166
Biden says he is 'not the only one who can defeat' Trump
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
166 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1902 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
All the media have to do is cover Trump relatively honestly and he will do the rest to sink his presidential campaign.
In 2016 the media were so gaga over his norm breaking and other wackiness and everyone assumed Hillary was a sure thing compared to him, they didn't actually cover him honestly.
Plus he could let people just project whatever hopes and dreams they had on him. He had no governmental experience at any level to investigate and draw conclusions from. He convinced a lot of people that he would fight for them, and Hillary had no really solid counter to all that. Plus the DOJ threw the in-person voting to Trump.
This time we know basically all there is to know about what a second Trump term would be like. Chaos, petty revenge, and burning the Constitution. If Democrats can take that clear and the media can look past all the dollar signs for a second, any half decent candidate on the Democratic ticket will win. Any candidate who can legitimately claim to be for working people and against the elites.
So like a Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, John Fetterman, or Elizabeth Warren. I'd say Bernie but he's probably too old. Brown and Fetterman would do really well bringing large so called "purple" states in.
Trump is still polling within reach of a win, and that's after 4 years of President Trump, an attempted coup, and three more years of the criminal prosecutions that followed.
You forgot Trump's civil case where the judge clarified it was in fact rape.
Apparently, 40% of American voters would prefer to live in Russia.
"look past all the dollar signs for a second"
We're doomed.
I love John Fetterman, but he did have a mild stroke and spent a month in treatment for depression while in office. He's great, but I don't think he is President material. I don't hold either of those things against him, and mental health is important, but no way do you convince the public that all is fine
That's some ableist shit right there. The other representatives just hide their problems.
Yeah, the general public is ableist, and racist, and sexist, and several other -ists.
Genuinely serious where you draw the line when it comes to the health of a candidate.
Someone with three previous heart attacks? Someone with anxiety?
I ask that last one as someone with anxiety and a trigger being stress. To me those are not ableist concerns. Though the previous commenter could have used a better phrase than "presidential material."
I’m responding as a hiring manager for a big tech company.
I am not allowed, by law as well as very strict company policy, to ask any questions relating to the candidate’s health. I can’t know whether they’ve had four heart attacks, plan to get pregnant in the next six months, had a history of psychological issues, or anything like that. I think that most people would generally agree that’s a very good thing.
There are certainly roles where physical performance is key to the job, and so they’re able to take that kind of thing into account.
I guess what I’m saying is that, while your concern is of course valid, it feels different because we tend to see the president as someone with more of a job than, say, a senior software engineer. Okay, that’s fair in a very real sense. But I think that it’s different between the president and a prime minister, and that’s where it gets interesting. I think there’s an idealization of the role of president. And, bizarrely, that’s one reason Trump was so wrong but so beloved by so many.
The US doesn't have a Prime Minister, so what the hell are you talking about? And the president is not hired, they are elected, so everything you mentioned around employee protections is irrelevant
That’s the entire point, you walnut.
The US deifies its presidents, making them the temporary personality of the country. Since Bush II, there’s been a massive push to implement unitary executive theory. Other countries tend view their prime ministers as, at best, managers of the country who can and will be replaced. For fucks sake, the US can’t even decide whether the president should be subject to the same laws as “regular” citizens, but they’re always leaning towards “if the president did it, it’s not illegal.”
What that means, walnut, is that the US sees the president as having something approaching the divine right of kings (very literally in the view of many republicans, as long as the president is Republican). The “will of the people,” by which we mean they won an election by winning 49.1% instead of 48.3%, is considered to Trump (pun intended) anything the courts can say, or that has been historically established or really just about anything else.
So putting any limitations around who can be president is seen as interfering with the will of the people, unless it was already written down in the constitution for things like being a natural citizen and having a minimum age. Those are legitimate restrictions because the constitution cannot be wrong.
"I guess what I’m saying is that, while your concern is of course valid, it feels different because we tend to see the president as someone with more of a job than, say, a senior software engineer. Okay, that’s fair in a very real sense. But I think that it’s different between the president and a prime minister, and that’s where it gets interesting. I think there’s an idealization of the role of president. And, bizarrely, that’s one reason Trump was so wrong but so beloved by so many."
This is what I responded to. This is what you said. You made a bizarre comment about a PM with no context, and I'm a walnut because I didn't follow your insane logic without context?
You provided nothing to suggest you thought having a PM would be useful and I'm sure what you say is a huge push is nearly nonexistent. The most public article cited on that wiki page was from years ago in The Atlantic. I'm sure it has some merit, but the huge push is just a fantasy.
Why would I use a different phrase? Being the president of the United States is one of the hardest, most stressful jobs in the world. You make decisions every day that change the course of history. There are very few people suited to that.
Ableism is ok as long as the target is a progressive.
I hope you're right. I was definitely one of those people who thought Hillary was a slam dunk and thought Trump would never win.
I've not been confident in an election cycle since. I want to be optimistic and say Trump will sink himself and that we will all have the satifaction of seeing his ass in prison. But, he has weasled his way out of every negative consequence in his life and survived political scandals that would have sunk any other politician.
The dude is a cult.