I don’t see how that matters. Do you think Clinton, Bush or Obama made better choices because they got to live to see the outcomes materialize? I don’t think so which is why I don’t think it matters.

You want a president who makes decisions that benefit the people not a president who makes decision s that benefit them (or a group of elites). In that sense it doesn’t matter if Biden won’t see the results of his decisions, as long as he makes decisions that benefit the people. When it comes to Trump we can now be pretty certain he will make decisions that benefit him.

Oh I fully agree and this is absolutely being used to try to give another too old person the same position. Especially considering trump is both already senile and most importantly a fucking fascist who has attempted to overthrow the government after losing an election

Yes, it’s obviously a different scenario. The risks are different. But, along with wisdom, you want presidents to be alive.

When Biden took office in 2020, he was 78. The government’s actuarial tables say that there was basically a 50/50 chance he’d make it 8 years.

Having survived 4 years, if he’s elected again he’ll be 82. The actuarial tables say he’ll probably still be alive at the end of his term, but he might not make it to the next set of midterms.

Now, Biden is in good health. With his health and the great medical care he gets, he’ll probably do better than the actuarial tables say. I’d say the odds are good he’ll outlive Trump, even if he’s an older man. But, it seems reckless to put a guy into office when there’s a very decent chance he’ll be dead before the end of his term.

Then there’s the matter of his mental sharpness. There are strong signs it’s fading. President is mostly a job about delegation, but still, you need to make some decisions, and at least understand what it is you’re delegating. Trump, again, is probably as bad or worse, but it doesn’t seem good to trust a guy with clearly fading mental abilities to a stressful job that benefits from a sharp mind.

If we all trusted his VP to step in and run things well if there were a problem, that would be one thing, but her approval ratings are even worse than his. Sometimes that happens when a president doesn’t want the VP to steal the spotlight. But, in this case you’d think both Biden and Harris would benefit from everybody thinking that she’s doing a lot of work, doing it extremely well, and could easily step in as president.

Yeah, I mean, beyond senile. He doesn’t even pass for human, he’s indistinguishable from a racist LLM. Fuck he’s not even an LLM, he’s a Markov model.

Anyone that won’t automatically loss the mid west swing States due to a required demographic there accurately believing the candidate is supporting a genocide against a population they identify with.

Even in the link you posted, Biden is still down 1 point vs Trump. That’s not a risk that I think the country should take.

Also to answer your question, either Jon Stewart or Bernie would kick Trump’s ass in a general. Y’know, people who inspire people to get out and vote instead of staying home because “both sides are shit anyway, what’s the point?”

How many dead and murdered children do I need to walk over to be an educated voter?

You’re literally happy justifying genocide.

They did the same crap for Hillary in 2016, proclaiming she was at death’s door. For some weird reason, she’s still alive despite all this rhetoric from the radicalized right wing and their Russian pals.

Absolutely. I think the argument was just as valid as it was 4 years ago, but now for some reason people seem to perceive it a lot more and specifically more with Biden than Trump.

Don’t be discouraged. Trump and covid was unexpected to me. I see recovery happening since Biden took office. Not solving my problems personally, but overall the country is moving. Trump has a lot of people who think like him. And some think even worse. Those gains the country has made are in the right direction. Those positive changes may be stopped or reversed if people are divided over who to choose. Progress is important and there is a whole system of government involved, voting in primaries is important, also the local and state elections set the stage you live in. Those actions are important. Don’t burn yourself out, it is stressful.

The problem was the down-ticket candidates. There’s only so much a president can do when the legislature is polluted with or outright deadlocked by a bunch of sycophantic fascist toadies. That’s why I’m hoping that the RNC does blow its entire budget on Trump so that we can pack the House and Senate with candidates that aren’t hell-bent on executing every whim of a bloated, washed up reality TV personality.

Trump makes the DNC a lot of money, why would they give that up? They’re either too dumb to understand the danger or they’ve already got their foreign passports ready on their private jets. One side is useless and the other is stupid Hitler.

The US government has no future. Organize as though fascism is guaranteed, vote to delay it as long as possible so you have more time to organize.

Push for ranked choice voting for your state, and if we can get that implemented nationwide then we might be going somewhere.

The two party system is the “vote against” system.

In a multi-party system, you have multiple options you can vote for who are not fascists. Unfortunately, true multi-party systems are rare. Even when there are other parties, there are often two dominant parties and then lots of other small parties who are brought into coalitions.

Because he’s good, Harris is good. The other guy will take a wrecking ball to the nation’s institutions to enrich himself at the expense of his enemies.

The Senate doesn’t confirm the next president for life. The VP is sworn into office if he were to die. I’d be happy to have Harris in the office too.

The democratic choice is the one people vote into office.

100% odds cannot get any higher, so new debt won’t influence that.

If only you had at least two-round system.

I know. It’s called говнохранительство(shitkeeping). Our system between first and third worst systems in Europe. Just saying that here there even less choice.

One of the key benefits of a democracy is that they are seen as relatively stable. In the systems that were common before (monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, etc.) there were frequently rebellions or coups. One reason for that is that in a democracy, people feel like they have an option to change the system instead of just violence: voting. But, that’s a feeling that they can change the system. It isn’t necessarily true.

In a 2 party system where both parties claim to represent different views, people think that voting for the other party will result in the change they want. But, often it doesn’t, because that isn’t the change that the rich people and corporations want, and their money allows them to keep certain things off limits for both parties.

In a 1 party system, people might realize that if the party doesn’t want to make a change, the only way to have the change happen is a coup or a revolution. But, 2 parties and the illusion of choice keeps people voting instead of rioting or rebelling, so the system stays around longer.

Universal suffrage was inevitable. It was only a matter of time until indigenous people, black people, and women, were considered people.

Plus there’s a lot more “what’s in it for me” for politicians with those groups. You’re unlocking a whole new demographic of people who may want to vote for you, and certainly won’t want to vote for someone who is against their suffrage.

So, the best way to get third parties is by voting for one of the two main parties?

Changing the voting system seems like a vital part of a solution.

The trouble is that the people who could enact laws to change the voting system belong to parties that would suffer if the voting system were changed.

Term limits only work if the limits were applied to big money donors. Otherwise, they just end up putting money even more in control.