this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
672 points (93.5% liked)

Memes

51746 readers
1274 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 102 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I really wonder what would happen if, say, Taylor Swift or MrBeast actually ran for president.

Who could compete with that? You can say the parties would try to oust them, but look how that worked out for Trump, and he had far less name recognition back then.

[–] AineLasagna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 99 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I would love to think that people wouldn’t just vote based on who they recognize most from TV but here we are

[–] Phoenix3875@lemmy.world 74 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well, that already happened for Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least one of those two was actually competent at his job.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He actually did a lot to reduce gerrymandering practices in California

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a Republican? That's surprising. Although Cali mostly swings democrat, so it might have even been beneficial for R.

[–] proudblond@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He was an old-school republican and honestly pretty liberal overall. He’s still far from MAGA as far as I know.

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's actively anti-MAGA. Dude knows first-hand what fascism does to people.

He’s actually on the very short list of “republicans I actually kinda respect somewhat” - Adam kinzinger and Liz Cheney too, largely because they very clearly do not like fascists, even if I strongly disagree with a TON of their politics.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 15 points 1 year ago
[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

the advtage they have is that they wouldnt be able to be easily be influenced by money, because well, they have a lot already. it would probably be the main reason why neither poltical party would want them to run, because they wouldnt be able to be controlled as easily. a lot of powerful people would not want a populist to gain control.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rich people are counterintuitively more susceptible to bribery.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

They're more susceptible to money, that's how they got rich

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

You would think that, but there is never “enough” money for the wealthy.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

More likely though, they would just pass the reigns after a day or a week or something. Being a President is exhausting, your daily schedule is constantly meeting and travelling nearly all the time. Even the presidents who would go golfing and the like were signing off on stuff and answering urgent phone calls.

[–] 474D@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The problem is that the very wealthy have either gained that through the exploitation of others or born into it. And neither create a healthy mindset as for how the general population should be treated.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

We’re long overdue for a new reform party to run on few or single issue platforms, eg. to end FPTP and institute national ranked choice or star voting. They’d certainly be immune from corporate bribe money trying to drop these policies.

If they ran as independents to do just that, they’d have my vote. And it’s crazy enough it just might work.

[–] ImpressiveEssay@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It would be typical murica.. that's for sure.