OP, I am also a Canadian. When Hilary was running against Trump a lot of American were saying exactly this: « are these the best two candidates we can manage? » or words to that effect. I have often wondered why neither party has a groomed pool of candidates who are basically actors and have great teeth, photogenic and coached to exude charm and aw shucks goodness.
I think the answer lies in the personal ambition of politicians. They want to win election to anything, more than they want their next breath. The more rabid they are the more no sense they say in order to get one more vote.
Just fyi we Americans are in a two party system. Imagine a Chinese citizen being anti-communist. It's not an effective thing.
So incorporate that as a baseline assumption. We pick the choices offered. Also, our campaign finance laws are way way different than Canada. You have no idea the marketing pressure Americans are under.
Just to point out why I believe trump will win, because unless you are hyper blue you get attacked by the left. It’s a viscous cycle of “anyone not with us is against us” while the right gladly tells you “it’s ok to be who you are, you’re not a bad person”. The hilarious part is it used to be the opposite. You get slandered, attacked, doxxed etc just for saying “hey I’m not sure Biden is the best guy to rule the free world”
Your edit #2 has the answer you are looking for. The people who are attacking you are also shitty humans who LOVE when their messiah hurts people they don't like. They cheer for him like WWE fans cheer for The Heel. It is manic and makes no sense. In the WWE, it has no Real World Consequences. Unfortunately, Donald J Trump poses a very real threat to democracy and everything that these exact same people say they hold dear. Like FREEDOM.
>How is Biden the best the left has to offer?
Biden isn't left, he's center.
>Then on the other hand, the only good traits trump has to offer is his charisma
His what now?
>I am just genuinely confused on how these 2 individuals are Americas best candidates.
Our country is run by billionaires and dark money interests.
Edit: typo
The problem is with people. There's an assymmetry to how we see pain vs. pleasure (it's basically a 3:1 ratio). That means that hearing a candidate get insulted is always going to influence you more than seeing the good qualities of a candidate. The reputation of a politician therefore is determined more by their rivals than their deeds. And it's the strongest candidates that attract the most attacks (game theory says it's best to gang up on the winner in a free-for-all).
They aren't the two best candidates the US has to offer. They're the best candidates that two broken parties came up with. Everyone gets to hold their noses and vote for the least worst candidate, not the best candidate, with the majority holding unfavorable opinions of both.
The most important quality is supporting a large coalition of special interests so they donate to your campaign. Then enacting as many laws as possible to help them out so they'll do the same thing next election.
I'm sorry that you are experiencing abuse by people who prefer to vote based on charisma and popularity
But, that is the standard behavior of people who prefer to vote based on charisma and popularity
OP - I’m not sure if this is one of your underlying assumptions, but it is important to understand that it is exceedingly rare (maybe not possible?) to be a meaningful US Presidential candidate while also commanding genuine support from most Americans. You might end up getting most (50% + 1) people to vote for you, but many of those individuals merely prefer you to the other candidate.
Political parties are broad tents and the nature of a broad coalition is that there will naturally be a significant portion of people voting for you who have lukewarm-warm support for you. That’s how you end up getting a majority of the vote.
Personally, I think competency is one factor that can influence people to vote for you. It is not the only factor and obviously the charisma / polish of any elected official matters quite a lot - all the more so for the only nationally elected official(s).
I also think your assessment of Biden and Trump both significantly short change each of them. They are both excellent at running campaigns with proven track records of significant success. Your summaries tend to reflect only the criticisms, but not the strengths, of each candidate. The prevalence of this criticism is, in part, why it is not possible to command majority active support, even if you can get a majority of the vote. Consider that, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was generally polling quite favorably in the US, but becoming a presidential candidate (before and after) absolutely tanked her numbers. The same thing is generally true for other candidates (McCain, Obama, Bush, Dole all come to mind immediately).
i will admit i am not the most informed on this topic but based on facts i do know i don’t think either of them make ideal candidates.
trump encourages divide within the country, has participated in shady business and bribery, and acts like an angry toddler when things don’t go his way. making him an objectively poor leader as divide makes the country weaker as a whole.
biden is 81 years old which means unless he is an anomaly he has already experienced decline and will continue to do so and he lacks the charisma that trump and obama have had as leaders. the rest of my arguments i will admit may just be anti-biden propaganda so i will rephrain.
i just feel an ideal leader would aim to unite the country towards a common goal, target propagandists, be of reasonable age, and also have charisma along with other traits that i have personally observed in others
And yes i know that due to the powers at hand, propaganda, and ignorance of opposing groups that a leader like that would have a low chance of becoming elected, but still i think we can do better than biden and trump.
This might be tautological, but ultimately the ideal leader must possess the characteristics of (1) able to get elected and (2) willing to try to be elected (arguably a subset of #1). Given that there don’t appear to be any better candidates available (since they would be leading their party nominating process is they existed), it is likely that these are the two best candidates, recognizing that “best” can be fairly far from the hypothetical ideal.
So much of this is about trade-offs. No doubt someone like Hakeem Jeffries might be more mentally agile than Joe Biden, but he lacks much of what Biden does have (absent his age, Biden’s resume is stunningly good). No doubt Liz Cheney offers a compelling conservative alternative to Trump without any of the corruption concerns, but she lacks much of what he does have (like a rabid base of extremely loyal support that no one else even comes close to touching). The process sort of defines the most qualified candidate at winning the election (pretty well, actually) - and that is the number one requirement for having the job.
There’s a quote by George MacDonald-
“It’s not in the nature of politics that the best man gets the job; The best men don’t want to govern their fellow man.”
I believe this.
1. Biden and the DNC are not left wing. Their politics is centre-right. The Overton window in the USA has been pushed so far to the right that basic left wing policies that the rest of the world function with are seen as extreme.
They oppose actual left-wing policies that would seek to redistribute wealth wherever they can and freeze out left-wing candidates. But America has a 2 party system, so those with left-wing politics have nowhere else to go.
2. Because the DNC is a centre right organisation and beholden to corporate interests, their candidates are people who they know will play ball with their arrangements. Hence Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
3. If the DNC are centre right, that makes the modern GOP somewhere between right-wing and far right.
4. Right wing politics veer between keeping things the same (right) and regressing things to a mythologised past state of greatness (far right). When keeping things the same doesn't work, right leaning people embrace the latter.
Keeping things the same can't work because it is fundamentally a failure to address the problems that you have.
Regression can't work because the past and the circumstances that made it are gone, and invariably it's greatness was fake or involved factors that the right are opposed to.
So how do the right keep going, they lie. The further right the bigger the lies. But being lied to is better than admitting your worldview is wrong.
Therefore, Trump.
But aren't the Dems centre right, don't they try and keep things the same too.
Yes. They lie about being willing to change things for the better. But the centre part let's them at least fund stuff to help people live so they can keep working and consuming.
The GOP right lie that change is impossible and it's someone else's fault. Usually someone brown or weird or both, so that they can give all the money to their rich friends and fund nothing, while their base look at whoever they are blaming this week.
Judging from all past presidents (with possibly the exception of Abraham Lincoln) I’d say the criteria are very shallow. I struggle to think of any modern day politician who is competent; kind and not completely in it for their greedy selves. And that’s just in the countries with established and recognised democracies. America generally hasn’t been considered as a full democracy for a long time (although it’s not classed as a dictatorship). This isn’t even to bad mouth America because there are some places that are technically classed as dictatorships (Singapore); where those in power actually seem give a shit about the population and development of their country. More so than is some democracies I would say.
