399

Biden speech live: president says best way to save US democracy is ‘to pass torch to new generation’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 137 points 5 months ago

A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.

If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 72 points 5 months ago

Fun fact, Thomas Jefferson thought of himself a modern day Cincinnatus, and mused romantically about going back to his farm.

He was famously terrible at farming. The fact stops being fun here and gets real dark real fast.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago

The fact stops being fun here and gets real dark real fast.

Like Jefferson's family tree!

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 months ago

His slaves were great at it though. Because if they weren’t… well… you can guess.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Yeah well, not like he was the one toiling in his fields.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

He was probably envious of the very flattering way Washington was described as a Cincinnatus.

You know, a guy who actually gave up a chance at seizing power over a fledgling democracy, multiple times, just because it would make him look bad.*

*I know "His Excellency" was not a great guy, let's skip the rant this time

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

He was!

He compared himself to Cincinnatus as he stepped away from governing Virginia, which he was also famously terrible at. So this was prior to Washington stepping down.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 94 points 5 months ago

Over the last few days, I’ve had more respect for Biden than ever.

Honorable people willingly give up power if they believe it will serve the greater good. Selfish narcissists cannot even comprehend such an act.

[-] norimee@lemmy.world 43 points 5 months ago

Conspiracy-Barbie Bobert is probably furious right now, that he isn't secretly dead.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

Or secretly her dad.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago

Well damn, that's a lot more self awareness than the DNC and Dems usually exhibit.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

I think the media is just actually covering the Democrats good decisions for once

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

nah. Hillary didn't happen because of the media. the DNC did that because they thought they had it in the bag no matter what. I'm glad they're not making the same mistake this time and at least trying to adapt.

[-] faizalr@kbin.run 32 points 5 months ago

Free US from Israel.

[+] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -27 points 5 months ago

We know that's not going to happen. Did you see everyone cheering on Netanyahu as he was calling for mass censorship of people? And Kamala has taken over $5M from AIPAC. So we should expect more of the same.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Citation needed

No but seriously if you have more info I would be legitimately interested in it. But for starters what you say would be blatantly illegal under campaign finance law. Even as shoddy as it currently is. I attempted but couldn't find anything like you describe.

Also I saw half of one party not even show up for that appalling address. What party was that again?

[+] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -52 points 5 months ago

New generation is meaningless if it keeps upholding the old generation policies.

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 49 points 5 months ago

...do you actually believe that's what's happening, or are you just too naive to accept any progress that isn't the full scope of your ideals?

[+] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -42 points 5 months ago

That is exactly what's happening. The only ones that are ever going to gain any influence within the party are the ones that have vowed to uphold the status quo. The status quo that has been built by generations prior.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 34 points 5 months ago

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Or as the young people say, we didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree.

[+] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -25 points 5 months ago

What a weirdly sycophantic way of praising what is arguably the most corrupt House, Senate, and Supreme court this country has seen since the robber baron days.

I'm interested in how you square the circle between this fantastic view of American exceptionalism with the clear statement that voters have made that they absolutely DO NOT WANT politicians like Biden or Clinton leading them, and basically stand in disgust of institutions like the House and Senate, where House members are clearly using their positions to increase their personal wealth.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 14 points 5 months ago

It seems that your tribe and my tribe are not the same.

64000 people just donated over $120 million to the inherent nominee in 3 days, me being one of them. You call that corruption whereas I call it hope.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

If you need to be a cheerleader to belive things, thats fine. I also donated. I also signed up to volunteer like I have for progressive and democratic campaigns for the previous 12 years.

But I also need to have clear eyes when it comes to the political context I find myself in. We need to pick up the ball that the Democrats dropped by insisting on Biden for as long as they did, drive it down field, and put it in the goal. But I'm not going to live a lie about who the Democrats are, and who they have been, for literally decades. I can't afford that. The cost of living in a fantasy about who the DNC is, how they manage their party, and how they use different demographics of voters only when its convenient for them is simply too high. I've needed them to be a better party for years and they keep choosing to not live up to who we, the voters, need them to be.

Democrats need to do better and they can't keep relying on marginalized demographics and minorities to come in here and save their asses every time they fuck up (like they've been doing with this entire primary where they just about handed the whole damn thing to Trump).

