246
Joe Biden Hits Back at The New York Times After it Tells Him to Drop Out of Race
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
246 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2305 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a Canadian watching this, knowing that his loss would accelerate the shift to a dictatorship south of the border, it's so disheartening. What is wrong with the Democrats, it's bizarre. I can't even imagine having to vote for a candidate like him, that it's even a question when his opponent is such an absolute clown. It's the dumbest timeline.
This was interesting to listen to, the only thing left is single issue voting. A vote for whatever is put across from Trump, regardless of who or what it is, opens the chance for another election to try again.
https://youtu.be/Ikm4kDl4A4A?si=B0cUpEZORixoluTY
On the one hand, it’s a tradition at this point to always run the incumbent. In most cases, it’s a slam dunk win unless things went really wrong. (say a pandemic)
The difference now is that I don’t think we’ve ever had presidents get this old. I think Reagan ended this old but no one has ever run for office this old. And I can’t blame a guy for getting old like I can blame a guy for spouting lies and vitriol. I do think it’s time for an upper age limit for office though. If people can be too young, they can be too old. And it seems like people are living long enough to get to test it.
But on the other hand, there just aren’t any democrats that came close to winning the primary, wether because of the first hand tradition or because they just didn’t have anything good to bring to the table I’m not sure.
And when the opposition is as sturdy as Trump, it’s not the time to play games with untested newbies, you know? So you try to bring up your battle hardened best, even if he might be getting up there in years.
That said, before the debate, I felt like he had the ability. He’s been strong at previous public appearances. I truly hope this is a fluke, and he wipes the floor with Trump at the next debate. Because otherwise we are screwed, either because Biden fades out on us or Trump gets to try for his racist autocracy.
Gonna need that debate to be at 2pm... 9pm was way past Joey's bedtime.
I mean, given my work schedule it was late for me too. But it was an OK time for the other coast I suppose. Good thing I have a DVR.
Old age aside, that’s the curse of campaigning while actively President I think. Biden’s been up since god knows when hearing reports, making tactical decisions, worrying about multiple wars, working the reporters, navigating security concerns and doing his job, while also having to rehearse what he can anticipate, get to the studio and get all made up and go on TV. I’d be fried at the tail end of such a day too.
Trump probably threw a party, napped, popped some strong pills, printed another copy of his same old rally speech and came out of a hotel across the street ready to blame some immigrants for the sun going down.
Maybe we should get the VP to run the country on important days like debates so the active president can get the same treatment as the guy with nothing better to do?
Maybe we should switch to a single term limit... That way the president never has to be distracted by campaigning.
I think people are severely overestimating how much of an impact being an incumbent actually has with the final results. In smaller elections this definitely has a big impact, but in the entirety of the US history we've only had 27 presidents run for reelection, and 9 of them have lost.
That's a ~67% win rate for incumbent presidents, which isn't terrible, but isn't great either, and with a terrible sample size.
67% is massive what are you talking about? When you were gearing up for it I thought you were going to give away lower number and then you said that holy crap. Now I'm even more convinced he should still run.
The republican-adjacent wing of the party has the candidate they want, and they're so unforgivably pigheaded that they would rather lose democracy forever than change.
Ever read up on the elections in Germany that led to Hitler’s rise?
The millionaires and billionaires that have paid for all these nominees think Trump will: 1. cut regulations for them, & 2. he’ll be easy to control.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
(I admit, there’s also a bit of 3. help get Israel to start WWIII so all them rich white folks can get raptured, which is one of the reasons Biden also is supporting Israel.)
Watching this from across the big sea I get the feeling they want Trump to win just to avoid civil unrest. Maybe the thinking is 4 years Trump will do less harm than another January Coup d'état.
Actually, I have no clue what's going on over there. It's like a very bad accident you can't stop looking at.