• Luna [she/her]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Please replace him with Hillary or Bernie or something it would be so funny. They could even have Hillary and Bernie debate for the candidacy 😂

  • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Trump would only win if the Democrat party found someone seemingly more inept than him.

    I am impressed that the Democrat party managed to present not one, but two outstandingly incompetent candidates. In a row. That’s some bottom of the barrel advanced scraping techniques right there. They even managed to get a representation of both sexes.

    I’m sure Mr. Biden will be terribly distraught, as soon as he is able to understand what’s happening around him at the moment.

    • kylie_kraft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The Democrats are still stuck in this post-Clinton seniority mindset where they unofficially pick a candidate before primaries even begin, based on who has been around the longest and who has held the highest position. Remember “it’s her turn”? Yes, yes, I know it didn’t work against Obama, but heading into the debates everyone assumed Hillary would be the candidate until Obama put on the better show. More to the point, I think Obama breaking through scared the establishment Dems into doubling down on primary fuckery. See what happened to Bernie, twice. So now we have a president who knows all the right people but plays politics with the 1990s rulebook and has a terminal case of crusty old man voice.

      Still better than Trump.

      • MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Obama has absolutely absurd charisma. He’s the Democrat version of Trump - knows exactly what to say to his base and knows how to convince moderates he’s not insane.

        Clinton and Biden have the charisma of a limp noodle. Sanders has absurd charisma, but he’s seen as too big of a threat to Democrat lobbyists and big corporations.

        Sanders would’ve mopped the floor with Trump because he would’ve actually been able to grab the 18-44 demographic (which last saw peaks in 1992 Clinton/Gore and 2008 Obama/Biden, both to unseat a Republican and, coincidentally, a Bush).

        Sanders would have been able to avoid the collapse in turnout from working-class Black people in 2016.

        Sanders would’ve stopped the increasing right-wing radicalization of the youth of America, or provided a counterweight for left-wing economic radicalization.

        The US federal elections are basically a pony show and the DNC doesn’t know how to play the game without throwing out their playbook.

      • cmbabul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is about a succinct of a deconstruction of the DNCs hand in this cycle as I’ve seen. They’re effectively Ned Stark

    • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Seriously though, I don’t follow American electoral politics much, but why didn’t they swap him out for someone else? It’s a country of ~330m people. Like even the likes of Blinken would have been acceptable to them surely? What’s the actual reasoning?

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        An old American tradition to not run a primary during a President’s second term who is running for office. I guess it’s supposed to help unify the party behind a proven winner or something. That’s mostly it. Liberals love traditions, guidelines, and rules more than anyone.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s some stupid adherence to precedent where we don’t primary an encumbant because in the past it didn’t work out well. So now we shut our eyes and pretend he isn’t absolutely one of the worst candidates ever because we refuse to primary him.

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I do not understand how Elizabeth Warren didn’t get more interest 4 years ago. She was clearly the best candidate and one who has the kind of broad appeal Bernie Sanders does. I think I’m at a point where my belief is that the bankers who are probably gonna vote Republican anyway who fund campaigns very explicitly don’t want someone like Sanders or Warren to be president

      • jprice@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Democratic establishment doesn’t want people who go after their donors. Mainly big banks, but also pharmaceutical and insurance companies which if you ask me all need to be reformed and heavily regulated and a lot of people need to go to prison for what they’ve done to the country over the past 24 years. But hey, who am I, just somebody who wants better for the country that doesn’t have to do with sucking rich cocks.

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Corpo’s lapdogs are on both sides but some how GOP ends appealing to the masses.

          Some fucking warped reality.

          • It is easy to understand. The people who the Republican party appeals to are unlikely to vote Democratic, the Democratic Party by trying to appeal to them it is losing its base while not winning any Republican voters. The people who are likely to vote Democratic are more idealistic and will hold the Democratic Party to a high standard. The promised “push to the left” never came, and so the people are looking at two right wing candidates, the Republicans already got their guy in Trump and anyone even slightly left of center has no one to represent them.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        One-fucking-hundred percent.

        Warren was my choice over Bernie for strategic value even though I like Bernie more. If we didn’t have explicitly Republican propaganda outlets I think conservatives would have been more comfortable with her too as she was once a Republican and understands business law.

        Hell she literally wrote the book on my, and others, biggest issue “the two income trap” where society has defined economic success by “family income” instead of individual incomes. People like myself suffer because we’re perpetually single so we only have one income. Family income says everything is rosy because it’s now 2 incomes. :(

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It wasn’t a great debate, but I’ve had a brainfart when talking too before.

