Jon Stewart for President...

PhantomWolf said:
I would certainly back him over Oprah though!
Click to expand...
Stewart is a decent critical thinker; Winfrey has been pushing charlatans and quackery for most of her career.

The whole "I don't think ____ has what it takes to be president" conversation is laughable now that we're approaching the midpoint of Trump's first (gag!) term.

Trump was not only completely unprepared for the responsibilities he now holds . . . 1) His experiences and motivations were actually antithetical to public service. He was worse than merely unprepared – he was openly hostile to the office. 2) He was also unworthy of the office by virtue of his crass, demeaning, criminal actions and statements.

Therefore, anyone equally unprepared as Trump was but 1) not by default anti-government, 2) uncompromised through criminal and other unsavory activities, 3) not interested in a race to the bottom in terms of our national discourse, 4) respectful of the sacrifices of others – including key foreign allies, 5) etc., would be an objectively better president than the wankstain in the Oval Office today.
 
The Shrike said:
Stewart is a decent critical thinker; Winfrey has been pushing charlatans and quackery for most of her career.

The whole "I don't think ____ has what it takes to be president" conversation is laughable now that we're approaching the midpoint of Trump's first (gag!) term.

Trump was not only completely unprepared for the responsibilities he now holds . . . 1) His experiences and motivations were actually antithetical to public service. He was worse than merely unprepared – he was openly hostile to the office. 2) He was also unworthy of the office by virtue of his crass, demeaning, criminal actions and statements.

Therefore, anyone equally unprepared as Trump was but 1) not by default anti-government, 2) uncompromised through criminal and other unsavory activities, 3) not interested in a race to the bottom in terms of our national discourse, 4) respectful of the sacrifices of others – including key foreign allies, 5) etc., would be an objectively better president than the wankstain in the Oval Office today.
Click to expand...

As to your first line, putting Dr. Oz on as great and powerful * puts her out of the running for being a complete rectum.



* Of course I know what I did there - and well and truly known is the reality!!
 
I love Jon Stewart, but he's not going to change his pretty wonderful life to join in the hell that is American Politics on a full-time basis.

His life is mostly tending to animals at his wife's sanctuary. I wouldn't wish President on him.
 
fuelair said:
As to your first line, putting Dr. Oz on as great and powerful * puts her out of the running for being a complete rectum.
Click to expand...
Yup.

But seriously, any mildly cognizant human would do things like make sure our diplomatic positions are filled, trust the intelligence of our federal agencies over the rhetoric of foreign leaders, post cabinet members to positions for which they have some experience (other than trying to destroy the agency they would head), etc. Any president with a "do no harm" philosophy – regardless of their political leanings – would be a vast improvement over the current POTUS.
 
Yes, that was quite a powerful speech, and I found it to be very moving and even a bit upsetting.

Here's the thing - this bill (which IIRC is an 80 year extension) going to pass regardless. He showed up at a subcomittee hearing as I recall, and an outright majority of members attended (yes, it should have ideally been all of them). The room seats 26 committee members, there are possibly 13 total subcommittee members, so the representative seating would have looked empty even if every member had attended.

Yes, Stewart did have to shame the House last time this came up, and yes he does care deeply for the first responders. So do I. But while it's good to make sure the House doesn't drop the ball, as they sometimes do, let's not assume they were just doing nothing until he showed up.
 
Roboramma said:
I probably worded my post poorly, but that was sort of my point. I think that continuing on the trend started by Trump is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it started by Ronald Reagan? I will concede, however, that he had a career in politics after being a film actor and before becoming president.

Also, not a presidential level, but Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The trend that actually worries me more is the trend in Republican presidents. It goes Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Extrapolating, I think the next one probably will be a dead raccoon.
 
Giving a **** about any people in grave need (let alone those who gave so much for county) does seem to be an element lacking in our political leaders.
 
Mumbles said:
Yes, that was quite a powerful speech, and I found it to be very moving and even a bit upsetting.

Here's the thing - this bill (which IIRC is an 80 year extension) going to pass regardless. He showed up at a subcomittee hearing as I recall, and an outright majority of members attended (yes, it should have ideally been all of them). The room seats 26 committee members, there are possibly 13 total subcommittee members, so the representative seating would have looked empty even if every member had attended.

Yes, Stewart did have to shame the House last time this came up, and yes he does care deeply for the first responders. So do I. But while it's good to make sure the House doesn't drop the ball, as they sometimes do, let's not assume they were just doing nothing until he showed up.
Click to expand...

What were they doing? What had they achieved? What is the time frame they are working to?
 
jeremyp said:
Wasn't it started by Ronald Reagan? I will concede, however, that he had a career in politics after being a film actor and before becoming president.

Also, not a presidential level, but Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The trend that actually worries me more is the trend in Republican presidents. It goes Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Extrapolating, I think the next one probably will be a dead raccoon.
Click to expand...

Why ?

After four increasingly poor Republican Presidents, do you think that the GOP will swing back to putting up a better, more suitable, candidate ? :p
 
jeremyp said:
Wasn't it started by Ronald Reagan? I will concede, however, that he had a career in politics after being a film actor and before becoming president.

Also, not a presidential level, but Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Click to expand...

Sure, Trump wasn't the first. I just don't think that it's a good thing to emulate, and since Trump I've seen many people suggesting that looking for celebrities as leaders is a good idea. I don't think it is. That's about the limit of my point here.



The trend that actually worries me more is the trend in Republican presidents. It goes Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Extrapolating, I think the next one probably will be a dead raccoon.
Click to expand...

Was HW really worse than Reagan? In trying to find a trend is it really a good idea to limit yourself to the most recent 4 data points?

I am actually sympathetic to the idea that something negative has been happening to our political systems, but I think you need to make a better argument than this.
 
The Shrike said:
Stewart is a decent critical thinker; Winfrey has been pushing charlatans and quackery for most of her career.

The whole "I don't think ____ has what it takes to be president" conversation is laughable now that we're approaching the midpoint of Trump's first (gag!) term.

Trump was not only completely unprepared for the responsibilities he now holds . . . 1) His experiences and motivations were actually antithetical to public service. He was worse than merely unprepared – he was openly hostile to the office. 2) He was also unworthy of the office by virtue of his crass, demeaning, criminal actions and statements.

Therefore, anyone equally unprepared as Trump was but 1) not by default anti-government, 2) uncompromised through criminal and other unsavory activities, 3) not interested in a race to the bottom in terms of our national discourse, 4) respectful of the sacrifices of others – including key foreign allies, 5) etc., would be an objectively better president than the wankstain in the Oval Office today.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, I don't think that "better than Trump" is the bar that you want set for Presidents of the US going forwards.
 
The Don said:
Why ?

After four increasingly poor Republican Presidents, do you think that the GOP will swing back to putting up a better, more suitable, candidate ? :p
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that they have had some good candidates in that time, such as McCain, it's just that the Democrats had better ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom