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or game show hosts like Donald Trump.
I don’t disagree, but I will push back on a couple points.
First, I would assert that that we’re a few years past the end of the late night personality decade. Colbert jumping to CBS was what made it mainstream, which is the point of the peak, about 10 years ago. Kimmel and Fallon don’t measure up at all. The era of monolithinc cultural icons is fading since the internet has fractured our media consumption patterns. Stewart and Colbert had a great dynamic while both were on comedy central, and if you’ll recall, Colbert actually try to run for President in 2008. It was a joke, but I think only a half-hearted one and he would have probably gone on a hell of a campaign. He didn’t want to pay $35K to get on the Republican primary ticket in SC, but the DNC actually rejected his application to be on the primary in 1 state.
As for leaders who are charismatic and capable, ultimately, it’s a shit job to be president and no one wants it unless they’re a little crazy or see personal benefit. Obama, for his few failings, was an exception across the board, both for being good enough that the DNC let him skip the fealty line, but also being competent enough to not make people regret voting for him, and I think genuinely a public servant at heart. Typically, the “Left” universe lets their nepo babies play around in Hollywood simply because money is the arbiter of success, and anyone can subsidize their kid for 3 years to live in LA and make a couple lousy documentaries, or as lobbyists and lawyers in Maryland. Once in one of those spheres, that’s your specialty and contact list.
No one is coming to save us from the DNC - is what I wrote meaning to say “No one from the DNC is coming to save us.” What a slip, right? The DNC would rather let it all burn down around them to “show leadership” be handing out brooms and telling people it’s time to clean up the mess, and wasn’t it nice they brought brooms, so vote for them.
GreenShimada 2028
I promise to be a reluctant and lazy leader, calling in sick at least 3 days a week just to stay in the WH residence and play NES games until the mobs arrive.
It’s so cute that Americans think there will be a 2028 election.
If not… We have guns.
which people have already proven they won’t use
I just snorted coffee out my nose.
You’re funny.
And? What are you going to do with them? You’re a bunch of video-game addicted Cheetos-eating lifted-truck drivers living in a dream world.
You’re not going to do shit.
Fuck off, some of us have to live this bullshit.
As a gun owning leftist nothing will happen, republicans have exposed this, sure they had their lunatics show up for jan 6th. But the average person is to busy trying to just get by, and provide for their families. combined with the fact the United States is huge what do you even try to take over that would have an impact?
Republicans have learned turning democracy into a dictatorship with nothing but yes men is the only way
You’re absolutely right.
You ok?
Fantastic! Better than our silly American friends who just spent decades wagging their fingers at the rest of the planet about the superiority of the American Way and American Exceptionalism. Exceptionally violent, brutal, hypocritical, and dangerous, sure. Me? I can go for a walk without being strapped up, or worrying about a hospital bill. You?
There will be.
Stuart Colbert 28’! My fingers would break I’d vote so hard for that.
I’m just saying, his name is spelled correctly right there in the original post… lol
Could you imagine those debates?! Pure gold 😂
This is what I was thinking when there was talk of Al Franken running for president. But Schmuck Schumer didn’t want a smart, charismatic, funny PROGRESSIVE candidate running for president, so he jumped on that clumsy MAGA smear job to destroy him. I’ll NEVER forgive Schumer (or Gillibrand, who was in on it) for it.
But just think of how good a Franken/ Trump debate would have been.
The loss of Al Franken was enormous.
For such a ludicrously benign action, too. It barely made sense at the time, but seems even more stupid now.
It was a clumsy MAGA smear job, and would have failed spectacularly if Schmuck Schumer had allowed Al to have the ethics committee hearing that he demanded, and had a right to. But Schmuck didn’t want a Progressive running against his Senate mate Gillibrand, so he gave that ludicrous smear job credibility by jumping on it. And since we were in the middle of the Me, Too Witch Hunt, none of his cowardly Senate colleagues would defend him. In fact many piled on.
Later, every one of them regretted their actions, and wished they hadn’t done it. If Al Franken could get some support from the media in a rehabilitation campaign, he could definitely make a comeback in politics, and we need brave, intelligent warriors like him.
Oh, and let’s get rid of that loser Schmuck Schumer. He sucks, and he has sucked for a long time. A big part of the reason that MAGA was able to take over was because of the weak, spinelessness of Schmuck’s “leadership,” who let them grow, steal SCOTUS seats, steal elections, made lame excuses for their wins and our losses, etc. He’s a loser, and always has been a loser, who is interested in nothing more than growing his personal bank account through insider trading. How did a boob like him accumulate an $80 million fortune on a $175k salary? He is as corrupt as any MAGA, and working with the Sociopathic Oligarchs to offer only basic resistance to MAGA. His ONLY defense to anything is a stern statement, and when he really wants to turn up the heat, he writes a stern letter. Fucking Putz.
No. I would actually like Jon to win if this really were to happen, not have a laugh at the irony. I love Colbert, but the vp would need to be an actual politician. So no. No fucking Stewart/Colbert. Please.
Why the fuck are people so obsessed with celebrities? Elect someone actually competent for the job. Idiots.
The competent people never get elected.
Unless they’re competent AND popular. Zelensky was a comedian before getting elected as well. Now he’s basically done the impossible and held his own against Russia despite overwhelming forces. Regardless of your political beliefs, a comedian has done better fighting off Putin than literally anyone else ever. That’s an undeniable fact.
So Stewart should run. Because he’s the closest thing to competent who’s popular enough to win we’ll likely ever get again.
Correct, Jon Stewart is a populist that could totally win. I would almost say it is his patriotic duty to run. As Donald Trump shows, you don’t actually have to do anything once you are in the office, lol.
The election is a popularity contest, so skill has almost nothing to do with it.
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.
Well, the Ukrainians elected a comedian and got a true leader.
Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)
So finaly, you will get Stewart instead of King
