this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024

-46 points (19.7% liked)

Interesting Global News

2599 readers

235 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.

Post guidelines

Title format

Post title should mirror the news source title.

URL format

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. No social media posts

Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
!technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
!europe@feddit.org - News and information from Europe.

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

-46

[Opinion] Biden Must Resign (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 4 months ago by OpenStars@discuss.online to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.one/post/16476649

For the good of the republic and to demonstrate new leadership before the election.

Lays out an argument about how to navigate the difficulties ahead, addressing the challenges that would result.

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Horse shit

[+] OpenStars@discuss.online -9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Not good enough, and also btw a violation of the rules of this community. Would you like an opportunity to change someone's mind using logical articulation rather than merely emotionally venting your random surface thoughts? e.g., perhaps while doing that you could demonstrate that you actually read the article rather than merely the title? These are weighty matters, and not to be taken lightly. But perhaps I'm the horseshit for hoping that people could have rational and logical discussions on a social media website.

[–] 555_2@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Horse shit

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Plenty good enough. There's absolutely no need to waste effort on a crap idea.

It isn't a weighty matter, it's a bullshit push to disrupt things leading up to the election.

Listen, I kinda hate Biden. He was a meh VP and he's been a meh president imo. Better than the only realistic alternative last go-round, and still the only realistic opposition to the Republican party. This late in the game, changing candidates is a horrible idea. It's not worthy of debate, so my "horse shit" stands.

I'm kinda surprised the Atlantic published this crap even as an opinion piece. It makes zero sense for a sitting president to resign at the end of their term while for reelection. It's just dumb.

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So it's a bad idea because it's a bad idea. Got it.

Personally, I think it's the only way to have any real chance for positive change on Capitol Hill. Nobody's really voting for Biden; they're voting against Trump. Give the disenfranchised masses a candidate they don't hate, one who takes a clear stance against genocide, is under 70, and is mentally able, and the many, many voters who threw up their hands in a chorus of "why bother?" will suddenly have a reason to care again. All Trump's rhetoric about how old and dementia-ridden his opponent is would suddenly get thrown back in his face.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

You underestimate the blind loyalty of identity politics among democrats. The fact that Republicans are the party better known for it, there are democrats that are equally dedicated to voting blue, no matter who the candidate is, and there are plenty of others in the party that genuinely see Biden as a good president.

It's the folks that aren't invested in the two party default that voice dissent to the choice. You obviously aren't, and I know I'm not. But the reality is that those of us on the left are still stuck voting against a candidate like trump rather than having a real choice. But we are a minority, and we're stuck with the reality that a change in presidency or candidacy at this point is disastrous on its own.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Guess I should give him 4 more years to decide you're right then.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago

When it comes to voting, absolutely yes. But please note: that's not what this article is about.

Also, people thought the exact same identical thought about Hillary Clinton too. If the goal is to win, and promoting Harris as someone who can handle the job would help accomplish that goal... then it aids rather than hinders the cause?

Well anyway, it's not like any of this is up to us. I did think the article was interesting in the possibilities it presents, e.g. to potentially win the election rather than just hope that it happens despite... everything.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can't help but notice that there's a lot of articles talking about how Joe Biden is bad when we just had a Supreme Court decision that destroys the balances of power. I wonder why.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you have a logical argument to make, we're listening.

Trump must be beat. Biden does not seem like he has it in him to do so. Maybe he simply had a bad day? Except bullshit, bc he's in charge of his own schedule - why not rest for a week or three after his global trips and then have the debate? Oh wait, he did. Like Bill Clinton's sexual scandals, the action itself is less important than lying about it afterwards.

He's in charge of the nuclear football. And many other things. If he can't handle having a bad day, especially after weeks of resting, that worries me. Trump worries me more. Therefore it seems relevant that we cannot control other people, only ourselves. We've been down this road before, when the entire Democratic party went all-in behind Hillary fucking Clinton, and that did not turn out so well. And now here we do it again.

