this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
1028 points (95.2% liked)

politics

25456 readers
1493 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 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (37 children)

Oh Jesus more celebrities in politics is the last thing you guys need

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

John Stewart is probably the only one I could actually get behind.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] TuffNutzes@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.

[–] mateofeo85@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

No. We need to stop fetishizing celebrities.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago

Are you familiar with Jon? He's qualified. The Rock or Tom Cruise would be poor choices. So would Mark Cuban. But Jon knows government and all the individual assholes that make it up at the top. The only other hope the democrats have is AOC. Bernie and Warren are too old.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

People really think there will be an election in 2028?

[–] 7toed@midwest.social 18 points 2 weeks ago

Well either way, ya'll better be showing up somewhere when we're supposed to be voting

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So finaly, you will get Stewart instead of King

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Don't tease me. I just can't take it.

[–] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, ideally we shouldn't be just running celebrities but after 8 months of this shit I don't give a fuck anymore. Mentally I am here:

If it works I literally could not care less. Clearly the people want vibes so let's just give them the fucking vibes and deal with THAT issue when things aren't actively on fire.

Whatever else Stewart is, he's knowledgeable, charismatic, willing to fight for a cause, and DOES genuinely seem to give a fuck about the average person. That's a damn good start at least.

And all of THAT is even under the assumption we get something at least vaguely resembling a normal election, which at this point I think is entirely dependent on when exactly Diddler on the Roof finally strokes out on the shitter.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The Venn diagram overlap of personality characteristics of modern politicians and celebrities is extraordinarily large. Pure charisma drives success in modern media-driven politics. It's sad, but I believe it's truth now.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Fucking yes. YES.

I wish he ran against Joe.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just an interesting observation I've had about the comments here: everyone against this is misspelling his name

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (31 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.

[–] CannedTuna@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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 (4 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No matter who the Democratic nominee is the right will attack him or her in the exact same way, calling them radical communists that want all of our boys turned into girls and all of our murderers to have taxpayer funded penthouses. I just want a candidate who understands the severity of the situation and isn't going to fuck around. Jon Stewart definitely fits the bill.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can tell it scares the right by how quickly they showed up in this thread. Very funny to see.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why, Zelensky has been awesome. Same deal.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›