I can chew gum and walk: I can both support the nominee and dial the numbers, and also have a criticism of a party that treats its voters with the level if disrespect it has.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Poignant, but I disagree.

I think you are treating the presidency as a dictatorship. Even though you even say in your comment that the party is segmented, you are treating the party as one monolith. I think you know each faction has their own special interests.

Hell, I’ll even tell you mine. I spend my times and resources focusing on climate change. It’s been my primary political motivation since the first Earth Day that I can remember, planting trees with my Mom and watching Captain Planet thereafter.

If I had it my way, I’d have the military spend at least 25% of their resources on that alone and require all citizens to complete 40 hours per year volunteering for environmental activities that impact their local community. I’d take back the word “sustainability” to mean impact to the climate.

If it were up to me that would be my main focus until we resolved the issue as I think it’s the biggest trial to humanity of our times. Those people are my faction.

I’d do that at the expense of many other initiatives; those others would likely die on the vine.

But I’m competing with so many other important activities supported by their own special interests. Now I wonder, which one gets prioritized? Likely the one by the faction that is screaming the most or the easy one that gets broad support and improves popular sentiment.

Now, if we were a dictatorship, we could get your and my issues resolved….but I don’t want to live in a dictatorship, so all I can do, living in our current moment, is cheer and vote and wait for my turn.

And I’ll do it with vigor, because the alternative is a big step in the wrong direction.

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 13 points 5 months ago

Where do you see anyone here praising the Supreme Court?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 months ago

Biden won the primary and then the election. The clear statement you'd like there to be wasn't made, even if we think issue polling means we think the electorate is further left. The only clear statement against Biden is against the mentally fading present day Biden, but that's not because of the kind of politician he was.

[+] doctordevice@lemmy.ca -92 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I feel like this speech was unnecessary. It only made me feel worse. I need the Democrats, and especially Biden, to stop soapboxing about "saving democracy" and "presidents are not kings" when they literally just skipped the democratic part of choosing a nominee for it to be handed down like a crown.

In fact, I'd feel a lot better if they apologized for it and told us how they were going to stop it from happening in the future.

Edit: wow, y'all really freak out at any suggestion of wrongdoing by the Democrats. I'd suggest looking backwards at how we ended up with the current primary process. 1968 Democratic primaries. The Democrats recognized the problem then and introduced reform, why is that such an outlandish thing to ask for now?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

First of all according to the constitution it is up to the parties to bring their candidates. The primaries are done in a certain way for example Republicans don't allow to vote for their candidate unless you are registered Republican, superdelegates etc.

Second, Harris is a VP, she already was on the ticket with Biden. Biden just opted to not run.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

First of all according to the constitution it is up to the parties to bring their candidates. The primaries are done in a certain way for example Republicans don’t allow to vote for their candidate unless you are registered Republican, superdelegates etc.

No. Political parties are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as the founders were wary of the polarization and factionalism that parties would bring- Washington famously warned against them in his farewell speech when he left the office of the Presidency. Second, primaries aren't in the Constitution either. The DNC and the RNC are private organizations that work to get candidates on ballots according to the laws each state and Congress have passed regarding elections, but they are by no means a requirement. That's why both parties do their primaries differently.

The President is only elected when the electors from each state cast their votes after the general election. The states have decided to select their electors by having primary elections, but there is no Constitutional requirement for them to do so.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

My bad, I meant to say that as far as the Constitution is concerned, the parties can pick up their candidates however they want.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

Well that actually is in the Constitution, so you're kinda right. The first amendment promises "freedom of association" which is exactly what these parties are doing. They're choosing who to associate with as their candidate for president. They are voting, the delegates I mean.

The other guy is just upset because they didn't personally ask him. But I guarantee he doesn't donate to or volunteer for any local candidates.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Found the trolls. No one is listening to you guys. Just give up.

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

they literally just skipped the democratic part of choosing a nominee for it to be handed down like a crown

How about the fact that nobody mounts a serious challenge against an incumbent anyway, how is that any better? Is it because they were already elected in the general 4 years ago? Because Kamala was on that ticket, too. Oh, and nobody votes for the VP nominee in the primary stage, even if they are second in line. Heck, you kind of have to trust the presidential nominee on that front.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024

399 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19244 readers

2134 users here now

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

• 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