this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
679 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2360 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
 

e; I wrote a better headline than the ABC editors decided to and excerpted a bit more

According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos' Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.

Sixty-two percent of Americans think Trump, who is 77, is too old to serve as president. There is a large difference in how partisans view their respective nominees -- 73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

Concerns about both candidates' ages have increased since September when an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74% of Americans thought Biden -- the oldest commander in chief in U.S. history -- was too old to serve another term as president, and 49% said the same about Trump.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240214133801/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589

Part that drew my eye,

The poll also comes days after the Senate failed to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions.

Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress' failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border -- with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.

More Americans trust that Trump would do a better job of handling immigration and the situation at the border than Biden -- 44%-26% -- according to the poll.

So that bipartisan border bill stunt was terrible policy, and it doesn't seem to have done anything for the Democratic party politically

Can we please stop trying to compromise with fascists now?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Well, too bad. Those are the only two viable options, so most likely it's going to be one or the other. The time to do something about it has long passed. All we can do is hope Trump is jailed or either of them die.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 21 points 9 months ago

Best government ever created by man, right there

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There was NEVER anything any of us could do. The moment Biden announced he would run for reelection, everyone who mattered fell in line.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

As it should be. Anything else would have been giving the GOP a golden ticket for their golden turd

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

as it should be

No, it should not be.

There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway, allowing up and coming politicians to get their views and voice out there while also letting the current president show their strength, conviction, and skill even within their own party. Time that's used for inter-Party debates is time where that party's points are being broadcast to all, as well.

But now that we're all so scared Trump's gonna win were tossing that in the garbage because "any question to Biden at all means we get a fascist!", which is only gonna bite the US in the ass when Dems eventually have nobody that's well known ready to take the seat

Biden absolutely should have been challenged in the primaries by competent Dems that will be the next generation

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway

This was an anomaly that happened during the post-war era for a couple decades and ended when Newt Gingrich came along. Before that, the politician that could afford the most booze got elected.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're wanting ambivalent debate during a war.

The Right has weaponized propaganda. They are extremely effective had taking any perceived weakness in their opponent, and blowing it out of proportion that even non-Right leading voters believe their new talking point is a real problem.

The landscape of politics has changed. Until we can get back to normal philosophical difference between adults, we can not let the Dems implode in inner fighting, as they are known to do.

I wholly reject your argument. There is a time and place for your idealistic model. This is not it. This country is hanging on by a thread, and the GOP is actively trying to cut it.

Edit - you downvoters are acting like we didn't just get Trump in 2016 largely because of infighting in the Left that disenfranchised voters. And we'll be paying the consequences for a generation because of it.

To many idealists here that can't see the forest for the trees.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I neither up nor downvoted you, but really have no idea what you're trying to say.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was refuting that open debate against the incumbent president would be good for the Dems. That the DNC funding alternate candidates would be a net positive. My argument is that it could only result in division, and would greatly improve the GOP's position.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well at this point, it certainly would. We're too far into the process. But for next time, this needs to be done differently.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Agree when there's no incumbent, and there's no MAGA nazi front runner. And if the Dems run clean campaigns without dragging their fellow Dems through the mud.

For the time being, the stakes are too high to give the GOP any ammo, at all.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There will always be enough excuses to silence progressives.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's not true. Sure, you can't criticize presidents in their first year, since their just finding their footing. And obviously, you can't criticize them in their second year, because the midterms are coming up, and you need to be positive to get Democrats elected. But after the midterms, progressives are free to criticize the president as a much as the want...for about two weeks. A month tops. After that, we're getting into reelection season, and criticism will only help the GOP.

Nonsense. I think it would be hard to find anyone under 50 that wouldn't wipe the floor with trumps broken corpse. The only person Trump has a chance again is an octogenarian with no persona.

[–] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All we can do is hope Trump is jailed

Nothing in the Constitution bars Trump from holding the Office of the President while in a super max prison.

Absolutely nothing.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but good luck doing it from there.

I think congress would have to make a ruling on that and I doubt they would say that he could be president in prison.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Congress has no say here unless they decide to try an impeachment and then the Senate would have to remove. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop this from happening. You'd genuinely have secret service people in the prison and intelligence officers doing daily briefings and the VP would be the one to be present for events, meetings, etc.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The democratic primary has hardly started, its literally exactly the time to do something.

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's not how that works. Even if we somehow managed to bypass filing deadlines up get this theoretical candidate on the ballot (that have likely already been printed, and in many cases mailed out), they don't really have time to get their message out and persuade voters. You don't just start running for president 3 weeks from super Tuesday.

The only way Biden isn't the democratic nominee is if he steps down or is really incapable. And then it's pretty much guaranteed to be Harris. I don't think most people want that.

If democrats wanted a different candidate, they needed to start like 6 months ago minimum.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Democrats do want a different candidate, and have been very vocal about it for 4 years.

The DNC does not.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The DNC didn't make this decision. Biden did. Doesn't matter what the Jamie Harrison thinks, Biden's the president and no one wants to challenge their party's incumbent.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes that’s right. Biden, despite promising to be a 1 term transitional president, has reneged on that promise because his ego says that good presidents get 2 terms, and he thinks he’s so good he might as well be FDR 2.0

Well, the primary challengers disagree, I disagree as a Dem voter, and many others do as well. We have eyes, we see the writing on the wall, and it’s obvious Biden is going to lose, even to a disastrous opponent like Trump.

Biden doesn’t care what we think. He doesn’t care about the democratic spirit of a healthy primary. And so, he will lose this election, and risk what little democracy we have left in the process. Maybe not a big deal for a literal fossil with one foot in the grave like him, but for the rest of us, it’s very concerning to say the least.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Biden didn't shut down the primary either. He's running in it. They could have just canceled it.

