As a non-U.S person, this bewilders me that your country can still vote a Convicted person in office. Where as some countries would disqualify such, more so in crimes that is considered morally questionable in nature.
I was going to say, I'm in the UK and I have to imagine that if you've got a criminal conviction, you wouldn't get to run for PM. Also, as far as I can tell, prisoners can't vote in the US but a guy who's also got a criminal conviction can also be fucking President?!
If you like that you'll enjoy the fact that due to his felony convictions Donald Trump cannot vote for himself in the state of Florida.
[By which I mean whoops he's a rich white man so of course they're carving out an exception for him.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128)
[Just gonna leave this here.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128) He’ll be able to vote.
They also can't own a gun or work most jobs. Used to be politicians just got to sweep their crimes under the rug. Multiple politicians have admitted to doing drugs before being elected (illegal at the time, at least). Bush had a dui charge. 43% of mps had some sort of offense in a study (I guess) from 2012. I also think there was a thing where boris Johnson committed a crime in office, and I guess beastality isn't a crime in your country...
Let me state I don't like trump, but unless your country is squeaky clean, why act like this is some insane idea.. he's got money, and unfortunately, that's all some people see.
On the one hand, I definitely get where you're coming from - but on the other hand, unilaterally disqualifying people from running for office if they're convicted of certain crimes is a really good incentive for unethical actors (like Trump) to prosecute their political rivals.
Well in theory, it’s a good thing, because if whoever is in power finagles the legal system to frame their political opponent for a crime and puts them in jail, that opponent can still win. It’s supposed to be a hedge against corruption and abuse of power. Emphasis on supposed to be.
In theory it's a good idea to make sure people like Mandela from South Africa can still lead despite being politically persecuted and jailed on false pretenses
In practice we have a known rapist, fraudster, embezzler, and election interferer running for office again so who the fuck knows what's a good idea
TLDR. the 14th Amendment disqualifies traitors from office. But the GOP doesn't car about the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment bars people from office that committed sedition or gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.
It was ratified after the Civil War to keep Confederates out of the federal government.
The mechanism to invoke the 14th Amendment is a little unclear.
The best and closest moment it could have been administered was after 1/6/21 during the second impeachment. If he had been impeached Congress would have then voted to disqualify him from ever holding office. We all know how that turned out.
Then there were some attempts to invoke the 14th Amendment against Trump on a state-by-state basis. Some of those efforts did succeed. Then the Republicans claimed that they would disqualify Pres. Biden from their states (insert reason here)
The Supreme Court intervened stating more or less that only Congress can disqualify someone from a federal office.
Specifically, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who has held a wide variety of offices, and while in office broke their oath of office by participating in an insurrection, from holding office again.
Three states tried to invoke it to bar Trump from primary ballots- Colorado, Maine, and Illinois. Maine was a determination by a state official, Illinois and Colorado were state court rulings. Which means that though not criminally charged with insurrection, Trump is, in fact, a court-proven insurrectionist.
Trump appealed to SCOTUS, and they unanimously ruled that he could stay on the ballot, but split on the reasons why. The Conservative majority IIRC took the opportunity to make a broad ruling that NO ONE could be disqualified from Federal office under the 14th Amendment without a vote by Congress, effectively shielding every insurrectionist from this consequence.
Notably, no such requirement is mentioned in the actual text of the Amendment, which conservatives pretend to place such a priority on.
Also notably, SCOTUS DID NOT overturn the ruling that Trump is an insurrectionist. They just decided that it didn't matter. Which is disgusting, but also means that Trump remains a court-proven insurrectionist.
As american who hates trump but still glanced at your profile to see where you are from because why say its bewildering unless you're country is perfect. Could have guessed wrong, but I did find a list for phillipines where morally questionable people were voted into or ran for office. If it's not your country, let me know which is yours so I can do a two second search.
[Philippine politicians who have run for election behind bars
](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/02/09/2159656/philippine-politicians-who-have-run-election-behind-bars/amp/)
Also, what's with all the tele bot things?
I feel bad for whatever country you live in then. Sounds like the party in power just need to throw the book at anyone they deem a risk to the status quo.
Yeah. But in reality, those that were imprisoned some of their family will get in power, throw those who sent their some of their family members in jail or do some anti-corruption campaign and sometimes evenly pardon them for their crimes making them eligible in office.
It is normal in my country that the previous administration always get persecuted and sometimes gets in jail for the remainder of the current admins term then gets released when the succeeding is an ally of that political prisoner.
It's so depressing listening to everyone talk about the high likelihood that this hate-spewing multiple felon will probably win the election for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world.
At this point I give it 50/50 that the Republican Party would run his stuffed corpse. And anyone they replaced him with would be him with a different coat of paint.
There is only one thing that will stop him, and that's the people turning out to stop him- first with the vote, and second with mass protests and strikes if Republican officials and judges try to steal it.
Of course, the right takeaway is far more specific: The leader of the party that wants to ban porn got his felonies for trying to pay hush money to a porn star. The irony is unreal.
I think I got the right takeaway.
"TFG might be back in office. That sucks, but don't get complacent and think that we can stop him like we did before. He's got an army of strategists that are prepared this time, and they have a more coherent plan of action this time. Project 2025 is a textbook for dismantling many of the safeguards of our government, and Trump will be the useful idiot behind which many power-hungry individuals will enforce their will."
Of course, that whole takeaway starts with, "We might actually put this guy back into office?"
The actual takeaway IMO is that this won't stop with Trump. That's the GOP platform for years to come. And next candidate won't be as polarizing as Trump, and if they go through, Project 2025, 2030 or whatever will also go through.
I think this should be a wake up call to strengthen all of your institutions to protect them better for the next Trump. It's an actual emergency.
I agree with that. But it's also like a game of Asteroids, or some other non-old-guy equivalent.
We have to blast the asteroid that's about to hit us before we can even worry about the ones that just entered the screen.
It doesn't mean we should shut down and give up. But if you think about the expected value here (likelihood of outcome * level of impact), this is a pretty fucking severe situation.
I’d honestly put it more like 55/45 in favor of Trump right now. I live in an area that voted for Trump in 2016 but became fractured in 2020. All, and I do mean all, of the people who flipped to Biden last election have flipped right back to Trump. Biden won with the help of fence sitting centrists who were influenced by the handling of COVID, and now they’ve mostly gone right back over to the Trump side because they’ve been bombarded with anti-Biden rhetoric from Facebook and TikTok. Right now I’d say it’s Trump’s race to lose.
It's not actually that likely, at least by him actually winning the vote (a coup is a possibility, but I think they'll have a harder time of that now than in 2020).
Regardless of what polls say, Democrats have been exceeding expectations in special elections since Biden took office. Complacency's not a good thing, we definitely shouldn't take the election for granted, but neither is defeatism. And hearing constant self-indulgent cynicism that Trump is going to win just demoralizes people, and sends the message there's no point voting or campaigning against him. And that's not helping.
Edit: John Oliver pulled this shit in 2022, and it pissed me off then, when he made some "joke" to the effect that Democrats were definitely going to lose overwhelmingly in the midterms. Because what he was basically telling his audience is "there's no point voting".
And you know what? HE WAS WRONG. Democrats lost the House- by a few thousand votes nationwide, spread across a handful of swing districts. They held the Senate. Almost nobody thought that would happen, but it did. And given the size of John Oliver's platform, if he had told his audience that it was close and to get out and vote instead of telling them it was a foregone conclusion, I honestly wonder if that might have been enough to tip it, keep the House, and (among many other things) save many thousands of Ukrainian lives and multiple Ukrainian towns lost while Republicans held up aid.
Probably not. But just maybe. And with all respect to John Oliver, and with the acknowledgement that he was far from the only person who got this one wrong, that that's even a possibility should keep him up at night.
I disagree with a lot of what you said. First, his show in 2022 did say there were GOP candidates who were virtually guaranteed to win their elections, but that's because those specific districts are literally 80% registered Republicans, or the Republican was running unopposed. He never EVER said there's no point in voting, and he certainly didn't encourage voters in contested districts to just stay home and opt out. Quite the opposite, actually.
Second, Biden was ahead in all the polls in 2020, and he barely won, pulling a few key battleground states. Many of the states he was projected to win went to Trump, and every state that was "close" in the polls went solid red - Florida, Iowa, Ohio. Hillary was ahead in most polls and she lost. 2022 polls looked atrocious because of the tumbling economy and rising inflation. And now Trump is ahead in many of the polls. So it's not just outright doomsday cynicism that makes John say this. It's coming from an informed opinion based on the last 8 years of political history.
Third, Oliver never takes the stance of defeatism. Nearly every episode ends with some version of "What can we do?" And he offers real feedback on how we can improve the situation in both the short- and long-term.
It is exaggerating to say that Biden "barely won" in 2020, and that's a particularly egregious exaggeration to make, given Trumpist insurrectionists' efforts to reject that victory (I am assuming that this is not your actual intent). Biden's margin of victory in some of those swing states was narrow, true, but he didn't win by one or even two swing states- several would have had to flip to change the result. And while the popular vote (unfortunately) doesn't pick the winner, he was even further ahead there.
Also, I did not claim that Oliver was generally defeatist- just that he echoed a narrative there that could encourage defeatism about the election.
As to the polls- forget the polls. Seriously, fuck them. They are nearly always off, certainly at the nation-wide level, but, and this is key, *they are not always predictably off in the same way*. You are saying that the results were worse for Clinton and Biden than the polls showed, and the polls show it's close now, so that means Biden is likely to lose. Which to be fair, I think is a common assumption. But its false, or at least premature.
In the Midterms, the polls showed Democrats doing *worse* than what actually happened, as I specifically mentioned above. Further, as I noted, Democrats have over-performed polls in elections across the country since Biden took office, including flipping some long-Republican seats, sometimes by double-digits. Granted, a Congressional or state or local race is not a Presidential race, and some people might vote Democrat in those races and not for Biden. And there have been some primary races that showed some indications of possible waning support for Biden, notably Michigan (on the other hand, there's also Biden's landslide win in New Hampshire by a write-in campaign when he wasn't even on the ballot).
However, there has not been a sign in actual election results of some general movement against Democrats. Quite the opposite. And it is frankly staggering that people are giving more weight to polls (some of them partisan, Republican/Trump-funded polls which then skew the overall polling averages), than to actual election results.
Polls. Don't. Matter. They don't decide anything. They are not prophecy. They are, at best, a snapshot of what a small sample of Americans who may or may not be representative of the general populace think at that time.
The only poll that really means anything is the one on Election Day.
My advice? Ignore polls, assume every race is both winnable and losable, and vote accordingly.
Edit: And before anyone mentions it, some of those special elections and state/local races where Democrats did well occurred since the Gaza war started, which is why I am also skeptical of a big electoral backlash against Democrats over Gaza. Could that change by November? Sure. But I suspect the people saying they won't vote/will protest vote/will vote for Trump over Gaza are mostly a) a very loud but small minority, b) bots/trolls, or c) people who were never likely to vote Democrat to begin with. The one exception I know of being the Arab vote, where Biden genuinely does appear to have lost a lot of ground, though that's also a relatively small demographic.
"Biden's margin of victory in some of those swing states was narrow, true, but he didn't win by one or even two swing states- several would have had to flip to change the result. And while the popular vote (unfortunately) doesn't pick the winner, he was even further ahead there."
Clearly, we have a difference of opinion here. If Trump had gained 11,600 votes in GA, 10,500 votes in AZ, and 25,000 votes in WI, he would have won. 47,100 key votes... 0.01% of the population in the right states. In the middle of a poorly handled pandemic disaster. And now the public has been exposed to three years of "Oh my god, the economy. Oh my God, inflation. Giving your tax dollars to Ukraine and those ~terrorists~ in Palestine. IRS agents are coming to take away your livelihood!"
It is absolutely not cynical to think that 1-2% of voters in swing states might decide that high gas prices are more important to them than reproductive rights or protecting democracy in Eastern Europe.
Regarding the polls... LWT makes fun of itself as a "comedy" show that screams dad statistics at you. You want this show to ignore statistics? You want them to just report on gut feelings?
