It's Official: President Joe Biden Drops Out Of 2024 Presidential Race

[Frank Underwood]

I think Biden stepping down is a good thing. At least now the Democratic party will offer voters another option than older american man.
So will the American people be ready to vote for a woman?

I really doubt that. But I hope they will prove me wrong!

If Harris loses, I don't think it'll be because she's a woman. The problem with Harris is she lacks the ability to fake sincerity, and her "position" on the issues is way too flexible.

Then again, Hillary Clinton has the same problem and still managed to easily win the popular vote in 2016. Her downfall was ignoring the swing states.

The electoral college may be antiquated, but you can't campaign like it doesn't exist and still expect to win the presidency.

 

[Angela Channing]

I've said many times before that I'm not a fan of Trump. I've never voted for him before, and I don't plan on voting for him now.

And yet you repeatedly defend him.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And yet you repeatedly defend him.

That's awfully reductive.

The only thing I'm "defending" him from are one sided criticisms and a lack of proper context. I believe one should try to be objective, even when dealing with an opponent.

 

[Angela Channing]

That's awfully reductive.

The only thing I'm "defending" him from are one sided criticisms and a lack of proper context. I believe one should try to be objective, even when dealing with an opponent.

There is a difference between being objective and downplaying and being dismissive about the lies of Trump.

if Trump's guilty of "the great lie" for saying the 2020 election was stolen

There should be no "if" about it. The election was free and fair and Trump lost it. Only apologists of the felon would frame that statement as if there is doubt that he is lying when he says he won the election.

 

[Frank Underwood]

There is a difference between being objective and downplaying and being dismissive about the lies of Trump.

I'm not doing the latter, and that should be obvious to anybody with decent reading comprehension skills.

There should be no "if" about it. The election was free and fair and Trump lost it. Only apologists of the felon would frame that statement as if there is doubt that he is lying when he says he won the election.

That's not how I meant it, and that should be obvious. It's pretty telling that you didn't quote me in full. Still, I should have worded it like this:

"If people hold the Democrats to the same standard as Trump, then they are also guilty of denying the legitimacy of an election via Russia-gate."

And if you think I'm an "apologist of the felon," I guess that makes you an apologist of decrepit war mongers. It's good to know replacing Biden was a "Republican rumor," huh?

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm not doing the latter, and that should be obvious to anybody with decent reading comprehension skills.


That's not how I meant it, and that should be obvious. It's pretty telling that you didn't quote me in full. Still, I should have worded it like this:

"If people hold the Democrats to the same standard as Trump, then they are also guilty of denying the legitimacy of an election via Russia-gate."

And if you think I'm an "apologist of the felon," I guess that makes you an apologist of decrepit war mongers. It's good to know replacing Biden was a "Republican rumor," huh?

I'm not sure I understand that final comment about a Republican rumour and what that refers to.

I've been critical of Biden's Palestine/Israel policy and I've never taken the approach of saying WHAT ABOUT TRUMP to deflect from it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm not sure I understand that final comment about a Republican rumour and what that refers to.

In another thread, you said the Democrats weren't planning on replacing Biden and Republicans were behind that "rumor."

I've been critical of Biden's Palestine/Israel policy and I've never taken the approach of saying WHAT ABOUT TRUMP to deflect from it.

I compare, but I don't deflect. I think they're both vile and I've explained why. I even said Trump would be just as awful as Biden when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

The horrendousness of US policy as it pertains to Israel/Palestine seems to be the one thing we consistently agree on.

 

[Angela Channing]

In another thread, you said the Democrats weren't planning on replacing Biden and Republicans were behind that "rumor."

I don't recall saying that and I can't think of any circumstance why I would say that,m however, it wasn't until the past few days that Democrats were openly saying Biden should withdraw from the election so previously it would have been a rumour.

I compare, but I don't deflect. I think they're both vile and I've explained why. I even said Trump would be just as awful as Biden when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

The horrendousness of US policy as it pertains to Israel/Palestine seems to be the one thing we consistently agree on.

The UK policy is equally appalling and it hasn't gotten better with the change of government.

I might be wrong but my perception is that you are way more critical of the Democrats on just about every issue than you are about Trump and I had that impression even when Trump was the President.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I don't recall saying that and I can't think of any circumstance why I would say that,m however, it wasn't until the past few days that Democrats were openly saying Biden should withdraw from the election so previously it would have been a rumour.

It's on the first page of the "Who will replace Biden as the Democratic nominee?" thread, but I digress.

It was technically a rumor, but it had gained traction well beyond Republican circles.

