this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
164 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23087 readers
3288 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Democrats have all the spontaneity of the House of Windsor. Or, closer to home, they’re closer to what Republicans once were, a party that falls in line not in love.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not disingenuous at all. If you don't want Biden to run, work to primary him. That's how it works. The fact that almost no candidates even tried to primary him shows that people like the person I responded to didn't want to actually do the hard work it takes. They just waited until the inevitable and then complained. So I am going to point that out when they bitch about Biden like this. If they had at least tried, there was at least a chance Biden wouldn't be the nominee. They didn't try.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It shows nothing of the sort.

There was approximately a zero percent chance, statistically, that the superdelegates would vote for anyone beyond Biden. There was nearly no chance that a challenger would have been received with anything but contempt. This "logic" is the same logic both Reps and Dems use to gaslight third party challengers, too. "If you try real hard you can overcome our utter control of the debates and privileged position to win! We promise!"

Alternately, there WAS a choice and the vast majority of Democrats are okay with a candidate who is 100% okay cutting off aid to the victims of ethnic cleansing. I prefer to hope that that isn't the case.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I still say that if you don't work for change and just complain after the possibility of change has passed, you're being ridiculous.

Bernie was willing to run despite the DNC establishment. He knew what he was going up against. He did it more than once even. Maybe he thinks that if you don't at least make an effort to change things and just complain about them afterward, you're being ridiculous too?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And he was vilified and his supporters were blamed for Clinton's loss, as I recall. The party elite are on record noting that they would be comfortable bypassing the party's choice. There was no real chance that Sanders would get the nomination. Regardless, your assumption that anyone displeased with Biden just sat on their hands is... somewhat ridicluous. Given that they were going up against one of the most powerful political machines in the world, the chance of them making a dent in the establishment, even if they were activists full-time, would be low.

And if you think running within the party is difficult, hoo boy. You don't even want to talk about the anti-democratic fuckery that the GOP and DNC collude to impose on third part hopefuls.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

There was nearly no chance that a challenger would have been received with anything but contempt

And that's why President Hillary Clinton won her 2008 primary

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The primary system is an incredibly undimocratic process. I live in West Virginia. The primary is almost always decided by the time it gets to my state. Everyone else has simply dropped out. Does my vote not matter?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you suggest a candidate be chosen?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

A one day primary in which all candidates go against each other and everyone votes on a national voting day. We also completely get rid of the super delegate system and make it raw popular vote.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Shades of Clinton's "Russian plant" slander v. Gabbard, perhaps?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"It's not possible to primary Biden. Why can't we have a candidate other than Biden?!?!"

Easy thing to say instead of actually working to put a candidate in office.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I...are you being intentionally obtuse here? My point is that "putting in the work" quickly is overshadowed by the DNC having the largest megaphone available.

And a lot of us are working to just live. "Putting in the work" means either taking away what little time you have to decompress, or not working and instead stomping for that ideal candidate, by taking leave from work.

And aside from that, I was pointing out the "why" of it. Stop being abrasive and actually come into a topic willing to listen and talk.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

My point was that not even trying to put in the work and then complaining that you didn't get your way is silly.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

>I love this “it’s not worth trying” attitude as an excuse to complain.

that's not what I said. it's a strawman.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's not a game. it's just intellectual honesty

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I explained my interpretation. you lampooned me using quotes. it's just a matter of intellectually honest engagement.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't the intellectually honest thing be to ask me what I meant rather than decide your interpretation was correct?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if it's not, then you could correct it. what you did was argue with a strawman.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I tell you why your interpretation was wrong, will you agree to believe me?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it doesn't much matter. I'm not arguing about it. I'm just sharing my feelings.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

look at how different, syntactically, my statement is from your accusation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could you please explain what you meant?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it doesn't matter if i believe you. i'm not going to argue with you about what you meant. there is no evidence i could concieve of that would be able to contradict your self-report of your intentions. so what i believe doesn't matter.

is that any clearer?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. It is clearer. It is clearer that you are just a troll and I will be flagging you as such from now on. I do not advise you to continue trolling me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

i can help you find the block button if you like

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're not a Republican, your opinion doesn't matter to the Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It's not the fault of the electorate that the democratic party has lost touch with its base.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Biden is going to be the nominee. That’s how the cookie crumbles.

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.