this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
329 points (83.6% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3598 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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
[–] Zeke@fedia.io 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Honestly, we're basically just voting for Kamala when we vote for Biden.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is what I've been thinking too. Cognitive decline isn't necessarily fatal. Nancy Reagan used astrologers because she was lost and trying to keep up appearances.

Dunno what Jill/Joe will do. But if he was inclined to step down, I don't see home doing it for a few years.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it's Parkinson's as alleged then there's no real reason to freak out, moreso because the cabinet does a substantial amount of the leg work anyway. Realistically so long as other leaders respect and understand him everything is fine and this is just more media doom fabrication.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The Parkinson’s thing was made up.

Yes, a Parkinson’s team visited the White House medical center, but not for Biden - the New York Post just published that out of all the people who work in the White House, it must have been Biden they were there to see, and the New York Times then republished the story because they are equivalent to the Post now apparently.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Who, other than Biden, would a Parkinson's team go to the White House to see, rather than the affected person going to see them?

ESPECIALLY given what they had to know was suspicious optics of the team going there. What sort of emergency would a random person at the white house have to have for a team to show up there despite the questions it would bring?

There's only a handful of people who would be at the white house, unfeasible to leave, and has their movements in public tracked at all times. Biden is on that short list.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I assumed, I'm just saying even if their claim is correct it's not that huge of a deal.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, makes sense. Just aiming to correct the record that yes, the claim is not just incorrect but New York Post-level propaganda, as far as I'm aware (which is an informative thing to keep in mind whenever you see someone repeating it).

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

i wish that was a guarantee; i would vote for biden in that case and i wouldn't have to hold my nose as tightly to do so.

[–] Zeke@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

If we split the votes between third party and democrat again, we're done for. We've already lost this race. Hard stuck democrats won't be convinced to vote third party. There won't be enough votes to win. Unfortunately, this is a democrat or fascist dictatorship vote.