In other news

Biden's inner circle has just checked in.

DELUSIONAL. still

'Sharp as a tack' even AFTER the debate is an astounding take to sure.

Thanks for the clarification.

so that side does it "sometimes" and says things you think are stupid so its ok to call them bad names? lol mod btw . its probably like a 9-1 personal attack ratio from what ive been reading

This is essentially an unmoderated forum unless you say something that be construed as offensive to certain protected classes.

For example, blatant misandry is fine but misogyny is not.

Which is fine and dandy like cotton candy as long as you know how to navigate the minefield.

You are making a different point than I made. I said that the options effectively had narrowed to Kamala by the time that Biden actually withdrew, not by the time that he should have realized that he was too old to be the 2024 nominee. (Remember, Biden didn't even withdraw immediately after that catastrophic debate.) By the time he withdrew, Biden obviously was too old and diminished to continue as a presidential candidate. He wasn't too old and diminished to appreciate that he was too old and diminished to continue as a presidential candidate. There are plenty of old people out there who change their life trajectories because they realize that they are no longer capable of doing what they could do 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. I believe that Biden cognitively was well capable of recognizing such a thing if he had put his ego to the side.

I obviously don't know, but I doubt that the people around Biden were pushing Biden to continue because they wanted to make Kamala the presumptive replacement because they thought they would have a place in her administration. Biden and Kamala weren't that close, and I suspect that she would have had very few Biden people in her inner circle if she had won the election.

It is easy to say that the Democrats should have revolted against Kamala and forced another nominee by the time that Biden dropped out. That's because we have the benefit of hindsight, we know that Kamala lost, and any chance of winning is better than no chance of winning. But those things weren't knowable to a 100% certainty at the time. In retrospect, do I wish that the Democrats had nominated someone other than Kamala? Sure. Like I said, a slight chance of beating Trump is better than what we now know was no chance at all with Kamala. But I do believe the chance would have been slight. Kamala wasn't going away. Any attempt to nominate someone other than her was going to lead to a messy internecine fight at a time when the party should have been consolidating around an alternative to Trump.

The sad part is that there was a very noble path for Biden to follow here, and he just didn't do it. Biden essentially campaigned as a one term president. Three months into his term, he very easily could have reaffirmed that stance publicly. He could have reaffirmed that he ran for president only to steady the ship and end Trumpism. He could have announced that he had no interest in crowning a successor, not even his own VP, and therefore wanted to party to have a robust primary to decide the 2024 nominee. Kamala wouldn't have liked that approach, but that early in Biden's term, he could have framed his position as a matter of principle rather than a shot at her, and she would have accepted it without any public grumbling and probably without much private grumbling.

If he had done what I suggest, I think he would have been viewed much more favorably by history.

I also think that there is more than a bit of retconning going on now about Kamala as a presidential candidate. She always had flaws as a candidate of course (lack of charisma, the appearance of superficiality, etc.), and those flaws didn't go away during the 2024 general election, but she didn't embarrass herself during the debates or on the trail. In fact, there was a considerable sense of relief after her first debate performance because she did so, so, so much better than Biden. In short, Democrats didn't nominate Kamala because they overestimated her as a candidate. They nominated her because they thought that a safe, "good enough" candidate was enough to beat Trump and was preferible to a late stage food fight. In other words, until a few months before the actual election, they underestimated Trump's viability as a general election candidate in 2024.

A disturbingly large percentage of this country has no urge to preserve democratic norms and no concern for basic human decency. They are happy to submit to authoritarianism as long as doing so will result in the punishment of their perceived enemies. This has been a hard truth for a lot of people (including me, to a degree) to accept and it has led to some strategic errors, one of which was assuming that Kamala could beat Trump. As we now know, a low-risk, "good enough" candidate wasn't sufficient to beat Trump because a lot of people simply aren't put off by the aspects of Trump that I find dangerous and repulsive.

My pitch deck to the mod team when telling them I'd happily mod the forum was essentially "I am confrontational, will call people ******s, and will barely mod"

But I don't prescribe to a view that I think many people in general have, but specifically internet conservatives really abuse, that you can say anything to anyone and everyone without getting insulted back yourself

Like, this idea that you can blame a woman for getting shot in the face because you find her off putting and also don't like immigrants. I don't think you can say stuff like that and be free from being called really stupid or an idiot or so out of line that its questionable what moral framework you live your life around. You think you can just say whatever you want because shes dead, or whatever it is you think that makes you free from being insulted back

Like Knight00 complaining that we weren't polite to him while he posted in support of Candace Owens

Kamala started well by dismissing trump etc as weird. But she had nothing to pivot to.

People are desperate for change (correctly imo). If we don't offer it then we will lose to those who do - even to the likes of trump. One way or another huge changes are coming

Perhaps, but as your post implies, no matter how desirous people may be for change, and no matter how right they may be for wanting change, that doesn't make change an intrinsic good. It is always possible for things to get worse, as we are seeing now.

Absolutely but change is happening anyway - it has no morality, it's just reality. The demand for political change isn't causing it. It's reacting to it.

It will almost definitely be change for the worse if the 'good guys' don't even bother. I suppose there's some chance we get lucky.

Ladies and gentlemen, we got him

turns out that doing cute dances in a furry costume does not actually stop fascism. will the liberals adjust? I dont have much hope.

hopefully by shooting people like you in the face

this would be very on point. liberals always side with fascism.

If enough of them shift from doing dances to typing "blue MAGA" and "for fun and profit" on obscure politics forums, that could really turn the tide.

just sending 5 dollars to a family in Gaza is infinitely better than anything you have ever done.

jUsT sEnDiNg 5 dOlLaRs

I don't know how you could possibly know where and to what causes I have donated money.

The mechanism is projection.

He assumes everyone else is as lazy and worthless as he is.

I think youve mentioned that you want America to essentially go up in flames. I dont think the majority of the liberals want that which is why there seems to be some disagreement on the proper ev play here.

What exactly would sending 5 dollars to a family in Gaza accomplish?

I dont. and you dont know about me. so maybe you shouldnt make idiotic posts like this.

But I know you post the same things obsessively on an obscure politics forum. That wasn't speculation on my part. That's just a fact.

Your speculation about me, on the other hand, was based on nothing other than your personal dislike of me.