President Joe Biden says there's an extremist movement that doesn't share the basic beliefs of democracy.
President Joe Biden is arguing that “there is something dangerous happening in America” as he revives his warnings that Donald Trump and his allies represent an existential threat to the country’s democratic institutions.
“There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy. The MAGA movement,” Biden says in excerpts of the speech Thursday in Arizona, released in advance by the White House, referring Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan.
Although voting in the 2024 Republican primary doesn’t begin for months, Biden’s focus reflects Trump’s status as the undisputed frontrunner for his party’s nomination despite facing four indictments, two of them related to his attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.
It just requires relying on a bunch of people who can't be relied to want to keep that status quo, and would probably kill their opposition given the opportunity.
Yeah, you could assume there's an incentive if you looked at it in the most narrow vacuum.
It just requires relying on a bunch of people who can’t be relied to want to keep that status quo, and would probably kill their opposition given the opportunity.
Democrats do have a habit of assuming good faith on the part of Republicans when it's obvious that none exists.
Democrats do have a habit of assuming good faith on the part of Republicans when it’s obvious that none exists.
They're either idiots too stupid to be in office for believing it...
Or they're liars that shouldn't be in office because they're not legitimately trying.
I've said that a lot, and no one has come up with a viable third option. It's been happening for over 30 years, there's no excuse for anyone running for office to not get it by now.
I'm a progressive and wish the Democrats, including Biden, were far more progressive. But comparing him to being shot in the leg? How so? Just because of his age?
Rather, I reject the flawed nature of the metaphor and its poor fit. That's true - someone will take office... and you're not obligated to choose to be shot in either the leg or the head. You can, say, make no choice. You can choose, say, the hand.
We're all going to be shot through what some choose. Some will go for everyone getting headshot, some will go for everyone losing a leg... and roughly the same will decide such a choice is absurd and not make a choice at all. Some few will choose something less damaging entirely.
Of course, one has the freedom to cast their vote, or not, as they like. But I can't fathom why someone would "choose" an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely instead of moving the needle toward the survivable one. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.
I can’t fathom why someone would “choose” an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely
Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans? I realize I've been out of school a while, but my understanding was it did not.
. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.
Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they're not as bad as a different party?
Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans?
No, I'm only describing the spoiler effect here.
Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they're not as bad as a different party?
It would be more irrational, because if the "shoot me in the leg, I guess" party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.
I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.
Then the question still applies: in what way would a spoiler increase the count of either establishment candidate? My understanding of basic math is that it cannot.
It would be more irrational, because if the “shoot me in the leg, I guess” party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.
That's certainly one opinion on the matter... coincidentally one perfectly aligned with a partisan propaganda viewpoint and, thus far, is nothing but alarmist hyperbole.
I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.