Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
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.
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.
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.
Oh Jesus more celebrities in politics is the last thing you guys need
John Stewart is probably the only one I could actually get behind.
Last thing we need is another fucking celebrity in the office
Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.
No.
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.
He’s way too smart to accept that job.
President John Stewart
Vice President Stephen Colbert
Secretary of State: Chris Farley.
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.
Colbert was a dick to Zohran about Israel, right? No thanks.
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.
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.
Isn’t there some thing where the pres and VP can’t be from same state?
It’s not a requirement. It’s a political strategy. If the candidate is from a “liberal elite” coastal state, then the running mate has to be from flyover country. It’s pandering.
Seems like the 12th amendment says that EC electors cannot cast a vote for two people from their state.
Read the 12th Amendment. That being said, one of the two could easily pull a “Cheney maneuver” and buy a house in a different state. Problem solved.
They already live in different states; New York for AOC, New Jersey for John Stewart. They both start with ‘New’, but they are not the same state.
They could be from the same state but picking a VP candidate from another part of the country is seen as one way to balance a ticket. They could pick someone from a swing state in the hopes it would help win that state, or try to balance out the ticket on the political spectrum by picking someone further left or right than the presidential candidate. In 2008 the Democrats balanced out the young black candidate with an old conservative white VP candidate, so there are other ways to balance a ticket.
Electors cannot cast a vote for 2 people from their state according to 12th amendment. It’s not an outright ban say if it was CA or FL the VP might not get enough votes.
That’s not a requirement, it’s more a tradition because the “electoral math” is better.
The 12th amendment says that electors cannot vote for 2 people from their state.
They can both be from the same state and electors from all the other states except their own can vote for both of them if they win that state (Potus and VP are actually voted on as separate votes). BUT electors from their own state could only cast their votes for one of them!
Per the 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
Just another stupid thing about the Electoral College system. Say for example Newsom ran for POTUS and his VP pick was also from California. California electors could only cast their votes for one of them (obviously they’d choose to apply them to the POTUS seat. So the VP might lose to the VP of other party! So stupid. When Bush picked Cheney, Cheney was a resident of Texas and moved to Wyoming so Texas electors would be able cast their votes for him.
John lives in Jersey, actually.
Then make it so.
No
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.
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war
:-|
Hey boys, found the Putin Puppet!
I’m going to go with no. I appreciate Jo
hn Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.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.
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.
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.
The Beeblebrox paradox
This is true, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t support him as a nominee. Depending on who else would be running during the primary, he might truly be the best pick.
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.
On the other hand, someone who doesn’t have the background and has a good head on their shoulders is just the right kind of person to be a figurehead instead of a driver. The idea SHOULD be that they surround themselves with a competent cabinet and advisors to offload the requirement for deep personal expertise. For someone who isn’t an expert, that should make them more inclined to ask for help. Of course… current tv personality excluded.
The the office holder is where the power resides and where the decision is made – they aren’t a figurehead after the swearing-in, no matter what their role was in the campaign.
But, sure, depending on their background how “good” their head is, they certainly don’t have to previously have been a chief executive to make a good president.
I’m mostly unaware of Jon Stewart’s roles other than being on-camera / eye-candy, except for possibly some non-scripted interview questions (with him on either side). But, from the entertainment world, I think a directing experience probably does exist in the same “space” as chief executive.
When I say career politician, I mean the not so great aspect of politicians. Jon Stewart actually seems like a genuinely caring and empathetic person, and I would prefer someone like that to someone who is willing to compromise their values for a check.
I would vote for him if he was the nominee, it’s just not ideal to keep having TV stars at the helm of a country. He probably would make some really well informed and bad ass cabinet picks. I’m kinda picturing him as the anti-Reagan.
If Jon Stewart was the nominee, I’d vote for him. I’d honestly prefer him to someone like Buttigieg bc he seems more genuine, but I wish America would just give a scientist or an economist (or really anybody that can make educated decisions about the policies being created) a shot before we turn to another TV star. I know it’s never going to happen in my lifetime, but that would be my preference.
Interesting. I think Buttigieg is one of the most genuine people in politics. Do you recall the moment you first noticed him lacking the quality?
Probably around 2020
https://time.com/6255811/elizabeth-warren-buttigieg-monopoly-antitrust/
To be fair my problem with him is the same problem I have with most politicians. I would vote for him if it came down to him vs Vance no question, but just seems like at the end of the day his loyalty is with his donors before anyone else.
This definitely didn’t help change my mind on how genuine he seems https://www.commondreams.org/news/just-tell-us-what-you-believe-buttigieg-torched-over-non-answer-on-israel-palestine
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
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.
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.
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.
The license to grope girls of any age only belongs to white dickheads, apparently.
My understanding is that she didn’t think he should resign, tho.
I think it must be possible for anyone to be “rehabilitated” through restorative service and at least the outward appearance of inner change. If you make it impossible to “come back”, that just encourages bad actors to band together AND get worse.
I’m not convinced that Al Franken has done enough, but I really haven’t paid attention / researched anything around him or the events since he resigned.
We’ve already decided our political system is basically satire so why not have fun with it?
“Jon”.
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.
Yes. Take my vote, all of them, forever.