To be clear, if Biden doesn't step down, I will still support him - blue no matter who - however not everyone feels that way, especially younger people who might otherwise vote for ~~Bernie~~ Harris, but not ~~Hillary~~ Biden.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting article that set forth some thoughts to consider. Obviously none of this will actually happen. The wealthy elites have blessed Biden and their decision is final, it seems. Just like in 2016, we have neoliberalism vs. fascism, with the stakes rising each time, round 3, go! After that we can continue our Russian Roulette round 4 a few years down the road again. The catch is: assuming we make it past this round. We didn't in 2016.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden would make a better candidate than Trump if he were on life support and we knew he'd be dead within the first week. The important part is not if he's fit for office, the question is if he's the best candidate to beat Donald Trump. As someone who's not Trump, he has an advantage that any Democrat can bank on. As the incumbent, he has an advantage that no one else can replicate. Who is popular enough to have more of an advantage than being the incumbent? Bernie Sanders? AOC? Their policies are far better than Biden's and they have celebrity, but the DNC will never nominate them, and I don't know if they'd pull in more people, because anyone who'd vote for them with any common sense would vote for Biden against Trump.

So who, exactly would he be replaced by? Understand that these pieces cause real damage to his chances if he isn't replaced, so you'd best have even 1 person in mind.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 points 4 months ago

Before I forget: Pete Buttigieg. Or maybe now would be a really good time to bring forth AOC? Yeah so they don't like it, but they may like life under Trump even worse, so... anyway it's a thought? Or get creative, fucking put in Liz Cheney or fucking Mitt fucking Romney 🤮, rather than Trump. In any case, the article brought up some really great points, I thought, namely that Harris is the only one who legally would be able to access the giant war chest that was prepared for the incumbent, plus she would become the incumbent if he were to step down, allowing the entire world to assess her capabilities to govern the USA prior to voting. I get that she is nobody's first thought to actually run on her own, but this scenario put forth is more than a little different, for a variety of reasons.

Understand that these pieces cause real damage to his chances if he isn’t replaced, so you’d best have even 1 person in mind.

I'm sorry, but I really do not understand this. We agree so much, so I am going to go out on a limb and let myself be vulnerable here, and push to ask for clarification. Maybe you are sea-lioning me, but okay I'll give it a genuine chance. Preemptively I need to say that I may be insensitive in my wording at times too - these are highly emotional matters and my zeal for truth can be a bit much for some. So here goes: it sounds like you are saying that we need to all collectively (a) lie and (b) actively cover up the truth, so that we say that we cannot see what we see with our very own eyes, for the sake of winning? Don't get me wrong, sometimes that's mandatory I suppose - the Anne Frank scenario - but what I mean here is not whether it's okay or not, but whether that thinking applies here.

Young people especially have seen the debate already, or clips of it (see e.g. this one) - the cat is out of that bag already? By openly acknowledging and actually dealing with the situation, we might stand a chance. Otherwise, just like vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016, Trump will win, yet again, and with the stakes far higher this time? This is also a little bit reminiscent of RBG's situation: she had the opportunity to step down, but chose not to? Well, perhaps that's not such a good comparison after all. Anyway, hypothetically, if Biden is not okay, then he "needs" to step down... right - what is wrong with that logical formulation, let's say that we presume that the first part is a given?

And if Biden is okay, well then, the best time to have proved that was during the debate (if he gets tired easily, maybe don't fly around the world right before it? except supposedly that was literally weeks prior and he did have lots of time to rest?!), but the second best time is right the fucking now, is it not?! Hold a press conference and stand up for 3 hours straight making cogent points the entire time - PROVE to us all that he's not sliding into dementia, but that it really, truly, honestly, genuinely was merely a bad day? We all have those after all, that part is true... the real concern is whether that is merely an excuse to cover up for the reality that that was not the case?

i.e., if your argument is that we're going to pretend to vote for Biden, while in reality we are actually voting for Harris, then what is the harm in bringing her forth now, letting everyone see how capable she would be, and thus assuaging people's fears? Otherwise it's just more lies, more bullshit, and thereby more people - especially the youth and the halfway independents (including a handful of conservatives who will jump at the chance to vote for almost anyone other than Biden, but they would prefer not-Trump, though they also would hesitate to pick Harris, or Biden at his current age) - that will not turn up at the polls. Then watch as we all blame them for not voting, and collectively forgetting that we had the opportunity to try to earn their votes, but chose not to. People can downvote me and talk back here that I am not screaming "blue no matter who" loudly enough for their tastes... but our Fedi echo-chamber cannot force those people to vote how "we" may want? So it comes down to: at what point would we rather have ~~Hillary~~ Biden lose, than to see ~~Trump~~ Trump win?

Well, that's one interpretation anyway, that the article explores in much greater depth than I am capable of covering personally. It's not like I can do anything about any of this personally, I just thought it was interesting is all.