​

The UK policy is equally appalling and it hasn't gotten better with the change of government.

I'm not surprised. Didn't the UK also go along with Bush during the Iraq War?

I might be wrong but my perception is that you are way more critical of the Democrats on just about every issue than you are about Trump and I had that impression even when Trump was the President.

You're not completely wrong. From 2003 to 2015, I was one of the biggest critics of the Republican Party on this site. I was also a staunch supporter of Democrats.

Bernie Sanders changed all that for me. Once he exposed the rot inside the party and the plotting against socialists/progressives, I could no longer allow myself to believe that the Dems were the "good guys." They had become socially liberal war mongers. Even the "socially liberal" part was relatively new if you look at certain policies they supported in the 90s. They also abandoned the working class in favor of the white-collar managerial class. As time went on, I found them to be more insidious than the Republicans. They're able to lure people in with false hope and platitudes, while the Republicans tend to be upfront about their vile nature. This led to my criticisms being focused more on the Democratic Party, but I still assert my disdain for Republicans on occasion. I just can't stay silent when someone tries to convince me that Dems are morally superior.

Also, whenever I mention "the uniparty," I'm calling out the bipartisan support for policies that benefit the rich and the military industrial complex.

 

[Angela Channing]

It's on the first page of the "Who will replace Biden as the Democratic nominee?" thread, but I digress.

It was technically a rumor, but it had gained traction well beyond Republican circles.

It's not an important point but I said that before the debate between Trump and Biden and at the time there were no prominent Democrats calling for Biden to be replaced.

I'm not surprised. Didn't the UK also go along with Bush during the Iraq War?

We did. I'm a life-long Labour supporter, I've even campaigned for them, but I couldn't vote for Keir Stamer at the last general election for many reasons but including his insistence that Israel had the right to commit war crimes to defend themselves and his refusal to stop selling arms to them.

You're not completely wrong. From 2003 to 2015, I was one of the biggest critics of the Republican Party on this site. I was also a staunch supporter of Democrats.

Bernie Sanders changed all that for me. Once he exposed the rot inside the party and the plotting against socialists/progressives, I could no longer allow myself to believe that the Dems were the "good guys." They had become socially liberal war mongers. Even the "socially liberal" part was relatively new if you look at certain policies they supported in the 90s. They also abandoned the working class in favor of the white-collar managerial class. As time went on, I found them to be more insidious than the Republicans. They're able to lure people in with false hope and platitudes, while the Republicans tend to be upfront about their vile nature. This led to my criticisms being focused more on the Democratic Party, but I still assert my disdain for Republicans on occasion. I just can't stay silent when someone tries to convince me that Dems are morally superior.

Also, whenever I mention "the uniparty," I'm calling out the bipartisan support for policies that benefit the rich and the military industrial complex.

I don't agree with you but I understand your thinking better now.

 

[ginnyfan]

The bizarre way he's done this is shocking. No video, no live appearance, no appearance at all. Just a post on Twitter/Instagram. As if this is something totally random and unimportant. After weeks of claiming there's no way he'll pull out. Yes, he has Covid but apparently he's doing fine, though can anyone trust his doctors/keepers after years of lies and faking it?

In reality he must be pissed off and does not want to see anyone or appear in public after being manhandled, betrayed and pushed out like this.

Harris on the other hand, is as bad as senile Biden, if not worse. At least Biden had experience and knowledge of world affairs. She seems clueless about most things and has done nothing as VP, except for continuous embarrassments in interviews and appearances. How the hell was she ever a prosecutor? She seems to have issues putting together several coherent sentences before bursting into laughter or giggling. She is the reason the phrase ''word salad'' was coined and is used often these days.

I see the mainstream media fangirling has started with great force and a major push to rebrand her into this amazing candidate. She's black and a woman so she must be faultless of course. Criticize her, at your own peril.

 

[DallasFanForever]

So will the American people be ready to vote for a woman?

I really doubt that. But I hope they will prove me wrong!

If 2016 taught us one thing it’s that anything is possible. Yes, I know Hillary lost that year but that was such an unpredictable election that nothing would surprise me anymore. If I’m Trump I wouldn’t be taking anything for granted as there’s still a long way to go here. Momentum is a funny thing and it can swing quickly.

 

[CeeCee72]

This bait and switch humiliation of Biden has been their plan all along, and it's very sad and disconcerting. I don't see it as a good thing at all.

Polls show Harris being a way bigger headache than Biden to Trump.

And no wonder.

