715
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” the president told CNN's Erin Burnett.

President Joe Biden said in an interview Wednesday he is all but certain Donald Trump, his predecessor and presumptive 2024 rival, will reject the results of the November election and called Trump “dangerous” for the nation.

“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett during a visit to Wisconsin this week.

“How many court cases do they have, Supreme Court cases? They’ve all said this is a totally legitimate election. ... He may not accept the outcome of the election? I promise you he won’t. Which is dangerous.”

The president went on to say other world leaders had expressed to him their fear of a second Trump presidency and pointed to Trump’s pledge to prosecute his political opponents if he enters the Oval Office once more.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I wasn't trying to make it personal, but I do find the kind of attitude you display to be somewhat entitled. And it also displays an admirably idealistic but not very realistic view of the political system that we are stuck with.

The big ask right now is he stops funding a genocide and encouraging police actions against peaceful protestors

You are not going to get that. As far as I am concerned the entire system is corrupt. The military industrial complex is far far too powerful, as are the neocon capitalist forces that essentially call the shots. Guess what? That doesn't get changed by sitting out an election. It doesn't get changed except over the very very long haul. If this were a Romney or somebody we're facing I might be more inclined to say heck ya, let's blow up the election... but the consequences of a Trump administration are incredibly dire. We don't have a choice.

Why pick the unpopular one?

Unpopular with you. Popular with a lot of people. It comes down to who can win the election and since Biden is the only candidate that has won against Trump, that's a good start. You may like to assume that the Dem party just runs with whomever is up next, but while there may be a kernel of truth to that (witness Hillary vs Bernie) it's not how they've won elections (witness Obama).

Shouldn’t Dem primary voters vote for the candidate that will get the most votes in the general?

That's exactly what they are getting. And provably so. If the 18-39 demographic actually turned out to vote in the numbers that the 65+ group did, you can bet we'd be looking at a different candidate. But that's not what has happened, due in no small part to folks such as yourself holding out for the whatever your conception of a preferred candidate is.

Look, I completely agree with you about the candidates on offer. They suck. But if you withhold your vote you are not going to get better candidates... you will get worse because the Dems know you aren't going to vote so they may as well appeal to a demographic that will.

That's why you should vote blue no matter who, but support progressive candidates and protest policies you oppose.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And it also displays an admirably idealistic but not very realistic view of the political system that we are stuck with.

You're still trying to have this conversation about me, and not with me about a demographic that you yourself described as fickle...

What do you think is easier? A candidate that gives that demo attention and they like?

Or getting all of them to stop being who they are?

Because if we try to change them, it's a never ending battle, every year more people turn 18.

If we just run candidates they like, and let them get politically active at a young age. They'll likely become lifelong Dem voters.

And if the party keeps evolving to meet the more and more progressive views of the next generation, republicans will never have a president again.

All it takes is the "moderate" members sacrificing and supporting candidates that will fix problems a little faster than they want, and we'll fix our problems.

Who's being rational here?

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

You’re still trying to have this conversation about me

I'm sorry if you feel this is aimed at you and is personal. It's not, but we are debating and you are in a sense representing that demographic.

Specifically you display some traits of a demographic that has not yet learned that you at once have enormous power collectively and very little power individually.

For example you display the tendency of that demographic to think that the entire political system should revolve around them and their particular desires. That somehow our political system is zero sum and that everyone believes or should believe exactly as you do and that if you don't get 100% of what you want you have failed. You haven't failed at all! You got some of what you want and others got some of what they want. That's the success of democracy. And, crucially, that's your power.

So when you say, to paraphrase, "if only they just had candidates that are popular" you are really saying "candidates my demographic likes". I'm sorry, that's not how it works for the simple reason that there are other demographics and other cultural and political beliefs. AND... they vote more.

I think we should end it there although you are welcome to have the last word. But I want to say one last thing: We have made enormous progress and having lived that is a key difference between someone younger and someone older like myself. When I was in my teens I was assaulted and beaten for being queer. Another time I escaped being raped and probably murdered only by sheer luck. For the longest time I couldn't legally marry. All because of who I am. Now, as a queer and transgender person, I can literally go to at least a few work places and have them respect my pronouns and gender identity. I don't often fear for my personal safety. I even have our president publicly acknowledging this fact and speaking in support of who I am. And I'm happily married.

This is not everything and there is a lot of work left to do. But HOLY FUCK that is enormous progress in just a few decades.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago

I’m sorry if you feel this is aimed at you and is personal

You say that, but then

For example you display the tendency of that demographic

There's nothing I can say that can get thru to you. Which I knew when you wouldn't share your age demographic and got "snarky" about it. I gave you a bunch of chances rather than make the obvious assumption.

I guess I'll be "fickle" and have standards about who I associate with.

this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
715 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19121 readers
3776 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS