this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10181 readers
195 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
39
Biden’s “Democracy” Defense Ignores Un-Democratic Way He Became the Nominee (truthout.org)
submitted 4 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/politics@beehaw.org
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Im starting to notice a pattern of stuff you're posting.

I literally just replied back to one of your posts which was a pro gun advert pretending to be feel good news

Are all of your posts going to be pro GOP posts masquerading as something else

Let's talk about how Trump is the primary nominee, and he raped a woman and threatens everyone.

There's literally no reason that Biden can't be a good leader. He's demonstrated it over the past few years. And it's normal for the current president to be given a second shot.

Fairly sure It's not normal for a president who lost his second term votes to try a 3rd time

The only real objection most people could arguably make for Biden is regarding Israel

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
[–] SteposVenzny@beehaw.org 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At the time of writing, Auzy’s accusation has a score of 10 and your comeback has a score of 3. Three times as many people seem to disbelieve your intentions as believe them.

Were I in your position, this is the sort of thing that would make me question why it is I come off this way. A good starting place would be to actually respond to specific criticisms of this material rather than using memes as thought-terminating cliches.

See, I don’t think you are being deceptive but I am worried that you post articles without thinking of those posts as coming from you just because other people actually wrote the articles. You got accused of being deceptive because you posted articles that are themselves deceptive and then you ran that accusation against your own intentions rather than the material in question. But the truth is that these words become yours when you share them uncritically so you are responsible for their content.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Three times as many people seem to disbelieve your intentions as believe them.

That's not how Lemmy voting works. "Shooting the messenger" is the phenomenon where people get information that contradicts their desired reality, and are more likely to not only reject it outright, but worse, punish the sources delivering the message. There may also be some in-group vs out-group bias going on here.

@Auzy is the only one who is claiming that the feed the homeless article was "pretending to be feel good news" - that's obviously not the case. Maybe you should elaborate on why you think a particular article is deceptive, and how you hold other Beeple's posts to the same standard.

[–] SteposVenzny@beehaw.org 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I hold every post to the same standard. The reason I only chose to speak up in this one is because of the way you responded to that criticism. You called Auzy a crazy conspiracy theorist, sharing an image of a guy pointing at a bunch of disconnected details. But there is a connection between all of the articles you post: you posted them.

My goal here is to help you understand that you aren’t “the messenger” that saying refers to. The messenger doesn’t choose what messages they share. You weren’t assigned the task of posting these articles, they aren’t answers to questions you got asked. If you keep denying responsibility, keep making defenses of yourself instead of the words you spread, that’s leading down a road of thoughtless regurgitation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Didros@beehaw.org 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Let's talk about how Trump is the primary nominee, and he raped a woman and threatens everyone. "

Go for it, make another thread about how dumb it is to vote for Trump. You can do that. People do it all the time. We are talking about a different person in a different party.

"There's literally no reason that Biden can't be a good leader. He's demonstrated it over the past few years. And it's normal for the current president to be given a second shot."

Not representing a majority in policy and having a super low approval rating isn't a reason he can't be a good leader? Is there any reason my neice can't be a good leader? Also, it is not normal for the president to be this old. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age The president should be between 45 years old and 65 years old.

"The only real objection most people could arguably make for Biden is regarding Israel"

This is a wild take. The only possible reason that is REAL is this one issue!

court takes away bodily autonomy from 51% of the population

government does nothing to pass a law to fix it after Biden campaigned on fixing it

"There is not a single reason anyone has to be mad at Biden!"

Bro.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not representing a majority in policy and having a super low approval rating isn't a reason he can't be a good leader? Is there any reason my neice can't be a good leader? Also, it is not normal for the president to be this old.

The approval rating polling is questionable not to mention so many people just blanket disapprove of the guy they didn't vote for in the current political climate.

Not representing a majority in policy is almost definitely a lie, especially when you consider the wide margin the Democratic platform wins in terms of the popular vote.