There's no democratic solution to this problem. Either we say just let voters choose (a primary, but no one of consequence wants to challenge so we don't really have a real choice) or Biden unilaterally decides to step down (not "the democratic spirit" but probably the right choice). No one has shut down democracy, it's just a shitty system where the individual choices of a powerful person means no one who could be a successor thinks it's an optimal choice to challenge him.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This is categorically false. Biden is not running in the primary - he didn’t even go through the basic steps to get on the ballot in New Hampshire. The DNC absolutely refused to put together any kind of debate to draw in contenders. Further, he’s working behind the scenes with the state DNC commissions to either remove primary challengers from the ballot (South Carolina), or not hold primary elections at all (Florida).

I agree, he should drop out of the race, because poll after poll shows Biden losing to Trump badly in 6 out of the 7 key battleground states, while “any generic Dem” maintains a lead. The people have already spoken - we don’t want Trump, but we want Biden even less. Now why in the hell would you force run a candidate under those conditions?!

The democratic process demands that voters get to choose their representatives, and Biden isn’t allowing that to happen. Instead he’s working behind the scenes to threaten both the current primary challengers, as well as those “of consequence”, with burying their political careers if they dare to challenge him.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

he didn’t even go through the basic steps to get on the ballot in New Hampshire

Ok, so you're just clueless about politics. Thanks for letting us know.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

I know about the foolish SC play. I’m saying if he were participating in a primary in good faith, he would have gotten himself on the ballot.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Eh I'm good with Biden. Nobody else has shown themselves to be relevant enough for me to know their positions.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because they're not being given the time to debate and be seen by the public like in elections past.

Because the DNC doesn't want someone else.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

Neither Marianne Williamson nor Dean Philips would be presidential material if only more people could hear them speak. Williamson had plenty of time during the last primary to be seen and Philips is just an even more conservative Biden that has the sole virtue of not being on death's door.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thank you. I've said this multiple times and people keep griping about it anyway.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty clear the vast majority of people just don't understand how this shit works. Don't get me wrong, it's a bad system. I just don't see how demanding people take actions so late in the process that it will benefit the GOP is productive.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I honestly don't see what action can be taken at this point. We have to either wait for Trump to get convicted or for one of the two of them to die or become to incapacitated to run. Neither of them will step down unless they have no choice.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I do think it’s important to note that Biden likely wouldn’t be running if it weren’t for Trump still (somehow) being a viable candidate. I think he’d agree that he’s too old for this shit, but if it’s going to be either him or Trump, I pick Biden with zero hesitation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't know. People with the tenacity to get to the presidency cling to power like it was keeping them from dying. I honestly don't know if he would have dropped out of running for a second term.

You don't have a normal-sized ego and run for president unless you're Jimmy Carter.

I honestly do think these are exceptional circumstances. I don’t think Biden wants to keep dealing with all this shit. It’s got to be incredibly stressful - largely because he actually gives a shit and cares about the future of the country and the world overall. If the other candidate weren’t a complete and total psychopath, I think there are better than even odds that he’d have conceded the primary before it started.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Democrats 2024: Well, too bad.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it sucks, but I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Trump.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And you don't see that as the end of your country? Nothing else left to do but vote for ham sandwiches? Lol

I thought y'all liked freedom or some shit.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trust me, I would love for the Republicans to nominate a well qualified candidate - or for us to use something like ranked choice voting so we could pick candidates that closer align with our personal beliefs.

But until those things happen, in ham sandwich v Trump, I'd take ham sandwich every time.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The ham sandwich allowed record oil production, agreed with republicans that the border needs to be armed, breaks strikes, is 80 years old, is guilty of aiding in a genocide, attacked multiple targets in the middle east, and goes behind Congress back to make arms deals.

See the problem?

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you're suggesting I don't vote or throw away my vote on a third party candidate, that's a hard pass.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Not very bright, I see.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Is ~~Truck~~ Trump actually able to run for president?

Edit: typo.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, but he'll be allowed to anyways

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I just find it really weird that you can be under such heavy legal proceedings and still be eligible to hold office, like in general. If a teacher is suspected of being inappropriate with students, they're pulled. If a president is inappropriate with democracy, they can run a second term?

Last time I expressed my incredulousness over this, I was told "innocent until proven guilty", but again, with the above example; if a teacher is suspected of being inappropriate towards student, they are pulled and put on leave for the investigation.

It seems to me that Trump shouldn't be allowed to be the president incumbent until all the legal stuff he's through clears.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also, innocent until proven guilty is how the government treats the accused (well, theoretically, lots of poor people get to rot in jail because they don't have bail money). If you saw someone punch a baby you don't need to wait for a court decision to kick them off your softball team.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Like on one hand I get that, but on the other, that feels like a really relaxed attitude to an attempted coup. Like if there are any doubts whatsoever that someone tried to undermine the democratic systems, perhaps they shouldn't be eligible to hold the position of president until the doubts are cleared.

Just feels like a sensible precaution to me. Does it suck for the person if they're innocent? Absolutely, but not as much as being imprisoned for decades on a crime they didn't do. The vast majority of people miss out on being the president, so it really isn't that big of a deal.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

The issue is who's making that decision? I for one don't think the 14th requires a conviction, but there would have to be a remedy to challenge it and stay on the ballot if someone was making the choice for political reasons. Those challenges need to be super fast tracked too. It's already unacceptably late for there to be a question of whether a leading candidate can be president and lots of people along the chain are all to blame for waiting this long.

And the Republican party is a private entity. They should have denied him a place on their primary ballot.