298
Why is the pundit class so desperate to push Biden out of the race?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
298 points (86.7% liked)
politics
18138 readers
3680 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So you're just all-in on autocratic rule then? Fight fire with fire, even though the forest is a mostly-dead tinderbox?
Yes, Biden will not assassinate Supreme Court justices. That's a strength. If the Supreme Court intends to give a president king-like power, then I'm sure as hell going to vote for a president that I don't believe will exercise that power.
As soon as we have a president that exercises the power of a king, left or right, there will be no going back. That power will corrupt left politicians just as surely as right, institutions will begin to act corruptly causing people to lower their expectations of the rule of law, freeing institutions to be corrupted further, in an endless cycle. Mexico is far down that spiral, despite nominal "left" politics. And if we even seen another "president" in our lifetime they will only slip further down the slope. The only way you can win this game is by not letting it begin.
I despise autocracies but if my foe forces me into an autocratic ruleset, I will be ruthless and lightning quick. Don't like it? Don't even think about establishing an autocratic ruleset. Meanwhile while an autocratic ruleset is still in effect I will use it to end it in a spectacularly bloody manner. Once the autocratic ruleset is over and all the relevant individuals thirsty for autocracy have been properly dealt with, I will return to being an institutionalist.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you're sharing a fantasy. The outcome will be no different from a right-wing autocratic takeover, even if it starts out more in your favor. The institutions of democracy will be destroyed either way.
You use "ruleset" like this is a game, but there's no change-back in "ruleset" without a bloody revolution, after probably decades of suffering, and decades of reconstruction, if that - I expect we won't see a return to pre-autocratic democracy in our lifetimes. Modern autocratic rule is too savvy, they will maintain the facades of our institutions while hollowing them out and making them meaningless, leading to efficient, soul-draining, Orwellian oppression like in Russia.
What you're describing is a technical victory when you've also conceded that the playing board will be destroyed. And it won't work as a deterrent. The opponent is irrational.
SCOTUS has changed the rules.
If you can't come to terms with what has happened, the one living in a fantasy land is you.
Any American who does not think we are electing a King this November is a dangerously ignorant citizen.
No, we agree that we're electing a person with the power to be a king. That's already objectively awful. The way it could get worse is if we elect someone who will actually use the power of a king. Because that moment is the end of the game, not merely an escalation.
Right now we have a candidate that I think we both agree will not use that power. Holding the presidency and keeping it away from those who would use that power is the best outcome, until enough Supreme Court justices turn over (which could even be a single 4-year term, though it's not likely).
No the game is over when the rules change.
If you are playing hockey and suddenly a referee with real authority over the game starts using the rules of basketball, hockey is OVER no matter what the players do. It doesn't matter what the players do.
The participation trophy is no longer just an "I voted" sticker, it comes with a bullet of you don't like the results: https://youtu.be/-OdM4_WO2wk