259
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 25 Jul 2024
259 points (95.1% liked)
News
23376 readers
1809 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don’t believe that he relinquished his campaign out of utter beneficence. I skimmed the transcript but never managed to find it, does he touch on what in particular compelled him to pass the torch?
It’s hard to believe that he’d just wake up one morning after six months of campaigning and say “yeah, it’s about time I hang up my suit.” Especially with only a few months remaining for Harris to campaign. There had to have been a coming to Jesus moment for the spontaneity of this about face.
The people spoke loudly about what they wanted. I’m glad he listened
They’ve been saying the same thing for 3 years. This doesn’t make sense without some sort of realization or external pressure.
Disapproval is very different from potential voters wanting someone else (a specific other candidate, not a generic candidate). He thought he could convince voters that he was still the best option.
He realized he was wrong. Maybe if State of the Union Biden showed up to the debate things would be different. But we'll never know.
Maype he watched a recording of the debate and realized everyone on stage was too old to be running for president?
Maybe? Selfishly, I still wish he’d offered complete candor to sate my curiosity. Maybe in his memoirs.
He did offer complete candor.
He still thinks he's perfectly capable of being an excellent president. But the voters disagree, and he's stepping down to give us the best chance of stopping Trump.
I'm sure you don't like his answer, but that's his answer.
Even if he had, you still wouldn't know if he had.
Yeah, he won't openly say how his entire inner circle kept yelling at him "FOR FUCKS SAKE JOE STEP DOWN WE'RE FUCKING LOSING THIS!" before the election.
The story behind it is that he was finally shown how terrible his numbers really were in swing states. Apparently, they looked very bad and were trending even further down.
The story also goes that the reality of the situation had largely been hidden from him by his closest confidants up to that point. Add in all the party and public pressure, and it really doesn’t seem too far fetched that he was finally forced to face up to the bleak outlook of his chances going forward.
...you haven't felt anything change in the past month? They absolutely haven't been saying these things for 3 years.
If by “they” you mean the news, then I’ve noticed a change. Insofar as actual human people and their opinions in my city, they’ve been static. Progressives sighing and regressives screeching. How have the human people in your city changed their opinions?
The people with money decided they didn't like him. That's what changed.
I don’t know how people don’t get this. It’s utterly transparent, they didn’t make any secret of it. Their megadonors pulled donations, pelosi went and had a secret chat that was probably along the lines of “i have spoken to the oligarchs that fund us, if you insist on running your war chest will be paltry and the rest of the party will suffer in kind. Congressional races, local elections, etc will all be vastly underfunded because you decided to stay in the race. They are holding the bag and they want you out.” and then a few days later he announces he’s out after they coordinate things. Maybe he had a day or two where he had a pipe dream moment thinking he could grassroots fund it like Bernie and someone shot him back down to earth
The specifics of their conversation are secret so that’s conjecture of course but the fact that the dnc’s large donors pulled their donations until he dropped out and that pelosi spoke to him about that fact are not. And then she gets spun as some “boss dealmaker” when really she’s just the mouthpiece of the elite ruling class, sending a message that their money dries up if they don’t get their way. Some deal making that is
I agree.
Note: I think it's worth it if it ends up stopping the actual fascists from seizing power.
But I very much expect Biden's plan to increase taxes on the 1% to be either heavily neutered or quietly scrapped when Harris gets in office. And that sucks.
From the reporting I've read, there have been a lot of meetings between him and leading Democrats urging him to step down; starting with his debate performance and continuing from there.
He's probably been considering it for a while. However, in his position, as soon as you acknowledge that you are considering withdrawing from the race your campaign is over, so he needed to look committed until he was ready to pull the trigger and drop out.
I mean, he said that he might do it for health reasons and then it was announced a day or two later that he had tested positive for covid again.
It's probably just a fig leaf for him to bow to pressure from the party without losing too much face, but it's also possible that he's honestly realizing that staying in a job that keeps exposing you to covid and any other epi/pandemic that comes along isn't a good idea at his age..
He’s given the description of something with fins and teeth, but that could be any number of animals. Typically, a gargantuan decision like this isn’t made unless there’s a similarly massive realization. Did advisors say his polls were unfavorable? Were donors pulling out? Did he come to terms with his age? Was his party begging for his retirement?
I’m not looking for souls lore and feelings in abstract, I’m asking for events.
He didn't. They are gaslighting you now trying to make it seem like this was the plan all along. People hate Trump and they unite behind that and end up voting blue no matter who. They'll end up in this mess time and time again though until people make Democrats change else stop voting for them. You don't help someone addicted to drugs by giving them money everytime they ask.
but not voting or voting red means actively Supporting fascism. on one side you had an old guy who was visibly getting older and on the other side you have a almost comically evil group of persons who want nothing more than to make life more miserable for all people on earth but themselves
the choice should be obvious
Ridiculous attempt at false equivalence
I'd honestly be interested to see a cohorent argument as to why the first two aren't true if not voting is. I can't think of one.
The last one I threw in there for fun.
Is this you 13 days ago?
So many people here who have spent months bitching about Biden being the candidate can't take five minutes to enjoy him stepping down from the election.
You got what you wanted.
And I support Harris?
"Not voting is voting for the other side" is completely ineffectual as a slogan, since the type of person likely to not vote is going to immediately file it away in their brain as the obvious hyperbole-bordering-on-lie it is.
What's your point?
I told you my point: take a minute and be happy you got what you wanted before moving on to being miserable about the next, related, thing.
But I'm not miserable about Harris? I just told you that.
Or are you trying to say that making any comments that don't end with a string of 🎉 emojis is off the table for the next 3 to 5 working days ?
I get that maybe you misinterpreted my comment as anti-harris, since I didn't bother to make my specific stance clear and kind of threw it out there, but I've now clarified.
Why are you doubling down now? Just to try and retroactively justify some unnecessary receipt pulling?
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
You're not, you're miserable about something else instead. Specifically, people suggesting that voter apathy helps Trump. Or at least you acted in a pretty miserable way.
Okay so the emoji thing. Not allowed to criticise anything? What a strange and unique lens to view the world through.
"Voter apathy helps Trump" has a lot of baked in context that makes it kind-of-true when "You not voting helps Trump" just objectively isn't.
I must say though, I wasn't miserable when i made that comment, and now that you have received the initial thing you were looking for (or confirmation that you had it all along), I expect to see nothing but positivity from you for the next week.
It's fun to expect things. And it's weird to expect someone to be positive about everything when they were just accusing you of only being miserable about the election.
But yes, I am very positive about the election right now.
I think both are incredibly weird but you do you, boo
I take it this means you've reconsidered your previous opinion that Biden is the only viable candidate for the democrats
That was never my opinion. My opinion was that Biden (and a lot of others) believed that, and almost no one ran against him. So if people wanted someone else to run instead of Biden, it was too late. And they didn't canvass for anyone else anyway, something they got mad about when I asked them who they canvassed for.
But I was wrong about it being too late because I honestly did not think Biden would do this.
Pointedly asking people who their preferred candidate is to Biden doesn't fit that narrative, though.
How does it not fit that narrative? If everyone canvassed for another candidate, there might have been a legitimate primary challenge. But almost all the people who complained about Biden didn't do that. So asking who their preferred candidate was and asking them why they didn't canvass for them seems apt to me.
Ignoring that asking about canvassing isn't all you did, expecting people to canvas to have an opinion on politics is so nonsensical it actually brings us full circle to the deliberately ridiculous original comment I left.
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion any better than expecting people to donate? It reeks of elitism.
What? Canvass before having an opinion? It had been three years into Biden's presidency when the election year started. People didn't have an opinion of whether or not he should run or who else should be president by then?
You're right, I don't expect them to canvass. They clearly are very politically unaware.
You're really doubling down at every opportunity?
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion more justifiable than expecting them to donate before having one?
Again- why did they not have an opinion after three years of Biden's presidency?
The point being that you went from not believing anybody else could do the job to believing in Harris because it turns out that if somebody isn't campaigning then they don't seem a viable candidate?
Never said no one else could do the job. Why are you lying?
I said no one did any major canvassing for anyone else. I said it to you again in this conversation. That's a simple fact. I'm sorry you don't like facts so much that you have to lie.
Also, candidates don't win primaries by magic. You have to get people to vote for them. That involves canvassing. Either you're incredibly ignorant about the electoral process or you're trolling. The lie makes me think the latter.
If you pointedly and repeatedly demand which alternate candidate somebody canvassed for, then one of three things is true:
Why bother pretending otherwise?
This is a lie, I ask. I do not demand. After two lies, and that is the second, I don't bother reading further. The rest of your comment was a waste of your time.
I'm trying to figure out if you've convinced yourself of this or if you're just trying to avoid appearing wrong on the internet. Utterly fascinating.
For reference, demand would very obviously be a synonym of ask in this case.
And now you're doubling down on your lie, so we're done here.