420

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Dems’ ‘Idiotic’ Project 2029 Plan (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Paywall removed https://archive.is/UnSQN

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 127 points 3 months ago

People always say the Democrats are out of touch. While that is certainly true, that's not the real issue here. The Democrats know perfectly well what they would have to do to defeat Trump. It's blindingly obvious, after all. The point is they don't want to do any of those things.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 95 points 3 months ago

I wish Stewart would run for office.

[-] VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu 107 points 3 months ago

I understand the urge but please stop electing people from TV.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago

Nah, they're the only ones we have any idea about. Not to mention zelensky has been killing it.

[-] thedruid@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

In most cases I agree. Stewart is not a political neophyte though. I mean it's not like he runs a reality show

His humour requires wit, understanding and nuance. His product is much more intelligent and complex than say, a competition show where people compete for a " job" with some thinly veiled gangster.

So basically he's waaaaaaay over qualified to be president.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago

I listen to his podcast weekly. I haven't listened to the one from the OP, but in the past year I have become very disillusioned with Stewart.

Every interview is an absolute softball "what's your favorite color" BS where each and every answer is a boot that is slobbered on with "BAM", and "BARS" and every misdirect and deflection by the guest is just accepted and the root of the few harder questions goes unanswered without protest outside of maybe the Christie interview.

The Jeffries interview was absolutely embarrassing, for example.

It's very different from Stewart 15+ years ago.

[-] RainBlast@startrek.website 8 points 3 months ago

I kinda like repeated reaffirmation of a candidate's values, especially if it is very public and consistent.

[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

I was joking with my SO the other day about RuPaul running for president and we realised that since she's a reality TV host but also has a successful business that hasn't gone bankrupt and isn't obviously a Russian puppet, she's actually probably more qualified than the current sitting president for the job.

[-] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

To be fair the shit I took this morning is more qualified for the job, so that’s not the high bar it should be.

[-] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

thats how the US got in this predicament in the first place. elect a cunt who had a single line in home alone. I mean, Schwarzenegger was gov of Cali at some point and any german speaking mf could tell you that Arnold, while beloved and a huge teddy bear, was never the sharpest bulb in the shed.

[-] devolution@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

For every Trump, there’s a Zelenskyy.

[-] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

But for every Zelenskyy there are 1000 Trumps, and all it takes is one of those dumbasses winning.

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

I think if Stewart won the white house and made Colbert his press secretary, and he played the character from the Colbert report and just framed everything Stewart did as the most hardcore American Conservative stance and talked about how Republicans need to get on Stewart's level, they could actually shift the Overton window.

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 7 points 3 months ago

John Oliver over Stewart any day.

[-] memfree@piefed.social 14 points 3 months ago

Oliver is not qualified.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States;

be at least 35 years old;

be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

An Stewart really doesn't have the best interests of lower class.

[-] memfree@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago

Compared to who? Pelosi? Trump?

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 8 points 3 months ago

Compared to any of them. Sure he's better than the two you listed, Bernie is still better than all 3, as would AOC. John Stewart is a fun talk show host for some people, but he's still just a status quo neo-liberal with his interests aligning with the upper class.

[-] prole 7 points 3 months ago

What evidence is there of this?

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 3 months ago

I am listening to this episode right now. He's spot on. These idiot libs seem to want another loss.

[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 35 points 3 months ago

They’re not idiotic, they have to pretend to do something opposing the Republicans while they help them transfer all the wealth to the rich and start imperial wars around the world, otherwise normal people might catch on and do something about it.

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 months ago

This is it exactly. The Democrats are not on your side. They're neoliberals. They believe in the freedom of money. They are a party for rich people. This isn't a battle between left and right. It's a battle between rich and poor.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

That gives "dad are you coming to pick me up from baseball practice" vibes.

[-] runiq@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago

That's precisely what Jon said, too :)

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

there is only one joke we have to share it

[-] StowawayFog@piefed.social 13 points 3 months ago

This guy got $866,425 from AIPAC in the previous 2 years.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Is it time yet to consider a 3rd party?

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Always has been

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why not? Every Sociopathic Oligarch is starting their own. I'm sure they'd love to ~~enslave~~ have you.

[-] ordinarylove 2 points 3 months ago

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025

420 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26109 readers

2393 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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