this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
21 points (71.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4047 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In June 2021, at the end of a two-day trip to Guatemala, the vice president sat down with the NBC anchor to discuss Biden’s immigration agenda. Harris had recently become the administration’s lead on the so-called root-causes element of border policy, working with Central American countries to alleviate the violent and impoverished conditions that lead many migrants to flee north to the U.S. in the first place. The questions should have been easily anticipated—such as whether Harris had any plans to visit the border itself, where crossings had surged. Yet when Holt did ask that question, Harris threw up her hands in evident frustration. “At some point, you know, I—we are going to the border. We’ve been to the border. So this whole, this whole—this whole thing about the border. We’ve been to the border. We’ve been to the border.” Holt corrected her: “You haven’t been to the border.” Harris became defensive. “And I haven’t been to Europe,” she snapped. “I don’t understand the point you’re making.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 31 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I've heard this argument before, but the primary that got us Biden was also a shit show where a candidate that was deeply unliked eventually became the nominee as other candidates strategically dropped out to make room for him.

I heard way fewer complaints about Kamala being selected to replace Biden than I ever heard about Biden being the nominee in 2020. Nobody felt like the primary had nominated the most popular candidate.

I also don't buy the conspiracy theory that Biden always planned on dropping out, and deliberately did so after a chance for a Primary had passed to hand the nomination to Harris by default. That just doesn't check out strategically. Biden is clearly in cognitive decline and they knew that he was basically unrunnable, but swapping out an incumbent is a risky move.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Yeah, we haven't had a fair primary for decades.

Even 08 Obama has to work against the party. I don't remember how 92 was, just that Bill was the first candidate to go on MTV and genuinely engage with the youth.

I still remember him answering "boxers or briefs" and playing the saxophone. But I wasn't paying attention to the primary back then

But...

Your argument for why there couldn't have been a plan for Harris to take over, was that Biden was clearly in cognitive decline long before this election?

But they thought a primary would contentious and bad for the general?

Aren't those both arguments for why Biden's admin would have a plan to replace him without a primary and Biden would go rogue and refuse to stand down at first?

[–] Elbow1240@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

I wish we could do something like the Jungle primaries that some states have where all the parties run together and the top candidates advance to the general election regardless of party. That seems to put a damper on extremism.

Ideally though, I'd like to see us move away from the presidential system to a proportional parliamentary system, but that would take a constitutional amendment.