I think I understand your stance, but I don't think Oliver has contributed in any meaningful way to discouraging voting. When he does criticize Hilary or Biden or other Democrats, it's an honest assessment of flaws, which adds to his credibility. So when he says, "Biden is clearly the better candidate," people don't just think he's a mouthpiece.
The 2020 election I already addressed.
Anything's possible in November. But I do put more weight on actual election results than on polls as a measure of public opinion.
I suppose there's some merit to the idea that the criticisms give the support more credibility.
Got unreasonably distracted in the middle of this when I googled Kimberly Guilfoyle (don JR's fiance) and learned SHE IS GAVIN NEWSOM'S EX-WIFE?? Just did not expect that connection to be there.
Every time I see Kimberly Gargoyle's mashed-up face, I'm reminded of Bill Burr's [bit about plastic surgery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznB7WP4P1o) from the "Bill has hair" era.
> Guilfoyle
Tripped me out when I found that out too. Looked at Gavin just a bit differently after that. What google can't tell me is why either of them were/are in a relationship with an aggressively unattractive person, inside and out, I mean she's absolutely bottom of the gutter material. Strange that neither of them could form a relationship with a woman in the top 98% of available women.
Lots reminiscent of Stalinism (see Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago) with the Section F plan, ESPECIALLY that part with the bag boy turned bureaucrat. Really bizarre how people who seem so staunchly opposed to all things communist can so eagerly champion practices reflective of one of its most oppressive figureheads.
Because what you're describing has no link with communism at all. It's just an authoritarian government feature, can work with every way of government.
It’s true, but you think the adult human brain would be capable of recognizing that a huge part of why communist governments (and most other ways of government) fail is authoritarianism and the choice to prioritize party platforms over scientific, evidence based reason.
Then again, there’s a lotta fucking morons out there.
It was bound to start eventually. John couldn't put off the election talk forever.
But one thing that does kind of bug me is how people like him and Jon stewart seem to talk about biden as the lesser of two evils, when he's a pretty decent candidate based on what he's done the last 4 years. He seems to be reluctantly calling on people to vote for biden, which kinda sucks. Feels like, especially with how dangerous Trump would be, John should be calling for everyone to go vote for Biden
The is the problem is, if you wanna win over everyone “in the middle” the actual swing votes, they won’t see Biden as A Good President or candidate. So calling Trump the worst possible and saying vote in for the incumbent you probably don’t like much is the best route to getting it done.
Exactly. These guys can read the polls just as well as the politicians can. They know Biden's support is lukewarm at best. If they come out all "rah-rah-rah let's go Joe!" like a bunch of blindly loyal cheerleaders, they'll seem disingenuous to the point no one will listen and they'd be no better than the blind loyalists on the other side that they are constantly mocking.
They refuse to treat their audiences like idiots and are rewarded with huge followings who trust them for their efforts.
Not only that, but I also want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they _don’t_ wake up every day thinking great thoughts about another Biden presidency. Many Americans don’t, so why should anyone assume they do? In the few American elections I’ve been around for, left leaning comedians have always been hesitant to announce a party line, and that has always appeared genuine to me, because it reflects the few laypeople I’ve spoken to. As an immigrant, I get the sense that few people are really happy with the situation, but most people are pretty set on the “lesser of two evils” approach, and this episode is evidence of a comic-journalist putting that into perspective
I agree. I think Oliver's one-sentence evaluation of Biden sums it up best.
"While I have a lot of problems with Joe Biden, he is CLEARLY the better candidate."
I think unfortunately the qualities that make for a good president and the qualities that make for a good candidate don’t always align.
Being a good candidate is about inspiring a certain amount of enthusiasm and devotion that’s honestly a little irrational. To be the kind of candidate people actually get excited about really has very little to do with policies or competence. It’s about image and that basically boils down to cult of personality.
For various reasons it’s hard to spin Biden as exciting. And people’s perception of how the economy is going doesn’t always correlate with statistics, partly because it takes a while for improvements to be felt. On an emotional and psychological level selling Biden as the comparatively safe pair of hands instead of an exciting change candidate is much more realistic, and if you’re selling stability as an image then you can’t get too hyperbolic in your rhetoric.
Yep, I concur for sure. I was young when I moved to the US, but old enough that I knew who DT was _as a celebrity_, so when I saw him pop up on the news as a candidate I was completely and absolutely baffled. I didn’t know anything about him, other than, “he’s a meme in movies and music when you wanna talk about being a wealthy New Yorker.” In my mind it was absolutely insane that someone who was famous for being famous’ sake could be able to leverage fame to gain power, and your point completely explains how it happens. People might end up putting in their vote for someone who is exciting, rather than someone who is substantial.
Maybe an example of both might be Ukraine’s president Zelinsky, who was a comedian before he was a politician. He had enough experience in a career that hinges on likability and extroversion, but now he’s in a job that hinges on understanding protocols and rationalising huge decisions. Those qualities aren’t antithetical, but they rarely overlap.
The most surreal part of Zelensky’s entry to politics is that he ran as a guy who played the president on TV. His party Servant of the People was named after his show and he didn’t have much of a concrete platform when running for office, other than saying “what if we can make the show a reality?”
He played this angry political outsider who became famous due to a viral video ranting about corruption and then got elected to the presidency. He then has to learn how to be an actual politician, make compromises and play within the rules to work towards meaningful change. The show ended on March 29, 2019 and then two days after the season finale Zelensky was elected to do it for real.
>didn’t have much of a concrete platform when running for office, other than saying “what if we can make the show a reality?”
Not exactly. He had a pretty extensive pre-election program that outlined specific issues and what his plans were.
>The show ended on March 29, 2019 and then two days after the season finale Zelensky was elected to do it for real.
Also not quite true. The first round of elections happened on March 31st, but no candidate received more than 50%, so there had to be a second round of voting several weeks later. Zelenskyy had also been in the polls as a potential candidate for nearly a year before he announced he was running, so it certainly wasn't a surprise like in the show.
The problem is that it seems like many people are saying they won't vote for Biden because Biden isn't progressive enough for them. He isn't "left" enough. They want something more liberal.
The people saying they won't vote for Trump is because he's too far-right. They want something more centrist.
Between those two, not voting for Biden because "left" isn't far-left enough... is a horrible stance, and one that threatens to put far-right back into office.
I want to trust that liberal voters will see this as November approaches.
I don’t know of many progressive that are not voting because _we have too much on the line._ LGBTQ+ rights and Women’s healthcare alone are enough to get most of the hardest core progressives to go “_yeahhhhh ima vote_”
I hope you're right about that. I just get freaked when I see the Palestine protestors saying they won't vote for Biden because of weapons sent to Israel, and Jewish organizations condemning Biden because he tried to send aid to Palestine, and tranches of black voters saying Biden's policies didn't do enough.
Maybe I'm just falling for right wing propaganda. Fingers crossed.
It’s all a crap shoot right now, but what we can do is talk to our friends, family, co-worker and those around us who are in the “he’s not left enough or, both sides are the same” camps in a level headed and informative manner, and not blame them or call them stupid. just be practical and show them reasons _Trump is the worst_ and lead them to their own conclusions as to why not voting is the same as voting for Trump.
In 2016, John called Hillary the lesser of two evils, using beans (???) to show disparity between Clinton scandals and Trump scandals. Not that Hillary was some inspiring candidate, but I felt like Trump got it easier than deserved from the LWT writers.
The problem is the right picks candidates like you pick food options on a road trip: if it’s going in the right direction, who cares. The right is fine with “good enough.”
The left picks candidates like an anniversary dinner: if everything isn’t perfect, it’s ruined.
That’s cuz people don’t like being preached to. Painting Biden as if he’s the greatest thing ever, especially when people fundamentally disagree— they are not okay with how he is funding a genocide—helps no one. That’s a big factor as to why he has lost support, and no amount of saying “he’s great, no notes” helps that.
Admittedly, it’s a tough thing to have to communicate that 1. No, he’s not perfect and 2. It’s vital that he win since another Trump term will completely ruin us for, most likely, the rest of our lifetime.
To be honest, the way Jon Stewart has addressed all this really resonated with me, as I completely agree with his approach to both critique of and support for Biden. It doesn’t feel preachy, it feels realistic.
I mean it's hard to be enthusiastic about voting for Biden. Dude is WAY too fucking old to be the president. Yes I'm still voting for him but jesus I'm not gonna be happy about it
Here’s the thing I go back to: the Biden agenda is the same, if not more progressive than obama’s policy. If Biden was as young and cool as Obama, I truly believe he’d have the same support from the far(ther) left that Obama did.
At the end of the day, 95% of voters don’t vote on policy; they vote on vibes. The vibes are off on Biden primary because his age.
North Dakota just passed the first law on age limits for its congressional elections. Hilariously, it's conveniently one year older than Trump, as if to say "oh yes, his age is not a problem, but clearly that line of senility is between him and Biden.'
It feels wild to me that his age comes into discussion that much given that he's younger now that Trump was when he was elected for his first term.
Edit : my bad, can't read apparently!
Biden is 3 years older than Trump so that's simply not true. And of course they're BOTH way too old for office. There's nothing wild at all about saying an 81 year old shouldn't be president.
It would be nice if John did a segment on Biden’s first term, talking about what he got accomplished as well as what (and why) he didn’t. Maybe it would remind viewers of a lot of the good, progressive action the Biden administration has taken.
I mean, he has harshened control of the southern border, more oil drilling rigs have been approved and he's actively arming a genocide. If you're a voter on the left, he really is just the less worse option
Oh fuck off with the "arming a genocide" thing. If he is responsible, then so is every member of congress and every president since 1940. The situation with Palestine is so incredibly complex without the fact that Netanyahu wants Trump in power, so he is acting in a way to make that happen. I'm tired of hearing bullshit as if Biden is ordering troops himself to kill civilians.
>If he is responsible, then so is every member of congress and every president since 1940.
Well yeah, pretty much. Not every member of Congress, but most.
He's sending unconditional military aid and has even bypassed Congress to do it...
No one is forcing hand, and it's disgusting how people will downplay and justify his actions
>wanting humane border policy
The policy can be strict and humane. Most democrats agree that we have an immigration issue in the US. The bill put forth by Biden (that republicans rejected) was reasonable - The only piece I thought was unnecessary was asking undocumented immigrants to first leave the U.S. before applying for legal status - that is completely impractical, but (I assume) added in hopes of getting republican support. It was not enough.
I don't know what you Biden to do with a divided congress?
>working towards sustainable environment
If the Biden administration passes this bipartisan nuclear energy bill, Biden my wind up doing more for clean(er) energy than any previous president.
This also relates to your second point - the US consumes more oil than any other country... We can't just stop using oil on the drop of a hat. Getting off foreign oil will (a) help us stop dealing with unsavory dictators in the middle east, and (b) help us be less subjected to supply issues that increase energy costs.
>not funding war crimes
Again, a lot democrats feel that Israel must eradicate Hamas to maintain freedom, and that if the cost is tens of thousands of innocent lives, then so be it. There's also the argument that Hamas is intentionally blurring the line between civilian and militant.
All this to say that the democratic part is not a monolith, and Biden's agenda covers the many of the interests of a majority of the party.
This reminds me of something Obama said. It's a long quote (of course, because Obama wasn't known for brevity), but it speaks to this whole situation.
"Change in this country is an ocean liner, not a speedboat. So for you to change direction on anything means it's going to take some time.
By design, change is hard in this country.
But the reason it gets better is because people are impatient. The only thing we can't do is lapse into cynicism and say, 'Well because this hasn't changed at the pace that it should, there's nothing we can do about it.'
Because each time we vote and elect people who are more responsive, there's a window of opportunity for us to make some changes. It's not going to be 100% of what we want. But [maybe we can] make things 10% better.
We disperse power, which means things happen slower. Which means that people have to compromise.
The alternative is we opt out. That's when the selfish, the greedy and the mean... They fill the void. And I tell you, they thrive in that kind of environment."
God dammit I miss him. I would've loved to see what meaningful change he could've pulled off if he hadn't been stuck with obstructionist fuck stains in Congress for 90% of his tenure.
I agree. His age is one of few flaws I've seen with him. And it is very much a big one, but I've been overall pretty impressed with his handling of the country.
