this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024

348 points (94.4% liked)

Political Memes

1060 readers

18 users here now

Non political memes: [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

348

Sleepy joe? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] givesomefucks 53 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Maybe we just shouldn't be electing people over 80 years old?

You know, just in general.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Reminder that these two are outliers, and most presidents have been roughly in their 50s: https://www.statista.com/chart/19665/age-of-us-presidents-at-inauguration/

[–] givesomefucks 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Yep.

Clinton (Bill) and Obama were two of the youngest too.

And they had no problem reaching the youth and winning their elections.

Now we're running someone 30+ older than either of them and Biden, his campaign team, his supporters and the DNC keep saying they don't understand why the youth isn't excited for vote for someone older than their grandpa who's completely out of touch with not just their generation. But their parents too.

Dem voters want young progressive (at least pretending) candidates.

Not elderly conservatives who have been in government for 50 years

[–] Viking_Hippie 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's a pretty damn sad state if affairs that the guy who was elected president in 1992 is younger NOW than both major party candidates 😮‍💨

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 2 months ago

It's not just the age, they actually worked for the support of younger voters.

Clinton went on MTV and a bunch of talk shows, he took questions on live TV from teenagers and treated them with respect.

Obama used social media and TV to reach the youth.

Biden is barely fucking seen by any voters, and rarely even takes questions from the press.

If he really was a medical marvel and mentally half his age, he wouldn't be constantly hiding and having his team swear up and down if no cameras are in the room he's a completely different person.

The DNC just gave up on voter outreach, they don't want young progressives influencing the party, they want boomer conservatives so there's an excuse to move more right

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You still have to run people that are going to win. I voted for Beto, but there was no way he was going to win in Texas.

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 2 months ago

I'm talking about the presidency right now.

And the last time Dems won Texas was Jimmy Carter in 1976. He wasn't exactly know for being conservative.

So I really don't understand how your comment is relevant.

Texas isn't representative of the entire country...

[+] lemmylommy -10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why? Because two candidates you don’t like happen to be old?

Because the risk of diseases and/or death is too high? Then what about 70 year olds? 65? Where is the threshold for a high BMI? What about smokers?

Too many gaffes? May I present Bush Jr? How old was he?

Not getting things done? Look at Moscow Mitch. Horrible person with a terrifying track record, but until his very recent sharp decline he absolutely and ruthlessly dominated his colleagues.

IMHO that age debate is stupid and dangerous. It’s a watercooler talk- and news media-fest of superficiality.

Shouldn’t the candidates track record, their plans and their character be much, much more important? Yet their age has been obstructing the public debate for months now.

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IMHO that age debate is stupid and dangerous.

Well, science disagrees with you

The mental effects of aging are well documented and while they happen at different rates, by 80 it's happening to everyone.

Some of us still believe in science. Not enough. But some of us do

[+] [email protected] -11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nope, best we can do is your choice between two of 'em. Do you prefer rule of the oligarchy or fascism?

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's actually not.

Other parties have existed, and likely will again.

The only way to get rid of first past the post is a progressive party with the overall goal of over hauling our political system.

Republicans and neoliberals will never change it, because the main reason voters vote for either is to stop the only other option.

And shit hasn't exactly been going great, so it's probably a good idea to do that sooner than later

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

The "best I can do" language is not meant to be taken at literal face value, but is instead a common meme language, often used in a derogatory manner, e.g.:

(Not a great example bc it's so mild though)

What that wording really (usually) conveys is the apathy of the speaker to the plight of the complaintant, in this case a hypothetical abstract one representing democracy in the USA, as in that is most decidedly not the best that could be done, but instead rather all that is being offered. i.e. it becomes merely a counter-offer as if in some kind of negotiation, usually in the context of a strong imbalance of power e.g. a landlord to a tenant. At that point, a weak person may just accept the offer... though a strong one may offer another counter of their own... such as actual repercussions for failure to comply:-).

Example of a hypothetical exchange:

person A: I want democracy

person B: lol how about no, best I can offer are elections that don't mean anything!

person A: okay that's fine, well if that's the best you can do, then let me introduce you to my wooden friends...

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It’s a bit of a catch 22 because if you start voting for the progressive parties, then the shitstains on the other end of the spectrum will take over and make it impossible anyway

[–] givesomefucks -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

if you start voting for the progressive parties, then the shitstains on the other end of the spectrum will take over and make it impossible anyway

By the same logic:

If people stick with the DNC and keep voting for their shitty neoliberals, at best we just keep swapping back and forth.

So the voters who don't switch are even more of a problem.

A party of FDR style Dems would have a lock on national politics and actually accomplish things.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

If you can find a way to get us there then by all means

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or people could show up at the polls on primary day and put in good candidates.

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We've been trying that for decades and the DNC keeps passing rules to stop it.

Just a few months ago they cancelled NH' primary for something state republicans can control.

The last two primaries NH has went progressive btw, which is likely the reason for the whole shit show.

The DNC is openly agonistic against progressives, and there's no logical reason to think they'll change

Hell, most moderates even want money out of politics. Biden and the DNC pulled some shady shit and now an individual can give way over half a million and the DNC is essentially a PAC that can cooperate with the candidate as much as they want.

Moderates have no problem compromising with Republicans, but they won't with progressives because "who are you going to vote for".

If there's an option, maybe they'll start listening to their voters. Maybe they'll be replaced.

But what we've spent 30 years doing hasn't been working.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

And yet, AOC walked into one of the Democratic Party's strongholds and managed to get elected over one of the strongest members.

Their in the business of getting elected. Get the votes out and the leadership will follow.