207
submitted 1 month ago by spaduf@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cyd@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago

He's going to give it his all, but also he's going to make sure that he gets enough sleep and avoid scheduling events past 8 pm.

[-] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 39 points 1 month ago

Unironically I absolutely believe that pacing yourself properly is the only way to actually "give it your all". Unless you want him to load up on stimulants of questionable legality, but those might actually kill him before election night.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Yes, the campaigning equivalent of a slow shuffle is realistically what "giving his all" means for Biden at this point. The problem is his insistence that this is also better than what anyone else could possibly do.

[-] 5C5C5C@programming.dev -2 points 1 month ago

I agree with you, but at the same time I can't think of any other candidate that would both (1) have enough name recognition to motivate semi-apathetic democrats to vote, and (2) not rile up the semi-apathetic bigots into counter-voting.

According to the gossip, Biden has said that if he does choose to step down, he'll promote Harris. I don't think Democrats will have much of a problem supporting Harris, but I'm concerned being a woman of color will motivate a lot of bigots into a counter-vote when they might have otherwise stayed home. The next best pick might be Buttigieg, but then you get the homophobic bigots coming out for the counter-vote. Newsom might be the next best after that, but then you have the anti-California lunatics coming out to counter-vote him.

As much as I don't want to cater to bigots, I think the stakes are just too high here. If it were a campaign against Mitt Romney then I wouldn't think twice about running any of these people, but when we're on a razor's edge against America spiraling into a fascist dictatorship, every risk needs to be accounted for.

Obviously Biden should've declared back in August that he wouldn't run for reelection so the Democrats could run a primary and build up someone to have name recognition and a positive image, but now it's too late for that 🤷‍♂️

[-] Skunk@jlai.lu 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know it is just a wet dream but plenty of french-leftist would love to see AOC as president.

Young, woman, Latino. That would anger the conservatives so much and she would probably do very good things for the US population.

But hey no judgment, maybe tomorrow (Sunday 7th) we will be fucked as well...

[-] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

I would personally love to see AOC as president. Unfortunately I don't constitute a majority of the electoral college, and right now that's the only backstop we have against the descent into a fascist dictatorship.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Better for someone his age.

What do you realistically want him to do? What's an example day for him, according to you?

[-] nieceandtows@programming.dev 14 points 1 month ago

No, I want him to make the biggest sacrifice he can make. Give up his ego and step down.

[-] Pheonixdown@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Official Act to lockup the fascists as domestic terrorists, then bow out of the race.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

People can be released from prison. Fascists require a more permanent solution.

Also time for napsies in the after noon

Also no meetings before 11 in the morning

[-] downpunxx@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

When you're 81 years old and The President of The United States of America, that is giving it your all

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Bernie Sanders is older.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

I don't see a problem with this. Your definition of "giving it all" would mean him collapsing at some point. That's not giving it all, if the goal is to serve the American people.

[-] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Dude, if he was a firefighter and said the same thing, what would you're answer be? If there is a fire after 8 pm then you are up fighting the fire. Same with a nurse on call, an air traffic controller, etc. This is a requirement of the most powerful position on earth making decisions that literally impact all of humanity and the fate of western democracy.

If he can't do it he shouldn't be running. Go be a prof or join a corporate board or something if you want a 9-5 and a stable bed time. The president of the United States needs to be able to operate on very little sleep and past 8 pm because this is the fucking real world...

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Ok, sure, sure, but at this point, that's all we got. Give it all (then die and set the political landscape back to Trump-era bullshit), or recognize your limits and respect them in order to do the job as best as you can.

What should we be doing different that would NOT give Trump the presidency? Do tell, please. I'd love to be wrong.

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
207 points (89.7% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4291 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS