this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

politics

26705 readers
2218 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mortalic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who though... Comments like this are useless unless there is a valid replacement. So again... Who, or STFU.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No thats just wrong.

You are engaging in a form of lying when you say we need to have a decision already made to criticize Biden. You should stop lying. We haven't actually had a convention yet. He' isn't the nominee and doesn't have to be. We don't have to make that decision until the convention.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have responded to so many of these "who tho" requests, but they all end up in silence without even a reply. At this point I'm thinking it's some kind of script that sea lions were told to follow.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh 100%. They are completely full of shit. There is no answer you could give them that would satisfy them and they were never asking the question in good faith to begin with. Its also not really an important question. Its something we can answer at the convention.

Literally almost all Democrats poll 10-20 points higher than Biden. So the answer is "any of them". Literally any Democrat could would be enough of an improvement to stop Trump in his tracks.

And there are some solid picks out there. I really think Kamala would be fine; she would invigorate the african-american vote, and guarantee us black-woman voters (which might be a big fucking problem if she isn't the nominee). Newsom is like, greased-up-deaf-guy slick, but he's got a machine behind him. I would want someone progressive like Witmer, but I just don't care at this point. Any one. I think the most strategic choice would be Andy Beshear (2x Democratic southern governor like Bill Clinton; steal Kentucky from the Republicans) would be a very smart strategic choice.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kamala would sway any centrists towards Trump hands down. There is no brand recognition here besides maybe AOC and she'd fit a VP pick better. I fear a new candidate will only fracture us and ensure a Trump victory. There's so much at stake for such uncertainty. I can say I will vote for whoever is opposing Trump and Project 2025. I just hope more than half the country is seeing all this shit and thinking "Nah, I dont want a king."

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You dont need name/ brand recognition at this level. Its the presidency and there will only be two options. Its the wrong rule-stick for this level of race. If this were a house race or even a senate seat, sure. But not for whomever will carry the Democratic nomination.

I fear a new candidate will only fracture us

This is a weird talking point that has suddenly become very consistent.

Bro. We're already fully fractured and its Biden thats done the fracturing. Don't fear the unknown: fear the known failure the commentators here have been telling you that you are pot-committed to. Thats a far far far bigger concern than not going to the convention with a candidate in hand.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I can't really agree with just about anything you said. We weren't fractured until people decided the debate meant the world and his actual work in office right now doesn't mean shit.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

You are living in a delusional fantasy. Biden's polling was CATASTROPHIC before the debate. Why?

Because Biden split the party in how he has handled Gaza.

Its unbelievable the amount of delusion people around here try and persist with.

[–] mortalic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If thats an important condition for you to have before you move on from a lost cause, you should come up with an answer to that question on your own and suggest it.

[–] mortalic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just took a look at your post history. It's literally only anti-Biden. I hope you're getting paid...

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I want a Democrat to win the election and Biden has a less than 1 in 20 shot of doing that.

The only path to stopping Trump is replacing Biden. Continuing to promote Biden as a candidate is you basically asking for project 2025 to become a reality. And as you can see, there are a lot of idiots to push back on who think a guy polling in the low thirties can make it happen.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're the one saying Biden should be replaced. Why on earth would it be mortalic's responsibility to suggest the alternative?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Do you know what sea lioning is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Its a fundamental form of trolling that OP is engaging in, and that apparently, you think I should engage with.

Think about it as a metaphor. I come to you with the information that your house is on fire. OP is basically making a rhetorical argument that if I can't provide them with a house they'll find suitable, we shouldnt leave the burning house we're currently in.

The information about the state of the house (candidate in our case) is independent from there being another house that isn't on fire.

You should never, ever engage with people like them. They are not having this discussion in good faith. If its important to them they should suggest a candidate. There are plenty to suggest. But that is a fundamentally separate discussion.