Much of what Biden's admin has actually "done" to the extent that any president really "does anything" is pretty popular in my view, infrastructure investment, domestic manufacturing investment, alliance building, defense of Ukraine, reduction of dependence on foreign energy, debt relief, etc

court takes away bodily autonomy from 51% of the population

government does nothing to pass a law to fix it after Biden campaigned on fixing it

And this is where our civics competency completely fails us. There is very little Biden can do here by himself, we have a Republican controlled house. What is he supposed to do? He has no legal authority to do anything at the federal level.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yep, nothing he can do. President has no power pack it in.

courts make it so president can assasinate political rivals. Congress has a bill in the works within weeks to change that

Yep, nothing can be done. ಠ_ಠ

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are you actually advocating for the assassination of political rivals as a means to restore abortion rights? That's a pretty hot take if so.

Or are you just pointing out that congress "does stuff" that congress agrees with (i.e., that presides should not be able to assassinate political rivals? -- I haven't seen news of such a bill FWIW).

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago

That second one. I'm pretty up for the complete distruction of our entire system of life, including the removal of currency. But I'm also against violence. That is why I just keep my head down and try to vote to power what I want. But obviously no political party in America is running on tge platform of, "let's tear it all down" so tge democrats are usually as left as it gets. It's just not very left anymore. (With a grain of salt for how actually center-right the dems are)

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 9 points 4 months ago

Are all of your posts going to be pro GOP posts masquerading as something else

Bruh are you real with this one? I am in the crew posting "Biden should step down" posts, and I am as far from the GOP as one can get. Even if you grant that Biden has been a stellar president (and I am a full-throated believer there), the fact remains that critical, swing voters think that he is too old to effectively lead. The GOP has been pumping the airwaves with that message, and then Biden hand-delivered the bow on top with his debate performance. It doesn't matter if the State of the Union was "firey", and it doesn't matter if interviews after showcase that he still has the mind of a 40-year-old (he doesn't). Biden flubbed it at his most critical moment for this election, and now he is no longer the best candidate to take on Trump. Add-on the fact that corporate price gouging is out of control, and a lot of these swing voters perceive that as "the economy is bad under Joe Biden". I will vote for whichever Dem is on the ballot in November, and I suspect that @Five@slrpnk.net will as well. But we're all rightly terrified that the Dems are bringing a rusty knife to a gun fight.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Incumbent President almost always runs unopposed. That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.

I am still going to vote for the D nominee out of pure spite for the right...but something has to give, there needs to be voting reform before the next general which incluudes ranked choice or at some point the choices will ne worse than this time around.

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Incumbent President almost always runs unopposed. That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.

True enough, but I also don't think during the 2020 election, anybody thought that if Trump lost, at practically 80 years old, he would be the R candidate in the 2024 election as well.

I honestly wish the right wasn't so regressive, crazy, and having such a hold on half the country. I'd love to vote for someone else for president, but the risk of the right winning is just too damaging.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago

It was the Dems initiative to get someone else to go but just did nothing but ride the coattails

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.

I don't know where this idea started, it's certainly something I expected him to do.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

From his campaign saying it in 2019 and 2022, though he avoided making it a promise (not that a promise would mean anything coming from a politician anyways).

This was explicitly used as an argument to boost him over other younger candidates in the 2020 primary field.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 6 points 4 months ago

Interesting; granted it seems to be a campaign advisor's opinion stated as-if it were fact so I'd wager that's probably more bad reporting than it is a campaign promise.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yes. Clearly it is undemocratic for the person who won the last presidential election to sit as an incumbent.

🙄

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I mean, yes? Just because it's a precedent here doesn't make it democratic.

It's literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.

8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.

Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

When you say "literally" it torpedoes your argument. Do you know any other adverbs?

[–] JCPhoenix@beehaw.org 5 points 4 months ago

This is Beehaw; argue the issue or topic, but not stuff like this.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Care to explain this? I'm not using "literally" to mean "practically", I'm using it to mean "literally".

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago

block and move on, t3rmit3. i think we're getting trolled.

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I'm asking because I'll be real interested in 4 years.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The term limit on presidents is a law.

The incumbent presidents' campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.

The incumbent's team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, I'm not sure if you are making a joke about how a monarchy can't be democratic. Or if this is a comment about him legit "deserving" to be president more.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Monarchy... Really...? This is not even remotely close to a monarchy situation.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Monarchy was obviously the wrong word, but I think their underlying point is correct; there is not supposed to be a Right to Rule in America.