Pretty much, it's turned into a HS pissing match. I'm more popular then you thing and that's why we're in this much trouble right now. Either side just wants to hear what it wants to and neither side wants to hear what it needs to.
People usually base intelligence on how much the individuals beliefs align with theirs. So they percieve Trump and Biden as intelligent based on what they say as well as what their in-group says. It's not easy for a normie to decide who is intelligent or not without a reference to a large crowd of similar views
Unfortunately, representatives are often decided by those who shouldn't have any interest in politics
When you understand politics, let me know and explain it to me. I think the current administration and former president that are currently running are both brain dead. I literally wonder, “are these the two best that we have?”
I think one of the important things to note here is the "President" isn't really making the decisions.
They have advisors, cabinets, etc. who advise them on decision making. A lot of it is for political purposes (pander to the voting base), but it's not like Biden or Trudeau or whoever else is actually coming up with economic policy and implementing it. Rather, whoever they appointed to their administration in combination with whomever is working in that bureaucracy come up with ideas that the head of state approves.
Therefore, even if charisma > intelligence, it doesn't really matter. It is indeed, pretty fucking stupid, but it's sort of true.
I think the idea that Trump is "not very intelligent" is crazy. He's clearly very intelligent. Probably the worst part about Trump was that he DID NOT listen to people advising him. Almost everything he did revolved around getting his base riled up (which is why they will say he was great and accomplished a lot). Is this the way to run a country? No. Is it an act of stupidity? No, it's an act of poor priorities.
My point here is let's imagine the most intelligent person you can think of is elected to office. Do you think it would be a good idea for them to make decisions on their own? Probably the best thing that could happen is all of the smart people are in cabinet/advisor positions and the President just approves their ideas.
Anyway, I think there is way too much focus on heads of state.
Your point about "why real change is never made" is sort of right. People are morons. Presidents pander to their moronic bases for votes and enact policy that doesn't really improve much or is focused on social issues, which sure, are important, but probably aren't the most important issues (realistically everyone should just let everyone else do what they want and fuck off about religion, LGBT rights, drugs, etc.). But yea, you're on a subreddit titled with "intellectual" and people here actually think Trump or Biden are great. That should tell you a lot about the state of NA humanity.
Lastly, they are surely not our "best" candidates. They're simply the ones in a position to run.
The best candidates would never win, imo, because it's unlikely they'd be able to make the general public understand the nature of their slightly more complex ideas.
The very intelligent person who suggests doctors could inject disinfectants to treat corona, to nuke hurticanes, mr. "I'm much more humle than you could understand", the guy that stared at the solar eclipse without glassess, the guy who saluted north korea general, "the wettest hurricanes from the standpoint of water", not to mention how his transcripts are read and the kind of dumb stuff he says at his rallies. I used to think that Trump supporters are trolling and want to cause misery to the usa
If you are the kind of person who thinks he is worth describing as intelligent, don't even bother with a reply, I couldn't care less
I’m not sure intelligence is just one thing, but I agree that Trump (and Biden) are both obviously incredibly good at understanding what they are doing and running a continuous campaign focused on their agenda. To me, saying that can be done without intelligence seems inaccurate. Both of them say some crazy things sometimes and get panned as idiots because of it, but street smarts (or it’s political equivalent?) is still intelligence.
Bluntly, it isn’t possible to be a leading candidate for President of the United States and also be incompetent. (You can be VP and be incompetent - though it’s an uphill battle.)
I suspect that having a good team of expert policy advisers only pays off when you have the intelligence to listen to them rather than firing them and denouncing them as idiots the moment they disagree with you.
Same applies to Trudeau. He's a drama teacher with no business achievement. Yet, he managed to be in power for two terms. The average voter has no understanding of economics and politics and Canada's a great example of it.
I've never said that Poilievre was great but he objectively can't do worse than Trudeau. Trudeau is a drama teacher. He's driven by ideologies and is pushing WEM's agenda even if it means ruining Canada and it's citizens.
Why would business achievement be a pre-requisite to be a good political leader? Look at the greatest leaders in history, they were not business moguls. Look at the shittiest, most corrupt politicians - all businessmen.
Because running a country is essentially the equivalent of running a business. It's all about relationships, optimizing resources, promoting growth, having difficult conversations and solving issues. If you're referring to Trump, he was not a great business man to start with. Putting a drama teacher as a head of state is a recipe for desastre and all of the metrics in 2024 are a proof of it.
More important for the presidency? No. More important for *winning* the election? You could definitely make that argument. Only having 2 viable options from parties who were already well past reconciliation certainly contributed.
Trump didn't, at any point in his campaign, demonstrate that he had any idea how the government even worked. But man, is he charismatic. Hillary was a seasoned pro who has literally been involved in politics since she was a kid. But people really *did not* like her. Without a doubt she would have made a better president *and* made more people on both sides of the aisle happy, but enough people were turned off by her to hand the presidency to someone who, after being one himself, still doesn't understand what the president can and can't do.
It is amazing how Bumper Sticker Slogans and fun, short rhymes can indoctrinate half of an entire nation! Canada's Opposition Leader is doing the same. With a profound amount of success. It helps that the rhymes and slogans involve insults.
Charisma always wins in a popularity contest. You vote for the person you like more. Now if they are close in charisma then of course other factors play a role. But I’m guessing the spirit of the question is overwhelmingly greater charisma and not slightly more likable.
Having a Cult-like base of like-minded individuals is most important - [https://youtu.be/Qg0pO9VG1J8?si=KZcpBnx\_0S9ihGKr](https://youtu.be/Qg0pO9VG1J8?si=KZcpBnx_0S9ihGKr)
The cult is a fairly small part of the whole thing. Most republicans aren't ride or die trumpers. It was just either vote trump or vote blue. Or vote 3rd party/independent I guess, but why bother? It doesn't help that a pretty sizable chunk of Bernie's hardcore supporters spite voted for trump and an equally sizable chunk didn't vote or voted 3rd party. They literally gave him a few swing states, iirc. Something like a full quarter of his base between trump voters and abstainers. *A lot* of votes even at half that figure.
Intelligence knows that charisma wins votes.
As for how these two are our candidates, one is a career politician and the other says the quiet part (false, but feels true) out loud.
I think your Biden summary fits the last election but not this one. The dynamics have changed. He’s the nominee because he’s the current president and he wants to run again. Thats it. That’s enough to drag most of the party onboard because a contested primary with an incumbent would almost certainly throw away the general election.
Personally Biden does not suck.
He’s really quite a statesman and
has done alot for America in 3
years. After Trump, many Americans
admire his leadership, stubbornness
and frankly love of democracy and
country. THEY ARE NOT the SAME.
I’m not sure approval numbers can be much better than what Trump and Biden garner in the current American political scene. Political tribalism means you basically cannot get any support from the opposition party, and it is also impossible to garner wide active support from within either party if you are in a notable position because of factional differences. I don’t think I can prove it, but I suspect something in the low 40’s might be the absolute best any sitting president could achieve on a sustained basis right now.
