this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
765 points (96.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3753 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has issued a dire warning to her party about the chaos that could ensue if they succeed in pushing President Joe Biden off the ticket. And she criticized Democrats who’ve given off-the-record quotes that suggest the party has resigned itself to a second Trump term.

In an Instagram Live video on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez warned liberals that a brokered convention could lead to chaos, in part because she says some of the Democratic “elites” who want Biden out also don’t want Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee in his place. 

“If you think that is going to be an easy transition, I’m here to tell you that a huge amount of the donor class and these elites who are pushing for the president not to be the nominee also do not want to see the VP be the nominee,” she said. 

Ocasio-Cortez claimed none of the people she’s spoken with who are calling on Biden to drop out — including lawmakers and legal experts — have articulated a plan to swap out the nominee without minimizing the serious legal and procedural challenges that are likely to ensue. 

Ocasio-Cortez also highlighted the racial, ethnic and class divisions that appear to have formed between the majority of those pining to blow up the ticket — led mostly by white Democrats and media pundits — and those elected officials who feel they and their constituents have too much at stake to upend the process at this point and so are willing to do the work to re-elect Biden-Harris. She alluded to this cultural divide in her video when she spoke out against anonymous sources expressing a sense of fatalism on behalf of Democrats about what might happen if Biden remains on the ticket: 

What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don’t care what name is on there. We are not losing. I don’t know about you, but my community does not have the option to lose. My community does not have the luxury of accepting loss in July of an election year. My people are the first ones deported. They’re the first ones put in Rikers. They’re the first ones whose families are killed by war.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 45 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How does that logic make any fucking sense?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

There's a fun thing that happens when people are deep in rabbit holes. They get led to insane conclusions by a breadcrumb of bullshit, usually starting out with a semi reasonable premise.

But then sometimes when they pop out of their rabbit hole they just jump straight from A to X, without explaining the chain of bullshit that led them down to X.

It's why Trump and other MAGAs say shit that is insane, not like as a metaphor but like stuff that has zero connection to reality, regardless of what politics you believe in. You just haven't followed their path of increasingly absurd propositions, but they followed it because each new proposition was only slightly more out there than the last.

In this case, I suspect there was something like

(A) Trump is leading polls --> (B) Biden cannot beat trump --> (C) we need to replace Biden --> (D) replacing Biden is the best thing to do for the nation --> (E) anyone who supports Biden is acting contrary to the best interests of the nation

By this logic, the more (A) is happening, the more (E) is correct. But he skipped B through D, so it's more clear how absurd the conclusion is because you didn't get the frog-in-boiling-water parade of misinformation and propaganda.

[–] Sasquatch58@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Mad props for trying to explain the mental gymnastics.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Trump is beating Biden by a wide margin at this point. So pushing for Biden is likely leading to a Trump win

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This usually happens after the respective party conference every four years.

Polling is also massively inaccurate as everyone younger than 45 mutes/blocks phone calls from these people.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Polls were historically accurate in 2022.

But I know the facts don't matter, only the narrative that you bought.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I think most of these polls came out of the debate.

And unfortunately, the discrepancy between polling and election results has had a tendency to skew in republican favor. But its not like weve got any say in biden staying in or not at this point, lets see how the polls look after the democrat convention.

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i don't think pushing for Biden is leading to a Trump win, because i don't see many people pushing for Biden. i see a lot of people (social media, talking heads, news outlets) complaining about Biden.

if Dems and progressives want to defeat Trump, well, you coulda fooled me because that's not what their behavior accomplishes. it looks like a great many are weakening and undermining our current path to success. right now, with no compelling alternative, that means a Trump win.

as far as i can tell, we can support Biden or continue to shoot at our own feet in a panic which only makes the opposition stronger.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i don’t think pushing for Biden is leading to a Trump win, because i don’t see many people pushing for Biden.

this is...incoherent. I dont think fire is hot because I dont see many people sticking their hands into fire

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

let me try this another way. i don't agree with the statement that a is currently causing b, because i don't see a happening. b has some other cause.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How are we having this conversation if no one is supporting Biden?

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

edit - just saw the news, my comment is moot, i suppose.