-20

Biden Owes the Country a New Vice President (time.com)

submitted 10 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

He never actually promised to be a one-term president. He had indicated early on that he only wanted to serve one term, but would be open to a second term if need be.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah my bad, I went back to the media coverage, and you’re right. There were all these internal leaks and rumors about a pledge some staffers wanted him to make about only serving one term, but he never actually made a commitment.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I remember at the time approving of it because even then he seemed past his prime. I liked the thought of him being more a "transition" president who would take us back to more "normal" times. I somehow assumed that we wouldn't be dealing with Trump anymore and that we'd dodged the fascist bullet, but it's just as bad now as it was in 2020, if not moreso. I'm sure there's better candidates out there to run for the Democrats, but I'm not entirely certain who that is.

Buttigieg seemed promising during the primaries, intelligent and quick-witted enough to handle a presidential campaign, but since becoming Secy of Transp. I feel like I haven't really heard anything from him.
Harris has been a drag as VP and is pretty much worthless.
Sanders would've been fantastic, but he's getting up there.
I might agree with Warren on alot and like her, but I don't know that she has the charisma for a campaign like that.
Michelle Obama would be hilarious just because we'd have Barack back in the White House again, but she doesn't seem like she's into politics in general.
Clinton is a no-go, we already tried that before.
Gore? I guess it's been 20+ years since 2000, maybe the world is ready again for another Gore run?
Cortez is well-known and seems charismatic, quick-witted and intelligent enough, but seems too young (and wouldn't meet the apparent age requirement of being 60+ and out of touch).

Not sure who else Democrats have in the national spotlight that could really go for it at this point.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024

-20 points (33.3% liked)

politics

19238 readers

2208 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News