108
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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 4 months 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.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

One problem with this analogy is that if you’re in a burning house, you literally don’t have time to have a conversation while you’re in it. But in fact we could spend the entire weekend discussing viable candidates and it wouldn’t become too late to then decide to support the idea.

Another problem is that you’re presupposing that the course of action is obvious, as it is in a house fire. In a house fire, it doesn’t matter what can be done about the stuff or where you’re going to live if you lose your home, because if you don’t get out of the house ASAP then you will die, based on thousands upon thousands of previous house fires. In the case of this election, nothing like this has ever happened and staying with Biden does not actually mean guaranteed loss. Perhaps continuing the public call for Biden to step down is the thing that hurts us the most. In any case, the only thing that would mean a literal guaranteed loss would be withdrawing Biden and not replacing him with someone.

So, coming up with suitable people who could take the helm and do better (as well as figuring out a viable way to make this happen democratically) is necessary to this process actually succeeding. We actually do have the luxury of time to spend all day discussing it right now. And if good ideas for candidates can actually win over more people to the idea, then it might in some way be helpful to the success of it.

I would say I’m a person who both feels like things have reached a point where Biden should ideally be replaced, but I’m very worried by the fact that I haven’t yet heard someone else who we could theoretically rally behind, and haven’t heard how this could even be accomplished legally and politically at this late stage. I feel the worst thing we can do is to just repeatedly say it’s a fire and not actually figure out steps to fix it.

[-] mortalic@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

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

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months 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.

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
108 points (74.8% liked)

politics

19145 readers
1775 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