7 ms·
The (Fairly Serious) Case for Jon Stewart in 2024
- spacemanmatt 4y agoI would vote for him. He's angry enough. I feel like Biden peaked on inauguration day.
- stevenwoo 4y agoHis kowtowing continually to Henry Kissinger on the Daily Show is weird, it makes me think he's more like Biden than people think.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoJon definitely has some questionable moments but overall I think he'd make a good candidate.
- basedgod 4y agoI could see this being true. we only ever see him attack. Republicans, because most of what they do is so idiotic and insane. there's an implicit agreement with the viewer that He's doing this because the Democrats are so much more tame in comparison, that he doesn't need to spend time on them it's from this cloth of shadows. we can infer his political beliefs and projector own. but he very well. could be a neoliberal hack who blindly trusts in his party, like Biden
- spacemanmatt 4y agoHe and Colbert had routinely poked entirely un-ironic fun at their own formula, by way of poking fun at Republicans for writing their material for them. I could believe they understood exactly what they were doing.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago> could be a neoliberal hack who blindly trusts in his party, like Biden So, I don't think Biden is exactly a hack but I do think he is a status-quo guy who doesn't understand when a long-term predictable plan makes him a sitting duck. On the other hand, Jon does have to make a case for pretty much _any_ political expertise outside of punditry. I'd like to give him a chance sooner than any Republican.
- pcdoodle 4y agoAngry is a qualifier for president?
- spacemanmatt 4y agoCompared to Biden, who I consider blissful, I do want someone angry. This country has some problems that demand motivated leadership.
- h2odragon 4y agoHe probably hasn't got the problem of saying aloud "Repeat the line" teleprompter instructions. The political press has been telling us how badly the country is run for years; perhaps they can finally get a member of their corps elected and fix all the problems. I don't think the Democrats need a presidential candidate at the moment. I think they're hunting for a VP to appoint right now, before they bail on Joe. Investigation into the Biden family operations will kick up too much evidence against other party leaders.
- hackyhacky 4y agoYou do know that VPs are elected, not appointed, right?
- MerelyMortal 4y agoIIRC my ballots always just showed the Presidential Candidate's name and political party, nothing about the candidate's Vice Presidential nominee. I don't know the rules or law when it comes to the VP nomination, but could it be changed last minute? Additionally, if something happened to the VP nominee between election and taking office, wouldn't the President-Elect choose a new VP without going through an election?
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago> but could it be changed last minute? Ballots are locked for a certain period of days before an election. The presidential candidate chooses their running mate and are voted on together. Until the early 1800's, the winning presidential candidate became president and the runner-up became VP. This didn't work out very well because the VP sometimes came from the opposing party. If a sitting VP leaves office prematurely, then Congress votes on the replacement. I assume that would also be the case in a VP-elect situation.
- paulcole 4y agoUnless this varies from state to state, you don’t remember correctly. Every ballot I’ve seen lists both the Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate. I think the idea is that you’re voting for a party’s ticket, not the person running for President.
- breckenedge 4y agoWeird that using Reader mode on iOS cuts off the first 11 paragraphs.
- basedgod 4y agoI'm torn between doubting his actual efficacy from never holding office nor being in government, with that of thinking it doesn't really matter, that what we really need is an effective leader with moral and ideological direction, who leaves the policies up to our bureaucratic state because biden- and almost every other recent president – have been politicians for decades, then yet still get nothing done. John Stewart, at least has the truck record of being able to deeply research issues and find and stand for his moral ground in a consistent, predictable manner I wouldn't trust him to " run the country" by himself. but I also don't think you need to be able to do that to be president. John Kennedy in a 1960s filled his kitchen cabinet full of highly intelligent people to help him govern. as a counterexample, George w. Bush was rather unintelligent, but filled his cabinet full of insanely intelligent( but evil ) and was highly effective in pursuing his agenda If nothing else, John Stewart would be moral compass for the country to preempt somebody jumping in on this with a dumb take on Trump: he accomplished rather little as a president, certainly far less than he could have, because he filled his cabinet with blithering yes men, Rather than a cohesive team that could strategize
- chrisseaton 4y agoI don't think penning a comedy bit counts as any kind of serious 'research'. It's super easy to say something facile but funny about a subject and to clown around with rage when you don't have to actually do anything about it. I think he's said himself when challenged that it's just comedy and he's just a comedian.
