570
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] Enekk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] turdburglar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

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?

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 14 minutes ago

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.

[-] TuffNutzes@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

He's way too smart to accept that job.

[-] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Americans, seriously, fucking stop it. You look like the dumbest cunts in the world right now. Stop looking to celebrities to fix your problems. Look at yourself, look at how you are letting yourselves be influenced into thinking everyone else a cunt, and youre the most perfect thing to every live. This is text book how the democracy fails. Once you start thinking the other side is all cunts who are cheating, you'll never trust the system again. Look at Trump, lost in 2020, none of his followers believed it. Its rigged, the dems stole it, etc etc etc. In 2024, Harris lost. None of her followers believed it. Musk rigged the voting boxes, MAGA stole the election, etc etc etc.

When you lose, or when you win, youre just supposed to go on with your day. Youre not supposed to think and act like its the end of the fucking world, and that you only lost because someone else cheated. Youre supposed to look at your opposition, still as countrymen. Sure, they disagree with you on some issues, but they are still Americans, like you. But whats happening now is the same thing thats happened many times before. The extreme polarisation of party identity politics. Instead of arguing with people, you write them off as evil. You forget the core principle of democracy is compromise. You vote, you win, you lose, you get on with it. But that only works when you dont look across the aisle and see literal nazis. Look at the Spanish in the 1930s. Same thing. The saw each other as evil, it only took 6 years to go from arguments to violence in the streets to full blown civil war.

You all need to stop doom scrolling and thinking everyone you dont agree with on every single issue is a cunt, and should be murdered. And Im not speaking to just one said, both sides are dong it. Creating the extremism thats started to turn super ugly. The United states is currently run by a paedo. Instead of this being a huge issue, what we are seeing is next to nothing being done by any of the safe guards in place. This is on you. All of you. You didnt vote for people, you voted for party. Not all of you, but enough of you. And whats worse, some of those on the right think this is the best thing ever. Which is usually what happens before Hugo Chavez types completely fuck the country.

And if youre right wing, and going to spin some bullshit about how Chavez is left wing, please. Continue reading. Donald Trump and Hugo Chávez, though ideologically opposed show the very same political behaviours and leadership styles, particularly in their use of populism, media manipulation, and personalization of power.

Both leaders employed a populist strategy centred on portraying themselves as avenging outsiders battling a corrupt elite to restore national greatness. They used vulgarity and humour to break political norms and forge visceral connections with their supporters. Chávez famously hosted the marathon TV show, where he improvised for hours, blending policy, personal anecdotes, and political attacks. Trump mirrored this with unscripted rallies, freewheeling speeches, and prolific use of Twitter to dominate media cycles, often attacking opponents and the press.

Their rhetoric was marked by personal insults and inflammatory language. Chávez called opponents “assholes,” “squealing pigs,” and likened George W. Bush to “a monkey with a razor blade,” while Trump labelled critics “pussies” and “disgusting”. Both used sexualized comments for political effect: Chávez once leered at the camera telling his wife, “you’re going to get yours tonight,” and Trump bragged about his penis size.

They also both vilified journalists, expelled reporters, and promoted their own versions of reality. Chávez built a state-funded media network to amplify his message, while Trump weaponized social media and sympathetic outlets to bypass traditional journalism.

The also both turned their illnesses into political performances. After being diagnosed with cancer, Chávez portrayed himself as a Christ-like figure enduring suffering for his people, especially during the 2012 election. Trump, after contracting COVID-19 in 2020, staged a dramatic return from the hospital, proclaiming a “total cure” and calling the infection “a blessing from God,” using it to promote unproven treatments like Regeneron. Both turned their illnesses into political performances.

Ultimately, while their ideologies diverged, their methods, polarization, media dominance, personalization of power, and the use of crisis for political gain, reveal a shared playbook of populist leadership.

If anyone is looking to the future of American politics. Might I suggest a radical option? Vote for people who actually know what they are doing! John Stewart, Im sure, is great guy. Hes certainly funny, and knowledgeable. But hes not someone who knows how to be a politician. But more to the point, the last fucking thing the America needs is another old man running the country. Look to GenX, Look to Millennials. Who there speaks to the good of America, not just "your side", but the country as a whole? Find that person, and start some grass roots shit. And never again look to populists to fill the shoes of people who should be making your lives better, not making others lives worse.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago
[-] _core@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 31 points 4 hours ago

Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

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

[-] syreus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 23 points 4 hours ago

President John Stewart

Vice President Stephen Colbert

[-] SCmSTR 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 4 hours ago

Colbert was a dick to Zohran about Israel, right? No thanks.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No.

