“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” the president told CNN’s Erin Burnett.
President Joe Biden said in an interview Wednesday he is all but certain Donald Trump, his predecessor and presumptive 2024 rival, will reject the results of the November election and called Trump “dangerous” for the nation.
“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett during a visit to Wisconsin this week.
“How many court cases do they have, Supreme Court cases? They’ve all said this is a totally legitimate election. … He may not accept the outcome of the election? I promise you he won’t. Which is dangerous.”
The president went on to say other world leaders had expressed to him their fear of a second Trump presidency and pointed to Trump’s pledge to prosecute his political opponents if he enters the Oval Office once more.
I strongly encourage everyone to watch the embedded video in the article.
Because we don’t get many opportunities to see/hear Biden speak.
A lot of the shit we give trump about with his speaking, Biden does it too. It’s just trump does a hell of a lot more public speaking than Biden.
Biden used to be literally the best public speaker in the party, that’s why he almost won the 88 primary till all the plagiarism and lying about law school stuff came out and he started screaming at reporters that he was smarter than them.
They’re both two fucking old, and so is Bernie and every other politician in the late 70s or 80s.
We’re not talking about if someone that age can be a Walmart greeter to keep busy, this is literally the toughest and most stressful job in the country, if the person is actually doing their job.
And 80 year old just can’t do it.
I like your comment. Also isnt it comical how simple truths (e.g. the system doesnt represent us, politicians too old etc) keep getting downvoted so hard, huh? Keep it up, you never know. Someone out there who reads more than writes may learn something and start pulling their head out of the cavern below their belt.
For the room:
Like, get a grip y’all. criticism is an important part of a free democracy, and the press has abdicated its position something must fill this gap. Honestly, you dumbasses actually need folks like us around to point things out that you guys would never ever come up with on your own (i think everyone is a dumbass at something btw, Even geniuses are dumbasses at at least one thing, and politics is a big one. Many otherwise intelligent people become spittin’ simpletons when politics is le topic.)
Yes. Yes i am talking to you. You, the one already preparing to reply. Don’t. You don’t got nothing to say i haven’t already heard. Those of you still reading, i respect you more for it. It’s not like ill read the replies a comment like this generated.
So, listen up:
We’re not russo-chinese spies lol. That is a stupid claim. Only stupid people believe this. We are your peers. This peer in particular is a little tired explaining how the world works, but ill keep going, because this is how i do democracy. This is how democracy is done in a free society.
How convenient (for those still not convinced) that the TV and news did a ad hominem! How great that you already know all your need to! How nice to know that all dissenting opinions are simply spies, bad actors or useful idiots! How very convenient that the easiest path forward, and the right thing to do is nothing.
Learn nothing, consider nothing, suspect nothing, do nothing.
I envy you believers… What a lovely faith to have.
Engagement points are to your left. I appreciate your clicking either one of them
People said trump in 16 was the most dangerous thing because his party would excuse anything he did because Dems are worse…
And I agreed.
But now Dems are saying we have to excuse anything Dem politicians do. Because Republicans are worse.
It’s true republicans are worse, but if our standards for our own party are non-existent, then we have an even worse problem.
Because there’s now no viable option for president that will be held accountable for anything by their own party.
And since we can’t even punish trump for trying to overthrow the government, because that requires super majorities. There’s no way any president will ever be held accountable for anything.
We’re watching the literal downfall of the American experiment and people just want to argue if trump or Biden plays the fiddle best.
Since i get called a spy and bad actor so often, it got me thinking about theories n such.
Now, I don’t believe this, but if there were astroturfing i would think it would be done by both the DNC and RNC. I’m just screwing around, but it would make sense a lil bit.
The green party will get a larger percentage than normal this year, and while I don’t think the DNC or RNC feel threatened by them, it is very important to them that Americans never feel a third party is possible.
Meh. There’s no conspiracy, its just people getting whipped up into a today cuz it’s an election year and truth is on hiatus.
If it was astroturfing I’d be a lot less scared.
The reality is it’s really people that will now excuse any behavior if there’s a D next to the president name. And other people have already been excusing anything from the other side of the aisle.
Too many people are now like that. A president won’t be held accountable for anything, and most of the people voting won’t even like who they’re voting for.
This isn’t democracy. The person who gets the most votes doesn’t even always win.
It’s going to suck, and it’s going to be hard, but we desperately need to fix our political system. The longer we wait the harder it’ll get
I’ll tell you what. You can sit online all day complaining about the average age of our elected “representatives” or you you can mobilize to do something about it. Be politically active. Vote.
Or even run yourself or encourage others of an acceptable age to you to run.
The reason they are so fucking old is for the exact reason you’d expect: voter participation of those 65+ is about 3x of those 18-29.
So instead of party pursuing voters. Which is pretty much the entire point of the party, you think they should ignore a large voter block that is literally and inevitably going to be the future of the party in just a few decades?
May I ask how old you are?
You may ask and I may not answer.
But think about what you said. They pursue the voters that vote for them. When most of your voters are older then yeah, you cater to them. But I also think you grossly underestimate how much they DO actually do for younger voters.
Read Jacobin #40 for some perspective.
Sometimes it may seem this way but it really isn’t. We get some of what we want. The equation is simple: Get some of what you want under a dem administration or most of what you don’t want under a republican administration.