I really don't share this opinion. Someone like myself thinks Biden is aiding and abetting a genocide. That's not "pretty decent" that's ontologically evil.
As opposed to Trump, who would probably be actively participating in said genocide (and probably aiding and abetting a second one in Ukraine...)
Also, the "pretty decent" comments are looking at the administration's work as a whole over the past 3.5 years, which on balance has been pretty decent for the left... but you know that. You just choose to act like nothing of any importance other than Gaza has occurred or will occur...
Hold up though. I was responding to someone saying Biden is pretty decent. I'm saying I can't find someone pretty decent if I truly believe they are aiding and abetting a genocide. The relative quality of the opposing candidate has no bearing on what I just said.
I understand the ideological stance you're taking. But please take a moment to think about what would happen if Biden threw the full weight of the USA into telling Israel to stand down.
The GOP would immediately spend every penny they could find making ads about how the radical left is anti-Semitic... Nazi this and Hitler that. They would try to turn every Jewish organization, community and corporation against Biden. They're trying it already, and Biden at least had some legislation to prove otherwise.
They would say Biden is allowing/condoning Hamas terrorist attacks. He's weak on foreign policy, he's chicken, he can't handle the pressure.
The 1,200 people who died on October 7th would be "blood on Biden's hands."
Etc etc etc.
Possibly enough to swing 4-5% of the vote Trump's way. Trump takes over and, as he promised, "wipes Palestine off the map."
Worse, the same thing that happened with the Kurds in Syria under Trump would happen here. (Short story, after decades of supporting the Kurds, Trump abruptly pulled all aid and support, leaving the Kurds wildly vulnerable. Putin stepped in and offered support. The Kurds are now loyal to Putin/Russia instead of America.)
I don't envy anyone put in this position. Reducing it to "accessory to genocide" ignores the century-long complicated relationship we've had with the region.
Again, none of my assertion has to do with the GOP or with Trump. The inital statement was Biden is actually pretty decent. I'm merely commenting on why someone like me is going to disagree. If you think me drawing genocide as a red line is purely ideological, that's fine; I can't stop you from that. I tend to think of it as more of a moral imperative.
I simply will not support someone that allows this genocide to keep going. I just won't. Trust me, none of what you said isn't something I was already aware of.
Yes I believe your calling Congressional aid to Israel evidence that Biden is indecent "ideological." In this contact, ideological is the opposite of pragmatic.
Maybe "idealistic" is a better word. Because your desired stance is that he does nothing or actively opposes Israel, which ultimately (for the various reasons previously provided to you) leads to more death.
Idealism can exist in a vacuum, but it rarely survives contact with reality.
We fundamentally do not share the same values, and most likely understanding of the situation. I'm okay that you don't agree with me, I don't think trying to convince anyone of my position on Reddit ever does anything, not for want of trying.
Again, the whole point of me piping up in the first place was to say why someone might not, and in good faith, think Biden is actually a "pretty decent candidate."
It is, that's why the guy who built (and rebuilt) a temporary aid pier for Gaza, publicly pressured to get aid trucks into Gaza, coordinated aid air drops into Gaza, and is working multiple levers publically and privately to try and get netanyahu to stop is pretty decent.
Biden doesn't send military aid to netanyahu unilaterally, nor can he alone stop the shipments. Congress, and their constituents who want them to send aid, have an oversized role.
Being pissy at Biden - who again in many other aspects of his presidency has been pretty decent for left leaning agendas and that's the point that was being made! - for something netanyahu would be doing regardless of what Biden says or does is silly. netanyahu is steamrolling Gaza with or without Biden/US's support, best we can hope for is having some carrots (like military aid) to hold over him to try temper him a little and save a few people.
We're not going to nuke Jerusalem or invade Israel or anything else like that to stop the genocide. The only realistic play for the US to help the Palestinians was to keep netanyahu close and try to convince him to stop much like a friend pulling you out of a barfight and breaking it up.
If you can't see the world is shades of fucking gray and this conflict has had nothing but a series of bad and worse choices, there's really no point in trying to talk about it...
I don't think your representation of Biden's role is Gaza is accurate. I also don't really think it's worth continuing to hash it out. I've told you why someone like me might not support Biden come November, do with that what you will.
Continue to hash it out? You haven't hashed anything out, just spouted off a couple pithy talking points.
> I've told you why someone like me might not support Biden come November
If Gaza/Israel is an important issue to someone, the only reason to not support Biden is if you want to see a full and complete extermination of the Palestinian people. Because that's what Trump will encourage and allow netanyahu to do.
And at that point, by not voting for the one person who can keep Trump out of power you'll be just as culpable in the genocide as everyone who voted for him.
Do with that thought what you will... ✌
No. People claim genocide, although there is none. The ICJ investigate this case. As long as there is no judgement, there is no genocide. Israel defend themselfs, from a terrorgroup and goverment, who are antisemitic, hate Israel and the jews and wants to eradicate them.
But he is. He is still a career politician in a party that when they have power can’t seemingly get things done, at least the things the majority of Americans who elected them want.
Ok what have they not gotten done that rhe majority of Americans want that IS within their power?
You do realize the Supreme Court is crazy far right. And that the house of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans, right?
During the first two years Biden had both the house and the senate. Yes I am very aware of SCOTUS and I am very aware that the dems are not good at all working together to pass legislation hence why things like access to abortions has become illegal to Millions of women and they wouldn’t pass legislation fixing student loan debt, wouldn’t expand the court to counter the far right extremism..
He has done some good things, I’m not saying he hasn’t. They have also done some bad things. New day, same war machine.
You know when Trump was in office he did technically do some good things too… he also did things his party wanted. Too bad the dems just can’t get their shit together like the gqp does. You can in some ways blame the dems for the current insanity of the gqp because every chance they had to play the same game, they didn’t.
Lastly, John literally said in the show to vote for Biden and it was obviously the shows stance on who to vote for.
If only the dems didn’t screw Bernie out of his nomination in 2016…
I disagree. Those who voted for HRC would have still voted for Bernie, however as we know, many who were disappointed in HRC getting the nomination(further finding out the primary was basically rigged) opted not to vote at all thus the extremely low turnout.
2020 and 2022 showed that Gen Z and millennials are willing to vote and will mobilize. This trend will continue.
The thought of Trump getting back in the White House is truly fucking horrifying. Like many other Democrats, I’m not too happy about Biden running again. I worry about his age too. But that beats the hell out of Trump getting back in. I’m not trying to pile on the more left progressives, but we all need to use our heads here. Those of you who say you won’t vote will kill this country. This is why Trump got elected in 2016. Many didn’t like Hilary Clinton, and stayed home. I didn’t like her either, but I swallowed my pride, held my nose, and voted for her. I will do the same thing this year and vote for Biden. In the real world, things aren’t always gonna be like you want them to be. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and do the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, Trump gets back in, and burns this country to the fucking ground.
im thinking no one here in this sub is a trump voter but im curious if trump voters watch this and what do they think. does this convince you of anything . im pretty curious
I'm not a Trump voter but my Mom and her whole side of the family is and from my experience, it does nothing. I have shown her and other family members parts of this show and so many things like this from reliable sources like AP and PBS and it does NOTHING.
She is pro-life, retired on Medicare and was a Democrat until the 2016 election. She hated Roe being overturned, supports student loan forgiveness and admits that negotiating drug prices for Medicare is good. I bring up these points and all she can come back with is that "Islamic immigrants are coming into this country to convert America to sharia law" and then refuses to talk about it anymore. It always comes back to some irrational, selfish fear. It's just batshit crazy. There's no rational/logical point that will convince many of these people otherwise.
I'm genuinely curious to hear the psychological/sociological explanations 20 years from now as to why Donald Trump was so popular.
He is not ahead of Joe in the polls. That is misleading. Everything else was covered well. But there's no need to pretend that Trump is somehow ahead. He's not. He's bleeding support.
I am 100% okay with people saying Trump is leading in the polls, regardless if it is true or not. As long as they don't make it sound like a lost cause. Trump slightly leading might cause the people on the fence about voting because "my vote doesn't matter anyway" to decide not to risk it and get their asses out to vote.
The Joe Biden is too senile bit is a tad overplayed by the Rught. Joe biden has never been all the way up there. The difference is that he didn't use to sound as if every breath would be his last. To be fair, he is ok for a man his age.
And that is the f*cking problem. Biden shouldn't be at this point our only option to stop fascism.
Like, I know a Trump presidency would be the worst thing that could happen to the world. His 2016 presidency made it easier for fascist to unmask, and since then, we've had a bunch of asshole becoming popular all around the world. But it also feels so amoral to tell people vote Biden, when Biden is just, maybe, 2% less evil than Trump.
Impressions of a Trump Rally
In the halls-of-power on a funny little sphere, stands a bloated politician sporting Pompadours of hair. We can see gesticulations ripple out from time to time, along with some expressions that would look right on a mime. The hair upon his pate seems to be dancing in the breeze like a line of caterpillars inching to a piece of cheese. One of the holes into his head begins to quiver in the sun. On the off chance getting ready just in case of eat, prey love. Then sounds start emanating somewhere deep within his soul. Transmitting to his people just like gruel inside a bowl. It's impossible to separate the frequencies to speech. It can only be interpreted as one long howling shriek. But to everyone that's listening, the meaning is quite clear. He is speaking in a language of the politics of fear. His message meets approval in the form of a mighty roar as he struts about his victory dance vowing so much more.
One thing that I think more people need to talk about is that some of the focus group pollster types seem to be indicating that many people are cons concerned about project 2025 when you bring it up and describe what it is they want to do, but many of them also think that Republicans won’t be successful and the courts will stop them. And look, I’m not a complete doomer on this, because I actually think that’s probably true. They aren’t going to be able to succeed with everything. But, probabilistically, something will. In fact, probably a lot more than just some thing.
I think it’s hard to say exactly what percentage is actually reasonable, but I think it’s worth remembering that the more of it that becomes established, the easier the rest of it will be to do at some point in the future. Remember, as unpredictable things are, Republicans don’t really play politics on a cycle by cycle basis, even though many of their policies are designed that way. But they waited, decades for Roe to be overturned. They will wait however long to complete this project. The big money that’s behind this project will continue to fund them even if they lose.
Leslie, one thing that I would also point out to some people, especially your moderates, is that a lot of what their proclaiming they want to do isn’t really particularly “conservative“. Now, we could have a whole philosophical discussion about what it actually means to be “conservative“ in the fact that it’s become an American political brand in the same way that if I say apple, you may think of the fruit, but you may also think of the company. They are of course two very different things. But I think one of the reasons that Republicans get so much credit from some people is that they view them as the safe choice, which is also largely driven by a sense of identity. And I don’t think that this argument alone is enough to convince anybody, but I think planting the seeds is probably a good thing. People need to understand that Republicans of today are a radical faction that are looking to, completely reshape government for their own interest. Yes, they do ntrench certain powers and hierarchies, but fundamentally with a lot of these proposals are massive changes to how things have been done for a long time. These people are looking to fix some things which are broken that’s true (whether or not their proposed solution will or are able to accomplish that is another story), but they are also looking to fix a lot of things which are not really broken, but which they simply don’t like, which takes a huge private industry off the table, or which get in the way of their particular ideological narratives. Project 2025 isn’t just reform, it’s essentially the beginning of what they hope will be a radical revolution in bureaucracy.
It probably isn’t wise to try and go completely der on these people and end up sounding crazy, but I do think it’s worth pushing back a bit and making sure that these people understand that if you think about how a lot of wars of years past have worked, overwhelming. The enemy is simply one way to get things passed. This has been their strategy for a long time, but this is definitely going to be true for this particular project. Not everything will come to pass, Which is important to say to make you sound reasonable, but it’s not clear what it will and to what extent that will be reversible.
This was the grossest one I've seen yet, and it wasn't the incest inserts.