    Also, the policy is what matters. What matters is also that Biden obviously was doing the right thing. Just because he doesn’t scream at people doesn’t mean he’s not a good choice still.

    Whereas Trump was clearly obviously lying constantly

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The real travesty was CNN here. There was no fact checking or the slightest attempt to keep them on topic.

      I’d vote for a wet park bench over Trump. Biden was and still is the “Not Trump” candidate.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Trump wouldn’t have agreed if the mods were going to been anything but prompt readers

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, FWIW, Biden actually talked about expanding stuff like drug price caps to save the government shitloads of money while also saving Americans money as well. Stuff like taxing people making over 400k a year only, lead pipe abatement, funding the ACA more, giving Ukraine the aid it needs to slap the dogshit out of russia, etc etc.

      If I had no idea about either president, at leask I know what Biden’s future promises are and what he told us he got done in the past four years, even if he did have some sections where he kind of mucked up like this kid did.

      Trump, while sounding more coherent vocally, was entirely all over the place with Afghanistan and immigrants bad (no plan?), and somehow he’s going to win the war in Ukraine and bring the WSJ reporter home, for free, before he’s even elected in just under five months. Oh, and apparently, he hopes he won’t die before then, though he didn’t sound so sure about that last night.

      If I was an uninformed voter, I’d be like “Damn, biden is old, but at least he has a plan and a good team judging off his pretty amazing track record” capping insulin at $35 a mo instead of $400 is fucking awesome, not to mention the other drugs too. The massive investment in the US economy was also nice. Battery plants in Georgia, chip fabs across the country, fixing infrastructure cia the bipartisan infrastructure plan…all great stuff.

      • Auzy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah. Biden said after “it’s hard to win a debate against a liar”.

        If you’ve ever argued with someone on Facebook, it’s the same. Because it doesn’t matter what you say, they’ll simply claim you are lying and it’s easy to make up bullshit. Coming up with facts, supporting them and recalling your policies is a lot harder.

        Whereas, Trump doesn’t need to worry about his policies. He just makes them up and throws in racism.

        Trump wanted everyone to know he is a racism piece of shit. If anything, that was his only policy . I’ve never seen someone be so racist

        What’s weird is that you hear Biden on different mics soon after, he sounded fine, so I think the mics may have needed adjusting too. But maybe the rules dictated both levels were the same or something

  • exanime@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Actually, the other way around. We keep on compartmentalizing, Trump can lie all he wants and nothing happens, but Joe stutters and it’s a national disgrace… How can you compare one without including the only alternative?

    • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Republicans accept a post-truth society where everything is someone’s propaganda, that the federal government is out to get them and that the union would be better served as a union of state-level republics. Democrats still believe in the existence of a ground truth and want a union with centralized control (i.e., they are Federalists). Like the Federalists, the Democrats are backed by wealthy financial states (New York, California) as opposed to more rural/working-class states (Alabama, Ohio) and support heavy industrial subsidies (Biden’s IRA, CHIPS) as well as weak state governments.

      This is a fundamental difference that explains a lot, actually. The role of government has always been to convince populations to pursue the policy goals of the elite. The foundations of representative democracy involve choosing which elites’ policy goals to follow. The Republicans want to follow state elites (to borrow a Chinese proverb, the mountains are high and the President is far away). The Democrats want to follow federal elites.

      Here’s the real problem. The US gets to choose between a career politician and a career businessman (swindler, by definition). Who represents the working class? Who represents the people who actually built America’s economy?

      • exanime@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Nobody represents the people, but that’s not a new problem nor, in anyway, a new thing in this Trump era

        My biggest fear is that the USA always gets to chose someone who does not represent them at all but at least had the notion that we need a planet to live in

        Trump is a man child and will see the world burn out of petty spite. And us, in the rest of the world, would have to still live with those consequences

        So back to the debate and the choice between Biden and Trump… Sure Biden is a terrible option, like chosing to get cancer… But Trump is like chosing to be gang raped, shot and left for dead in an open sewer and here we are pretending the 2 bad options are somehow the same

        • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Every American election for /years/ was coke v Pepsi. Not sure when it became coke v battery acid, nor why so many people are like “well I don’t like cola so maybe it will be okay to drink battery acid” and why it is that the Democrats still want to run coke when America has made it abundantly clear we’d like to be offered the chance to drink SOME CLEAN FUCKING WATER JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

        • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          My biggest fear is that the USA always gets to chose someone who does not represent them at all but at least had the notion that we need a planet to live in

          That’s the part you’re missing. People are legitimately asking themselves “If these two people are my only choices and won’t improve my quality of life do I want to keep living?”

