SHOULD Biden run for a 2nd term? (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not sure. I've already stated why I'm not voting for the guy.

It seems the strategy/attitude of many democrats has become some variance of this: 'Option A is so horrible that you would be a moron, you love fascism, you hate (insert group here) so you MUST vote for our Option B...And BTW we're not listening to ANY of your policies and we refuse to negotiate anything on our side'

That's not how it works, nor should it be.

This idea that it's the fault of the voter -- NOT the fault of a party or candidate when that party or candidate loses to an open fascist is mind-boggling.

So, the issue is if you know either an open fascist is going to win or a candidate you don't agree with and you don't vote for the candidate you don't agree with and the open fascist wins... then yes, you basically are saying you prefer open fascism b/c you couldn't get everything you wanted.

It's basically flexing your privilege knowing you aren't going to get hurt or you can withstand the policy harms but those who can't withstand the policy hurts -- tough luck. It's petulance, not principal.

 

[Heathen]

I don't really think of it as "the fault of the voters", but voters do need to understand what's at stake in an election. And they need to ask themselves of their objections to Option B candidate is worth what's at stake with the election of Option A candidate.

Yeah, but you could literally say this with every election until the end of time. Every election is a test of the stakes. Trump pushes that further, sure, but we've always had far right wishes disguised as mild mannered "moderates".

You're never going to get everything you want a candidate to be. Every candidate is going to have positions or actions you don't agree with. When it's only 2 candidates with an actual chance a winning an election, it's necessary to make that comparison in your evaluation of the candidates.

It's not about getting everything. At least not to me and the people I know who hold similar views.

If the election was between Trump and someone to the right of Trump / more fascist, would you be able to say that to yourself and vote anyway? I mean hey, props to you if you could. Really.

It's more about delivering on key initiatives that the American people want. If a candidate like Biden promises something and then backslides to delivering none of the original promise or compromising with Republicans on some shabby half-measure - well, they have to deal with the repercussions of it.

To put it simply, it's more than about one election. It is always more than that and always has been.

You can blame Democrats, the DNC, the incumbent advantage or whoever else you want for Biden being the Democrats nominee, and you may very well feel righteous in your truth. But the fact remains that Biden is the Democrat's current nominee. If enough people make the same decision, we'll have Trump as our president. That's just the reality of it.

It's on the person running to secure the votes of these people, period. If the candidate fails to do that, it's on them.

I just don't want to hear 'blue no matter who' Democrats attacking progressive voters and young people if they lose. You (general you) can't expect to chastise and ignore this bloc of voters as being 'unreasonable', 'wanting too much', 'radical' etc. and then turn around and blame them for not giving you their vote.

I respect your view, just don't see it that way for myself. We'll see how things go in November.

 

[SystemShock]

Not sure. I've already stated why I'm not voting for the guy.

It seems the strategy/attitude of many democrats has become some variance of this: 'Option A is so horrible that you would be a moron, you love fascism, you hate (insert group here) so you MUST vote for our Option B...And BTW we're not listening to ANY of your policies and we refuse to negotiate anything on our side'

That's not how it works, nor should it be.

Unfortunately, that's where we are. Barring any unforeseeable event, either Trump or Biden will be President of the U.S. after the upcoming election (and no, neither Libertarians or Green Party have a snowball chance in hell). Do you want another 4 years of Trump, and all of that a Trump presidency entails and represents? If you don't, you HAVE to vote for Biden

This idea that it's the fault of the voter -- NOT the fault of a party or candidate when that party or candidate loses to an open fascist is mind-boggling.

If you are standing on the train track, see the train coming a mile away, and you don't move...

 

[Heathen]

So, the issue is if you know either an open fascist is going to win or a candidate you don't agree with and you don't vote for the candidate you don't agree with and the open fascist wins... then yes, you basically are saying you prefer open fascism b/c you couldn't get everything you wanted.