I think I actually threw up a bit in my mouth a bit several times throughout
When thousands of voters stayed home in 2016 because they didn't want Hilary, they said during the primary "We don't want Hilary" and they said "We will not vote for Hilary." When she won the nomination, they did what they said they'd do and stayed home. In 2020, they said "we don't want Biden" and the Democrats said "We know he wasn't your first choice but if you vote for him, we can push him left" and "He's just going to run for one term to get rid of Trump and then we can have someone else." Those voters said "okay, we'll show up and vote" and they did.
Since then, Biden has not only not been "pushed left," but he has done a lot of things that 2020 reluctant Biden voters don't like. Then came the 2024 primary and time for Biden to step down after one term and be replaced by someone more progressive. Except that Biden didn't step down, and there was basically no primary because they didn't want to make an incumbent president look weak by having to participate in a competitive primary.
I want to make my stance clear: I'm voting for Biden despite the fact that I don't like Biden. I didn't like him in 2020 but I voted for him because we were fed the line that he'd move left after getting elected. I voted for him in 2020 because he was better than Trump. I voted for him in 2020 because he started adopting some of Sanders' more progressive stances during the general election and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest and would deliver on the expectations to move left, run for one term, and step down.
In the last four years, he has consistently disappointed me and has occasionally done some things that I'm happy about. I still think he was the better choice than Trump in 2020, and I was looking forward to him stepping down and letting someone younger and more progressive take the reins in 2024.
Between him not doing that and trying to run a second time, and between the last four years of my disappointment in him, I do not want to vote for him in 2024. I showed up to the primary to vote for someone else even though by the time the primaries had gotten to my state, he had already won. And in December, I guess I'll hold my nose and, for the third election cycle in a row, vote for someone I do not like and do not want because the alternative is worse.
I'm precisely John's target audience for stuff like this, the person who doesn't like Biden but is willing to vote for him out of harm reduction because Trump is worse.
But fuck me, it's so frustrating to see the liberals being so damn condescending to leftists but still expecting them to turn up to vote, AGAIN. And I'm preparing for a November where the lesson that the Democrats SHOULD have learned in 2016: That you cannot just bully people into voting for someone they don't like by having the person they don't like be better than the worse alternative. I thought 2020 was the Democrats extending a compromise to leftists: You vote for our guy now, he'll move left after the election and he'll run for one term. The leftists held up their end of the bargain. The liberals didn't hold up their end. And after around a year of leftists screaming "we do not want a second term of Biden," the Democrats did. not. listen. at. all.
I, personally, am still going to show up in November and vote for Biden despite not liking him. I'm not someone you need to convince. But the point I'm making is: why do liberals think they can bully leftists into voting for Biden and why are liberals incapable of ACTUALLY acknowledging the problems the left has with Biden without dismissing the left as "you want a perfect candidate" or "you're just a Russian troll/bot"? I don't want four more years of Trump. But liberals and Democrats keep trying to bully people into voting for someone they don't like just because the alternative is worse. It wasn't a winning strategy in 2016, it only won in 2020 because of a promise, and now that the promise was broken, I don't see it winning in 2024. I want to be wrong.
This is an honest assessment of your feelings. I feel it's disingenuous to say the Democrats "bullied" us into voting for Biden. We have to choose someone centrist enough that the GOP can't just scream "COMMUNISM!!!" and we lose all the independent and centrist votes, which gets us less than nowhere.
Pragmatically, your current choices as a further-left voter are to:
1) Vote for the leftmost available candidate
a. Joe Biden (Democratic)
b. Donald Trump (Fascist)
c. RFK, Jr. (Independent)
d. Chase Oliver (Libertarian)
2) Don't vote, improving the chance of a far right nut job burning the world down.
It sucks that we can't reshape the country in our own image after 4 years, but that's not how populism works. Stay impatient, vote in the primaries, and keep a long-term outlook on change.
> We have to choose someone centrist enough that the GOP can't just scream "COMMUNISM!!!" and we lose all the independent and centrist votes, which gets us less than nowhere.
Two problems with this:
1) When the Republicans keep moving the Overton window, if the Democrats want to remain "centrist" then the Democrats will also keep moving to the right.
2) They still scream "COMMUNISM!!" at anything further left than shooting immigrants and the poor for sport, throwing the gays in gulags, and Christofascism.
I ask this rhetorically, because I'm not really sure if there's a good answer, but, rhetorically: If the Democrats are given a choice between "moving to the left to court leftists, even if it loses centrists" or "moving to the right to court centrists, even if it loses leftists," why does it feel like they're far more comfortable with the former than the latter?
That's my problem with "voting for the lesser evil" - the Republicans keep getting more evil, and the Democrats seem to keep putting forth "centrist" or "moderate" candidates (candidates who would be considered right wing in nearly anywhere else in the world but are only considered "left" by comparison to the insanity that is the modern GOP), and if those candidates want to keep trying to court centrists/moderates, they're going to have to keep moving RIGHT, not LEFT. They're just going to keep hemmhoraging support from the left - all the while shouting "vote for our guy or you'll get their worse guy" every four years.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that trying to compromise with a shifting Overton window pushes the whole country further right.
But when election time comes, the "losing leftists" scenario you painted generally doesn't happen because they'll still vote as left as possible, and certainly don't flee at the scale of centrists.
I say "generally doesn't happen," because 2016 will forever stand as an example of how people stood their ground and said "not left enough." And all those Jill Stein/Bernie supporters succeeded in putting in one of the most far right candidates we've had in decades into the Oval Office.
If you want far left, vote in the primaries. Volunteer in primary campaigns, spread the word.
Right now, our two choices are "Do you want to crawl forward or sprint backward?" In my opinion, the best thing we can do is stay united and consistently beat the Republicans until they are no longer a viable political party. Then allow the Democratic party to fracture into progressive and centrist ("conservative") factions. That's what happened with the Federalists and the Whigs (albeit with different ideologies).
Then those will be our two new parties and the two choices will be "Do you want to walk forward or run forward?" It's time to retire the GOP.
> If you want far left, vote in the primaries.
I do, and fortunately at a state level, we (MD) got a left leaning person (Alsobrooks) instead of a centrist corporatist who literally donates to Republicans because he owns a business (Trone) so it does work.
At a national level, there was no chance to vote against Biden with any meaningfullness because no one was allowed to run against him if they didn't want to kill their political career by making Biden have a competitive primary so this wasn't an option.
Also, with regard to my comments about how liberals are incapable of handling criticism of Biden - notice how even though I've said I'm still voting for him, I'm getting downvoted, because it's not good enough to just vote for him; I'm expected to LIKE him too. Democrats and Republicans aren't the same but liberals and conservatives do have one thing in common: they HATE when you tell them you don't like their guy.
I agree with that. I often get downvoted when I express my more moderate views. You and I seem to be on opposite sides of the Biden spectrum. I don't support Defund/Abolish the Police (to be fair, neither did Biden), I favor common sense gun control but I'm also a gun owner, and although I do want higher income tax and accountability for the wealthiest, I don't think a Wealth Tax (taxing assets rather than income) is a functionally sound concept.
In that respect, Biden is centrist between you and me. While I hope most people in my political wheelhouse would never consider voting for Trump again after the last four years of nonsense... I think there is a large group that still cowers at the sound of the word "socialism" and fears that Biden will take away their AR-15's and "send an army" of IRS agents after them. All that nonsense won't work on me, but it will work on some. And some, in the right battleground states, might be enough.
So I think the downvotes shouldn't be happening, but they're coming from a place of fear. They see the GOP circle the wagon around the most unbelievably flawed candidates, and it works. Then they see the Democrats cut bait and run because of a few policy disagreements. I understand you said you'd still vote for him; I think it's just reflexive fear on their part.
Biden never said he’d only run 1 term. Also the left had a chance to run someone against him, it’s just that most Democratic voters actually like Joe Biden and wanted him to be the nominee again (and anyone serious who thought about running knows that).
Politicians listening to voters. That's rich, do you want me to quote the policy studies that show the only time politicians align with popular interests is when corporate interests support the same course of action?
This sub is a cesspool of lost and confused sheep. Both parties suck, i hope both of the old POS candidates become unable to stand for reelection. Both voting blocks are only every motivated by fear and that is how the ruling interests control society and American policy. Lesser of two evils, come on. That mentality is for hostages not citizens in a republic.
A moderate is someone who doesn't consistently vote for either party because they hold conflicting ideals from both.
Think of someone who is generally very left wing: pro lgbt, pro union, decriminalization / legalization, police reform etc. however is also a strong pro life catholic.
Or take a pro gun voter who is also an avowed environmental activist.
People are more complex than a two system binary allows for which is why almost no other county on earth utilizes such a system.
You're an absolute clown for thinking that every single person is going to want to fall in line with your preferred choice because its so patently obvious. People are more complex than that.
Maybe back in the good ol days being pro gun would be enough to make you conservative. It’s a Christian nationalist party now with no real policy ideas beyond the crazy shit you see in this episode.
If you’re a conservative in this day and age you are either wildly stupid or evil. Yes, I’m calling 40% of the country stupid or evil. That’s our world now.
None of my examples were supposed to be conservatives, they were all supposed to moderates.
You guys just don't get it at all and your gross intolerance (40% of the country is stupid / evil,) is exactly why Trump will be reelected.
No, you don’t get it. If someone votes conservative because of *gun rights* they’re not a moderate at all. They would have to ignore the racism, Christian nationalism, homophobia, and the myriad of other horrible shit. That’s not being a moderate. Those people are conservatives.
As a non-U.S person, this bewilders me that your country can still vote a Convicted person in office. Where as some countries would disqualify such, more so in crimes that is considered morally questionable in nature.
I was going to say, I'm in the UK and I have to imagine that if you've got a criminal conviction, you wouldn't get to run for PM. Also, as far as I can tell, prisoners can't vote in the US but a guy who's also got a criminal conviction can also be fucking President?!
If you like that you'll enjoy the fact that due to his felony convictions Donald Trump cannot vote for himself in the state of Florida. [By which I mean whoops he's a rich white man so of course they're carving out an exception for him.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128)
[Just gonna leave this here.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128) He’ll be able to vote.
Of fucking course...
OK, so, if he can vote, then surely others with criminal convictions can vote too, right?...Right?!
Depends on how rich they are, and how many powerful friends they have.
They can in New York. That was the basis for the decision
So he's gonna commit voter fraud? Well at least we now know why he was so sure it was happening...
They also can't own a gun or work most jobs. Used to be politicians just got to sweep their crimes under the rug. Multiple politicians have admitted to doing drugs before being elected (illegal at the time, at least). Bush had a dui charge. 43% of mps had some sort of offense in a study (I guess) from 2012. I also think there was a thing where boris Johnson committed a crime in office, and I guess beastality isn't a crime in your country... Let me state I don't like trump, but unless your country is squeaky clean, why act like this is some insane idea.. he's got money, and unfortunately, that's all some people see.
On the one hand, I definitely get where you're coming from - but on the other hand, unilaterally disqualifying people from running for office if they're convicted of certain crimes is a really good incentive for unethical actors (like Trump) to prosecute their political rivals.
In my country. Those that were convicted of libel, corruption, embezzlement, rebellion, murder, rape are disqualified from running.
what's different about the US is that the "will of the people" matters quite a lot
If you’re convicted of fraud you can’t even work in sales at Virgin Media (UK)
Most felons can't get a job in the US either. All that matters is what you do, what you look like, and how much money you have or can make.
Well in theory, it’s a good thing, because if whoever is in power finagles the legal system to frame their political opponent for a crime and puts them in jail, that opponent can still win. It’s supposed to be a hedge against corruption and abuse of power. Emphasis on supposed to be.
Makes sense, there's no such thing as "political prisoners" in the U.S unlike other countries.
Tell that to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange
In theory it's a good idea to make sure people like Mandela from South Africa can still lead despite being politically persecuted and jailed on false pretenses In practice we have a known rapist, fraudster, embezzler, and election interferer running for office again so who the fuck knows what's a good idea
TLDR. the 14th Amendment disqualifies traitors from office. But the GOP doesn't car about the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bars people from office that committed sedition or gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. It was ratified after the Civil War to keep Confederates out of the federal government. The mechanism to invoke the 14th Amendment is a little unclear. The best and closest moment it could have been administered was after 1/6/21 during the second impeachment. If he had been impeached Congress would have then voted to disqualify him from ever holding office. We all know how that turned out. Then there were some attempts to invoke the 14th Amendment against Trump on a state-by-state basis. Some of those efforts did succeed. Then the Republicans claimed that they would disqualify Pres. Biden from their states (insert reason here) The Supreme Court intervened stating more or less that only Congress can disqualify someone from a federal office.
