174
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
174 points (94.8% liked)
politics
29883 readers
2011 users here now
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The document says:
No, he never said that, let alone promised it. People implied it.
Calling yourself a “transition president“, and then not announcing your intention to run for reelection until after the inauguration is doing far more than implying.
Can you provide a source of Biden referring to himself as a transition president?
I've been searching and nearest I can find is a CBS interview that he did after he dropped out.
Here is a good breakdown of the situation and here is an archive link to the NYTimes article linked in the first article.
It's not unreasonable to think that he meant he wasn't intending to run again, but it's a VERY far cry from a promise. I suspect that if Trump weren't running he would have been far more willing to step down. He's the whole reason he ran in the first place.
My point really doesn’t have anything to do with the semantics of the word promise. At the end of the day the implication or promise or idea was there that he wasn’t going to run again and then he announced which pretty much tanked the public’s ability to have faith in Kamala before the fact and made it further untenable for her to separate herself from his policies.
My point, in response to the original post, was that it isn’t that he should’ve dropped out earlier it’s that he should’ve never run again at all.
He said he would be a bridge candidate lmao
Lying or gaslighting people about this is an awful look
No no... it was because of her laugh.
-Some enlightened cultist democrats
Sometimes I like to claim to the Blue No Matter Who folks that her laugh is the sole reason I didn't vote for her.
For you see, her laugh causes sufficient wave interference to trigger an integer overflow in voting interest, as demonstrated by the Loose Square Law:
V~I~ = Sign(L % 2^32 - 2^31) * (L % 2^32) / 2^32
Where V~I~ is voting interest as a percentage and L is the sound of a laugh in decibels.
As Kamala's laugh exceeded the 2^31 dB threshold, it was advisable to not vote for her to save the planet's structural integrity.
real question: what makes people think that the "6 7 center" people can make an accurate assessment of why they are bad
the skills needed to do the thing are the same skills needed to evaluate the thing