It's basically flexing your privilege knowing you aren't going to get hurt or you can withstand the policy harms but those who can't withstand the policy hurts -- tough luck. It's petulance, not principal.

I'm sure labeling those who's views differ from yours as a "privileged" fascist is going to work wonders in getting them to seeing your view.

Well done.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm sure labeling those who's views differ from yours as a "privileged" fascist is going to work wonders in getting them to seeing your view.

Well done.

I'm done coddling people throwing temper tantrums because they can't get everything they want. I didn't call them fascists, I did call them privileged who think they can withstand a little fascism and are fine with people getting hurt along the way, because they think maybe, just maybe, they'll get everything they want next time. Hoping that the rule of law holds, that gerrymandering won't get worse. That another Supreme Court justice won't die further solidfying the hold they have on their interpretation of the rule of law. There are women now who lost a fundamental right b/c people didn't vote for Hillary in 2016.... ask any woman directly affected by that how they feel about voters who hold out for idealogical purity. They will chastise you worse than I have done.

It's getting worse out there, for queer kids, for those affected by climate change, for the basic rule of law and democratic governance. At the national level there have been protections that were reinstated for those most vulnerable from the onslaught of reactionary states. Those protections have been very real to people I know and care about - and you just want to throw that away. You might think you can withstand it for a few years, but there are those that cannot. That is the definition of privilege. You get to hold out for the perfect, which may never come, and those who suffer for those choices are just screwed.

Yes, I'm angry. I have kids in the LGBTQ community. I have friends in that community as well. I know women who lost their bodily autonomy. I see climate change advancing at an alarming rate, causing massive amounts of damage to under privileged communties all over the world. I see a growing authoritarianism and intolerance for those that are different. I am demanding that everyone who has a shred of dignity to throw any god damn road block they can at this relentless erosion of basic human dignity.

Vote for who you want in the primaries. Vote for the best of who can actually win in the general.

 

[Heathen]

Unfortunately, that's where we are. Barring any unforeseeable event, either Trump or Biden will be President of the U.S. after the upcoming election (and no, neither Libertarians or Green Party have a snowball chance in hell). Do you want another 4 years of Trump, and all of that a Trump presidency entails and represents? If you don't, you HAVE to vote for Biden

Of course they don't have a snowball's chance and hell.

I think the problem as I see it is what if this whole "do you want this bad thing for 4 more years? No? Then vote for our candidate" line could be repeated quite literally forever. Why would that not be a terrible option for someone who is dissatisfied with the two choices already offered each and every year?

I'm not withholding a vote for Biden because I want Trump to win. I am doing so because I don't see enough of a commitment to policies I care about from his administration.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's not about getting everything. At least not to me and the people I know who hold similar views.

O'rly?

If a candidate like Biden promises something and then backslides to delivering none of the original promise or compromising with Republicans on some shabby half-measure - well, they have to deal with the repercussions of it.

So it is about getting everything you want! Compromises happen because all Americans don't agree on what key initiatives are. That is how governing works.

I just don't want to hear 'blue no matter who' Democrats attacking progressive voters and young people if they lose. You (general you) can't expect to chastise and ignore this bloc of voters as being 'unreasonable', 'wanting too much', 'radical' etc. and then turn around and blame them for not giving you their vote.

You say this and then you chastise political leaders seeking bi-partisan solutions. How else would you describe a voting bloc that refuses to work with the opposition? What makes them different from the MAGA bloc?

We'll see how things go in November.

It will go just like it did in 2016.

 

[MT15]

It will go just like it did in 2016.

Yes. Isn’t the definition of madness repeatedly doing something and expecting different results? Clinton didn’t win because of a few thousand votes. Far less than 100,000 out of the hundreds of millions cast.

It is my opinion that nobody should sit this vote out. Their lives may not be affected much, but there are millions upon millions of people who will undergo real suffering if Trump is re-elected. They already are suffering from what he enabled while he was in charge before. He will be much, much worse next time.