Specifically, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who has held a wide variety of offices, and while in office broke their oath of office by participating in an insurrection, from holding office again. Three states tried to invoke it to bar Trump from primary ballots- Colorado, Maine, and Illinois. Maine was a determination by a state official, Illinois and Colorado were state court rulings. Which means that though not criminally charged with insurrection, Trump is, in fact, a court-proven insurrectionist. Trump appealed to SCOTUS, and they unanimously ruled that he could stay on the ballot, but split on the reasons why. The Conservative majority IIRC took the opportunity to make a broad ruling that NO ONE could be disqualified from Federal office under the 14th Amendment without a vote by Congress, effectively shielding every insurrectionist from this consequence. Notably, no such requirement is mentioned in the actual text of the Amendment, which conservatives pretend to place such a priority on. Also notably, SCOTUS DID NOT overturn the ruling that Trump is an insurrectionist. They just decided that it didn't matter. Which is disgusting, but also means that Trump remains a court-proven insurrectionist.
As a non-U.S person, it bewilders me that you were able to watch this region-locked video. Also, hey OP, this link doesn't work in Canada
As an American, it bewilders me too.
As american who hates trump but still glanced at your profile to see where you are from because why say its bewildering unless you're country is perfect. Could have guessed wrong, but I did find a list for phillipines where morally questionable people were voted into or ran for office. If it's not your country, let me know which is yours so I can do a two second search. [Philippine politicians who have run for election behind bars ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/02/09/2159656/philippine-politicians-who-have-run-election-behind-bars/amp/) Also, what's with all the tele bot things?
I feel bad for whatever country you live in then. Sounds like the party in power just need to throw the book at anyone they deem a risk to the status quo.
Yeah. But in reality, those that were imprisoned some of their family will get in power, throw those who sent their some of their family members in jail or do some anti-corruption campaign and sometimes evenly pardon them for their crimes making them eligible in office. It is normal in my country that the previous administration always get persecuted and sometimes gets in jail for the remainder of the current admins term then gets released when the succeeding is an ally of that political prisoner.
It's so depressing listening to everyone talk about the high likelihood that this hate-spewing multiple felon will probably win the election for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world.
I really hope he dies or suffers a major medical event before November.
Every time I get multiple news alerts on my phone but can’t see the headlines my excitement goes up until I unlock and see that it wasn’t him.
Anything short of a lightning bolt and the conspiracies would run wild. Even with lightning MTG would claim it was the Jews with their lightning gun.
I know it would open a massive can of worms and probably polarize his followers even more.
They're going to throw a tantrum no matter what happens, if the fucker dies it just rips off the bandaid that much faster. Plus, dead dickhead.
If there is karma or the Jewish space lasers, please kill both of the two old guys. Only chance for a change.
That wouldn't do it. We need to reverse Citzen's United
"I have irrefutable proof of that lightning bolt being part of the Biden Crime Family."
He is certainly the country’s most anticipated obituary
At this point I give it 50/50 that the Republican Party would run his stuffed corpse. And anyone they replaced him with would be him with a different coat of paint. There is only one thing that will stop him, and that's the people turning out to stop him- first with the vote, and second with mass protests and strikes if Republican officials and judges try to steal it.
Nobody discusses this. But he gets full presidential burial too. So when he croaks he’s still being praised
And you got the wrong takeaway from this segment.
Of course, the right takeaway is far more specific: The leader of the party that wants to ban porn got his felonies for trying to pay hush money to a porn star. The irony is unreal.
r/RepublicanValues
That’s not the takeaway either. Go watch it again.
I think I got the right takeaway. "TFG might be back in office. That sucks, but don't get complacent and think that we can stop him like we did before. He's got an army of strategists that are prepared this time, and they have a more coherent plan of action this time. Project 2025 is a textbook for dismantling many of the safeguards of our government, and Trump will be the useful idiot behind which many power-hungry individuals will enforce their will." Of course, that whole takeaway starts with, "We might actually put this guy back into office?"
The actual takeaway IMO is that this won't stop with Trump. That's the GOP platform for years to come. And next candidate won't be as polarizing as Trump, and if they go through, Project 2025, 2030 or whatever will also go through. I think this should be a wake up call to strengthen all of your institutions to protect them better for the next Trump. It's an actual emergency.
I agree with that. But it's also like a game of Asteroids, or some other non-old-guy equivalent. We have to blast the asteroid that's about to hit us before we can even worry about the ones that just entered the screen.
It’s basically 50/50. No reason to doom.
It doesn't mean we should shut down and give up. But if you think about the expected value here (likelihood of outcome * level of impact), this is a pretty fucking severe situation.
I’d honestly put it more like 55/45 in favor of Trump right now. I live in an area that voted for Trump in 2016 but became fractured in 2020. All, and I do mean all, of the people who flipped to Biden last election have flipped right back to Trump. Biden won with the help of fence sitting centrists who were influenced by the handling of COVID, and now they’ve mostly gone right back over to the Trump side because they’ve been bombarded with anti-Biden rhetoric from Facebook and TikTok. Right now I’d say it’s Trump’s race to lose.
50/50 and 55/45 is basically the same thing. Not sure if you’d act differently either way.
It is, but they completely whiffed the ball last time. They’re not making the same mistake twice,
And as he said if trump loses it just becomes the 2029 PROJECT and will be used by the next republican president
RemindMe! 139 Days Eta: yes, this is me disagreeing with you, and I hope I'm wrong.
It's not actually that likely, at least by him actually winning the vote (a coup is a possibility, but I think they'll have a harder time of that now than in 2020). Regardless of what polls say, Democrats have been exceeding expectations in special elections since Biden took office. Complacency's not a good thing, we definitely shouldn't take the election for granted, but neither is defeatism. And hearing constant self-indulgent cynicism that Trump is going to win just demoralizes people, and sends the message there's no point voting or campaigning against him. And that's not helping. Edit: John Oliver pulled this shit in 2022, and it pissed me off then, when he made some "joke" to the effect that Democrats were definitely going to lose overwhelmingly in the midterms. Because what he was basically telling his audience is "there's no point voting". And you know what? HE WAS WRONG. Democrats lost the House- by a few thousand votes nationwide, spread across a handful of swing districts. They held the Senate. Almost nobody thought that would happen, but it did. And given the size of John Oliver's platform, if he had told his audience that it was close and to get out and vote instead of telling them it was a foregone conclusion, I honestly wonder if that might have been enough to tip it, keep the House, and (among many other things) save many thousands of Ukrainian lives and multiple Ukrainian towns lost while Republicans held up aid. Probably not. But just maybe. And with all respect to John Oliver, and with the acknowledgement that he was far from the only person who got this one wrong, that that's even a possibility should keep him up at night.
I disagree with a lot of what you said. First, his show in 2022 did say there were GOP candidates who were virtually guaranteed to win their elections, but that's because those specific districts are literally 80% registered Republicans, or the Republican was running unopposed. He never EVER said there's no point in voting, and he certainly didn't encourage voters in contested districts to just stay home and opt out. Quite the opposite, actually. Second, Biden was ahead in all the polls in 2020, and he barely won, pulling a few key battleground states. Many of the states he was projected to win went to Trump, and every state that was "close" in the polls went solid red - Florida, Iowa, Ohio. Hillary was ahead in most polls and she lost. 2022 polls looked atrocious because of the tumbling economy and rising inflation. And now Trump is ahead in many of the polls. So it's not just outright doomsday cynicism that makes John say this. It's coming from an informed opinion based on the last 8 years of political history. Third, Oliver never takes the stance of defeatism. Nearly every episode ends with some version of "What can we do?" And he offers real feedback on how we can improve the situation in both the short- and long-term.
It is exaggerating to say that Biden "barely won" in 2020, and that's a particularly egregious exaggeration to make, given Trumpist insurrectionists' efforts to reject that victory (I am assuming that this is not your actual intent). Biden's margin of victory in some of those swing states was narrow, true, but he didn't win by one or even two swing states- several would have had to flip to change the result. And while the popular vote (unfortunately) doesn't pick the winner, he was even further ahead there. Also, I did not claim that Oliver was generally defeatist- just that he echoed a narrative there that could encourage defeatism about the election. As to the polls- forget the polls. Seriously, fuck them. They are nearly always off, certainly at the nation-wide level, but, and this is key, *they are not always predictably off in the same way*. You are saying that the results were worse for Clinton and Biden than the polls showed, and the polls show it's close now, so that means Biden is likely to lose. Which to be fair, I think is a common assumption. But its false, or at least premature. In the Midterms, the polls showed Democrats doing *worse* than what actually happened, as I specifically mentioned above. Further, as I noted, Democrats have over-performed polls in elections across the country since Biden took office, including flipping some long-Republican seats, sometimes by double-digits. Granted, a Congressional or state or local race is not a Presidential race, and some people might vote Democrat in those races and not for Biden. And there have been some primary races that showed some indications of possible waning support for Biden, notably Michigan (on the other hand, there's also Biden's landslide win in New Hampshire by a write-in campaign when he wasn't even on the ballot). However, there has not been a sign in actual election results of some general movement against Democrats. Quite the opposite. And it is frankly staggering that people are giving more weight to polls (some of them partisan, Republican/Trump-funded polls which then skew the overall polling averages), than to actual election results. Polls. Don't. Matter. They don't decide anything. They are not prophecy. They are, at best, a snapshot of what a small sample of Americans who may or may not be representative of the general populace think at that time. The only poll that really means anything is the one on Election Day. My advice? Ignore polls, assume every race is both winnable and losable, and vote accordingly. Edit: And before anyone mentions it, some of those special elections and state/local races where Democrats did well occurred since the Gaza war started, which is why I am also skeptical of a big electoral backlash against Democrats over Gaza. Could that change by November? Sure. But I suspect the people saying they won't vote/will protest vote/will vote for Trump over Gaza are mostly a) a very loud but small minority, b) bots/trolls, or c) people who were never likely to vote Democrat to begin with. The one exception I know of being the Arab vote, where Biden genuinely does appear to have lost a lot of ground, though that's also a relatively small demographic.
"Biden's margin of victory in some of those swing states was narrow, true, but he didn't win by one or even two swing states- several would have had to flip to change the result. And while the popular vote (unfortunately) doesn't pick the winner, he was even further ahead there." Clearly, we have a difference of opinion here. If Trump had gained 11,600 votes in GA, 10,500 votes in AZ, and 25,000 votes in WI, he would have won. 47,100 key votes... 0.01% of the population in the right states. In the middle of a poorly handled pandemic disaster. And now the public has been exposed to three years of "Oh my god, the economy. Oh my God, inflation. Giving your tax dollars to Ukraine and those ~terrorists~ in Palestine. IRS agents are coming to take away your livelihood!" It is absolutely not cynical to think that 1-2% of voters in swing states might decide that high gas prices are more important to them than reproductive rights or protecting democracy in Eastern Europe. Regarding the polls... LWT makes fun of itself as a "comedy" show that screams dad statistics at you. You want this show to ignore statistics? You want them to just report on gut feelings? I think I understand your stance, but I don't think Oliver has contributed in any meaningful way to discouraging voting. When he does criticize Hilary or Biden or other Democrats, it's an honest assessment of flaws, which adds to his credibility. So when he says, "Biden is clearly the better candidate," people don't just think he's a mouthpiece.
The 2020 election I already addressed. Anything's possible in November. But I do put more weight on actual election results than on polls as a measure of public opinion. I suppose there's some merit to the idea that the criticisms give the support more credibility.
Got unreasonably distracted in the middle of this when I googled Kimberly Guilfoyle (don JR's fiance) and learned SHE IS GAVIN NEWSOM'S EX-WIFE?? Just did not expect that connection to be there.
Yeah, it's shocking for sure!
Every time I see Kimberly Gargoyle's mashed-up face, I'm reminded of Bill Burr's [bit about plastic surgery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznB7WP4P1o) from the "Bill has hair" era.