Our system is such that nobody gets 100% of what they want 100% of the time. So what you aim for is to get a party in with a platform that at least allows some of what you want to happen. By throwing up your hands and saying “well the dems are just as bad” and thus not voting you are essentially making it impossible for any of what you want to happen. If Trump wins you can kiss a supreme court majority goodbye. If Trump wins you can look forward to gutting any effort to promote renewables and hold the oil industry accountable. You can look forward to no woman being safe with her medical choices. The list here is enormous.
Meanwhile Biden has accomplished a lot. I don’t like many of his policies, but I’m not blind to the good his administration has done. I think you are, so let me remind you of just a few:
Take any one of these things and imagine the opposite. That’s what will happen under any republican administration.
You may not like Biden and I totally get that, but NEVER EVER think your vote doesn’t matter just because you don’t get exactly what you want. We got a decent amount and we CAN get more. Get Biden elected and then (a) be politically active for local and state elections; (b) protest: it works.
If that was true, after Obama flipped a bunch of red states, the party would have moved to younger more progressive candidates. Hell, they’d have done it after Bill.
Instead they kept running the same candidates that lost to Obama. Even tho by then they were older and even more out of touch.
Meanwhile the DNC has consistently made changes that limit the chances of a popular candidate against the party’s pre selected pick.
Like, I’d have to ignore the last 30 years of American political history.
Clinton and Obama were two of the youngest presidents we’ve had, and they ran the most progressive campaigns since FDR and killed it.
It took trump in office for an older moderate to win, but that’s consistently the type of candidate the party props up.
And youre acting like those are things that are solved…
It took Bernie pulling Biden left for him to promise to solve some of those things, and he failed to meet his promise. Most are just crumbs that we recently got only because the election is coming up.
Voters want more, and more voters would come out for the candidate
Huh? That completely doesn’t follow.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Let me try again: When you know that only a tiny fraction of 18-30 year olds are going to even vote, you don’t bother putting forth policies that appeal to them. Instead, you put forth policies that appeal to the largest percentage of voters you can hope to get. So Obama and Hillary both balanced a more progressive agenda against the need to attract voters. They knew for example, that universal healthcare was popular among younger voters but not popular with boomers and even a large chunk of Gen X. So which did you think they went with?
It’s not rocket surgery, it’s basic math.
This is true. But are you gonnna just throw up your hands or are you going to do something about it? Do you think not voting or not voting for Biden will make it more or less likely you will get a Dem candidate that appeals to you down the road? There’s a decent possibility you will get NO Dem candidate at all.
I have to be honest. I think you are ignoring the power you have. That WE have. It was absolutely not Bernie that helped Biden do anything. It was Biden recognizing that folks like us want a more progressive agenda and using Bernie to help make the case that he was in fact leaning in that direction. He has to acknowledge some of the progressive agenda to win younger votes but at the same time he has to appeal to the far larger chunk of folks who will, you know, actually vote.
I also think you are expressing a point of view that is rather troubling to me. That you think you will get everything you want instantly out of our political system. Change is incremental and slow. It is built one piece at a time on a foundation of Democratic party wins that allow us to appoint judges and enact legislation that maybe doesn’t get where we want to go in the first pass, but allows it to happen the next time. Younger folks have trouble conceptualizing this, and it’s understandable - your time scale is smaller.
So if you want to see change you need to: 1. Vote EVERY TIME; 2. Protest and push for progressive policies; 3. Support younger candidates; 4. Acknowledge this is a long game.
Except they do when they get a good candidate…
Biden coasted with them last year because he was only known as Obama’s VP and his TV appearances back then.
But young people are idealistic, they have standards.
If we run a candidate that meets those standards, we don’t lose any votes. We even gain some from older demographics because some people keep their ideals.
The only negative to running popular candidates is it upset donors. And instead of doing that, the DNC keeps making new loopholes so they can donate even more, because it’s the only way to get the unpopular candidates.
This system is Ludacris like it’s from St Louis, we’ve gone straight past plaid, and most people seem to be completely fine with it.
When it can be sooo much better if we just stopped accepting that politicians have to suck.
Which is exactly my point and exactly the problem even if your assertion is not well supported by the data.
“We’ll only vote if you give us our perfect ideal candidate” - ignoring that (a) you can’t get everything you want in a candidate; (b) other people get a say too; © getting a directionally ok candidate is far better than getting a directionally bad candidate; (d) “good” candidate is a highly subjective assessment. Not all folks 18-whatever are all that progressive.
I gotta admit you come across as rather entitled or at least rather immature. You are demanding the system cater exactly to your specific needs and refuse to participate if it doesn’t.
The big ask right now is he stops funding a genocide and encouraging police actions against peaceful protestors…
To you that’s “perfect ideal candidate”?
Bud, if you want to know what that would be for me, we’re gonna be here for a while, it’s a long list.
We’re talking about what a demographic will do. Please stop getting personal.
If “don’t find a genocide” is too much of an ask, that demographic will reconsider if they belong with that party.
Neither party is entitled to someones vote, that’s the entire reason we have campaigns.
If a certain type of candidate can’t get votes, but another will…
Why pick the unpopular one?
Shouldn’t Dem primary voters vote for the candidate that will get the most votes in the general?
Isn’t that the most rational course?
Edit:
To be clear, I mean the primary voters in the hand full of states that get to vote before the DNC declared it over.
And that’s not NH anymore, because they kept voting progressive.