OpenStars

When it comes to voting, absolutely yes. But please note: that's not what this article is about.

Also, people thought the exact same identical thought about Hillary Clinton too. If the goal is to win, and promoting Harris as someone who can handle the job would help accomplish that goal... then it aids rather than hinders the cause?

Well anyway, it's not like any of this is up to us. I did think the article was interesting in the possibilities it presents, e.g. to potentially win the election rather than just hope that it happens despite... everything.

Also, his debates last time weren't... ideal, but he at least remained awake during them!? Anyway, I'm with you: I understand someone wanting him to win, but how on earth can this be considered a done deal already?

There is a time and a place to stop all questions and get to work. But we aren't there yet!? And being ready to change one's mind based on the most current set of facts is literally the hallmark of the Age of Enlightenment, as opposed to e.g. the divine right of rulers to continue for as long as they wish to?

Perhaps you missed the last almost 4 years where people were doing precisely that. There was this whole thing with Ron Desantis, and Nikki Haley, and the brainworms inside of JFK, Jr., etc. It didn't work, and his base chose Trump, if not unanimously then close enough to it, and also far back enough in the past for such a call to not be relevant anymore. Plus conservatives are just different kinds of people - for them, power is not bestowed upon someone by We The People, but ripped out of the people's hands by force of will. Might does make Right after all, in their playbook.

But Dems are not choosing Biden. Also, no primaries are being held. So asking him to drop out is the last hope before holding your nose and voting for him anyway, hoping against hope that just like for Hillary, others do as well (although in that case... well, I'm sure this time will be different. Why am I sure? Bc... shut up, that's why!:-P /s).

I'm so close to blocking this community. Its Rule #5 states:

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.

Instead, it's basically a leftist version of a right-wing echo chamber where if you don't support your candidate hard enough then you get downvoted into oblivion. Which is meh personally, but on the wider scale also shuts down interesting conversations that could result, if people felt more free to actually articulate their positions, using coherent logical formulations mind you. And even that is fine I suppose, if that's what this community wants to be, then it is on me to seek out what I want elsewhere.

I may not agree with someone, but I will defend to the death their right to speak.

Anyway, sorry OP that your The Atlantic article - a liberal media source if I ever heard of one - is getting downvoted to oblivion in spite of the rules of this community specifically asking for the opposite behavior. Fwiw I cross posted it to another news community in case that helps.

And the White House staff says that they can't keep up with Biden running around the room.

Edit:

Right, we had a plutocracy, but even the fiction of the fraction of democracy that we used to have was fairly good - e.g. it took 400+ years but black people are now perhaps 4/5ths rather than a mere 3/5ths of a person. Man, politics is depressing:-(.

Still, I suspect we will look back and wish that we had kept it, as opposed to the alternative we are heading for.

Who would ever fall for that!?

I was born a century ago!

Meh, in the last century, what's the difference? :-P