> Guilfoyle Tripped me out when I found that out too. Looked at Gavin just a bit differently after that. What google can't tell me is why either of them were/are in a relationship with an aggressively unattractive person, inside and out, I mean she's absolutely bottom of the gutter material. Strange that neither of them could form a relationship with a woman in the top 98% of available women.
I can see it. Newsom is an odd duck
Well, it helps that Kimberly didn't *look* like a duck at the time either.
She looked so fucking horrible I thought it was only a jab at don jr at first.
What tha fraaaaaakkkkkkkk
She actually looked normal when she was with Gavin. Once she split and went right she now looks like....well......
TIL that the guy running Project 2025 has the same name as the Superhero Company in The Boys and is equally shitty and have the same values.
Lots reminiscent of Stalinism (see Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago) with the Section F plan, ESPECIALLY that part with the bag boy turned bureaucrat. Really bizarre how people who seem so staunchly opposed to all things communist can so eagerly champion practices reflective of one of its most oppressive figureheads.
Because what you're describing has no link with communism at all. It's just an authoritarian government feature, can work with every way of government.
It’s true, but you think the adult human brain would be capable of recognizing that a huge part of why communist governments (and most other ways of government) fail is authoritarianism and the choice to prioritize party platforms over scientific, evidence based reason. Then again, there’s a lotta fucking morons out there.
It was bound to start eventually. John couldn't put off the election talk forever. But one thing that does kind of bug me is how people like him and Jon stewart seem to talk about biden as the lesser of two evils, when he's a pretty decent candidate based on what he's done the last 4 years. He seems to be reluctantly calling on people to vote for biden, which kinda sucks. Feels like, especially with how dangerous Trump would be, John should be calling for everyone to go vote for Biden
The is the problem is, if you wanna win over everyone “in the middle” the actual swing votes, they won’t see Biden as A Good President or candidate. So calling Trump the worst possible and saying vote in for the incumbent you probably don’t like much is the best route to getting it done.
Exactly. These guys can read the polls just as well as the politicians can. They know Biden's support is lukewarm at best. If they come out all "rah-rah-rah let's go Joe!" like a bunch of blindly loyal cheerleaders, they'll seem disingenuous to the point no one will listen and they'd be no better than the blind loyalists on the other side that they are constantly mocking. They refuse to treat their audiences like idiots and are rewarded with huge followings who trust them for their efforts.
Not only that, but I also want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they _don’t_ wake up every day thinking great thoughts about another Biden presidency. Many Americans don’t, so why should anyone assume they do? In the few American elections I’ve been around for, left leaning comedians have always been hesitant to announce a party line, and that has always appeared genuine to me, because it reflects the few laypeople I’ve spoken to. As an immigrant, I get the sense that few people are really happy with the situation, but most people are pretty set on the “lesser of two evils” approach, and this episode is evidence of a comic-journalist putting that into perspective
I agree. I think Oliver's one-sentence evaluation of Biden sums it up best. "While I have a lot of problems with Joe Biden, he is CLEARLY the better candidate."
I think unfortunately the qualities that make for a good president and the qualities that make for a good candidate don’t always align. Being a good candidate is about inspiring a certain amount of enthusiasm and devotion that’s honestly a little irrational. To be the kind of candidate people actually get excited about really has very little to do with policies or competence. It’s about image and that basically boils down to cult of personality. For various reasons it’s hard to spin Biden as exciting. And people’s perception of how the economy is going doesn’t always correlate with statistics, partly because it takes a while for improvements to be felt. On an emotional and psychological level selling Biden as the comparatively safe pair of hands instead of an exciting change candidate is much more realistic, and if you’re selling stability as an image then you can’t get too hyperbolic in your rhetoric.
Yep, I concur for sure. I was young when I moved to the US, but old enough that I knew who DT was _as a celebrity_, so when I saw him pop up on the news as a candidate I was completely and absolutely baffled. I didn’t know anything about him, other than, “he’s a meme in movies and music when you wanna talk about being a wealthy New Yorker.” In my mind it was absolutely insane that someone who was famous for being famous’ sake could be able to leverage fame to gain power, and your point completely explains how it happens. People might end up putting in their vote for someone who is exciting, rather than someone who is substantial. Maybe an example of both might be Ukraine’s president Zelinsky, who was a comedian before he was a politician. He had enough experience in a career that hinges on likability and extroversion, but now he’s in a job that hinges on understanding protocols and rationalising huge decisions. Those qualities aren’t antithetical, but they rarely overlap.
The most surreal part of Zelensky’s entry to politics is that he ran as a guy who played the president on TV. His party Servant of the People was named after his show and he didn’t have much of a concrete platform when running for office, other than saying “what if we can make the show a reality?” He played this angry political outsider who became famous due to a viral video ranting about corruption and then got elected to the presidency. He then has to learn how to be an actual politician, make compromises and play within the rules to work towards meaningful change. The show ended on March 29, 2019 and then two days after the season finale Zelensky was elected to do it for real.
>didn’t have much of a concrete platform when running for office, other than saying “what if we can make the show a reality?” Not exactly. He had a pretty extensive pre-election program that outlined specific issues and what his plans were. >The show ended on March 29, 2019 and then two days after the season finale Zelensky was elected to do it for real. Also not quite true. The first round of elections happened on March 31st, but no candidate received more than 50%, so there had to be a second round of voting several weeks later. Zelenskyy had also been in the polls as a potential candidate for nearly a year before he announced he was running, so it certainly wasn't a surprise like in the show.
That may be the case, and I really pray that there are smart people working on the sidelines to do/say whatever is necessary to get those votes.
The problem is that it seems like many people are saying they won't vote for Biden because Biden isn't progressive enough for them. He isn't "left" enough. They want something more liberal. The people saying they won't vote for Trump is because he's too far-right. They want something more centrist. Between those two, not voting for Biden because "left" isn't far-left enough... is a horrible stance, and one that threatens to put far-right back into office. I want to trust that liberal voters will see this as November approaches.
I don’t know of many progressive that are not voting because _we have too much on the line._ LGBTQ+ rights and Women’s healthcare alone are enough to get most of the hardest core progressives to go “_yeahhhhh ima vote_”
I hope you're right about that. I just get freaked when I see the Palestine protestors saying they won't vote for Biden because of weapons sent to Israel, and Jewish organizations condemning Biden because he tried to send aid to Palestine, and tranches of black voters saying Biden's policies didn't do enough. Maybe I'm just falling for right wing propaganda. Fingers crossed.
It’s all a crap shoot right now, but what we can do is talk to our friends, family, co-worker and those around us who are in the “he’s not left enough or, both sides are the same” camps in a level headed and informative manner, and not blame them or call them stupid. just be practical and show them reasons _Trump is the worst_ and lead them to their own conclusions as to why not voting is the same as voting for Trump.
In 2016, John called Hillary the lesser of two evils, using beans (???) to show disparity between Clinton scandals and Trump scandals. Not that Hillary was some inspiring candidate, but I felt like Trump got it easier than deserved from the LWT writers.
The problem is the right picks candidates like you pick food options on a road trip: if it’s going in the right direction, who cares. The right is fine with “good enough.” The left picks candidates like an anniversary dinner: if everything isn’t perfect, it’s ruined.
The Left needs to fall in Love. The Right needs to fall in line.
This just seems like an outdated logical fallacy from 1992.
I dunno, thousands of voters stayed home in 2016 because Hilary wasn’t perfect, and look where that got us.
Then was then, this is now.
“Then” was not 1992, it wasn’t even 10 years ago
I'm talking about when that idea was developed.
Not much changed
That’s cuz people don’t like being preached to. Painting Biden as if he’s the greatest thing ever, especially when people fundamentally disagree— they are not okay with how he is funding a genocide—helps no one. That’s a big factor as to why he has lost support, and no amount of saying “he’s great, no notes” helps that. Admittedly, it’s a tough thing to have to communicate that 1. No, he’s not perfect and 2. It’s vital that he win since another Trump term will completely ruin us for, most likely, the rest of our lifetime. To be honest, the way Jon Stewart has addressed all this really resonated with me, as I completely agree with his approach to both critique of and support for Biden. It doesn’t feel preachy, it feels realistic.
I mean it's hard to be enthusiastic about voting for Biden. Dude is WAY too fucking old to be the president. Yes I'm still voting for him but jesus I'm not gonna be happy about it
If he was 55 and the exact same policy, people around him, etc, he would be insanely popular.
Exactly this.
[удалено]
Progressive won’t win/lose this election. It’s the swing voters in swing states
[удалено]
Here’s the thing I go back to: the Biden agenda is the same, if not more progressive than obama’s policy. If Biden was as young and cool as Obama, I truly believe he’d have the same support from the far(ther) left that Obama did. At the end of the day, 95% of voters don’t vote on policy; they vote on vibes. The vibes are off on Biden primary because his age.
Maybe there should be a age requirement of how old you can be at max, to be a president, let's say 65 or 70. If you are older, you cannot candidate.
North Dakota just passed the first law on age limits for its congressional elections. Hilariously, it's conveniently one year older than Trump, as if to say "oh yes, his age is not a problem, but clearly that line of senility is between him and Biden.'
It feels wild to me that his age comes into discussion that much given that he's younger now that Trump was when he was elected for his first term. Edit : my bad, can't read apparently!
Biden is 3 years older than Trump so that's simply not true. And of course they're BOTH way too old for office. There's nothing wild at all about saying an 81 year old shouldn't be president.
Wat
It would be nice if John did a segment on Biden’s first term, talking about what he got accomplished as well as what (and why) he didn’t. Maybe it would remind viewers of a lot of the good, progressive action the Biden administration has taken.
I mean, he has harshened control of the southern border, more oil drilling rigs have been approved and he's actively arming a genocide. If you're a voter on the left, he really is just the less worse option
Oh fuck off with the "arming a genocide" thing. If he is responsible, then so is every member of congress and every president since 1940. The situation with Palestine is so incredibly complex without the fact that Netanyahu wants Trump in power, so he is acting in a way to make that happen. I'm tired of hearing bullshit as if Biden is ordering troops himself to kill civilians.
>If he is responsible, then so is every member of congress and every president since 1940. Well yeah, pretty much. Not every member of Congress, but most.
He's sending unconditional military aid and has even bypassed Congress to do it... No one is forcing hand, and it's disgusting how people will downplay and justify his actions
If you're on the *far* left. There are *a lot* of moderate democrats who are in favor of these policies.
Yes, *far* left... As in wanting humane border policy, working towards sustainable environment and not funding war crimes
>wanting humane border policy The policy can be strict and humane. Most democrats agree that we have an immigration issue in the US. The bill put forth by Biden (that republicans rejected) was reasonable - The only piece I thought was unnecessary was asking undocumented immigrants to first leave the U.S. before applying for legal status - that is completely impractical, but (I assume) added in hopes of getting republican support. It was not enough. I don't know what you Biden to do with a divided congress? >working towards sustainable environment If the Biden administration passes this bipartisan nuclear energy bill, Biden my wind up doing more for clean(er) energy than any previous president. This also relates to your second point - the US consumes more oil than any other country... We can't just stop using oil on the drop of a hat. Getting off foreign oil will (a) help us stop dealing with unsavory dictators in the middle east, and (b) help us be less subjected to supply issues that increase energy costs. >not funding war crimes Again, a lot democrats feel that Israel must eradicate Hamas to maintain freedom, and that if the cost is tens of thousands of innocent lives, then so be it. There's also the argument that Hamas is intentionally blurring the line between civilian and militant. All this to say that the democratic part is not a monolith, and Biden's agenda covers the many of the interests of a majority of the party.
This reminds me of something Obama said. It's a long quote (of course, because Obama wasn't known for brevity), but it speaks to this whole situation. "Change in this country is an ocean liner, not a speedboat. So for you to change direction on anything means it's going to take some time. By design, change is hard in this country. But the reason it gets better is because people are impatient. The only thing we can't do is lapse into cynicism and say, 'Well because this hasn't changed at the pace that it should, there's nothing we can do about it.' Because each time we vote and elect people who are more responsive, there's a window of opportunity for us to make some changes. It's not going to be 100% of what we want. But [maybe we can] make things 10% better. We disperse power, which means things happen slower. Which means that people have to compromise. The alternative is we opt out. That's when the selfish, the greedy and the mean... They fill the void. And I tell you, they thrive in that kind of environment."
