592
Biden admits to taking drugs before the debate.
(i.imgur.com)
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 28 Jun 2024
592 points (94.2% liked)
Memes
45875 readers
1069 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I would vote for a wet sandwich before I vote for Trump, but Jesus Christ, it would be nice if the democrats fucking tried.
Yep. Same boat.
Democrats suffer from a condition that I've come to call "Democratic Realism," named after Capitalist Realism. No matter how much they get their shit kicked in. No matter how badly they do. No matter how little they accomplish. No matter how badly they look or do in debates. Democrats always believe, beyond a shred of doubt, that they'll win elections without trying. Not because of their own merits, but because they're just the only "real" choice; they simply can't fathom anyone willingly voting for their opponents.
Hillary barely campaigned in the "flyover states" that she needed to win because she couldn't be fucking bothered to actually try. It wasn't worth the effort to try and persuade people she thought of as her lessers. And the DNC just went "well, it's obviously her turn. She's been waiting for the chance at the presidency for 20 years now. We should go ahead and let her be president." Because that's the mentality. They don't have to "win" elections. They just pick a candidate and they get to win, because there is no "real" alternative. That Bush and Trump won don't indicate that, yeah, actually, you do have to fight for the people who are voting for you, otherwise they'll vote for the schmuck that appeals to their basest and most venal instincts. Those were just flukes...right? And you don't have to inspire confidence and admiration in others, because they should just recognize how smart and accomplished and inoffensive their candidates are, and that they're told to vote for them by people that are smarter than they are, so they should just shut up and do it.
It's a party driven less by any kind of ideological goals and more by a pervasive sense of smug, impotent, lazy egotism. And, yeah, they'll get a shitload of votes in the elections because the alternative always seems to be someone who is one goose-step shy of a literal Nazi. Biden will probably even win the popular vote. Y'know....just like Hillary did...
Good essay. I don't know if you remember after Obama won in 2008 a bunch of democratic party apparatchiks came up with this idea of "the coalition of the ascendant" and that they pretty much had the government locked in for a generation, due to support that would never waver for them amongst immigrants, yuppies, tech bros, etc. They didn't need the working class anymore and the Republicans would be the minority party for many years.
Two years later the democrats were wiped out in the midterms.
The coalition of the ascendant concept is kind of insane when you remember for a moment that the popular vote is kinda worthless in winning elections. The electoral college is structured in such a way that conservative whites have a larger share of the electorate relative to their minority peers. It doesn't matter if you're a lock for California and New York (enclaves of coastal elites and minorities alike) if you lose the entirety of the South, Southwest, and Midwest, enclaves of...the opposite of those things, really. This 538 article on it has links to other discussions related to this and represents a fascinating look into the relationship between popular votes and electoral votes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
I never thought of it like that, well written.
Yeah, I think you've got a good handle on it.
You smoothly worked philosophical theory into the conversation. Subtle.
They won't until they absolutely have to.
Which at this rate is fucking never.
Thought they would have learned something from that whole Hillary and Sanders debacle. But I guess not.
OR… they don’t give a fuck either since they’re all on the same corporate payroll
Of course they didn’t. They literally had every establishment democrat coordinatedly drop out of the primaries in exchange for cabinet positions to throw their support behind Biden when Sanders started winning the primaries in 2020. Like, it’s been clear they’d learned nothing. And thanks to the idiotic two party system, they got rewarded for that maneuver with the opportunity to say “we told you so! Look, we got trump out of office!” And when they lose this time…they won’t learn a goddamn thing. Again.
luckily, they won't have to learn a thing if trump wins, because MAGAts will stack the odds so much in their favor that no dem will win a presidential election in many years. yay project 2025!
“You’ve convinced me, now make me do it”
You are seeing what 80 years of worldwide violent repression of leftist ideology have culminated in.
Fuck the boat, I hope we all drown.
They think they don't have to, they just have to keep you scared enough of the GOP that you'll vote for them out of terror. It's how Biden won the first time, after all.
Democrats do not need to make us scared. The gop does it themselves.
And they're right. I mean, Trump's a waste of oxygen, so why should anyone vote for him?
You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.
Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.
There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It's about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it's worse among Dems than GOP.
That's why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it's not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.
I see, sorry for misunderstanding. I've also heard about the problem with voting turnout. As a European, the whole US voting system just seems kinda obscure in general. Although, to be fair, the right party voters are also way more likely to vote here than the ones from other parties.
why should they? you're going to give them what they want from you anyways in november and multiple novembers into the future; there's literally no reason for them to ever bother.
Remember when a bunch of people didn't vote because the Democrat candidate was a piece of shit? And then trump won? And then the democratic party said "oh wow we should put up actual candidates instead of decrepit neolibs" except they didn't because they didn't learn shit.
not only did they not; but they cock blocked a popular progressive candidate from running; twice.
And then spent the next several cycles systematically forcing anyone who supported him out of the party.
You can't pin that on the voter because not voting for the democrats is effectively voting for the republicans. It's a problem of the two party system
Imagine if they had spent last 4 years promoting some young faces as potential candidates.
Why doesn't anyone call him out on lying about running for a second term? I very vividly remember hearing him say in 2020 that he would not seek reelection and yet here we are.
never saw this. citation requested thanks
Yeah I remember it.
Google's right there when you're done being obtuse.
Just went ahead and Googled it and I can find no credible source that he actually said these words at any time. So, if you'd like to bandy out that source, I think we'd all appreciate it.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/ it's been memory holed. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/ (btw I was using "google" as a verb, my mistake. There's nothing on Google, you need to use search engines without agendas, or at least not that agenda)
from the hill article:
So Biden never explicitly made a one-term promise during the campaign
ok. Look I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just never heard biden say that and wondered what I'd missed. The Hill article goes on to state:
but he certainly implied it with the language of “transition.”
yeeaah, uh, I'm going to vote for him because < HAHA FUCKING HELLSCAPE PROJECT 2025 > either way
"It's been memory holed"
No, your own source states that that was never announced. It was talked about within the party. There was never a public announcement to the American people stating that he would not run as an incumbent. Every source reporting on that was and is reporting on unsubstantiated hearsay never set into stone.
If you'd like to compare, Trump is tagged at 30,573 verified lies only during his time in office, not even counting statements made on either campaign trail.
Didn't even read them, huh? Focused on one line.
That's real rich from the guy that didn't even read his own source he posted in this conversation. Try harder.
I dunno about you guys, but I didn't believe it for a second when he said he was going to be one term. Shame on him for lying, even if it was obvious.
Yeah, I don't get it. I was confused and not happy when I saw he was running again. He could've gone out like a heavily watered down LBJ, instead he's going to be forever remembered as the lost nursing home patient who wandered onto the debate stage. This is an unmitigated disaster, and the only way forward I see now is have Joe step down and let Kamala be the president. I'm not excited for that prospect, but I assume she can at least win a debate against a potted plant.
Kamala is literally the only person in politics who would be a worse candidate than Joe...