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      No. We’re “un-fucked”.

      We cant win with Biden.

      We CAN win without him.

      Finally the dense mother fuckers who have been denying Biden’s inadequacy have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

      We’ll have a brokered convention (like all conventions before 1970’s), we’ll get “generic corporate democrat”, and they’ll be instantly polling in the low to mid 50’s and we’ll actually have a fucking chance.

      Biden has had no chance at winning this election at any point in his candidacy. Ever. Look at the polling. Look at the data. He’s never stood a chance and plenty of people here and elsewhere have been trying to get this through some extremely thick skulls that have basically been insisting that we need to run an un-electable candidate.

      Well the goose is cooked. The rat is out of the bag. Here comes the moose or whatever. He’s done. Adios Biden, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You did fine on some stuff but wow you fucked up on Gaza/Israel.

      Minutes after that debate Newsom was on MSNBC. We’re gonna get Newsom, or maybe Inslee; a way smarter choice would be Witmer or Andy Beshear.

      And guess what? Litterally ANY GENERIC CANDIDATE PUTS 10 POINTS BACK ON THE BOARD.

      Bam. Switch candidates and Democrats are instantaneously back in this race.

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Good luck with Project 2025, because that’s what third party voters are voting for.

        We need to get rid of FPTP voting before a2 pay system can be derailed.

      • Xhieron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        This probably doesn’t work, and it’s probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we’re coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.

        If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.

        A few reasons:

        1. Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.
        2. Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.
        3. The truth may be that the party would rather just let Trump win. That sounds unthinkable, but this isn’t a secret cabal of idealists we’re talking about: it’s a bunch of self-interested rich people who want to put themselves in power. Getting them to do anything for the public good is difficult under the best circumstances. They could easily decide–rightly–that Biden is still their best shot at beating Trump. That was the call in 2020, and it paid off. Don’t forget that many of these same names being batted around now were active in the party four years ago. Newsom loses to Trump, and he’s largely seen as the best alternative. If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning. You might decide it’s just a lost cause and start planning for a four year long nightmare.
        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.

          Bro Newsom was on MSNBC 15 seconds after the debate ended. Newsom is 100% gunning for the job.

          Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.

          This is a real issue that I think you are right to bring up. Harris can basically put the brakes on/ gatekeep whomever the nominee is going to be.

          If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning.

          Yeah you are just wildly off base here. Biden was at between a 5-20% chance of winning the election prior to this debate (not polling, but probability). He’ll be in the 3-10% range after this. Did you watch the post debate coverage? CNN’s only topic of conversation was that we need to replace Biden. This is CNN! They are the party insiders. He’s cooked.

          • Xhieron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Newsom was on MSNBC singing Joe’s praises, just like he would have done regardless, because Newsom wants to be president, but Newsom also polls worse than Biden. That’s not hypothetical. Those polls already exist, and a drop in Biden’s numbers isn’t automatically a boost for Newsom. If Newsom thinks losing in 24 hurts his viability in 28, he wouldn’t do it. And who could blame him? It’s five months to the election.

            The point is: It’s possible that all of the options are bad. Biden was in the mid-forties before the debate and the thirties after. He went from near toss-up to probably losing if the election were yesterday/today. Newsom might out-poll Biden today, but that’s not the contest.

            The contest is with Trump. It’s not good enough to poll better than Biden. You have to actually carry all of Biden’s states and then some. If I’m Newsom and deciding whether to try to cobble together a five-month campaign and limp to November to save the DNC from itself and protect Amtrak Joe’s legacy when I’m starting 15 points in the hole or run my own campaign against the likes of a Haley or DeSantis also-ran once Trump is term-barred, dead, or both in four years, I’m not taking a risk at the convention unless someone makes me very, very confident that I could win.

            And there’s the rub. Newsom wants to be president, and he’d love to be president in six months, but he’s not going to take over a campaign that’s already lost. If the party thinks Trump wins no matter what–not an unreasonable conclusion–why on earth would they burn their best shot of a rebound in 28?

              • Xhieron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Uh… okay, bro. You know that Donald Trump is also running in this election, right? Biden could be running single digits, and it still wouldn’t change the calculus: If a Biden alternative can’t beat Trump, they’re not going to put an albatross around the neck of their political career just to lose in November.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You’ve got the entire thing backwards: Biden is the albatross.