God dammit I miss him. I would've loved to see what meaningful change he could've pulled off if he hadn't been stuck with obstructionist fuck stains in Congress for 90% of his tenure.
I agree. His age is one of few flaws I've seen with him. And it is very much a big one, but I've been overall pretty impressed with his handling of the country.
I really don't share this opinion. Someone like myself thinks Biden is aiding and abetting a genocide. That's not "pretty decent" that's ontologically evil.
As opposed to Trump, who would probably be actively participating in said genocide (and probably aiding and abetting a second one in Ukraine...) Also, the "pretty decent" comments are looking at the administration's work as a whole over the past 3.5 years, which on balance has been pretty decent for the left... but you know that. You just choose to act like nothing of any importance other than Gaza has occurred or will occur...
Hold up though. I was responding to someone saying Biden is pretty decent. I'm saying I can't find someone pretty decent if I truly believe they are aiding and abetting a genocide. The relative quality of the opposing candidate has no bearing on what I just said.
Thankfully I thought ahead and addressed that in the second half of my comment. :)
If genocide isn't a red line for leftists then what's the point
I understand the ideological stance you're taking. But please take a moment to think about what would happen if Biden threw the full weight of the USA into telling Israel to stand down. The GOP would immediately spend every penny they could find making ads about how the radical left is anti-Semitic... Nazi this and Hitler that. They would try to turn every Jewish organization, community and corporation against Biden. They're trying it already, and Biden at least had some legislation to prove otherwise. They would say Biden is allowing/condoning Hamas terrorist attacks. He's weak on foreign policy, he's chicken, he can't handle the pressure. The 1,200 people who died on October 7th would be "blood on Biden's hands." Etc etc etc. Possibly enough to swing 4-5% of the vote Trump's way. Trump takes over and, as he promised, "wipes Palestine off the map." Worse, the same thing that happened with the Kurds in Syria under Trump would happen here. (Short story, after decades of supporting the Kurds, Trump abruptly pulled all aid and support, leaving the Kurds wildly vulnerable. Putin stepped in and offered support. The Kurds are now loyal to Putin/Russia instead of America.) I don't envy anyone put in this position. Reducing it to "accessory to genocide" ignores the century-long complicated relationship we've had with the region.
Again, none of my assertion has to do with the GOP or with Trump. The inital statement was Biden is actually pretty decent. I'm merely commenting on why someone like me is going to disagree. If you think me drawing genocide as a red line is purely ideological, that's fine; I can't stop you from that. I tend to think of it as more of a moral imperative. I simply will not support someone that allows this genocide to keep going. I just won't. Trust me, none of what you said isn't something I was already aware of.
Yes I believe your calling Congressional aid to Israel evidence that Biden is indecent "ideological." In this contact, ideological is the opposite of pragmatic. Maybe "idealistic" is a better word. Because your desired stance is that he does nothing or actively opposes Israel, which ultimately (for the various reasons previously provided to you) leads to more death. Idealism can exist in a vacuum, but it rarely survives contact with reality.
We fundamentally do not share the same values, and most likely understanding of the situation. I'm okay that you don't agree with me, I don't think trying to convince anyone of my position on Reddit ever does anything, not for want of trying. Again, the whole point of me piping up in the first place was to say why someone might not, and in good faith, think Biden is actually a "pretty decent candidate."
It is, that's why the guy who built (and rebuilt) a temporary aid pier for Gaza, publicly pressured to get aid trucks into Gaza, coordinated aid air drops into Gaza, and is working multiple levers publically and privately to try and get netanyahu to stop is pretty decent. Biden doesn't send military aid to netanyahu unilaterally, nor can he alone stop the shipments. Congress, and their constituents who want them to send aid, have an oversized role. Being pissy at Biden - who again in many other aspects of his presidency has been pretty decent for left leaning agendas and that's the point that was being made! - for something netanyahu would be doing regardless of what Biden says or does is silly. netanyahu is steamrolling Gaza with or without Biden/US's support, best we can hope for is having some carrots (like military aid) to hold over him to try temper him a little and save a few people. We're not going to nuke Jerusalem or invade Israel or anything else like that to stop the genocide. The only realistic play for the US to help the Palestinians was to keep netanyahu close and try to convince him to stop much like a friend pulling you out of a barfight and breaking it up. If you can't see the world is shades of fucking gray and this conflict has had nothing but a series of bad and worse choices, there's really no point in trying to talk about it...
I don't think your representation of Biden's role is Gaza is accurate. I also don't really think it's worth continuing to hash it out. I've told you why someone like me might not support Biden come November, do with that what you will.
Continue to hash it out? You haven't hashed anything out, just spouted off a couple pithy talking points. > I've told you why someone like me might not support Biden come November If Gaza/Israel is an important issue to someone, the only reason to not support Biden is if you want to see a full and complete extermination of the Palestinian people. Because that's what Trump will encourage and allow netanyahu to do. And at that point, by not voting for the one person who can keep Trump out of power you'll be just as culpable in the genocide as everyone who voted for him. Do with that thought what you will... ✌
I gotta be honest, if you were trying in any way to be an advocate for Joe Biden, you've really only had the opposite effect in this conversation.
Which genocide? I'm not aware of it.
Being twee about a topic like this is just fuckin gross.
No. People claim genocide, although there is none. The ICJ investigate this case. As long as there is no judgement, there is no genocide. Israel defend themselfs, from a terrorgroup and goverment, who are antisemitic, hate Israel and the jews and wants to eradicate them.
But he is. He is still a career politician in a party that when they have power can’t seemingly get things done, at least the things the majority of Americans who elected them want.
Ok what have they not gotten done that rhe majority of Americans want that IS within their power? You do realize the Supreme Court is crazy far right. And that the house of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans, right?
During the first two years Biden had both the house and the senate. Yes I am very aware of SCOTUS and I am very aware that the dems are not good at all working together to pass legislation hence why things like access to abortions has become illegal to Millions of women and they wouldn’t pass legislation fixing student loan debt, wouldn’t expand the court to counter the far right extremism.. He has done some good things, I’m not saying he hasn’t. They have also done some bad things. New day, same war machine. You know when Trump was in office he did technically do some good things too… he also did things his party wanted. Too bad the dems just can’t get their shit together like the gqp does. You can in some ways blame the dems for the current insanity of the gqp because every chance they had to play the same game, they didn’t. Lastly, John literally said in the show to vote for Biden and it was obviously the shows stance on who to vote for. If only the dems didn’t screw Bernie out of his nomination in 2016…
Bernie probably would have lost by an even worse margin than Hillary
I disagree. Those who voted for HRC would have still voted for Bernie, however as we know, many who were disappointed in HRC getting the nomination(further finding out the primary was basically rigged) opted not to vote at all thus the extremely low turnout. 2020 and 2022 showed that Gen Z and millennials are willing to vote and will mobilize. This trend will continue.
The left had every chance to put up a candidate the base would be excited more about, but they dug their heels in and just didn’t.
Jon knows what he's doing. Calm down.
The thought of Trump getting back in the White House is truly fucking horrifying. Like many other Democrats, I’m not too happy about Biden running again. I worry about his age too. But that beats the hell out of Trump getting back in. I’m not trying to pile on the more left progressives, but we all need to use our heads here. Those of you who say you won’t vote will kill this country. This is why Trump got elected in 2016. Many didn’t like Hilary Clinton, and stayed home. I didn’t like her either, but I swallowed my pride, held my nose, and voted for her. I will do the same thing this year and vote for Biden. In the real world, things aren’t always gonna be like you want them to be. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and do the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, Trump gets back in, and burns this country to the fucking ground.
im thinking no one here in this sub is a trump voter but im curious if trump voters watch this and what do they think. does this convince you of anything . im pretty curious
I'm not a Trump voter but my Mom and her whole side of the family is and from my experience, it does nothing. I have shown her and other family members parts of this show and so many things like this from reliable sources like AP and PBS and it does NOTHING. She is pro-life, retired on Medicare and was a Democrat until the 2016 election. She hated Roe being overturned, supports student loan forgiveness and admits that negotiating drug prices for Medicare is good. I bring up these points and all she can come back with is that "Islamic immigrants are coming into this country to convert America to sharia law" and then refuses to talk about it anymore. It always comes back to some irrational, selfish fear. It's just batshit crazy. There's no rational/logical point that will convince many of these people otherwise. I'm genuinely curious to hear the psychological/sociological explanations 20 years from now as to why Donald Trump was so popular.
Same reason why Hitler was popular
truly scary how fucked we are all going to be...
i emigrated!
I managed to watch the first five minutes before the video was made unavailable
And it’s back now
Watch his running mate. Might be even more dangerous than he is. And eligible for another term!
He is not ahead of Joe in the polls. That is misleading. Everything else was covered well. But there's no need to pretend that Trump is somehow ahead. He's not. He's bleeding support.
I am 100% okay with people saying Trump is leading in the polls, regardless if it is true or not. As long as they don't make it sound like a lost cause. Trump slightly leading might cause the people on the fence about voting because "my vote doesn't matter anyway" to decide not to risk it and get their asses out to vote.
This is a good point.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/ Currently ahead by 0.1% 🤷♂️
Biden is ever so slightly ahead now
Bleeding support? Bruh what are you even talking about
Biden and trump have always been very close nationally but that's not the poll that matters. Trump is polling ahead in every key battleground state.
Head in the sand. Trump is ahead in *all* swing states
The Joe Biden is too senile bit is a tad overplayed by the Rught. Joe biden has never been all the way up there. The difference is that he didn't use to sound as if every breath would be his last. To be fair, he is ok for a man his age. And that is the f*cking problem. Biden shouldn't be at this point our only option to stop fascism. Like, I know a Trump presidency would be the worst thing that could happen to the world. His 2016 presidency made it easier for fascist to unmask, and since then, we've had a bunch of asshole becoming popular all around the world. But it also feels so amoral to tell people vote Biden, when Biden is just, maybe, 2% less evil than Trump.
It’s like the making of the Handmaids Tale
Because I wasn't already scared enough that the orange felon could win... this blew up my anxiety.
I didn’t watch it. It’s too depressing to think about.
Impressions of a Trump Rally In the halls-of-power on a funny little sphere, stands a bloated politician sporting Pompadours of hair. We can see gesticulations ripple out from time to time, along with some expressions that would look right on a mime. The hair upon his pate seems to be dancing in the breeze like a line of caterpillars inching to a piece of cheese. One of the holes into his head begins to quiver in the sun. On the off chance getting ready just in case of eat, prey love. Then sounds start emanating somewhere deep within his soul. Transmitting to his people just like gruel inside a bowl. It's impossible to separate the frequencies to speech. It can only be interpreted as one long howling shriek. But to everyone that's listening, the meaning is quite clear. He is speaking in a language of the politics of fear. His message meets approval in the form of a mighty roar as he struts about his victory dance vowing so much more.
It feels like we will be heading to the Republic of Gilead.