- basedgod 4y agoI think what matters more is not his current views on any particular subject or knowledge thereof. but rather his well demonstrated ability to not only challenge his own views( and the current prevailing views/ countercurrent views ) - but also that of being able to surround himself by writers and collaboraters and and other people who can challenge his views. it's very analogous to empiricism in research. I wouldn't trust him to get the right answer on his own, nor on the first time. but, I'd trust him, that it put up the the task on the issue of governance, he wouldn't be arrogant enough to assume he knows the only right way to do something, and hed actually try to sorround himself by intelligent capable people, and rely on their advice to get things done
- tengbretson 4y agoI haven't been paying much attention, but isn't there another country led by a comedian? How are they doing?
- hackyhacky 4y agoUnder the circumstances, surprisingly well.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AndrewOMartin 4y agoWe've got a cost of living crisis and he's just resigned. Anyway, his jokes weren't funny
- paulcole 4y agoStewart has an obnoxious habit of wanting to be taken seriously as a journalist but when he is taken too seriously he’ll say, “But I’m just a comedian…”
- tpmx 4y agoHis apprentice/heir John Oliver as well. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/john-oliver-not-a-journalist https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/john-oliver-not... Stewart’s constant “I’m just a comedian” response has prompted pushback from his detractors who have called it, among other things, a “dodge.”
- salawat 4y ago>Stewart’s constant “I’m just a comedian” response has prompted pushback from his detractors who have called it, among other things, a “dodge.” Much as people with overly inflated egos are wont to do at any expression of either modesty or humility, or a bully is wont to that a victim would dare defang their attacks, depriving them of the dopamine hit they get when someone squirms under their finger. Yes, "best practice" is to not undermine yourself in a debate with that sort of utterance, but today, I feel it is an invaluable expression of truth, and a reminder to the American people that even your President is just a normal bloke onto whom a shit ton of responsibility and accountability gets dumped for 4 years. This country is a country of cobblers, haberdashers, construction workers, office workers, garbage men, and yes, comedians. I think it's about time that the political elite start to recall that "politician" was never intended to be a day job.
- DHPersonal 4y agohttps://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1545836987885699072?s=20&t=K4O2PNO5KPTkMaxdCBd6VQ https://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1545836987885699072?s=... @jonstewart: Ummm…No thank you
- thr0wawayf00 4y agoYeah, I was really surprised at this piece because he's sworn up and down for decades that he has no interest in running and who can really blame him? I went to a taping of the Daily Show in 2010 and before he came out for the Q&A, the emcee opened with "no, he's not running for president so don't waste your question asking". That's how often he got that question.
- thrown_22 4y agoLook how well the last comedian elected to president worked out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
- Ekaros 4y agoI didn't know Obama was a comedian... But then again knowing the standards for those from left I suppose it could be true.
- gabereiser 4y agoI think we all saw what happens when we elect a celebrity as president.
- iso1631 4y agoI think the 1980s were considered a pretty good time for the US as a whole, and he was ranked pretty highly in this list [0], indeed nobody has beaten him yet. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/37/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-bes...
- dsauerbrun 4y agocorrelation is not causation. were those times good because of what the Fed had done at the beginning of the decade? were they good because of the previous president's policy? were they good because of Reagan's policy?
- bsuvc 4y agoWhat happens? Care to elaborate?
- throwaway09223 4y agoThings actually get done. Good things? Well of course it depends on who you ask. But celebrity outsiders are far better at speaking truth to power and challenging the calcified establishment. Things will happen for sure.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jtdev 4y ago
- tomohawk 4y agoCynicism may fool people lacking adequate life experience, but it is no substitute for actual competence.
- hackyhacky 4y agoUnfortunately, Americans have never elected their leaders based on competence.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoWhile Jon Stewart projects an affable and trustworthy persona, I personally believe the Daily Show is largely responsible for the kind of snide discourse we see around politics today. Yes, politics has always been contentious, but Jon Stewart popularized the format of taking a subject and reducing it to a very narrow aspect, mocking it, and associating audience applause with “winning”. Again, this is speculation on my part so I can’t give you a source or citation, but the kind of ‘clap back’ responses I read on Twitter seem inspired by how the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver approach covering politics. Take a complex subject, find a flaw or make a non-sequitur joke, and use that to discredit the other side through humiliation. It’s good entertainment, but it does not make for good discourse and it is incredibly polarizing.