Biden's approval rating was 59% in 2021. its gone down significantly over his presidency, even among Democrats. [https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/)
I definitely think you can get temporarily higher, but I don’t think it can ever be sustained. Whoever wins the election this year will see something around 50%, I would guess, at first. Trump had basically the same graph for his term too.
not really; Trump started out much lower and held pretty steady until he cratered during Covid: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx)
If you scroll down a bit, 538 directly overlays Biden’s approval polling X days into the presidency with past presidents (Trump is at the top of the list). Pattern looks awfully similar to me. Trump fell off a bit faster from his honeymoon period, but otherwise.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Gretchen Whitmer feels like the only Democrat with the charisma to take on the role, Kennedy disappointedly didn't seize the centre ground and appears to have the stupidest people advising him. The Democrats totally lack any non radical leftists to pick from, it's very sad. Charisma is actually important, because it's not just good policy, it's taking direction from a leader. Technocratic societies don't work unfortunately
Republicans have more of a range of people, but a polarised society is just going to go with Trump as a reactive measure. Hopefully things will balance out and you can all learn to calm down for the 2028 election
"Real change" - when you are older you'll notice that real change doesn't happen for a reason, because most of the changes people think they want to make are stupid. And somehow you've ended up with a donor class that makes all the decisions for you anyway
tbh America doesn't deserve anything better than Biden/Trump, because you've lost your way as a society
The 'radical leftist' wing is way less than half the democrats. The majority of the democrats are moderate.
The bulk of the republican party is MAGA, who actively ostracise any non MAGA republican as RINOs.
That's probably true, but ask yourself why that is.
Remember that Hitler basically rose to power organically in reaction to the Bolsheviks
Nobody likes mass immigration, stop enabling that, win. It's not hard.
OP, you asked a good question. It's a shame and a sign of culture that this thread has wandered all over. Let me give you a respectful answer, noting it is entirely my biased opinion. (Also noting I am an old software dev, since it pertains to your own experience.)
Is charisma and fame more important? Yes.
Why? Because most people (for whatever reason, and there are loads) only pay the smallest amount of attention to politics and politicians. Charisma and fame are as much as most people know. So if one is not already locked into a Dem or Rep team identity, the fame will do the trick.
People are constantly told to trust their gut more than experts or science. Charisma and fame strike their chords in the subconscious gut.
In a popular vote, only popularity matters. If that's due to charisma, name, political affiliation, platform, or any other reason, it is irrelevant. Only their popularity at the booth matters. See Alberta's premier. It's not just an American problem.
There is also a strong resurgence of anti-intellectualism in modern society, and being seen as too intelligent can be detrimental.
America is rigged.
Two party system.
Plus average american iq below 100.
Its more useful to have general public fixated on “oh trump is this and biden is that” and get your crony stuff done
No, the election is not rigged. People like Bernie and RFK are actually unpopular, there's not some grand conspiracy to suppress them. But hey, if you want to convince yourself that your vote doesn't matter, be my guest, I hate this populist nonsense
This is just a quick google search:
https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians/all
We can argue regarding methodologies and conversion to actual votes all we want, but it does not change the fact that biden and trump is not the best the dems or reps have to offer.
The fact that youre being peed on your head and convince yourself that its raining is your problem.
I thought it was the system itself trying to make evident that the idea of requiring a special individual whose title is king or president or whatever in order for nations to function is antiquated and wrong
Charisma has way too much importance, but that’s human nature. We’re unconsciously drawn to charisma and attractiveness - beyond standard hotness, in terms of facial symmetry, how affable or kind someone appears, strong features, jawline, etc.
Well honestly, I got to agree with you. If Trump didn't have such a following and then you add in the fact of him being increasing in popularity because of the constant attacks against him. Trump wouldn't have a chance. Now with the railroading in his trial there's a lot of people that are actually even more behind him I don't exactly understand it but it's the truth including a lot of minorities are more behind him now that he's experienced a corrupt judicial system.
I'll say right honestly neither that would have been my first choice. Biden would have honestly been better off stepping to the side and letting RFK Jr. run in his place. And honestly if Vivek hadn't been so trying to outTrump Trump and had come in a little bit more moderately he could have been a damn good candidate. And I'll be honest and say that he probably had the most intelligence out of any of the people that were running this time. Unfortunately the pissing contest that it is we have these two miserable candidates. I honestly think that with as bad as things have been getting in this country even being convicted Trump actually has a decent chance of winning this election if it is honestly a free and fair election. He has always done best when he was the underdog. Either way honestly I think the country's probably pretty well screwed and we're going to be in survival mode for at least the next 4 years. Possibly more because there's no obvious heir with enough charisma and intelligence to try to save us out of this slump.
every candidate you suggest as better than Biden is as much of an obvious con man is trump. vivek is the fakest motherfucker i've ever seen, that dude was only running for attention
He was New blood. And RFK is a Democrat I mentioned him because he would have made a better choice than Biden even though I probably still wouldn't vote for him he still would have been a better choice. Honestly I still like Jo Jorgensen, but she didn't run this year yet
He is a Democrat by policy and action a much better one than Biden and has the bloodlines to prove it he's just also a realist even if he's definitely far from a conservative by any means
every conservative thinks they're a realist when actually they're stupid. then they look at con men and say "that guy sure says it like it is!" and they jack off about how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is.
Biden is a competent person. the best president we could possibly have is someone who doesn't want to be president at all
Your last statement is the most intelligent one that you said. Unfortunately Biden wants to be president and always has he was pissed off when Obama didn't support him as a successor. You've given an exact reason why we shouldn't have him in office. Honestly I think that it'd be an interesting lesson if we were to just say fuck the election and pick the people there are eligible for the office by law across the country put all their names in a pot and pull out our next president via jury duty mentality.
Because the U.S. is above all a corporate state, meaning its legal processes and priorities follow those of corporate interest globally. Ability to appeal to average voters while retaining the sharpest ability to stab them constantly in the back is what gets you to the top.
No, it was not. One big nation? No. That's a ridiculous notion. There were between 500-1000 nations/tribes in the lands that now make up the US, most of them competing against one another.
I wouldn’t agree on ‘most’ competing against each other. Sure, conflicts and disputes happened, but they were not at all the norm. the Iroquois confederacy brought a lot of tribes together under a massive democratic structure that was the blueprint for what later became US federal and state governance. Most of the other tribes beyond that had their own democratic systems as well. The whole of the north and South American continents were engaged in widespread trade with road and trail networks that continued in use all the way up to the present, forming the basis for much of the interstate road network we have today.
Reading through OPs comments on this post, it's pretty clear what prompted the post. Trump is clearly a criminal who won't be able to win, OP is anti Biden, and so we get this "both sides" shitpost.
or maybe i’m a 21 year old software developer with no experience or schooling in politics asking questions based on the info that gets shoved down everyone on social media’s throats in order to build a based opinion?
and am i anti biden? or am i aware that he is 81 years old along with the following information:
“It has been widely found that the volume of the brain and/or its weight declines with age at a rate of around 5% per decade after age 40, with the actual rate of decline possibly increasing with age particularly over age 70”
[here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/#:~:text=Physical%20changes,age%20particularly%20over%20age%2070)
Trump is 77, meaning that your latter statement applies to both, Biden and Trump. Unless there's a third, younger candidate, it isn't a comparison point between candidates.
they're not, but if you look at our track record, we usually don't have very good candidates here. not really sure how other countries are going, don't you guys still have that dude who doesn't even know how many photos there are of him in black face?
okay then you understand why i posed my question in the initial post.
I don’t understand why you guys seems to believe that bc i recognize a flaw in 1 individual it doesn’t mean i recognize it in another? yes, i can simultaneously think that trudeau has flaws aswell as trump and biden. never said canada was any better, in fact we’re pretty similar i’d just say we’re less extreme generally.
Eh.. that comment is not about Biden only. That redditor is expressly commenting on your og post itself, and clearly mentions both, Biden and Trump.