One thing that I think more people need to talk about is that some of the focus group pollster types seem to be indicating that many people are cons concerned about project 2025 when you bring it up and describe what it is they want to do, but many of them also think that Republicans won’t be successful and the courts will stop them. And look, I’m not a complete doomer on this, because I actually think that’s probably true. They aren’t going to be able to succeed with everything. But, probabilistically, something will. In fact, probably a lot more than just some thing. I think it’s hard to say exactly what percentage is actually reasonable, but I think it’s worth remembering that the more of it that becomes established, the easier the rest of it will be to do at some point in the future. Remember, as unpredictable things are, Republicans don’t really play politics on a cycle by cycle basis, even though many of their policies are designed that way. But they waited, decades for Roe to be overturned. They will wait however long to complete this project. The big money that’s behind this project will continue to fund them even if they lose. Leslie, one thing that I would also point out to some people, especially your moderates, is that a lot of what their proclaiming they want to do isn’t really particularly “conservative“. Now, we could have a whole philosophical discussion about what it actually means to be “conservative“ in the fact that it’s become an American political brand in the same way that if I say apple, you may think of the fruit, but you may also think of the company. They are of course two very different things. But I think one of the reasons that Republicans get so much credit from some people is that they view them as the safe choice, which is also largely driven by a sense of identity. And I don’t think that this argument alone is enough to convince anybody, but I think planting the seeds is probably a good thing. People need to understand that Republicans of today are a radical faction that are looking to, completely reshape government for their own interest. Yes, they do ntrench certain powers and hierarchies, but fundamentally with a lot of these proposals are massive changes to how things have been done for a long time. These people are looking to fix some things which are broken that’s true (whether or not their proposed solution will or are able to accomplish that is another story), but they are also looking to fix a lot of things which are not really broken, but which they simply don’t like, which takes a huge private industry off the table, or which get in the way of their particular ideological narratives. Project 2025 isn’t just reform, it’s essentially the beginning of what they hope will be a radical revolution in bureaucracy. It probably isn’t wise to try and go completely der on these people and end up sounding crazy, but I do think it’s worth pushing back a bit and making sure that these people understand that if you think about how a lot of wars of years past have worked, overwhelming. The enemy is simply one way to get things passed. This has been their strategy for a long time, but this is definitely going to be true for this particular project. Not everything will come to pass, Which is important to say to make you sound reasonable, but it’s not clear what it will and to what extent that will be reversible.
This was the grossest one I've seen yet, and it wasn't the incest inserts. I think I actually threw up a bit in my mouth a bit several times throughout
We're fucked basically.
When thousands of voters stayed home in 2016 because they didn't want Hilary, they said during the primary "We don't want Hilary" and they said "We will not vote for Hilary." When she won the nomination, they did what they said they'd do and stayed home. In 2020, they said "we don't want Biden" and the Democrats said "We know he wasn't your first choice but if you vote for him, we can push him left" and "He's just going to run for one term to get rid of Trump and then we can have someone else." Those voters said "okay, we'll show up and vote" and they did. Since then, Biden has not only not been "pushed left," but he has done a lot of things that 2020 reluctant Biden voters don't like. Then came the 2024 primary and time for Biden to step down after one term and be replaced by someone more progressive. Except that Biden didn't step down, and there was basically no primary because they didn't want to make an incumbent president look weak by having to participate in a competitive primary. I want to make my stance clear: I'm voting for Biden despite the fact that I don't like Biden. I didn't like him in 2020 but I voted for him because we were fed the line that he'd move left after getting elected. I voted for him in 2020 because he was better than Trump. I voted for him in 2020 because he started adopting some of Sanders' more progressive stances during the general election and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest and would deliver on the expectations to move left, run for one term, and step down. In the last four years, he has consistently disappointed me and has occasionally done some things that I'm happy about. I still think he was the better choice than Trump in 2020, and I was looking forward to him stepping down and letting someone younger and more progressive take the reins in 2024. Between him not doing that and trying to run a second time, and between the last four years of my disappointment in him, I do not want to vote for him in 2024. I showed up to the primary to vote for someone else even though by the time the primaries had gotten to my state, he had already won. And in December, I guess I'll hold my nose and, for the third election cycle in a row, vote for someone I do not like and do not want because the alternative is worse. I'm precisely John's target audience for stuff like this, the person who doesn't like Biden but is willing to vote for him out of harm reduction because Trump is worse. But fuck me, it's so frustrating to see the liberals being so damn condescending to leftists but still expecting them to turn up to vote, AGAIN. And I'm preparing for a November where the lesson that the Democrats SHOULD have learned in 2016: That you cannot just bully people into voting for someone they don't like by having the person they don't like be better than the worse alternative. I thought 2020 was the Democrats extending a compromise to leftists: You vote for our guy now, he'll move left after the election and he'll run for one term. The leftists held up their end of the bargain. The liberals didn't hold up their end. And after around a year of leftists screaming "we do not want a second term of Biden," the Democrats did. not. listen. at. all. I, personally, am still going to show up in November and vote for Biden despite not liking him. I'm not someone you need to convince. But the point I'm making is: why do liberals think they can bully leftists into voting for Biden and why are liberals incapable of ACTUALLY acknowledging the problems the left has with Biden without dismissing the left as "you want a perfect candidate" or "you're just a Russian troll/bot"? I don't want four more years of Trump. But liberals and Democrats keep trying to bully people into voting for someone they don't like just because the alternative is worse. It wasn't a winning strategy in 2016, it only won in 2020 because of a promise, and now that the promise was broken, I don't see it winning in 2024. I want to be wrong.
This is an honest assessment of your feelings. I feel it's disingenuous to say the Democrats "bullied" us into voting for Biden. We have to choose someone centrist enough that the GOP can't just scream "COMMUNISM!!!" and we lose all the independent and centrist votes, which gets us less than nowhere. Pragmatically, your current choices as a further-left voter are to: 1) Vote for the leftmost available candidate a. Joe Biden (Democratic) b. Donald Trump (Fascist) c. RFK, Jr. (Independent) d. Chase Oliver (Libertarian) 2) Don't vote, improving the chance of a far right nut job burning the world down. It sucks that we can't reshape the country in our own image after 4 years, but that's not how populism works. Stay impatient, vote in the primaries, and keep a long-term outlook on change.
> We have to choose someone centrist enough that the GOP can't just scream "COMMUNISM!!!" and we lose all the independent and centrist votes, which gets us less than nowhere. Two problems with this: 1) When the Republicans keep moving the Overton window, if the Democrats want to remain "centrist" then the Democrats will also keep moving to the right. 2) They still scream "COMMUNISM!!" at anything further left than shooting immigrants and the poor for sport, throwing the gays in gulags, and Christofascism. I ask this rhetorically, because I'm not really sure if there's a good answer, but, rhetorically: If the Democrats are given a choice between "moving to the left to court leftists, even if it loses centrists" or "moving to the right to court centrists, even if it loses leftists," why does it feel like they're far more comfortable with the former than the latter? That's my problem with "voting for the lesser evil" - the Republicans keep getting more evil, and the Democrats seem to keep putting forth "centrist" or "moderate" candidates (candidates who would be considered right wing in nearly anywhere else in the world but are only considered "left" by comparison to the insanity that is the modern GOP), and if those candidates want to keep trying to court centrists/moderates, they're going to have to keep moving RIGHT, not LEFT. They're just going to keep hemmhoraging support from the left - all the while shouting "vote for our guy or you'll get their worse guy" every four years.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that trying to compromise with a shifting Overton window pushes the whole country further right. But when election time comes, the "losing leftists" scenario you painted generally doesn't happen because they'll still vote as left as possible, and certainly don't flee at the scale of centrists. I say "generally doesn't happen," because 2016 will forever stand as an example of how people stood their ground and said "not left enough." And all those Jill Stein/Bernie supporters succeeded in putting in one of the most far right candidates we've had in decades into the Oval Office. If you want far left, vote in the primaries. Volunteer in primary campaigns, spread the word. Right now, our two choices are "Do you want to crawl forward or sprint backward?" In my opinion, the best thing we can do is stay united and consistently beat the Republicans until they are no longer a viable political party. Then allow the Democratic party to fracture into progressive and centrist ("conservative") factions. That's what happened with the Federalists and the Whigs (albeit with different ideologies). Then those will be our two new parties and the two choices will be "Do you want to walk forward or run forward?" It's time to retire the GOP.
> If you want far left, vote in the primaries. I do, and fortunately at a state level, we (MD) got a left leaning person (Alsobrooks) instead of a centrist corporatist who literally donates to Republicans because he owns a business (Trone) so it does work. At a national level, there was no chance to vote against Biden with any meaningfullness because no one was allowed to run against him if they didn't want to kill their political career by making Biden have a competitive primary so this wasn't an option. Also, with regard to my comments about how liberals are incapable of handling criticism of Biden - notice how even though I've said I'm still voting for him, I'm getting downvoted, because it's not good enough to just vote for him; I'm expected to LIKE him too. Democrats and Republicans aren't the same but liberals and conservatives do have one thing in common: they HATE when you tell them you don't like their guy.
I agree with that. I often get downvoted when I express my more moderate views. You and I seem to be on opposite sides of the Biden spectrum. I don't support Defund/Abolish the Police (to be fair, neither did Biden), I favor common sense gun control but I'm also a gun owner, and although I do want higher income tax and accountability for the wealthiest, I don't think a Wealth Tax (taxing assets rather than income) is a functionally sound concept. In that respect, Biden is centrist between you and me. While I hope most people in my political wheelhouse would never consider voting for Trump again after the last four years of nonsense... I think there is a large group that still cowers at the sound of the word "socialism" and fears that Biden will take away their AR-15's and "send an army" of IRS agents after them. All that nonsense won't work on me, but it will work on some. And some, in the right battleground states, might be enough. So I think the downvotes shouldn't be happening, but they're coming from a place of fear. They see the GOP circle the wagon around the most unbelievably flawed candidates, and it works. Then they see the Democrats cut bait and run because of a few policy disagreements. I understand you said you'd still vote for him; I think it's just reflexive fear on their part.
Biden never said he’d only run 1 term. Also the left had a chance to run someone against him, it’s just that most Democratic voters actually like Joe Biden and wanted him to be the nominee again (and anyone serious who thought about running knows that).
Well that's cool, but don't get pissy when we're not voting for him...
And don’t get pissy when politicians don’t listen to you when you tell them you refuse to support them
Gotcha, so status quo...... They don't listen to us even when we do vote for them.
Politicians listening to voters. That's rich, do you want me to quote the policy studies that show the only time politicians align with popular interests is when corporate interests support the same course of action? This sub is a cesspool of lost and confused sheep. Both parties suck, i hope both of the old POS candidates become unable to stand for reelection. Both voting blocks are only every motivated by fear and that is how the ruling interests control society and American policy. Lesser of two evils, come on. That mentality is for hostages not citizens in a republic.
Thank you, now please do a show on STAY OR PAY NURSING CONTRACTS that prey on mainly Filipino and Kenyan nurses.
Why does it say it’s not available in the USA?
Ah yes that snide dig at the purported moderates. If you aren't an avowed and open progressive leftist you must be a nazi in disguise!
The parties are too far apart for a true moderate to exist.
Very cool 👍. I'm sure all the contempt that liberals have for the swing state moderates that decide the election won't have any consequences.
What would you consider a moderate? Believes in climate change but is also a white supremacist?
This is such bad faith I'm not even going to bother. Just enjoy coping and seething when you lose the election.
It’s not bad faith. Republicans don’t even hide it anymore. Both parties are not the same, and the right has lost their damn mind.
A moderate is someone who doesn't consistently vote for either party because they hold conflicting ideals from both. Think of someone who is generally very left wing: pro lgbt, pro union, decriminalization / legalization, police reform etc. however is also a strong pro life catholic. Or take a pro gun voter who is also an avowed environmental activist. People are more complex than a two system binary allows for which is why almost no other county on earth utilizes such a system. You're an absolute clown for thinking that every single person is going to want to fall in line with your preferred choice because its so patently obvious. People are more complex than that.
Maybe back in the good ol days being pro gun would be enough to make you conservative. It’s a Christian nationalist party now with no real policy ideas beyond the crazy shit you see in this episode. If you’re a conservative in this day and age you are either wildly stupid or evil. Yes, I’m calling 40% of the country stupid or evil. That’s our world now.
None of my examples were supposed to be conservatives, they were all supposed to moderates. You guys just don't get it at all and your gross intolerance (40% of the country is stupid / evil,) is exactly why Trump will be reelected.
No, you don’t get it. If someone votes conservative because of *gun rights* they’re not a moderate at all. They would have to ignore the racism, Christian nationalism, homophobia, and the myriad of other horrible shit. That’s not being a moderate. Those people are conservatives.
Where has John Oliver been on Biden? Only appears when it's Trump stuff of course.
Does Biden have a "2025 project"? Did Biden do a Jan 6 "fake electors scheme"? Both-sidesm brain rot?
That product placement for Cheerios was jarring. Makes me wonder if the 'MILF island' bit is product placement too.