this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
745 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3859 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Bad take. Biden clearly isn’t up for the job anymore. If it really was “just a cold” he would be out doing unscripted interviews and reassuring the public that he isn’t too confused to work after 5pm. The fact that he isn’t means his team thinks it’s more likely than not that he can’t actually convince the public that he’s still with it.

Putting someone else in is a risk but keeping him in is a bigger risk. Models are predicting a 60-70% chance of trump winning if the election was run today. This ignores that now the trump team and conservative media will now be pushing the age issue constantly. Who is going to be confident in Biden after he hides away from the public for the next few months and then drops out of the second debate?

Last, I’m deeply uncomfortable with the Democratic Party giving cover to a president that isn’t mentally fit for the job. There was so much talk about following norms and respecting the office of president while it was trump in the white house, but now some dems are openly saying they’re ok with Biden being controlled by his cabinet and family. Even if it all works out and Bidens cabinet runs the country for 4 more years it’s going to cast a long shadow on future elections where republicans can point to Biden as proof that democrats don’t respect the office and don’t even care if the nominee is competent.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 months ago

The DNC is a centrist party at best. Leftists have almost no representation.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden clearly isn’t up for the job anymore.

He's currently in the job and things are going reasonably well. Do I wish he was more left wing? Yes, but he's been more left than any POTUS during my lifetime. Do I wish he would stop supporting Israel? Absolutely, this is a huge mark against him.

Maybe we can argue that we can see the writing on the wall and we think he won't be able to do the job, but to argue that he clearly can't requires ignoring the reality.

Trump, on the other hand, we had 4 years of and that was a disaster that ended with people attacking the capitol. So if we can say we know any of them is not up for the job, it's clear which way that should point.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Two things though

1 if he can’t get up and speak coherently for an hour at a time I’d argue he actually isn’t doing the job. Communicating clearly and responding to crises at all hours is crucial to the job.

2 there’s little proof that Biden is actually the one calling the shots even ignoring his lack of public appearances

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
  1. I'm a proof is in the pudding type of guy, and it's been smooth sailing. You're conjecture that he can't lead us during a crisis is just that: conjecture.
  2. Again, I'm a proof is in the pudding guy. Whether he is actually running the administration is inconsequential: it's doing well. So if he isn't running it, then all the less reason to worry about re-electing him because if he is already hands off, then that's proof his cognitive ability doesn't really matter.
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don’t totally disagree with you, but the logical conclusion is that if we get trump again and he goes batshit crazy the dems aren’t going to have a leg to stand on regarding the 25th amendment.

I’m worried that the democrats are playing the short game again and we’re all going to suffer.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is a weird position for a bunch of reasons.

First, you aren't really challenging my claim. You're just kind of stating it as a given that Biden is unable to serve and thus subject to the 25th amendment. My point is that there is no good evidence of this; you're basing that just on a bad debate performance.

Second, there is no reason to assume that the next congress won't be closely split. That being said, the dems will have no power to remove the POTUS via the 25th amendment. Hell, even if by some miracle they do get some massive majority in both houses, the VP still has to be on board for it. It's not like the Dems can just invoke the 25th amendment on their own. That would require Republicans to do something. . .and if it is simply that "Trump goes crazy" well, good fucking luck getting 2/3rds of the house and senate to oust him. Never going to happen, the cult is just too entrenched and his lackies too beholden or afraid of the consequences of going against him.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

It’s not just the debate performance, it’s the months of Biden being sheltered from any unscripted speaking, his relatively sparse interview schedule, the Hurr report, his refusal to do interviews following the debate, his refusal to take any kind of cognitive test, and reports that when he does do supposedly unscripted interviews his team has been feeding the interviewer questions.

I don’t have any way to know what goes on in biden’s head, but if the debate was a fluke then both Biden and his team have been acting very irrationally before and since.

On the other hand, if we assume his handlers are acting rationally then we can only assume that they believe his speaking ability has gotten so bad that even at this point putting him in front of reporters will only make his image worse.

Also the debate was pretty fucking bad. Don’t forget his team basically got everything they wanted in terms of no audience, cut microphones etc. and they had weeks to prepare. Biden should have been at his best for the debate and his best didn’t seem very good.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I don’t think we should fight fire with fire here. If the answer to Republican fascism is democratic fascism then I’m out

[–] abracaDavid 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah there are some pretty frightening implications to all of this.

So they're all saying that they're ok with the president being a puppet but also having absolute authority? Sounds highly, highly abusable.

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Who is saying both of those things? Everyone that would support Biden is strongly against Trump's court's ruling.

[–] abracaDavid 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are they? Almost no one is doing a damn thing in response, while also saying that they would be fine with Biden being president while in a coma. People are literally saying things like that all over the place.

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think people with power to respond to the situation and people shit posting about Biden on the Internet are the same people

[–] abracaDavid 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that Biden's cabinet that has been essentially running everything the whole time he's been in office is just so ready to lose all of their power.

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you even reading the things I'm saying?

[–] abracaDavid 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you understand subtext.

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I don't think your can formulate subtext

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Putting someone else in is a risk

Again, what you mean to say here is "historically a 100% failure rate".