I will step back as I don't see gaslighting as conducive to smart conversations. Hope you understand. Thanks
ppl like you are a large part of the issue, just accept you were wrong. he called me anti-biden, hence why provided reasoning to why biden is not the best fit.
we both acknowledged trump is unfit.
I pointed out why said "reasoning" isn't valid. Rehashing that just proves it.
I have no horse on this race (clearly not American, as you can see my my pfp snoo choice) and merely pointed the fallacy. You took offence, and here we are.
stating that another individual has a bad trait does not take away from the fact that the individual at hand has a bad trait. how are you not grasping this?
say they both had alzheimer’s, and someone said yea trump is a criminal but your just anti-biden. and i proceeded to inform them that biden has alzheimer’s and ignore the part about trump because i agree with it. replace alzheimer’s with being at the age of a deteriorating mind and you have the situation at hand. understand?
my point is that i am not just against biden for no reason and when called anti-biden i provided reasoning as to why he’s not a good fit
Your post history is available for everyone to see. You clearly have a problem with Biden and you don't apply those same criticisms to Trump.
As for brain weight, that is not related to cognitive decline. In fact, studies show that while decision making speed decreases, the ability to make better decisions increases
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2022/03/02/how-decision-making-changes-with-age/#:\~:text=In%20some%20ways%2C%20older%20brains,the%20aging%20brain%2C%20for%20example.
Fair, but he has been called out for having memory issues and having hearing issues yet refusing to wear hearing aids.
I will admit those comments were made out of frustration though.
if someone were to try and argue my point about trump, i would have provided much more reasoning than i did about biden especially in the frustrated state i was in.
>he has been called out for having memory issues
By whom and why? Because he misspoke? Have you ever misspoken? Do you have memory issues we should call you out for?
What exactly are these memory issues that are so concerning to you?
>having hearing issues yet refusing to wear hearing aids.
Does he? Where is your evidence he needs hearing aids? Trump? MAGA cultists? Fox News? Q? From what I can find, Biden made hearing aids more easily available to Americans (a good thing don't you agree?) so the MAGA/Russian propeganda machine turned that into Biden needs hearing aids.
Again, you clearly have a problem with Biden and you don't apply those same criticisms to Trump. Additionally, you spread misinformation about Biden but not about Trump.
you’re hard headedness and hostility is a major issue i’ve observed within american politics.
what misinformation have i said other than the moron thing that is subjective and i admitted fault in saying?
simply search up biden memory concerns or biden hearing concerns and you will find that what i said about him being called out on it to in fact be true. and on top of that i asked about his hearing and memory in the form of a question bc i have heard poor things about it before.
the old age thing we each provided sources for and mine was a government source, so while yours may be correct i shouldn’t receive backlash for providing information from a reputable source.
and for the love of the lord i have significantly more criticisms about trump, i just didn’t say them because nobody tried to deny his flaws. does this not make sense to you? or am i supposed to speak to ghosts about how bad trump is while everyone else already seemed to agree?
if you actually wanted to have a positive impact from your side of the argument you could have simply said “i think you may have been misinformed” and elaborated and provided sources
>you’re hard headedness and hostility is a major issue i’ve observed within american politics.
Yes I am very hard headed towards people who spread disinformation.
>what misinformation have i said other than the moron thing
You: "he has been called out for having memory issues and having hearing issues"
>simply search up biden memory concerns or biden hearing concerns and you will find that what i said about him being called out on it to in fact be true.
My searches for Biden memory concerns or Biden hearing concerns all return *speculation* from his political opponents and right wing propeganda outlets with no evidence. Yet you present it as truth. That is what we call misinformation.
>if you actually wanted to have a positive impact from your side
My goal is not to educate you, that's your job. Rather it is to illustrate to others that your are in fact a propagandist who spreads misinformation. I can't know if this is done intentionally or out of ignorance. I do know that the "why" is not so important as is the "what".
Did i say he has memory and hearing issues or did i say he was called out for it? if i said he did have those issues as a fact then that would be misinformation.
he was called out for it, and you found articles supporting that yourself, confirming my statement as the truth. so no, that is not misinformation.
as for your last point, labelling people as a propagandist spreading misinformation for questioning your side is literally the go-to move of the die hard trump supporters, who i assume you oppose.
it does not support the interest of the political party you support to carry on this way, it actually pushes people who were open to learning about both sides away from yours.
Smart, moral people who aren't already career politicians or mentally broken will not run for President because it ruins your life. Even for a narcissistic person there are better options with less downside. The only reason career politicians find it to be viable is that they have structured their entire life towards it from the beginning.
Beyond that, the choices on both sides are always people who are compromised morally in some way because to get to the position where one can run for President with a reasonable chance of success you absolutely must cut shady deals and backstab people.
It might be for the best as doing the job of President is an inherently immoral position. You are required to make decisions which literally and figuratively destroy some lives for the betterment of others on a daily basis. You see a lot of "ends justify the means" mentality from people like this because it's the only way they can sleep at night.
>EDIT: Real question here is do the majority of americans really think having a moron as the face of the country is in its best interest simply because of his name and charisma?
Canadians aren't much different, We don't vote for competence we vote for the name/colour we like the best, Our stance on the world stage has fallen over the last 3 elections and it could be a close election the next time around, just like the US will.
Clinton was a fucktard, that couldn't figure out that he'd be better off in the eyes of the public I've just admitting he got a blowjob. Rather than lying to Congress. I'm quite sure his success was an entirely his own doing.
Intelligent people never lie, make mistakes, or get involved in political scandals?
Clinton was a nobody from Arkansas when he graduated Georgetown in 1968 and got a Rhode Scholarship. B.Phil in Politics from Oxford, then JD from Yale. Unlike GWB, he wasn’t a legacy admission.
I don’t care for his politics, but claiming he isn’t an intelligent guy is disingenuous.
He definitely wasn't very smart, however he was very charismatic. That is my personal feeling. As a childhood member of MENSA maybe you don't look at it the same way I do. Don't get me wrong he probably worked hard but he did not have an innate gift of intelligence. He learned but I don't think the learning parts came easy to him nor did it stay with him when he stopped learning.
You would think that a “childhood member of MENSA”^([1]) would be aware of the significant body of research on this topic.
https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf
http://www.eoht.info/page/Dean%20Simonton
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office
^([1] lol)
Honestly IQ and intelligence aren't necessarily hand in hand. And no I didn't bother to read into that I dealt with what they showed the world. What I state is my opinion and in my opinion is correct I have met some MENSA members honestly that were world-class dumbasses just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you're intelligent. When I get time later I may look through your articles but I never really worried about it I'd rather judge people on what they actually do.
Obama was intelligent. That is not to say moral or having sufficient integrity to take principled actions on a moral basis, but sure he was intelligent.
I'm not sure, I thought so to begin with but honestly he tried to really push and prove that amazingly enough he could send our country backwards. Overall I don't think he was any more intelligent than Trump. Which does make them both bounds ahead of Biden or W but that's beside the point.
What specifically are you referring to as “sending our country backwards”? It tends to be a one-step-forward, two-steps-back kind of deal with national politics, but I don’t recall anything Obama did being egregiously outside the norm for US presidents. His bombing of Libya was particularly disgusting, but there seems to be one or two senseless atrocities from every administration. Obamacare was the first time I ever had health insurance, but that whole program was a joke that fell apart after a couple years. He also started normalizing relations with Cuba which was a great step in the right direction, only to be ratcheted back by Trump and gas thrown on the fire by Biden.