If this is what we've come to where you have to be a popular TV star to win, then somebody get AOC her own TV show ASAP.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 24 points 4 hours ago

Why not? The fuck Ronnie Reagan, an actor, made it into office. Like many have indicated below Zelensky is another good example. If Stewart runs, who should be his running mate. I would choose AOC.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 50 points 5 hours ago

If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war. A good leader not only has wits, but also the voice to convince people of a vision.

Comedians have a day job of making people agree with them, without needing bribes or institution to back them.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago

If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war

:-|

[-] aramova@infosec.pub 18 points 3 hours ago

Hey boys, found the Putin Puppet!

[-] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 41 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I'm going to go with no. I appreciate Jo~~h~~n Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.

[-] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

If we eliminate career politicians with term limits you can expect to see more celebrities, billionaires, CEOs etc running.

If you want normal people to run and you don't want career politicians, elections need to be publicly funded and your job needs to be guaranteed when your term is done similar to maternity leave and military service. Otherwise who is going to throw their career away and go to Washington besides celebrities and people who are already rich?

I mean I feel like Walz is a pretty good example of someone who had a career and then became involved in politics.

I don't think you necessarily need to throw your career away, and I'm not sure we really need term limits for house and Senate seats (although 6 years between reelection is a bit ridiculous).

There are definitely some career politicians who have proven that they earned and deserve their seat, it would just be nice to see a bit more variety in the track most people take to politics.

[-] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

We should really get off this train of pushing only career politicians into high office. Seems like the liberals hold this high bar so we end up with old farts that don't know how to use the bully pulpit. I don't care at all that they have no experience in office, I care if they are smart enough to listen to their staff that does.

[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 34 points 5 hours ago

I will raise the point that he REALLY doesn't want the job. One thing about leaders is that the person who most wants it is often least qualified for the position. The reverse is true as well. As much as I agree about pop stars in politics, he has a record of political action and commitment. He's not just talk.

[-] Weirdfish@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

The Beeblebrox paradox

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bss03@infosec.pub 12 points 5 hours ago

I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn't a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he'd certainly be better than someone that's "simply" well-known and well-liked.

I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don't think they should generally be the candidate. I'd actually prefer a "career politician" that has a career they celebrate.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 hours ago

I’d go for al franken. He was a very intelligent person who was a good senator. The me too movement took him down. He stood too close to a girl/ fan during a photo shoot. He then. Resigned. After all that uproar the country knowingly elects pedophiles and rapists

[-] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

He definitely shouldn't have pretended to grab that lady's tits while she was sleeping (~~I believe she was a soldier???~~ she was a reporter) and taken a photo, but honestly in hindsight he probably should have just apologized, and put in a lot of effort to making up for doing something like that instead of resigning.

He did something really dumb, but he still wasn't a rapist or a pedophile. America has set a very low bar in his absence.

[-] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 9 points 5 hours ago

It was more than that. He pretended to grope a girl while she was asleep and also coerced her to practice making out in preparation for a skit.

[-] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

You mean the right wing radio host who alleged that he made out with her? The propagandist who is in bed with the fascist party?

Sure, the joke in that photo was in poor taste, which is why I'm shocked that the Groping Old Pedophiles didn't absolutely love it. Right on brand for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 hours ago

Yes. Take my vote, all of them, forever.

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 56 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 40 points 7 hours ago

Anybody that doesn’t want the job is imminently more qualified that anybody who does in my opinion.

[-] themadcodger@kbin.earth 29 points 7 hours ago

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

– Some hoopy frood

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] switcheroo@lemmy.world 25 points 6 hours ago

I'd vote for him. Even when we disagree on stuff-- a rarity-- he is still leagues better than anyone in the Pedo Party. John is more of a man and a human being than that scum sucking pig drumple thinskin could ever be.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
570 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25210 readers
2672 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