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
It's silly to talk about a "pundit class". It's not like they're a group with any coherent ideas, much less any sort of persistent group loyalty. They're just people with opinions and a platform.
This article tries to make it sound like he's a really popular candidate and there's some shady group of kingmakers trying to block him.
The main reason that people are pushing for him to step aside is that they don't believe he can beat Trump. It's not that people were grumpy about a raspy voice. There was already a lot of suspicion that he's going senile. He got the benefit of the doubt and the debate was his chance to prove the doubters wrong. Instead he confirmed their deepest fears. Since then, he's provided a steady stream of examples of his diminishing mental capacity.
A formal cognitive assessment might lay those fears to rest but, at this point, it's unlikely. For many people, the conclusion is clear; the evidence is in and he forgets what he's talking about mid-sentence. Many people look at the polling numbers around that just want someone who has a chance of beating Trump.
Don't disagree, but also curious why the same pundits aren't ripping apart Trump's senility? 30 seconds of watching a Daily Show weekly roundup will provide COUNTLESS examples of Trump rambling endlessly and forgetting what he was even talking about. Just because it wasn't as stark at the debate doesn't' mean it isn't happening. I'd also imagine that Trump was probably coked out of his mind at the debate after he spent weeks leading up to it claiming Biden would be on drugs. He has a well-documented history of projecting whatever he's doing wrong on his opposition.
Because Trump's senility doesn't matter; Republicans are going to vote for him regardless
Republicans are held to a lower standard.
It's because we're talking about two entirely different groups of people.
More and more Democrats are calling for Biden to withdraw because they don't believe he can beat Trump.
Republicans are happy to stick with Trump because they're fairly sure he can trounce Biden.
Those articles are out there.
The key differences are Trump is the popular candidate. He is who the GOP electorate wants and who the GOP runs on.
Biden is not a popular candidate and not who the Democratic party electorate necessarily wants: instead his whole candidacy and presidency has solely been not being Trump. This condition is fully transferrable to any candidate with support of the party.
So the ramifications and implications are wildly different.
Biden may not be a popular candidate on Lemmy, but he absolutely was prior to that debate showing with the general public. It turns out moderates and independents make up a large portion of the voting block and they aren't all drooling at the prospects of Bernie Sanders. They WANT a boring president.
They want a competent president. Biden has been showing these signs for quite some time to a lot of resistance towards anyone willing to acknowledge it. But now? Shit I've seen hard leftists express willingness to support Kamala Harris so I think people are mostly on board for not-Biden in general.
Only 25% of Democrats wanted him to run, he is not a popular candidate
My guess is - people have heard so many articles about Trump fucking up that they don't get clicks any more. Tearing into Biden is much more lucrative, plus people then argue about it in comments (just look around here) further driving engagement.
the fact we should even need a cognitive test is Ludacris. age limits for presidential and high court positions. past retirement age? gtfo
That has the unintended consequence of encouraging them to raise the retirement age.
Better plan: base it on lifespan, cap it at some percentage of the average age of death. They want to stay in office longer? Gonna have to raise the average lifespan. Public healthcare would probably get them the biggest bang for their buck
I'm ok with that too.
I wouldn't base it on lifespan because keeping people alive longer doesn't necessarily require them to be able to work longer.