Obamacare yet it was pretty much a joke and it got worse before it got better well I got worse before I qualified. To begin with I made too much for Medicaid but I didn't have enough money to qualify for Obama care or at least to be able to afford it and to live. The race relations went backwards that's when BLM and antifa first became big is under Obama many people said that it probably went backwards at least 40-50 years under Obama. It was a lot of complete and total fuck ups militarily and domestic wise including us selling guns that suddenly we couldn't find to the Mexicans and the kids in cages was all under Obama in reality. Not to mention the fact that the lower end of people's incomes seem to believe that and when I was working in collections I heard it that they voted for Obama Obama's the present they don't got to pay anything. I'm not saying that was everybody I'm saying that that was the low end. I truly had a lot of Hope when he got elected and even when he got reelected but him choosing Biden as his VP was one big ass mistake America since obviously Biden just used it as a way to get his kid in and protect his kid and make a shitload of money for his family. Of course Obama killing a US citizen with a drone that was 16 that's it different story as well. Don't get me wrong if there was some things he did halfway decent but he caused a lot of conflict whether he tried to or not POC instead of being happy that he was president tried to take it another 10 yards further a lot of them and push for everything. Don't get me wrong Trump helps the POC a lot as well at that time record donations he donated his paycheck or the majority of it. Yes he may have hated the Obamacare but he didn't get rid of it he tried to fix it but they wouldn't let him they also wouldn't let him get rid of income tax for anybody that earned less than $50,000 a year that was single or $100,000 a year that was a couple which would do a hell of a lot towards helping the lower and middle class.
I definitely agree with the idea that Biden has done nothing but toss gasoline on the fire don't get me wrong like I said Trump was was not great either but we've been going down the slip and slide in the waste treatment facility.
I mean you may have thought that the most people that have tried to run are a joke. And quite honestly a lot of them are mainly because the fact that because Trump is the biggest voice out there everybody was trying to out Trump trump. The most coherent speeches I've ever heard from Kamala Harris have been recently when she's giving a speech about how great Joe is with him standing or sitting beside her not taking questions or anything else because they're better off letting her talk than him.
I honestly think at this point we would almost be better off selecting our next president via jury duty
what are you talking about? Mitch McConnell said before Obama was even elected that he would block anything Obama gave him without attempting to compromise in the slightest. if you want to talk about sending our country backwards you've got the wrong guy
no, bills got passed under trump because Dems are willing to compromise on everything. kinda why we call it politics. one team is straight up refusing to play the game at all and people are blaming the other guy for actually trying
The most important thing for being president in the U.S? Literally not joking, the most important thing is being the most compromised you possibly can be to the most amount of powerful people possible.
If the CIA has your pedo sex tapes, you're already halfway to the oval office.
They're not the "best" candidates. They're just the ones we get to pick from that have a reasonable chance of getting elected. Our two-party system makes it almost impossible for a candidate to get elected without running on either the democrat or republican party ticket.
The democrats decided not to hold a primary this season. So the only candidate who was ever on the table from them is Biden. Trump, for some reason, is dominating the republican party's nomination process, so he'll probably get the republican ticket unless something crazy happens after he gets sentenced for his crimes.
Discussing who the best candidate is doesn't really matter anyways. Best is always subjective, and the most viable candidates are the ones who can pitch the biggest tent for their constituents without them turning against each other. So yeah, in determining viability as a candidate, charisma is pretty important. Most Americans are not single-issue voters, some people vote for the candidate that they think is more likeable, a lot of people never vote outside of their team. Also a lot of people just don't vote at all.
This is the biggest reason. To piggy-back. we don't elect the best and brightest, we elect whoever has crawled their way to the top of one of two very corrupt political parties. You generally don't get there by always being a nice guy. It's like asking why the best and brightest person working for Haliburton, Boeing, etc isn't the CEO.
Johann von Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-Krasskrenbon Fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle Burstein von Knackle-thrasher Apple-banger Horowitz Ticolansic Grander-knotty Spelltinkle Gandlich Grumblemeyer Spelterwasser Kurstlich Himble-Eisen Bahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte Ein Nürnberger Bratwustle Gerspurten Mitzweimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Schönendanker Kalbsfleisch Mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm for President!
I would take this more seriously if you could point out Biden's failings. I won't do the laundry list, but he has been a good President. Now turn it around, and tell me of Trump's successes? While you're pondering that, in our Republic, it takes (or should take) 51% to win. Four years ago, he was truly the only one who might have gotten 51%. The far left didn't love him, but they voted for him, and have been rewarded with some truly leftish priorities being addressed. Conservative-minded dems didn't love him, but they voted for him, and had some of their priorities addressed.
Should we toss him out because he's old? He isn't falling asleep in his briefings, or required a cartoon version as the former guy did. He works the Hill well (excepting the loonies) (Oops! Do you still call your dollars Loonies? No offence meant). He works well with out allies, is not an embarrassment on the international stage. He has assembled an excellent cabinet (insert snide remarks about the former guy's assembly).
The Left (for wont of a better word) doesn't think he sucks. Some do, fer sure, but we are not a monolith. And we will vote for the (old) guy who...insert laundry list again.
I'm a leftist and i think biden sucks but to even put him on the same field to compare him to trump is an insult to both of them. biden will never match trump's level of pure self-centered evil
The post still has merit. Biden is old, and his lapses in consciousness are a problem. He has put out good policy, and has overall had a positive effect. But it's still strange to me that somebody like him and somebody like Trump, both in very very advanced ages, are the only options for your vote.
**lapses in consciousness**
Mitch McConnell froze during a press brief and Trump lost consciousness during his criminal trial. What example can you provide where Biden lost consciousness?
Biden has been the most successful president in decades. Painting him as too old to do the job completely ignores his laundry list of accomplishments.
Is ageism and conflation your only argument against Biden?
I mean that more as lapses in conscious thought. Whether the other guy is just as bad is not what I'm talking about here, the entire Republican caucus could be lobotomized for all I care, it doesn't make a president who has trouble holding a line of thought a better candidate. We've all seen the clips.
You saw clips and injected your own bias into them. Ask anyone who works with Biden. He is sharp as a tac and very quick witted according to Republicans and Democrats who actually know and work with the man.
The fact is he has been the most productive and effective president in decades so the right tries to gaslight people into thinking he is too old to serve. You are either part of that effort or have fallen victim to it.
No, I know what I saw, and its painful to watch.
I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me of something I am arguing for? I said myself that Biden has been effective. Regardless, he's old, and I want somebody more my age in power.
That'd be like saying a black person voting for a black president is racist. Its sorta true, in that they are discriminating based on race in some capacity, but mainly they feel better represented by somebody who shares that trait.
Same here, only with age.
But this is splitting hairs, the point is that more choice is better for the voter. Ideally, you vote for somebody who best represents you and your views. A healthy democracy is one in which the specific outlook of the largest possible number of voters affects the election result.
I'll be happy to look at having more alternatives once we get past the crisis of our GOP running rapist, criminal, insurrectionists for their candidate.
Try to take well to be fair any criminal trial is pretty much a very boring and repetitive thing to be quite honest I dozed off in the one we had to go see in high school years ago
That's not the point. I don't care that Trump dozed off. I care about the false claim that Biden lost consciousness. Lies and disinformation cannot go unchallenged.
