So finaly, you will get Stewart instead of King
What’s a joke is thinking you are going to get there when you haven’t even seen what’s going to happen during the midterms, or that there is still over a year to get to even that.
I don’t think Stewart has any desire to run for President honestly.
Sure, if they let him.
Fucking yes. YES.
I wish he ran against Joe.
A half eaten PB&J would’ve been better
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.
Exciting casual games, high rewards, and a variety of gaming experiences. So, what are you waiting for? https://betway-pk.com/Betway-Platform-Simple-Bonus-Guide/index.html
We need someone willing to fight fire with fire and John Stewart isn’t it.
Trump would bulldoze Stewart and spike his ass. Make it happen!
i can’t believe you posted this for SO many reasons.
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.
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.
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
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.
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy
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.
I mean he worked hard for veterans rights.
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.
Didn’t he fight for the veterans?
It started with me not ever liking fucking Seth Meyers or Jimmy Fallon or the other Jimmy and I’ve extended this distaste to anybody talking and notdoing anything about Trump‘s abysmal fucking behavior. Jon Stewart can jump up his own ass, and so can the British guy
You guys implies you’re trying to other us, go fuck yourself. I’m intolerant of intolerance go jam this opinion up your own ass.
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
AOC has a major problem she doesn’t have a penis.
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?
Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.
He’s way too smart to accept that job.
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
Love Stephen, but no. Walz, AOC, one of the Kellys, maybe.
President AOC would be phenomenal. But, more boomers need to die off first
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.
Fuck Colbert. Sleasy ass “Liberal”.
Colbert was a dick to Zohran about Israel, right? No thanks.
Secretary of State: Chris Farley.
