view the rest of the comments
politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Hey, first, my apologies. I read your graphic as being in response to the OP, maybe I had my screen zoomed in a little but while my point still stands I think, it has more than a little bit different emphasis to it in that case.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that the leader needs to LEAD. Which is why, regardless of partisan politicking, if Biden or his advisors assess that he is too weak to do the job anymore, for whatever reason (sickness, maybe he was poisoned even, I'm not trying to start a conspiracy here just saying that regardless of anything that would be his "fault"), then part of the job is that he step down in such a case?
Risking things is good and all, when done properly. But stepping down in such a case would not be "timidity", so much as being genuinely honest with oneself about the realities of the particular situation under consideration. i.e. these aren't merely butterflies in one's stomach i.e. performance anxiety that needs to be overcome - this is real, actual risk assessment of pros vs. cons for each of the paths forward, and strategically picking the one that offers the highest likelihood of success.
Steadfastness is a virtue, but stubbornness is a weakness. Hold fast to what is true, not refuse to budge merely bc you have no capacity to do otherwise.
That's okay, I understand. I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I'm torn on him stepping down myself, so I get it. My response is really just aimed at the commentor above who is complaining about the Democrats for supreme court case results. It's a Republican court, it's nonsense. These are separate branches for a reason and they don't share command structures, so even "the buck stops here" doesn't apply. In a way, blaming the president for this is pushing the exact sort of ideology the Republicans want right now of a king, not a president. This supreme court was put in place by a man who was voted in by a very tiny majority in a few states. Biden didn't fail in this case. We, the voters, failed. America, the people, failed.
Trump barely appointed those judges even, so much as Mitch McConnell held up their appointments so that the next, Republican, president could fill them.
At a guess, they seem to have been saying something like how the President should have pushed harder. Like if not on this exact issue, then on ending the special rules for filibustering, so as to be able to break through that Republican wall of obstructionism while the Dems had some amount of power. i.e. they are both bad, if not quite equally so, but the grown-ups i.e. tribal same-side are held to a higher level of responsibility than the children i.e. tribal other people-group bad. Which isn't quite the same as saying that Dems are always wrong, just that they share in their level of responsibility too, for not fixing things.
And tbf this SCOTUS ruling on Monday seems to have been a game-changer. The excuse "but we can't do anything about it" rings more hollow now, even if it was previously true.
Though it all seems a moot point anyway. At this point it looks like there's an extremely good chance of Trump winning, or if by some freak occurrence not then as long as that ruling remains we'll simply punt forward the end of democracy for another 4 years - which is itself a lie b/c from now on, democracy is already over, and instead of a President we now have elected emperors/god-kings. Man this is depressing:-(.