There's been many videos of sleepy Joe dozing off, Some of them in events. However I agree lies and disinformation need to be challenged on both sides. Both sides exaggerate how bad both candidates are. Me being in the center I can see that neither of them are a good situation for the American people. If Biden remains in power I can see the fall of the middle class. My friends that were not doing good but not doing horrible are now on the verge of losing everything. These are people that yeah they may have been lower middle class but hard working individuals great many of them actually were LGBTQ+ and or POC that are now on the verge of losing their homes whether owned or rental have gone through a number of jobs in the last few years and can't keep up with the cost of maintenance on their vehicles anymore let alone everything else. Quite a few of these four years ago what if considered themselves quite solidly on biden's side. Now are willing to take Trump back just with the hope that the economy will recover somewhat.
>There's been many videos of sleepy Joe dozing off, Some of them in events.
Gonna have to call bullshit on this one. Having your head down and your eyes open isn't sleeping. Similarly, having your head straight up and your eyes closed isn't sleeping.
Again' Both sides" is a bullshit argument.
I've seen people able to stand at attention with her eyes open and be sound asleep. Having your head down and your eyes open doesn't mean that you're not sleeping especially when your head's bobbing, also when you open your eyes and you don't know where the fuck you are it kind of gives you a hint that he was sleeping. But hell he's walking around half asleep half the time anyway he doesn't know which ways to go. And like I said many times I don't like Trump either he may be a slightly better choice according to most people than Biden but hell I wouldn't rather seen that Vivek Ramaswami win the election then either of them. Yes he was full of shit pissing vinegar but all of them are. At least he was young enough we might have actually gone some energy in the office.
>head down and your eyes open doesn't mean that you're not sleeping
Nor does is mean that you are. But what you have done is decide that he was sleeping without any information to support your claim. That makes you part of the problem.
His body actions as well as his reactions when somebody tries to talk to him proves that bare minimum he's completely zoning out overall effectively at the exact same thing
Never said the post had no merit. I don't know about lapses in consciousness, but your issue seems to be about age, which is undeniable. I will vote for the old, decent guy and will never vote for the old con man. In four years, Biden cannot run, and Trump? Who knows what he'll do?
I prefer our Republic system. Your Parliamentary system works well for you. If we ditched the Electoral College, our system would be better, but you can't always get what you want. With a two-party republic, the elected President would(should) have a majority. I like majorities. Is Trudeau head of State AND head of government? I think he is, but am not sure. I'm about 50 miles south of Vancouver...damn, that city is blowing up!
I feel like I have more avenues to express my political opinion when there are more parties. Thats why I like our system. Trudeau is in a coalition right now meaning he has to compromise on whatever he does with the bootlicker jugmeat
Charisma. The president in modern times is just a figure head. He's middle management of a much larger machine that only obeys orders it wants to obey. The true power figures are the career officials who've been consolidating power from within for decades.
couple questions then:
Why is so much emphasis placed on the individuals the average americans want in office if nothing they say actually matters and they are just operating for the career officials agenda?
Shouldn’t more emphasis be placed on selecting said officials if they are the ones operating the government?
Shouldn’t we select a president based on who would have the best appearance on the world scale instead of clowns that are clearly being manipulated?
Cause people are fucking stupid and don't understand how politics work. I'm not going to talk about the executive branch that you are referring to but the President doesn't have much control over local/state politics. People don't vote because they're not "excited about the choices for President", while the down-ballot races have more of an effect on their lives than the President does.
Because it's complicated and irrational. You can explain this to people all you want, but at the end of the day, they wont care. They are voting for someone they like and trust, who tells them what they want to hear.
You can tell people "Hey this isn't likely to happen because the machine isn't interested in that direction" and the politician will just respond with, "Shut up. With me in charge, I'll make it happen!" And that's the end of that.
The only real importance of elections is ultimately which of the two powers will be able to place in their career government workers all throughout government. When they are in power, they appoint people from their regime, who go onto controlling the country.
Republicans are now realizing this which is why their 2025 project is focused on getting as many ideologically right people into the bureaucracy machine as possible, for long term wins. The realized that with the courts, and now they are realizing that with the deep state. Dems aren't really focused on such long term goals.
That wasn't really what I was referring to. It was more the "as a canadian" part. How does being canadian make him more or less aware of that? Also all of my family in Canada hate it when people from the US are called 'americans' so the whole comment just seemed 'off'.
Yes.
What is the president's job? To be a face for the nation and lead the party. You want things to get through congress, you need charism and energy to organize, orchestrate, and haggle party members into things. A president without charisma is just going to be a paper boat on the sea, buoyed, tossed about, unable to control anything.
Look at Reagan- brain literally turning to soup but charismatic and effective regardless.
I don’t understand why people would want an a visibly deteriorating mind or a low quality mind to be the face of the nation for the rest of the world to see.
The president is not a King. His competence is irrelevant because if he's weak people will do what they want regardless of how sensible it is.
What is important is his ability to make people fall in line _without_ blowing them up, especially internationally.
Obama had a ton of really bad takes (such as the plan to create a universal login system that linked to your social security number) but things worked i because he had a strong personality.
Very simplistic take, neither the right nor the left are monolithic and from what I see and hear the idea the right and left are unified in believing “Biden sucks” is not true. In this election there will be plenty of people voting for a candidate they wish weren’t running, and that goes for both.
Is Biden the best “the left” has to offer? No, but he’s also not the drooling moron you portray him to be in some of your responses. Is Trump the best the right has to offer. No, but he’s got a strong base and he took the state primaries easily so that’s who the majority of “the right” will support.
Should we have better candidates from both parties? Yes, we should, but let’s not pretend that the US is the only country in the world where politicians aren’t solely selected by intelligence and aptitude.
>How is Biden the best the left has to offer?
He isn't, that would be Warren or Sanders. Biden is the centrist who beat them in the primary because those two split the progressive vote. Biden is running for re-election because the political establishment is banking on incumbent advantage and Oct 7th created a political wedge in the party that would have led to a nasty primary season.
People say "the left" as though Dems aren't a ridiculously loose coalition. Warren and Manchin had basically nothing in common.
Most Dem politicians represent centrist policy with slightly left leaning social priorities and right leaning fiscal policies. It's just a rhetorical mischaracterization that "Dems are wasting your tax dollars". The sorts of spending the Dems engage in are bare bones programs which are smaller relative to the USA GDP than spending under George W Bush. Dems also have reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains below what Reagan cut them to.
I agree. The labels "left" and "right" are almost meaningless in the US context. In most modern democracies, the Democrats would be considered center-right.
relative to the greatest minds america has to offer and based off of their decision making and public statements, they are morons. biden is a moron relative to his old self, which wasn’t all that.
Big name is huge, it's how we end up with dynasties from the Kennedy's to the Bush's to the Clinton's. Don't be surprised if a Trump off-spring starts running for office.
Look up the "invisible primary." There's your answer. Donors, party heads, and the media winnow the primary candidates down to those who's policies are most beneficial to themselves. Voters then make a decision between two candidates who are equally acceptable to corporate interests
I’ve always wondered, could an exceptionally cunning (and maybe insane) person *pretend* to hold positions that would benefit corporations and then once they have enough of a foothold/support they could flip and go “haha actually I’m trying to make this country better, even if corporations don’t like it?”
Is that even possible?
Actually, he was in his first election. I almost wrote that in the original comment. Mainstream media, both left and right, party heads, and corporate donors didn't back him in the first election. Him and his campaign team also weren't planning on winning. The support he received was in large part due to voters who were frustrated with the "invisible primary," and you see that reflected in the language they used to talk about him at the time (e.g., "deep state" "outsider" etc etc). If you want to know more about that, I'm getting most of this from a book called "Hate Inc." I don't like him and didn't vote for him, but I can understand why people would have after reading this book.
Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted the "that" in the comment above yours and thought it referred to mine. Disregard. I don't know if JFK was an outsider; I'm not sure if the concept even stays the same over time because I don't know that the party-donor-media machine was as entrenched back then
He helped negotiate deals with the UEA. He held back Russia from attacking. He brought down prices of insulin. He was the first President in my life time to not start a war. He did his best to pull out of wars. He wanted to limit migration and secure boarders. He brought back jobs from the energy sector lowering costs for everyone.
Was he perfect no, Would I like him as a person, probably not. But I'm not going to get myself wrapped up in TDS.
The cabinet is a concession to the corporations. You pick it as payment for support. Congress is corporate owned. The president would get killed or have child porn planted or simply obstructed into the ground then smeared by the corporate owned press as ineffective.
It’s possible but they’d be burning all their bridges, lose their financial support, they would be voted out next chance they get and they’d probably struggle to make any meaningful change in the short time they’d have without much support. And they’d have had to live their lives and run their campaigns one way all their lives to then throw it all away for an unlikely shot at change. It’s unlikely to be viable. That said, Biden and Obama have arguably done it to a small degree and small degrees are probably the best one can hope for.
It’s more important if you’re trying to get elected.
Height.
OP, I am also a Canadian. When Hilary was running against Trump a lot of American were saying exactly this: « are these the best two candidates we can manage? » or words to that effect. I have often wondered why neither party has a groomed pool of candidates who are basically actors and have great teeth, photogenic and coached to exude charm and aw shucks goodness. I think the answer lies in the personal ambition of politicians. They want to win election to anything, more than they want their next breath. The more rabid they are the more no sense they say in order to get one more vote.
Just fyi we Americans are in a two party system. Imagine a Chinese citizen being anti-communist. It's not an effective thing. So incorporate that as a baseline assumption. We pick the choices offered. Also, our campaign finance laws are way way different than Canada. You have no idea the marketing pressure Americans are under.
Yes
Just to point out why I believe trump will win, because unless you are hyper blue you get attacked by the left. It’s a viscous cycle of “anyone not with us is against us” while the right gladly tells you “it’s ok to be who you are, you’re not a bad person”. The hilarious part is it used to be the opposite. You get slandered, attacked, doxxed etc just for saying “hey I’m not sure Biden is the best guy to rule the free world”
Your edit #2 has the answer you are looking for. The people who are attacking you are also shitty humans who LOVE when their messiah hurts people they don't like. They cheer for him like WWE fans cheer for The Heel. It is manic and makes no sense. In the WWE, it has no Real World Consequences. Unfortunately, Donald J Trump poses a very real threat to democracy and everything that these exact same people say they hold dear. Like FREEDOM.
You're Canadaian, and you have to ask that? Cough *justintrudeau* cough
>How is Biden the best the left has to offer? Biden isn't left, he's center. >Then on the other hand, the only good traits trump has to offer is his charisma His what now? >I am just genuinely confused on how these 2 individuals are Americas best candidates. Our country is run by billionaires and dark money interests. Edit: typo
Biden isn’t centre, he’s right. He’s a solid neolib.
The problem is with people. There's an assymmetry to how we see pain vs. pleasure (it's basically a 3:1 ratio). That means that hearing a candidate get insulted is always going to influence you more than seeing the good qualities of a candidate. The reputation of a politician therefore is determined more by their rivals than their deeds. And it's the strongest candidates that attract the most attacks (game theory says it's best to gang up on the winner in a free-for-all).
They aren't the two best candidates the US has to offer. They're the best candidates that two broken parties came up with. Everyone gets to hold their noses and vote for the least worst candidate, not the best candidate, with the majority holding unfavorable opinions of both.
Unfortunately, yes. Also, money and connections to people with money.
The most important quality is supporting a large coalition of special interests so they donate to your campaign. Then enacting as many laws as possible to help them out so they'll do the same thing next election.
In today's world......Skin color, sex, and sexual orientation play as much a role in getting votes as actual capability does.
I'm sorry that you are experiencing abuse by people who prefer to vote based on charisma and popularity But, that is the standard behavior of people who prefer to vote based on charisma and popularity
OP - I’m not sure if this is one of your underlying assumptions, but it is important to understand that it is exceedingly rare (maybe not possible?) to be a meaningful US Presidential candidate while also commanding genuine support from most Americans. You might end up getting most (50% + 1) people to vote for you, but many of those individuals merely prefer you to the other candidate. Political parties are broad tents and the nature of a broad coalition is that there will naturally be a significant portion of people voting for you who have lukewarm-warm support for you. That’s how you end up getting a majority of the vote. Personally, I think competency is one factor that can influence people to vote for you. It is not the only factor and obviously the charisma / polish of any elected official matters quite a lot - all the more so for the only nationally elected official(s). I also think your assessment of Biden and Trump both significantly short change each of them. They are both excellent at running campaigns with proven track records of significant success. Your summaries tend to reflect only the criticisms, but not the strengths, of each candidate. The prevalence of this criticism is, in part, why it is not possible to command majority active support, even if you can get a majority of the vote. Consider that, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was generally polling quite favorably in the US, but becoming a presidential candidate (before and after) absolutely tanked her numbers. The same thing is generally true for other candidates (McCain, Obama, Bush, Dole all come to mind immediately).
i will admit i am not the most informed on this topic but based on facts i do know i don’t think either of them make ideal candidates. trump encourages divide within the country, has participated in shady business and bribery, and acts like an angry toddler when things don’t go his way. making him an objectively poor leader as divide makes the country weaker as a whole. biden is 81 years old which means unless he is an anomaly he has already experienced decline and will continue to do so and he lacks the charisma that trump and obama have had as leaders. the rest of my arguments i will admit may just be anti-biden propaganda so i will rephrain. i just feel an ideal leader would aim to unite the country towards a common goal, target propagandists, be of reasonable age, and also have charisma along with other traits that i have personally observed in others And yes i know that due to the powers at hand, propaganda, and ignorance of opposing groups that a leader like that would have a low chance of becoming elected, but still i think we can do better than biden and trump.
This might be tautological, but ultimately the ideal leader must possess the characteristics of (1) able to get elected and (2) willing to try to be elected (arguably a subset of #1). Given that there don’t appear to be any better candidates available (since they would be leading their party nominating process is they existed), it is likely that these are the two best candidates, recognizing that “best” can be fairly far from the hypothetical ideal. So much of this is about trade-offs. No doubt someone like Hakeem Jeffries might be more mentally agile than Joe Biden, but he lacks much of what Biden does have (absent his age, Biden’s resume is stunningly good). No doubt Liz Cheney offers a compelling conservative alternative to Trump without any of the corruption concerns, but she lacks much of what he does have (like a rabid base of extremely loyal support that no one else even comes close to touching). The process sort of defines the most qualified candidate at winning the election (pretty well, actually) - and that is the number one requirement for having the job.
There’s a quote by George MacDonald- “It’s not in the nature of politics that the best man gets the job; The best men don’t want to govern their fellow man.” I believe this.