- hackyhacky 4y ago> the format of taking a subject and reducing it to a very narrow aspect, mocking it, and associating audience applause with “winning”. This has been the format of politics since at least democracy in ancient Athens.
- invalidname 4y agoThat's a response to Fox. They're responsible for the problem and decline of discourse. The most you can say about Stewart is that he made it funny. I agree he shouldn't run for office, I just don't think he's responsible for the snide discourse. That was 100% earned by politicians who brought clowns like Palin and Trump to the forefront.
- CharlesW 4y ago> …Jon Stewart popularized the format of taking a subject and reducing it to a very narrow aspect, mocking it, and associating audience applause with “winning”. I enjoyed The Daily Show, but political satire has been popular for as long as politics has been a thing. “The oldest example that has survived till today is Aristophanes. In his time satire targeted top politicians, like Cleon, and religion, at the time headed by Zeus. ‘Satire and derision progressively attacked even the fundamental and most sacred facts of faith’…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_satire
- joshgroban 4y agoAnd then maybe Hasan Piker or H3H3 can run in 2028. I'm really optimistic about the effect the internet is having in mobilizing young Americans into politics.
- psyc 4y agoThen who’ll be Vice President? Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman will be the First Lady, and Jack Benny will be Secretary of the Treasury.
- willnonya 4y agoTop comment...
- sschueller 4y agoI don't understand this appeal to try to elect basically a king in a democracy. A single individual should not have the power to enact huge change and as far as I can tell he doesn't in the US. Instead we should focus on electing good people to congress. The president should be irrelevant mostly if a congress is competent and can work together. Even if a president turns out to be a psycho congress can veto prof bills and pass them.
- willnonya 4y agoThat's how the system was supposed to work. Since then Congress has given much of its authority over to the executive branch. The presidency doesn't need to consult Congress to engage in military action or make international promises. I agree that we need to fix congress and also break the duopoly strangling it with swings from one extreme to another. The president is supposed to be an administrator executing the laws passed by co guess. They are rhe head of state in I ternarional affairs but without the authority to make binding agreeme to for the country. They are the head of the military responsible for defending the county but are not able to attack other countries without the approval of congress. At least, that's how it's supposed to be. Only congress can save this country, and that should terrify everyone.
- tialaramex 4y agoIf you're electing them, that's not a King. What you've got there is, maybe a Dictator of some sort depending on what happens when you try electing somebody else, but it's not a King (unless this is Star Wars for some reason). The whole point of Monarchy is that you get random monarchs because of how sexual reproduction works. Short, stupid, clumsy, more or less everything is possible. England even had rules trying to pick boys to be the next monarch (these rules are no longer in effect for future generations) and because Mother Nature doesn't give a shit we got several Queens anyway. So elections have nothing to do with how somebody gets to be King. Anyway, I think the role you're thinking about is Head of the Executive. You need a single human in this role for effective government, because the executive is responsible for immediate tactical responses and of necessity a democratic legislature cannot react fast enough or cohesively enough to serve this purpose. It does you no good to give, say, Nancy Pelosi the status of "Commander in Chief" of your military forces, and then oblige her to hold a vote, subject to the whims of dozens or hundreds of people, on any directives for those forces. The Executive needs to make rapid tactical decisions and not be paralysed by conflicting political ambitions. This is also true for civil emergencies, nobody whose town was just destroyed by a volcano wants to hear about how due to procedural rules the emergency supplies won't arrive until Wednesday because a senator from another state wanted to make a broader point about gay marriage.
- sudden_dystopia 4y agoThe article starts out saying that Biden should run again in 2024 which is about the most unserious, idiotic position for the democrats to be taking right now. Barely even a majority of democrats like this guy anymore and everyone else simply hates him. Pull your heads out of your butts if you don’t want to get trounced by Trump in two years. Good lord.
- D13Fd 4y agoDepends where you are I guess. Plenty of people on the east coast, or at least in my area, seem to think his presidency is exactly what it said on the tin: basically unobjectionable, albeit kind of annoying. Hard not to vote for that when the alternative, in their eyes, is someone who will light the building on fire, crash the car, shoot the dog, and then blame it all on the neighbor.
- willnonya 4y agoStewart would be a good candidate especially when compared to other democratic offerings. That doesn't make him well suited to be president though. He supports policies and positions that differ little form those leading us to our current predicament.