                  ANY other democrat polls better than Biden. Biden is the worst possible democrat to be running. Period. Except maybe Hillary, and even then, she’d be doing better than Biden right now.

                  You swap out Biden with literally any hollow blue suit, and you are suddenly 10 points up in the polls.

      • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        LOL. A lot of flowery language there but not much substance. The Dems can’t switch now. Trump can instantly snatch on to that and attack whoever replaces Biden as an inferior desperate backup. Trump will say you Democrats have no idea what they’re doing and they can’t even stand behind their incumbent. This isn’t only about 2024 but also about the midterms. Who would vote for a party that backstabs their incumbent?

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah your just wrong.

          You obviously don’t know the rules for the DNC or how primary’s work, or have any kind of meaningful political acumen. You are your archetypes have been spouting this plainly wrong “political wisdom” both here and across cable news for months, years even. And reality has now bucked your claims.

          Bidens not the nominee. He lost that last night. And it’s a good thing. He’s losing dramatically to Trump right now.

          • tacosplease@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Such confidence in statements that will be proven wrong in a matter of days. LOL. You’ll forget these comments by then though.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I mean I’m taking bets.

              I’ll take 20:1 if you feel so generous as to give me those odds.

              I’ll lay down $20: Biden isn’t the nominee; and a second $20: Biden is does not win the Presidential election.

              If I’m wrong on the nominee, you get $20. If I’m wrong on them winning the presidency, another $20.

              If I’m right on the nominee, you pay me $400. If I’m right on them not winning the Presidency (for any reason), that’s another $400 you owe me.

              Bet? Or coward that doesn’t really believe what they believe when they are held accountable?

              If you don’t like those odds, feel free to offer odds you prefer and I’ll consider them.

          • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’ll eat my hat and comment here if Biden doesn’t gets his nomination. I didn’t say Biden is the nominee. I didn’t even use the word “nominee”. Its you who keeps attacking the straw man. But you know what? I’m 100% sure the DNC will nominate Biden. That debate performance was bad but he ain’t losing his presumptive nomination. Don’t confuse reality with what you want to happen.

      • classic@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not only switch candidates, but have Biden have the humility to back that person. Do it in the name of Democracy, you know: this election is too important and I realize we need a stronger candidate than I can be. That would sell well, and that’s what’s needed for better or worse: a good narrative

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, it takes a lot of chutzpah to say, “Look, I tried, but I can’t do it. This guy can do it, and I’m giving him my full support, you should too”.

          I think just about anyone who has the confidence to run for President is narcissistic enough to think they are the only person who can do the job, so Biden, or Trump, stepping down willingly is not going to happen.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Your party (Democrat) is peppered with bad elements for the U.S. (Marxist, Socialist, Communist etc…). You mentioned a staunch communist, Newsom. Look at the disaster he made California into. The droves of companies and citizens leaving or have left California. The silly penalty he plans to implement for Californian residents who leave the state (he’s wants to tax all Californians for a set of years if they leave California). The number of businesses that closed, not just from the stupid minimum wage hike but also from the amount of crime in and around the businesses.

        The fact that you mentioned Witmer makes me cringe… a neoliberal socialist.

        Andy Beshear is the only Dem (to my knowledge) that appears to be moderate. But I have very limited knowledge of his views/goals/accomplishments. He doesn’t come off as a neoliberal or crazy leftisms… yet. He has a bias for Israel which more than likely means he’s corrupted by AIPAC.

        Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are also chitty. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul are two representatives with integrity. The others in the spotlight are chit tier.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Your Overton Window has fell off the side of the building and broken on the pavement.

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            You don’t even know my political views. Here’s a tidbit, tho; I dislike democracy/mob rule. It is easily corruptible/manipulatable.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You don’t even know my political views

              The fact you’re so low IQ you think clarifying you’re pro-authoritarian is even necessary… Straight perfection! You embody the weak, scared, conservative simp who yearns to be ruled by a king to feel safe and secure.

              • StaySquared@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                No. I think starting with an investigation of corruption of all politicians from local to state to federal, including government agencies should be the first step, however.

    • Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yeah, while the republicans have basically openly moved to reactionary and fascist politics, thus implicitly accepting the status quo is over, the influential parts of the Democrats seem to have been clinging completely to the idea that the status quo is what is to be preserved - even though material reality will not make that possible.