 

[Heathen]

It's getting worse out there, for queer kids, for those affected by climate change, for the basic rule of law and democratic governance. At the national level there have been protections that were reinstated for those most vulnerable from the onslaught of reactionary states. Those protections have been very real to people I know and care about - and you just want to throw that away. You might think you can withstand it for a few years, but there are those that cannot. That is the definition of privilege. You get to hold out for the perfect, which may never come, and those who suffer for those choices are just screwed.

Yes, I'm angry. I have kids in the LGBTQ community. I have friends in that community as well. I know women who lost their bodily autonomy. I see climate change advancing at an alarming rate, causing massive amounts of damage to under privileged communties all over the world. I see a growing authoritarianism and intolerance for those that are different. I am demanding that everyone who has a shred of dignity to throw any god damn road block they can at this relentless erosion of basic human dignity.

Vote for who you want in the primaries. Vote for the best of who can actually win in the general.

I would argue that part of the manifestations of the far right policies that are trying to turn us into a christofascist state have ALWAYS been there. They just haven't been as boisterous and vocal and shameless as Trump did. I'd hope you don't think Trump kicked all of this off.

I would also strongly argue that - again, this is past a single election or even several elections. I firmly believe that the reason we have so many civil rights at risk - including protections for LGBTQ, Women, POC etc is precisely because of a Democratic party that has refused to change who they are for decades.

I mean...Democrats had a majority a few years back and still couldn't codify Roe. To act like that's only the fault of pesky Republicans is to ignore a disease for the symptoms.

This is going to keep happening until the Democratic party changes. They're going to keep losing elections.

 

[MT15]

Where is the evidence that if we have a more authoritarian rule, or even a Christian Nationalist take-over our Government, that we will somehow get a more progressive government as a result of that?

It is so much easier to keep a democracy than to throw it away and then assume that somehow the fascists who are in power will start playing it straight and leave power ever. It’s madness, truly.

 

[SystemShock]

Of course they don't have a snowball's chance and hell.

I think the problem as I see it is what if this whole "do you want this bad thing for 4 more years? No? Then vote for our candidate" line could be repeated quite literally forever. Why would that not be a terrible option for someone who is dissatisfied with the two choices already offered each and every year?

Again, upcoming train... you have to be aware of what is coming, and not engage in some philosophical exercise of how things should be.

I'm not withholding a vote for Biden because I want Trump to win. I am doing so because I don't see enough of a commitment to policies I care about from his administration.

What is it that you care about? I can discern some of the things you care about by your posting history, and I may be wrong and you can correct me if so, but it looks that much of what you care about, will be negatively affected by a Trump administration, and not just for 4 years.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

This is going to keep happening until the Democratic party changes. They're going to keep losing elections.

Change to what? Should they cater to the minority of their party like the Republican? The overwhelming majority of the Democratic party are not progressives and they are certainly not Democratic Socialist.

 

[Heathen]

O'rly?

Ya'rly

So it is about getting everything you want! Compromises happen because all Americans don't agree on what key initiatives are. That is how governing works.

Nope. Still isn't. You may like to apply that narrative, but it still won't be the case.

Sure, compromises happen. But it's much more nuanced than that - and it isn't this binary situation you make it, either.

I and every other American are free to determine what level of compromise meets our own threshold. You compromise some? That's governance. You compromise a lot and ignore many of the key policies you said you'd address? We have issues.

You say this and then you chastise political leaders seeking bi-partisan solutions. How else would you describe a voting bloc that refuses to work with the opposition? What makes them different from the MAGA bloc?

Of course I do. Why would I not? Do you think that bipartisanship is equivalent to effective governance? There are always trade-offs.

What "group" are you talking about? Please be specific.

It will go just like it did in 2016.

Wait, are you already blaming the left for Biden's loss in November?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Sure, compromises happen. But it's much more nuanced than that - and it isn't this binary situation you make it, either.

