politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The time for a challenger to have stepped up to Biden was before the primaries. The only ones who did lost abysmally. You and many like you could have spent your time and effort recruiting and canvassing for someone else. But you didn't. Instead, you just complain about Biden and have the temerity to say "any faults of Biden will be because of Trump" when you didn't do a thing to try to get anyone to primary him.
You want to bitch and moan, not help.
To be fair, anyone that wants to run in a primary against the incumbent is already going to receive less due to the "never run against them" unwritten rule. We've been primed to see it as a failing strategy, and anyone that tries gets shouted down because "now is not the time."
I'll readily admit that some great things have been done this presidency, and Biden needs to be more vocal about that. However, his age being part of the conversation means that they're too afraid to actually have him talk about it (it seems like).
I dunno. I haven't felt less excited to vote in my life, and that's due to the pressure all around.
"Vote or it's fascism" is a great motivator to get out, but when it turns into a yearly thing it no longer it no longer feels like duty.
And yes, voting to stop fascism is a good thing. What I'm getting at is that apathy is going to win until we get someone that we can actually be excited for. Another Neo-liberal win isn't the victory that gives me high hopes for the future.
Given that the system is heavily skewed toward incumbency, your comment is a bit disingenuous. We both know that the DNC intended Biden to run. He had the advantage of thier coffers, thier PR machine, and the support of their leadership. Implying that the playing field was at all fair ignores reality.
I do agree, though, that Biden's many faults are his own. His most recent failure, support for ethnic cleansing and denial of aid to refugees, should have made him unelectable by the party that claims to be pro-human rights... but here we are, with him as the best of two terrible candidates.
Also, any possible challengers to Biden had to know that anybody they pissed off by doing that would remember in 2026, 2028, etc., and that they should just "wait their turn" instead
Shades of Clinton's "Russian plant" slander v. Gabbard, perhaps?
I read this as saying if you can't build an electoral apparatus within the Democrat party capable of challenging the party leaders, your opinion doesn't matter to the democrats
If you're not a Republican, your opinion doesn't matter to the Democrats.
10/10
I love this "it's not worth trying" attitude as an excuse to complain.
Weirdly, I haven't heard anyone who was pushing for Dean Phillips or Marianne Williamson make that claim or that complaint. Maybe because they actually did the work.
>I love this “it’s not worth trying” attitude as an excuse to complain.
that's not what I said. it's a strawman.
Yes, I know your 'if I don't literally say something, any inference you make is false' game. You played it yesterday too.
And, of course, you're allowed to interpret what I say however you like.
it's not a game. it's just intellectual honesty
I see. The idea that you can interpret my comment any way you like but I are not allowed to interpret any of your comments except 100% literally is intellectual honesty to you.
Interesting.
I explained my interpretation. you lampooned me using quotes. it's just a matter of intellectually honest engagement.
Wouldn't the intellectually honest thing be to ask me what I meant rather than decide your interpretation was correct?
if it's not, then you could correct it. what you did was argue with a strawman.
If I tell you why your interpretation was wrong, will you agree to believe me?
it doesn't much matter. I'm not arguing about it. I'm just sharing my feelings.
I see, so it doesn't matter what I meant to say, it only matters what you feel I said. And that is intellectual honesty.
I'm not arguing about it. I'm telling you how I feel. you lampooned me then argued against a position I didn't take.
Yes. You already said that how you feel about what I said is more important than what I actually meant. Which, apparently, is an intellectually honest position.
I said no such thing
Me: "If I tell you why your interpretation was wrong, will you agree to believe me?"
You: "it doesn't much matter. I'm not arguing about it. I'm just sharing my feelings."
It sure looks to me like you said it doesn't matter what I meant, only what you feel about what I meant. Would you care to explain?
It's not about convincing someone else to run, someone needed to convince Biden NOT to run.
It's super simple... A sitting President is the de facto leader of their party. The only person who can make the decision if they should be the candidate or not is that very person themselves.
See Johnson in 1968. He could have been the first 2+ term President since Roosevelt having served the rest of Kennedy's term + his own term, but chose to bow out instead. In the end that was his call to make and nobody elses.
Isn't it way too late for that? I mean there have already been primaries. That's sort of my point.
Hence the past tense. :) But technically, nothing is final until the conventions in July and August, and nobody OFFICIALLY has enough delegates to be the candidate yet.
Fair. Most people here don't seem to understand that the time for him to step down has most likely already passed and are still talking about how someone else could run against him (without usually naming who) and complaining that no one has when, as I said earlier, they did not do the work to even try to get someone else in there.
And people really didn't like it when I suggested that maybe Bernie doing it twice despite the DNC being against him and knowing he didn't have much of a chance was because he thought that trying before complaining that no one tried was the thing to do.
I love Bernie, but even if the DNC decided to not fuck with him, his time ended when he had the heart attack and the stent, and I say that as someone who literally just had a heart attack and a stent a month ago. Survival is debilitating. :( OTOH, it IS surviving...
It's not the fault of the electorate that the democratic party has lost touch with its base.
There are potentials. Eg. Gavin Newsom. He did well on Hannity.
It's too late for him to become the candidate, but perhaps he'll do as vice president.
Statistically there's something like a 50% chance that Biden dies within the next few years. No one lives forever. There needs to be a good backup.
The time for those "potentials" to run was months ago. Biden is going to be the nominee. That's how the cookie crumbles.
Also, there's only been one poll about a potential matchup between Newson and Trump, and granted it is from Fox, but Trump wins handily.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-newsom
Biden is currently 81. I googled and there's something like a 10% chance he dies within the year. Similar number for Trump obviously, given he's fat, angry and doesn't exercise. Unfortunately God is dead, or I'd be able to factor in thoughts and prayers too.
They need to have good VP picks though.
My apologies. Unless it's he literally can't run for president, Biden is going to be the nominee.
I thought that was implicit. Obviously if he can't run, he won't be the nominee.