politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Because nobody tells someone at that power level what to do.
They can choose, on their own, not to run like Johnson did in 1968. But no outside influence can or should tell a President they can't run.
I thought the whole point of having a democracy was people got to choose their leaders.
If you're saying leaders become too powerful to reject, that's troubling.
The people had the opportunity to choose during the primary whether they wanted to vote for someone else who holds mostly similar views (e.g. the same political party) to their own, or the person currently doing the job. There weren't a lot of people from the same political party that offered themselves up as challengers to the person currently doing the job, for a variety of reasons. Our system heavily favors the person currently doing the job in our primary elections, but challenges have been made before, just not this time.
Reject no, this is about Biden choosing to run
You get to choose, between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee.
If you vote Libertarian, you are helping Biden by taking away a Trump vote.
If you vote Green, you are helping Trump by taking away a Biden vote.
To clarify, the above wasn't some kind of rhetorical question. I'm not American and am not asking for voting guidance.
You seemed to be saying that once a politician gets to a position of power, voters are no longer allowed to try to influence their decisions around whether to run, be the nominee etc.
That seems problematic to me, and against the basic principles of democracy, so I'm querying it.
I don't think they were saying anything about what is allowed, but they were saying what is likely and realistic to expect.
Incumbent politicians have multiple advantages, but if you don't want them then the choice is to vote for their opponent or not vote, which really is the same thing.
That seems really anti-democracy. If an incumbent performs poorly or breaks promises there should be mechanisms for people to ask to select another candidate to represent them.
There is, it's called "voting". But you aren't just going to remove someone as a candidate because you don't like them, that's undemocratic.
But didn't you just say they can't vote for non-Biden democrats?
I feel like either I completely misunderstood your initial comment about Presidents having so much power, or else you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.
They can, it's pointless, but they can. Nobody is going to sufficiently challenge the de facto leader of the party.
See all the primaries so far, on both sides.
Thanks, yeah I misunderstood your initial point. Thanks for explaining.
If you think no one tells Joe Biden what he should be doing on the daily you might be more demented than he is.
"should do" and "to do" are two entirely different things. :)
Well… they also do that.
Also, even taking that statement as literal - is that supposed to be a good thing? “Despite his staff and advisors urging him to not run again, in a bid for power he is again!”
How is it that there are all these people who have nothing to do with political office in their daily lives who know all the personal conversations and thoughts of the inner circles of the presidency?
Are you unaware of the extremely basic fact that essentially every president in US history has relied incredibly strongly on a wide team of advisors and cabinet members.
They teach you that in middle school civics. Did you think the presidency was like in a movie where it’s just one guy who decides to do everything he does? Do you think Biden sits there with a calculator running the numbers??
Certain flanks of the party saying he shouldn't but not putting up anyone who should is hardly a consensus, plus to assume it's 'a bid for power', like some kind of movie super villain here, totally not like something someone who would try and prevent congressional certification of the election would do.
I do tire of these threads, 'Trump is evil incarnate and must be stopped by... scattering votes for the only viably running candidate all over the map?'.
It's not "in a bid for power", it's to block Trump. If Trump weren't running Biden would likely dust off his hands, go "My work here is done!" and quietly retire at the end of his term.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-not-sure-he-would-seek-re-election-if-trump-was-not-2023-12-05/
If something happened to take Trump out of the race, especially between now and the conventions in July and August, I think Biden would bow out, but he won't as long as Trump is around.
I simply don’t believe that Biden is the most electable person in the country against Trump lol
He's the only person who's already beaten him.
Well, I guess we’ll have to see if he can do it again. I don’t bemoan people for voting for him, but he doesn’t have mine
so you're voting for Trump? effectively or directly?
No, I’m just voting third party.
that's what I said. you're effectively voting for Trump.
You don't understand how the voting system in the USA works, obviously, which is a shame.
I look forward to preferential/ ranked voting coming in, but until that day, you're a fucking retard.