I and every other American are free to determine what level of compromise meets our own threshold. You compromise some? That's governance. You compromise a lot and ignore many of the key policies you said you'd address? We have issues.

And what is your definition of compromise? Has Biden not worked to obtain those campaign promises? I believe he has accomplished quite a feat despite the opposition from the radicals in Congress.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true

Do you think that bipartisanship is equivalent to effective governance? There are always trade-offs.

In our current two-party system, yes. The reason why this system is failing us is because too many believe that any compromise is a bad thing.

What "group" are you talking about? Please be specific.

I never mentioned a "group". I was referring to your comment about voting blocs:

You (general you) can't expect to chastise and ignore this bloc of voters as being 'unreasonable', 'wanting too much', 'radical' etc. and then turn around and blame them for not giving you their vote.

Wait, are you already blaming the left for Biden's loss in November?

No, you did.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Where is the evidence that if we have a more authoritarian rule, or even a Christian Nationalist take-over our Government, that we will somehow get a more progressive government as a result of that?

It is so much easier to keep a democracy than to throw it away and then assume that somehow the fascists who are in power will start playing it straight and leave power ever. It’s madness, truly.

Like my pawpaw used to always say, "it's a lot easier to not frack something up than it is to unfrack it."

How long and what did it take for Germany to get out from under the control of the Nazi's after they seized power? Chile? Irag? Iran? China? The Soviet Union?

Once fascists take over, it takes a very violent war to get out from under their control, if you ever actually do. Most of the time you don't without violent intervention from third parties. Does anyone want WWWIII fought on US soil? I know I don't, because I don't want if fought anywhere.

There are people in this thread that keep contradicting themselves. That's either a sign of faulty logic or being less than genuine. Watch who responds to this statement. It'll be a revealing tell.

 

[Booker]

In our current two-party system, yes. The reason why this system is failing us is because too many believe that any compromise is a bad thing.

This right here.

 

[coldseat]

I would argue that part of the manifestations of the far right policies that are trying to turn us into a christofascist state have ALWAYS been there. They just haven't been as boisterous and vocal and shameless as Trump did. I'd hope you don't think Trump kicked all of this off.

I would also strongly argue that - again, this is past a single election or even several elections. I firmly believe that the reason we have so many civil rights at risk - including protections for LGBTQ, Women, POC etc is precisely because of a Democratic party that has refused to change who they are for decades.

I mean...Democrats had a majority a few years back and still couldn't codify Roe. To act like that's only the fault of pesky Republicans is to ignore a disease for the symptoms.

This is going to keep happening until the Democratic party changes. They're going to keep losing elections.

The Democrats would have needed 60 votes in the Senate to codify Roe. They never had the votes for that.

If Hilary would have won the presidency, women would still have the protection of Roe and a whole lot of other monumental SC decisions would have gone the opposite way. We can fault Hilary and the DNC all we want, but that's the truth. Hindsight is 20/20 but it wasn't that hard to see the consequences of that elections given that the Republicans in the Senate were holding open a SC seat.

Change always happens over time, it's never quick. But regression happens very quickly with the right conditions.

 

[Bayouboy]

I'm just joining this conversation. Didn't have the time to read 40+ pages......but would like to ask the group:

"Why did the democrats run back Joe Biden"? I understand that he beat the likely Republican challenger in 2020 and he has some "wins" over the last 4 years, but the dude is old as dirt (over 80) and is showing signs of cognitive decline. I'm not saying he has dementia or can't run the office, but perception is a strong driver of actions. Despite all of the positive economic numbers, Biden's approval rating is low. It's a virtual dead heat with Trump. That's extremely scary.

Why not run out a younger candidate that can get voters engaged? There's a good chance Biden really screws up if put in a debate. Hell, sometimes he fumbles just delivering from a set of notes. I'm terrified of a second Trump term. Biden is a weak candidate. Dems are taking a huge risk running him back out there.

As Jon Stewart said in his return to The Daily Show - "What the fork are we doing"?