A young energetic black woman with a stellar record on women's rights, which is Trump's biggest weakness. Guess you guys regret that JD Vance pick now, huh?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Polls show Harris being a way bigger headache than Biden to Trump.

And no wonder.

A young energetic black woman with a stellar record on women's rights, which is Trump's biggest weakness. Guess you guys regret that JD Vance pick now, huh?

Does that mean she'll codify Roe v. Wade if elected, or will she keep dangling it over voters' heads like Obama and Biden did?

Yes, Trump and Vance completely suck on women's issues. Of course, people are also concerned with the economy, immigration, and foreign policy.

I'm not saying that Trump and Vance are any better on those issues (except for having the right take on Ukraine.) However, what matters is how well each campaign presents its vision to the public. Yes, Harris is a young, energetic black woman, but she hasn't been great at presenting a cohesive, intelligible vision. She also has a bad habit of laughing at questions when she's being duplicitous or can't think of a logical answer. That could be brushed off when she was VP, but she's going to need to up her game if she wants to be president. The Republicans are guaranteed to roast her for the next four years if she's elected, and she can't give them more fodder. IMO, she needs some serious coaching.

Harris also plans on contrasting herself to Trump by comparing her role as prosecutor to Trump being a convicted felon. The problem is Harris's tenure as prosecutor involved her fighting to uphold wrongful convictions and to keep nonviolent offenders locked up so they could be used as cheap prison labor. Trump surrogate Tulsi Gabbard nailed Harris on that in 2020 and will likely continue to do so. It's hard to be seen as an advocate for the vulnerable when that's who your "tough on crime" polices were aimed at.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It will also be funny and beyond hypocritical if the Democrats keep clutching their pearls over democracy after the way Harris ended up with the nomination.

 

[KayLloyd]

Polls show Harris being a way bigger headache than Biden to Trump.

And no wonder.

A young energetic black woman with a stellar record on women's rights, which is Trump's biggest weakness. Guess you guys regret that JD Vance pick now, huh?

Too bad that she doesn't have a stellar record on the economy and securing our border, which is more important to the majority of voters. She's an incompetent place holder puppet until they can install who they really want to be President. I would have preferred Youngkin or Desantis for VP, but Vance will be fine and is a major upgrade over Harris.

 

[Angela Channing]

Does that mean she'll codify Roe v. Wade if elected, or will she keep dangling it over voters' heads like Obama and Biden did?

Yes, Trump and Vance completely suck on women's issues. Of course, people are also concerned with the economy, immigration, and foreign policy.

I'm not saying that Trump and Vance are any better on those issues (except for having the right take on Ukraine.) However, what matters is how well each campaign presents its vision to the public. Yes, Harris is a young, energetic black woman, but she hasn't been great at presenting a cohesive, intelligible vision. She also has a bad habit of laughing at questions when she's being duplicitous or can't think of a logical answer. That could be brushed off when she was VP, but she's going to need to up her game if she wants to be president. The Republicans are guaranteed to roast her for the next four years if she's elected, and she can't give them more fodder. IMO, she needs some serious coaching.

Harris also plans on contrasting herself to Trump by comparing her role as prosecutor to Trump being a convicted felon. The problem is Harris's tenure as prosecutor involved her fighting to uphold wrongful convictions and to keep nonviolent offenders locked up so they could be used as cheap prison labor. Trump surrogate Tulsi Gabbard nailed Harris on that in 2020 and will likely continue to do so. It's hard to be seen as an advocate for the vulnerable when that's who your "tough on crime" polices were aimed at.

That's a bit of a red herring because it's not within the power of the President to codify abortion rights. America needs to vote for a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate as well as electing Kamala as President and then let's see if she will codify Roe vs Wade. She has long been an advocate of women's reproductive rights so I suspect she would want to do it.

This criticism about Kamala laughing is a jibe that the Republicans have been pushing for a while now but they need to look at the state of their VP pick who can barely string a sentence together within breaking into a laugh to hide his embarrassment at the lack of engagement that he has with his audience.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815572751513477625

Regarding crime, Kamala prosecuted criminals whereas Trump is a convicted criminal. Those are the main details that the electorate will be interested in.

It will also be funny and beyond hypocritical if the Democrats keep clutching their pearls over democracy after the way Harris ended up with the nomination.

I think pointing out that Trump tried to subvert the democratic decision of voters by encouraging a violent insurrection is not clutching at pearls and is a far bigger problem than the internal rules of the Democratic Party which are being followed to select their Presidential nominee.