No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I mean, okay fair enough, this is a longstanding thing that's happened though. It's pretty rare for incumbents to be challenged within their own party (and this is normally not a controversial thing).

It's also less that "nobody could" and more "nobody [with a remote chance of winning] did."

There's no "right to rule" here, that's entirely a retroactive facade that's contrary to the facts.

(EDIT: Bit more info https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls)

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.

There was a primary, and Biden got the most votes/delegates under the rules. Nobody is saying that incumbents should automatically get renomination. Or even that the incumbent should get some sort of rules advantage (like say, the way the defending world champ in chess gets an auto-bid to defend his title against a challenger who has to win a tournament to get there).

The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary. They just won't have the actual popular support. You know, the core principles of democratic elections.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There was a primary

The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary.

Man, you've got some hilarious jokes. Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-democratic-primaries-rules/

https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?

Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it's their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that's also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.

More than a year ago, the DNC adopted new rules—including a primary calendar that ignored state law in Iowa and New Hampshire and eliminated any primary debates—designed to ensure that Biden’s coronation would proceed untroubled by opposition from any credible Democrat.

Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There's been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.

There's basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It's a popularity problem, not a structural problem.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It's not just about pledged delegates. The incumbent's campaign remains in control of the party during the primary. And in 2016, Hilary's campaign was literally in complete control of the DNC even prior to her getting the nomination despite not being an incumbent.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And she lost. Because it's a bad strategic move.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Uh, what was? Running Hillary? I agree. Giving her control of the DNC before the primary? Also agree.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move. Also giving her control of the DNC, but Biden would have been an easy win at the time.

Like, I would have loved to see Sanders, personally. Strategically, though? If you're just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.

Hit on 16 in blackjack, run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter. The actual odds, not the figures arrived at by making a few hundred thousand cold calls and finding the people who actually want to talk about politics, as if that weren't a biasing factor in political position.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move

It was the end of Obama's 2nd term, and he couldn't run again. There was no incumbent.

If you’re just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.

Biden would have had the same chance in 2016 as Hillary. The entire reason Obama beat Hillary out in the 2008 primary was that people didn't want another white Centrist. The reason Biden won in 2020 was because of Trump, not because he was a good choice. He barely won.

run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter.

Didn't work out for Trump, since he was so unpopular. Biden is also basically there, he's just less hated than Trump. But this time, a lot of people are going to sit out if they're not invigorated (as they were invigorated against Trump in 2020).

The actual odds

It's very convenient to wave your hand and make nebulous claims about the "actual odds" without any evidence. Polling is no longer mostly done via cold calls, it's mostly internet surveys, or via services that have paid-to-participate groups that are easy to control for, demographically.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Didros@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago

Thanks much! Spot on.

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The edge is strong with these trolls, I'm almost positive this is what we're dealing with here.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I literally just stop replying when they trickle in. Rather plant seeds and move on than get bogged down by Putin's trolls.

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago

not sure about you, but we're trying to have political discussions in this space. Strolling into a thread a day late, accusing everyone of being Russian trolls, and then ignoring your replies is a terrible way to foster discussion.

[–] i_ben_fine@lemmy.one 3 points 4 months ago

Would you say more on this? Specifically the connection between democratic/undemocratic and incumbents.

[–] coffeetest@beehaw.org 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Its ok for political parties to choose their candidates. The problem is the two party system. No one is confused that the US is not a direct democracy.

[–] JCPhoenix@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

Honestly, I think we'd be better off if we got rid of primaries. I do think they tend to lead to more extreme/radical/fringe nominees, since the party candidates try to out compete each other on their party/ideology bona fides. Maybe it is better if go back to the party establishments picking a candidate.

There are other reason as well. One is that parties are private organizations. So why does a government often run them? I know that's not true all states. In some states, the primaries/caucuses are almost entirely run and organized by the parties. But in others, primaries are done by state and local governments. Do the parties pay the state back for this? Idk. Regardless, still seems strange.

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean, has there been an instance where someone else within the party snipes the nomination before the second term?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Two that I know of.

Both landslide losses at the polls.

load more comments
view more: next ›