this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
482 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3595 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump has taken his obsession with crafting falsehoods about Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to the next level, penning his own fan fiction on Tuesday about the vice president.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the people wanted Biden as president, it would have been back in the 80s when he was at his peak. He'd have probably been a good president back then.

Strange to see you, of all people, saying that. Biden of the '80s would have been much more corporatist and neoliberal than Biden of the 2020s, and therefore way worse despite being in his prime, age-wise.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Saying what?

He’d have probably been a good president back then.

Isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

But back in the 80s it wasn't even debatable, Biden was the best public speaker of his generation.

And yeah, he was/is a neoliberal, but he'd have been pretty indistinguishable from Bill. And back then his whole "work with Republicans, not against them" schtick had a chance of working.

Bidens time was decades ago. Doesn't mean he was perfect back then. But I don't think he's changed much, you seem to think he has.

[–] glizzard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A Biden presidency probably would have been better than a Reagan one.

Random, but when was Hillary’s time?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When she'd have had her best bet?

Right after Bill's second term.

You might not remember, but they ran as a "two for one". He had the charisma and she (supposedly) was the policy expert.

So logically her best shot was right after him, and she probably would have ran if not for the Lewinsky stuff. I think that's what made her pause, then didn't want to run against GW after 9/11.

So she got bumped all the way to 08, Obama happened, so we got stuck with her clogging shit up they the 2016 election.

[–] glizzard@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Honestly probably the best answer. I was JAQing off, but kinda wanted your opinion if you were legit. And yeah I think I’d have to agree, although you’re also right in that I can only gleam those facts from reading