Agnostic.com

3 1

It's amazing how much explanation it took after the 2016 election when I'd say, "I hate Trump, but I'm glad Hillary lost." That same dynamic is in play with Creepy Uncle Joe. This race is just Pied Piper 2.0. It should never, ever be forgotten the role the DNC had in elevating Trump as the opposition candidate. They played an insane game of chicken and Trump is the giant sh!t sandwich we're all having to take a bite from because of that.

Joe Biden is the "safe" choice only in the context that corporate interests are protected regardless of which party's loser candidate gets into office. For them, it's win-win.

That's why the DNC is pretending that Biden's "Not Trump!" status is sufficient to oust Trump from office. Tactically, the DNC could actually run a bold outsider campaigning for progressive change to generate voter enthusiasm the likes this nation hasn't seen in ages. Instead, they put forth a "hold-your-nose" candidate on the pretext that the electorate has no other options. That didn't work with Hillary, and might be equally disastrous with Biden.

The reason is that their incrementalism is meant to cause any movement in a progressive direction to wither and die. Their allegiance is to their corporate puppetmasters, not to their constituents.

They could not have made this more clear in the last two presidential races. So, no amount of their threatening bullsh!t will get me on board with their "lesser evil" gaslighting. Ain't gonna happen.

Joe himself told those who have issues with him on his record or his character not to vote for him. For once I'm going to take him at his word.

#FCKBDN

WilliamCharles 8 June 21
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I wish we had a candidate that was not accused of sexual misconduct

^^^^^ This! It's a sad commentary on the two party system when an argument put forth by some is that, "our accused sexual predator is 'less creepy' than their accused sexual predator." The same holds true with regard to lying. Biden tries to make a case about Trump's endless lies, yet he has been caught and forced to admit the lies he's promoted about himself and his record. So the defense becomes that his lies are somewhat less egregious. Hillary's Bosnian sniper fire lie was downplayed or ignored entirely in a similar fashion.

I expect Republicans to be reprehensible scum. I hate it when my party wants to run candidates with similar traits we're meant to accept by way of having a "D" next to their name.

@WilliamCharles Thanks for responding. I couldn't have said it better myself!

what a concept! Me too! That should be the minimum standard. Also wish it was t someone who takes big corporate money. As far as I am concerned he got big money at the last .invite because Bernie was popular and both the donors and other politicians don't want to stop the huge contributions a d perks they afford their do ors.

@WilliamCharles Yes, he probably lies less than the potus, But he lies a lot and I felt he bullied voters who asked about his son. He has a shitty track record when it comes to addressing systemic racism. I an think of nothing I find exceptional. about Biden.

@gigihein - I truly feel that not many people appreciate just how remarkable it is to run a hugely successful campaign without corporate donations as Bernie did. The DNC certainly doesn't want to point that out.

I haven't been able to locate to quote I saw in a meme, but it's Bernie saying that victory because of corporate donations isn't "win," it's a purchase. I couldn't agree more.

@gigihein - it's been said the only thing progressive about Joe Biden is his cognitive decline. That may be unkind, but it's not unfair.

@WilliamCharles I agree. He is a Remocrat

@WilliamCharles I didnt see that. but it is so true. Kind of hypocritical with the quid pro quo. They vote for their donors not constituants. Its corrupt and I think that is how Biden was propped up. they don't want to Bernies and other newbies who don't take the big interest money to start a trend and them lose out on the money

Bernie was set aside because of his grass roots approach. it's an idea which is long overdue

0

In examining the dynamic in the current presidential race, it is necessary to understand that Hillary's candidacy was essentially meant to be a continuation of the Obama administration, his "third term" as it were. Her upset caused a lot of finger-pointing, the claim of Russian interference being a particularly self-serving scapegoat. What should have been a cause for some serious reflection and introspection instead served to make assigning blame a growth industry, all the while avoiding what was really at the heart of the matter.

Joe Biden is now offered up as Obama's third term, albeit with a one term break in the cycle. On some things he's got more baggage than Hillary, and in other areas he's less competent than her. But, in the DNC's mind, at least not being a woman should give him an advantage over Hillary (on the presumption that misogyny played a pivotal role in sinking Hillary as she steamed towards her preordained coronation). His committing to a female running mate, and quite possibly a WOC, is meant to deflect some of the criticism of his own behavior towards women, and would certainly be a plus as far as helping ease the pain many felt from Hillary's loss.

I also felt sad that the glass ceiling hadn't been broken yet, as that moment would be a tremendous first in US history just as it was with the election of Barack Obama. I understand how significant it is for these barriers to fall, but ideally they fall because of the ideas and character of any given individual of whatever group they're considered to represent has going for them, not just because they are in a previously excluded group.

One could reject Sarah Palin as qualified for the office based on facts not involving her gender. Hillary was sold as being the "most qualified" to hold the office, without much discussion or allowance as to what ends she would put those qualifications towards. Supporting Jill Stein was no defense against the misogyny smears, while Stein could be attacked in any manner without that becoming part of the narrative. The same held true for centrist Dems that attacked Tulsi Gabbard or Marianne Williamson. Criticisms made against other female candidates in the Democratic primaries tended to get dismissed as being largely gender based. I would have loved for Kamala Harris to be the type of presidential Democratic nominee I could support. I voted for her as my Senator. I stopped voting for Diane Feinstein a couple of cycles back and honestly can't wait for her to be gone. Pelosi too.

But while Harris would be groundbreaking as far as ticking off various identity boxes, she would be a continuation of the status quo in too many other ways. And she is quite likely to be the VP candidate, if Joe can get past the sick burn she laid on him in the debate calling him out for fighting desegregation.

This rather lengthy forward is to introduce this piece on examining President Obama's legacy. There is so much hagiography of Obama and his administration that ignores a lot of the reality. I voted for him twice and his was one of the few campaigns I'd ever donated to. But I understood the frustration of those that felt abandoned by his administration because the change they so desperately needed never materialized. That factor played a key role in Hillary's loss to Trump. A drowning person is likely to grasp at any perceived lifeline, and post election analysis confirmed this (people stayed home, voted for Trump, or third party, in districts that overwhelmingly supported Obama twice before). Those same factors are in play with Biden. A third term for Obama administration policies is not the winning strategy that many are convinced it is. Joe's "Nothing will essentially change," statement is about as tone deaf as one can imagine.

:-----:

Glenn Loury ─ Reflections on the Obama Legacy

1

we considered Biden an innocuous, bumbling oaf when picked as Obama's running mate ... and suddenly he's competent and superior? nah. not buying it. but I will vote blue no matter what.

I am in California so my not voting for Biden won't change the electoral votes he'll get from my state. That being said, I certainly understand those voters choosing otherwise, particularly in swing states. But the DNC and Biden's campaign absolutely must understand in no uncertain terms that they're not entitled to anyone's vote. You not only have to ask for it, you need to offer a basis for earning that vote. To try to make it only about fear so that "Not Trump!" is thought of as an end all and be all is truly insulting. Vote shaming too.

The current Biden campaign strategy seems to be to hole up while Trump implodes. Trump's implosion won't affect his base much, but Biden's approach of popping up now and then with prerecorded statements to provide the editing necessary to ensure a modicum of coherence on Joe's part as he snipes at Trump or offers generic platitudes of his own isn't going to do much as far as turning out the vote.

If Joe hasn't dropped out by the time the Democratic convention happens, I expect his substantial flaws to really come to light, all the while being papered over by the DNC and an army of Joe fluffers. Their idea of "Unity!" is for everyone else to just shut up about Joe. I know Team Trump won't. That's why Biden's a disaster in the making imho.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:508272
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.