Too bad that she doesn't have a stellar record on the economy and securing our border, which is more important to the majority of voters. She's an incompetent place holder puppet until they can install who they really want to be President. I would have preferred Youngkin or Desantis for VP, but Vance will be fine and is a major upgrade over Harris.

You may prefer Youngkin or Desantis but I prefer anyone but the orange rapist who ordered elected Republican law makers to block the President's plans to make your border more secure.

 

[CeeCee72]

Too bad that she doesn't have a stellar record on the economy and securing our border, which is more important to the majority of voters. She's an incompetent place holder puppet until they can install who they really want to be President. I would have preferred Youngkin or Desantis for VP, but Vance will be fine and is a major upgrade over Harris.

Your MAGA people are always claiming everyone is a puppet until the "real" person "they" want is installed.

How many times do those wacko conspiracy theories have to be recycled after not coming true?

 

[Toni]

​

 

[Frank Underwood]

That's a bit of a red herring because it's not within the power of the President to codify abortion rights. America needs to vote for a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate as well as electing Kamala as President and then let's see if she will codify Roe vs Wade. She has long been an advocate of women's reproductive rights so I suspect she would want to do it.

In 2007, Obama said that codifying abortion rights would be "the first thing I'd do as president." Obama had a two-year window between 2009 and 2011 in which he could have done so because the Democrats controlled the White House, the Congress, and the Senate. However, Obama said in 2009 that codifying abortion rights "is not the highest legislative priority." When SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, Obama criticized the court for doing so on Twitter. I was glad to see that people called out his hypocrisy.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens if Harris is indeed elected and has a Democratic majority. The Dems have been all talk so far.

This criticism about Kamala laughing is a jibe that the Republicans have been pushing for a while now but they need to look at the state of their VP pick who can barely string a sentence together within breaking into a laugh to hide his embarrassment at the lack of engagement that he has with his audience.

Her laugh itself is not the issue. It's what she laughs at that's revealing. Questions about her stance on Biden, visiting the border, and what to do with Ukraine refugees aren't comedic in nature, yet these are all things she's laughed at. I said before that Vance would be judged as more was revealed about him, and it's clear that he has his issues as well. Of course, it was a different race a few days ago when Vance and Harris were competing for the VP spot. Now Harris is fighting for the top spot, so more focus will be on her.

Regarding crime, Kamala prosecuted criminals whereas Trump is a convicted criminal. Those are the main details that the electorate will be interested in.

The details of her actions matter. If they didn't, the electorate would have continued supporting her presidential run in 2020. Instead, she bombed after Tulsi Gabbard exposed exactly what she did as prosecutor. Harris prosecuted people for pot, even though she laughed about smoking it herself. She also fought to uphold wrongful convictions and to keep non-violent offenders in jail to be used as prison labor. Interestingly enough, she didn't prosecute Steven Mnuchin's bank for predatory practices, even though her office recommended that she do so. Mnuchin then donated to Harris's Senate campaign. For those who don't know, Mnuchin was Trump's Treasury Secretary during his first term.

And while it's true that Trump's a convict and that the charges against him are valid, it's also obvious why his prosecution was unprecedented. As I've said before, other former presidents have gotten away with actual crimes against humanity. Prosecuting Trump wasn't about "the rule of law," it was about trying to keep him from being president again.

I think pointing out that Trump tried to subvert the democratic decision of voters by encouraging a violent insurrection is not clutching at pearls and is a far bigger problem than the internal rules of the Democratic Party which are being followed to select their Presidential nominee.

While Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 election and told his supporters to protest at the capitol, he also told them to do so peacefully.

Democrats pushed Russia-gate for four years while claiming Trump was an illegitimate president installed by Putin. Again, their pearl clutching is hypocrisy.

As for the internal "rules" of the Democratic Party, I guess they include lying about your candidate's mental acuity for four years and refusing to hold a completive primary. Apparently, they're also allowed to hold the earliest presidential debate in history by far after the President wins the primary, which they ensured was noncompetitive. Once they let the public see that Biden's incapable of continuing on, they finally throw him under the bus and Harris becomes the nominee. Some of us predicted the latter in 2020.

How very democratic of them! - (1) 2024 anyone? | Forums for television shows past and present (tellytalk.net)

You may prefer Youngkin or Desantis but I prefer anyone but the orange rapist who ordered elected Republican law makers to block the President's plans to make your border more secure.

Trump and Biden were both being self-serving here. The vote happened in May, so Dems only became interested in securing the border during an election year.

On the flip side, Trump didn't want to give Biden a victory for the same reason. Both parties exploit the issues for their own personal gain.

Also, it's worth noting that six Democrats also blocked the bill.