330
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
330 points (98.0% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2108 readers
40 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Make him President you foolish yanks
I like him too much to do that to him.
No thanks. We don’t need more celebs as president.
It takes a lot more then just being a personality on TV to be a good president.
It’s supposed to take common sense, rationality and the ability to unite people. Things Jon Stewart celebrity or not, has.
It also takes a hell of a lot more than that. You don't just need to convince an audience of people who mostly agree with you, you also have to convince a room full of rich legislators who only want for themselves (and occasionally their constituents) that they should do what he wants instead of what they want. It takes compromising your ideals for the sake of accomplishing something, even if it's not everything you wanted.
Just because he'd better than Trump doesn't mean he'd be good.
Being a celebrity shouldn't be disqualifying. Trump was a dumb, loud criminal before being president and stayed a dumb, loud crimnal as president.
Stewart is in one of the most intelligent, articulate, charismatic and compassionate people in the public sphere and one can only hope he would be such as president. If he wanted to run, which he doesn't.
Great but it takes a lot more than that to be a GOOD president.
You need to be more than just popular. I know it’s a common mistake to think celebrities will make good presidents because they have charisma.
That is how we ended up with Trump.
Have higher standards.
The most important qualification a leader can have is the trust of the population.
Everything else is what advisors are for, and despite what you want to believe Stewart has seen how the kosher sausage is made, when he bullied Congress into taking care of the 9/11 first responders.
There are many, many worse candidates out there, and quite frankly not many better.
Is that a sad state of affairs?
Sure. But it's also reality.
And, just fyi, Trump wasn't a bad candidate because he was a TV celebrity.
He was a bad candidate because he's an idiotic fascist.
Nope. Not at all. Again this is how we get people like Trump as president.
And yet half the population trusts the moron so we’re gonna agree to disagree.
That's why I didn't even mention "popular", and listed a bunch of other traits besides charisma.
Comparing Stewart with Trump is lazy and simplistic, do better.
It's almost like a medieval peasant mentality, still regarding the presidency as some sort of faux-monarchy, with a certain aura, missing the point that an executive branch is not just a president who can work the cameras and microphones, that is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are a myriad employees chosen by the president and his top appointees.
There's an old chinese curse - "May your children live in interesting times", and there is a saying that the best leaders are practically invisible, as the whole group works towards a common goal.
We seem to always be living through interesting times, gravitating towards interesting characters, when what we really should want are boring government nerds who operate on reason and science, with no need nor inclination to make a loud splash.
He's the one we need, but not the one we deserve.
No more fucking celebrities, please.
It's always a disaster.
There’s a couple celebrities I’d fuck.
Danny de Vito?
He's a great commentator and humorist... but he'd make a fucking awful president.
He holds a lot of opinions I agree with (and some I don't), but that doesn't mean he'd somehow be able to steer the American political system in a way that would benefit most Americans. He'd mostly be yet another demagogue, just for the left instead of the right.
honestly the worst form of the "both sides" argument I have ever heard lol
Because they didn't once explain why...?
Why he would make a good president? I mean aside from "I like and agree with him".
I'm sorry, that's not how this works. I never advocated for him once. You are the one who said he:
"[would] make a fucking awful president."
"[Wouldn't be] be able to steer the American political system in a way that would benefit most Americans." As opposed to Trump, his likely opponent...??
"He'd mostly be yet another demagogue, just for the left instead of the right."
Do you have any sources for those, or are they just baseless opinions, like mine and everyone else's...?
He helped the New York City first responders get benefits for 9/11 related diseases and injuries and how do you think pays for that?
Taxpayer, that’s who.
Isn't that what taxes should be used for?
"[Taxpayers] pay for that!" is a very misleading way to phrase it. State, Federal, sales, etc... You do realize they're going to collect taxes no matter what, yes? I'm not getting them back! And if money already on-hand isn't used to help literal hero firefighters in the form of the benefits they were promised for saving lives in the wake of the biggest terrorist attack against the country, then what the fuck should we spend it on!? Nothing?? It's fine if you believe that, but it's a totally different discussion...
Man, people just love dismissing any argument against something with the most inane bullshit...
Oops, edited wrong comment.