      Right now, we seem to be in a historical moment, where old privileges are breaking away from a continuing crisis in capitalism that basically has been smouldering since the (late) 70s and kept stable through neoliberal policies thus far. Old privileges being lost results in a reactionary shift worldwide at the moment. It will be harrowing, but there is at least always the possibility of the pendulum swinging the other way - right now, in the coming years, organisation, connecting people, openly presenting radical alternatives to prepare for that moment seems to be the most important work to me.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Would you mind expanding on what you mean by material conditions and fascism in relation to old privileges (don’t know what you mean by the latter)?

        • Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          So, I am heading to bed for the night, because I have been awake all night and day and the day before to catch the debate - but the short answer is: The decline of the middle class and the petite burgeoisie - which I in this case view not in the traditional definition, but also broader, as all the people owning a little bit of capital i.e. savings for old age in some fond or maybe a house of their own. Also the disappearance of job security and stable work relations.

          With it, the conservative “lets keep things as they were” mindset of people who had a decent enough life, i.e. mostly boomers that lived through the economic growth phase of the post-war era, but also younger people dreaming of that time or having profited from it through their parents, comes into crisis. But as this mindset argues from its own experience, it dreams of the past (“Things worked back then, right?”), while missing, that the very same “working” system was what had within it, already the inherent nature that eventually led to it decaying around us. So they need to explain the decline as something caused by an outsider, a malevolent force.

          At the same time, this decline of the middle class leads them to try and grasp to divisions that might “save” them from proletarisation - becoming properly dependend on paycheck to paycheck and owning nothing but their own labour power to sell on the market. So, racism for example - if you are white, you might just be spared from the above fate. And you can kick down, targeting all those brown people below instead of punching up - the latter is a lot more risky after all. And the people up above can’t be at fault, after all, you (or the people you heard about from the past) had a great life when those were around, right? It just have to be the “right” people, like you and the people of your nationality/race/religion/other ingroup - often depressingly arbitrary.

          This is still a very reductive summary, a lot is missing, globalisation, how it relates to the net rate of profit, how consolidation happens, details about the ideology of our current times. But broken down to it’s basics it can be summarised as such. The middle class is disappearing as a consequence of capitalist development, which leads to them becoming panicky and diving headfirst into ideology.

          Well, anyway, good night, hope it was possible to understand what I was trying to bring across in my rambling

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You are a hexbear lmao. You suck up to dictators around the world. I dont think we can take your comment serious since you always argue in bad faith.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, obviously they are the laughing stock here… You should pay more mind to content than affiliations. Even though dbzer0 is a cool admin with a cool community, your comment does not portray you as such.

  • pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m European so obviously anti trump (I’ve learnt a lot about politicians that used similar rhetoric, had a different personal cult around them, also tried overthrowing the state - history repeats when not learning from it) but damn, Biden was bad. I’d still vote for Biden simply to avoid trump, but I fear he has no chance to get >50% after that performance.

    The democrats hopefully see the writing on the wall and replace him before it’s too late.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s over. It was honestly over long ago, it’s just playing out in slow motion.

      It will probably continue to play out for another thirty years at least. Increasingly horrible, so at any point “eight years ago” feels like back when things were sane, except we lost our minds decades ago already.

      Sorry we’re the nation equivalent of DJ Khaled; we think we’re “suffering from success” but in truth we actually are and we don’t know it.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Think? They know, we all know. The world knows. The proof is in the pudding. People have been saying it. Biden is NOT capable of existing independently (needs assistance just for directions), much less of being a president.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It was never unlosable. People have forgotten how bad Trump was and blame everything on Biden. It’s been an uphill battle.

      Although I still think he should have stepped aside for someone with less baggage.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        People didn’t forget. They never cared. Biden didn’t win by 5 million votes (and that’s not actually a significant percentage), he won by 50k votes in a few countries that flipped their states.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          1st. He didn’t win by 5 million, he won by 7 million. 2nd what you’re talking about wasn’t result of popularity, but how our election system is messed up, where some votes matter more than others. trump not even once won a popular vote. Even against Hilary he lost by nearly 3 million.

      • MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        All Biden had to do was be unmemorable and he was guaranteed a second term. His ambitious foreign policy decisions (to put it lightly) and his lack of ability to pass meaningful change despite holding both chambers of Congress in his first 2 years doomed him.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Brah… Biden and Co have begun to blame Trump for the border crisis and the U.S. victims of illegal immigrants (rape, theft, murder, assaults etc…). Literally Biden is the man who created the border crisis and now the rampant crimes across the nation committed by illegal immigrants.

        • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          rampant crimes across the nation committed by illegal immigrants

          The research does not support the view that immigrants commit crime or are incarcerated at higher rates than native-born Americans.

          What’s more, the arrival of record numbers of immigrants at the United States–Mexico border over the past two years has not corresponded with an overall increase in crime in so-called “blue” cities where many of the recent arrivals have settled. In most places, the opposite has happened — crime, including violent crime, has trended downward (other than larceny and a small increase in robbery) after peaking across the country in 2020. This has been true since the spring of 2022, the year Republican governors, including those in Arizona, Florida, and Texas, began transporting undocumented immigrants to cities with more immigrant-friendly policies, including Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington.

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago
            • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              3 examples isn’t a great way to show nationwide trends.

              Over 2000 convicted criminals - illegals captured by ICE

              This is from 2015.

              In New York, a sanctuary city that has received the most immigrants from Republican-run border states, crime decreased in most major categories in 2023 compared to the year before, as confirmed by a January report from the New York City Police Department. This follows reductions in most crime categories in the city in 2022. New York City remains one of the safest big cities in the country despite sensational claims that it is being overwhelmed by crime.

              From the same article linked above, since you seem so obsessed with New York City.

              • StaySquared@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The date… that doesn’t invalidate the claim that actual criminals from other nations come into this nation illegally and commit crimes here. That’s additional crimes that could be deterred if we… closed the border tightly. The point I was making with NY, is as of recent, like I mentioned before there’s crimes committed by illegals. Had those illegal not entered our nation and into NY, cops wouldn’t have been jumped, a 13 year old and a 15 year old wouldn’t have been victimized. That’s just NY… and 5 minutes of searching things off the top of my head from what has happened in the last month or two til today.

                I’ll do you one better… Cartel in Arizona.

                https://youtu.be/CpnIz0WOk2Y

                • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  If 1% of your city are criminals, you let in 200 people, and one of them is a criminal, has the crime rate gone up?

                  Those damned immigrants.

                  Edit: Ah, shit, it’s you again…

                • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  NY has been riddled with crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the recent days, weeks, and months.

                  One last thing, now that I’m back at my computer:

                  • Continued declines across most major crime categories prevailed during January 2024, compared to the first month of last year, and included substantial drops in murder, rape, burglary, and felony assault.

                  • Incidents of shootings, murder, and other bellwether crimes in New York City were markedly reduced again in February compared to the same month last year, while major offenses committed in the city’s subway system dropped more than 15 percent. Throughout the five boroughs, overall crime continued its downward trajectory, dipping another 1.1%.

                  • New York City saw continued reductions in overall crime through the first quarter of 2024, both above ground, on streets throughout the five boroughs, and below ground, within the nation’s largest subway system. The single month of March 2024, compared to the same month last year, experienced even more drastic crime declines.

                  • Overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9 percent in the month of April compared to the same month last year, as major crimes in the nation’s largest subway system plummeted another 23 percent, continuing a downward trend that saw previous transit system decreases

                  • Overall index crime across New York City dropped another 2.4 percent in May 2024, compared to the same month last year, with the major crime categories of murder, burglary, grand larceny, and grand larceny—auto each seeing dramatic reductions. ‎‎
                    ‎‎

                  The point I was making with NY, is as of recent, like I mentioned before there’s crimes committed by illegals.

                  So what? There are statistically a lot more crimes being committed by US citizens. Should we start deporting/exiling our own citizens? Should we keep increasing our prison population? Or should we not hold our own citizens to the same kind of standards that you want to apply to everyone else in the world?

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    As bad as Biden was, CNN were worse. Fuck that shitty network for allowing Trump to lie pretty much nonstop for 90 minutes unchallenged.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      they gave both people plenty of time, biden is supposed to be capable of challenging on his own

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I disagree. Trump indulged in a gish gallop of lies and bullshit. Biden spent too much time trying to refute some of it and in doing so wasted time which he could’ve used to make his own points.

        There should’ve been moderation in place to stop this, there was none.

      • sndmn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Certainly the “moderator” isn’t expected to moderate the thing! /s

      • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It takes longer to debunk a lie than to say one. It’s easy to spout out a hundred lies in two minutes, but it takes longer than that to debunk them without just saying “No, that’s a lie” to every one, which also sounds dumb if Trump is saying that, too.