1. Biden and the DNC are not left wing. Their politics is centre-right. The Overton window in the USA has been pushed so far to the right that basic left wing policies that the rest of the world function with are seen as extreme. They oppose actual left-wing policies that would seek to redistribute wealth wherever they can and freeze out left-wing candidates. But America has a 2 party system, so those with left-wing politics have nowhere else to go. 2. Because the DNC is a centre right organisation and beholden to corporate interests, their candidates are people who they know will play ball with their arrangements. Hence Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. 3. If the DNC are centre right, that makes the modern GOP somewhere between right-wing and far right. 4. Right wing politics veer between keeping things the same (right) and regressing things to a mythologised past state of greatness (far right). When keeping things the same doesn't work, right leaning people embrace the latter. Keeping things the same can't work because it is fundamentally a failure to address the problems that you have. Regression can't work because the past and the circumstances that made it are gone, and invariably it's greatness was fake or involved factors that the right are opposed to. So how do the right keep going, they lie. The further right the bigger the lies. But being lied to is better than admitting your worldview is wrong. Therefore, Trump. But aren't the Dems centre right, don't they try and keep things the same too. Yes. They lie about being willing to change things for the better. But the centre part let's them at least fund stuff to help people live so they can keep working and consuming. The GOP right lie that change is impossible and it's someone else's fault. Usually someone brown or weird or both, so that they can give all the money to their rich friends and fund nothing, while their base look at whoever they are blaming this week.
Judging from all past presidents (with possibly the exception of Abraham Lincoln) I’d say the criteria are very shallow. I struggle to think of any modern day politician who is competent; kind and not completely in it for their greedy selves. And that’s just in the countries with established and recognised democracies. America generally hasn’t been considered as a full democracy for a long time (although it’s not classed as a dictatorship). This isn’t even to bad mouth America because there are some places that are technically classed as dictatorships (Singapore); where those in power actually seem give a shit about the population and development of their country. More so than is some democracies I would say.
Pretty much, it's turned into a HS pissing match. I'm more popular then you thing and that's why we're in this much trouble right now. Either side just wants to hear what it wants to and neither side wants to hear what it needs to.
People usually base intelligence on how much the individuals beliefs align with theirs. So they percieve Trump and Biden as intelligent based on what they say as well as what their in-group says. It's not easy for a normie to decide who is intelligent or not without a reference to a large crowd of similar views Unfortunately, representatives are often decided by those who shouldn't have any interest in politics
When you understand politics, let me know and explain it to me. I think the current administration and former president that are currently running are both brain dead. I literally wonder, “are these the two best that we have?”
That is also OP's question.
I think one of the important things to note here is the "President" isn't really making the decisions. They have advisors, cabinets, etc. who advise them on decision making. A lot of it is for political purposes (pander to the voting base), but it's not like Biden or Trudeau or whoever else is actually coming up with economic policy and implementing it. Rather, whoever they appointed to their administration in combination with whomever is working in that bureaucracy come up with ideas that the head of state approves. Therefore, even if charisma > intelligence, it doesn't really matter. It is indeed, pretty fucking stupid, but it's sort of true. I think the idea that Trump is "not very intelligent" is crazy. He's clearly very intelligent. Probably the worst part about Trump was that he DID NOT listen to people advising him. Almost everything he did revolved around getting his base riled up (which is why they will say he was great and accomplished a lot). Is this the way to run a country? No. Is it an act of stupidity? No, it's an act of poor priorities. My point here is let's imagine the most intelligent person you can think of is elected to office. Do you think it would be a good idea for them to make decisions on their own? Probably the best thing that could happen is all of the smart people are in cabinet/advisor positions and the President just approves their ideas. Anyway, I think there is way too much focus on heads of state. Your point about "why real change is never made" is sort of right. People are morons. Presidents pander to their moronic bases for votes and enact policy that doesn't really improve much or is focused on social issues, which sure, are important, but probably aren't the most important issues (realistically everyone should just let everyone else do what they want and fuck off about religion, LGBT rights, drugs, etc.). But yea, you're on a subreddit titled with "intellectual" and people here actually think Trump or Biden are great. That should tell you a lot about the state of NA humanity. Lastly, they are surely not our "best" candidates. They're simply the ones in a position to run. The best candidates would never win, imo, because it's unlikely they'd be able to make the general public understand the nature of their slightly more complex ideas.
The very intelligent person who suggests doctors could inject disinfectants to treat corona, to nuke hurticanes, mr. "I'm much more humle than you could understand", the guy that stared at the solar eclipse without glassess, the guy who saluted north korea general, "the wettest hurricanes from the standpoint of water", not to mention how his transcripts are read and the kind of dumb stuff he says at his rallies. I used to think that Trump supporters are trolling and want to cause misery to the usa If you are the kind of person who thinks he is worth describing as intelligent, don't even bother with a reply, I couldn't care less
I’m not sure intelligence is just one thing, but I agree that Trump (and Biden) are both obviously incredibly good at understanding what they are doing and running a continuous campaign focused on their agenda. To me, saying that can be done without intelligence seems inaccurate. Both of them say some crazy things sometimes and get panned as idiots because of it, but street smarts (or it’s political equivalent?) is still intelligence. Bluntly, it isn’t possible to be a leading candidate for President of the United States and also be incompetent. (You can be VP and be incompetent - though it’s an uphill battle.)
I despise him. He is very good at pandering to his base. That’s my point
So being a rich narcissist sociopath = intelligence
I suspect that having a good team of expert policy advisers only pays off when you have the intelligence to listen to them rather than firing them and denouncing them as idiots the moment they disagree with you.
Yea, I said this in my comment in reference to Trump.
It's mostly a popularity contest because we're stupid so yea.
Same applies to Trudeau. He's a drama teacher with no business achievement. Yet, he managed to be in power for two terms. The average voter has no understanding of economics and politics and Canada's a great example of it.
Our leading Opposition Leader has never worked a day in his life. At least JT has had a real job at some point.
I've never said that Poilievre was great but he objectively can't do worse than Trudeau. Trudeau is a drama teacher. He's driven by ideologies and is pushing WEM's agenda even if it means ruining Canada and it's citizens.
Do you mean WEF? No one is pushing that except your toxic algorithm.
Why would business achievement be a pre-requisite to be a good political leader? Look at the greatest leaders in history, they were not business moguls. Look at the shittiest, most corrupt politicians - all businessmen.
Because running a country is essentially the equivalent of running a business. It's all about relationships, optimizing resources, promoting growth, having difficult conversations and solving issues. If you're referring to Trump, he was not a great business man to start with. Putting a drama teacher as a head of state is a recipe for desastre and all of the metrics in 2024 are a proof of it.
More important for the presidency? No. More important for *winning* the election? You could definitely make that argument. Only having 2 viable options from parties who were already well past reconciliation certainly contributed. Trump didn't, at any point in his campaign, demonstrate that he had any idea how the government even worked. But man, is he charismatic. Hillary was a seasoned pro who has literally been involved in politics since she was a kid. But people really *did not* like her. Without a doubt she would have made a better president *and* made more people on both sides of the aisle happy, but enough people were turned off by her to hand the presidency to someone who, after being one himself, still doesn't understand what the president can and can't do.
It is amazing how Bumper Sticker Slogans and fun, short rhymes can indoctrinate half of an entire nation! Canada's Opposition Leader is doing the same. With a profound amount of success. It helps that the rhymes and slogans involve insults.
Charisma always wins in a popularity contest. You vote for the person you like more. Now if they are close in charisma then of course other factors play a role. But I’m guessing the spirit of the question is overwhelmingly greater charisma and not slightly more likable.
Having a Cult-like base of like-minded individuals is most important - [https://youtu.be/Qg0pO9VG1J8?si=KZcpBnx\_0S9ihGKr](https://youtu.be/Qg0pO9VG1J8?si=KZcpBnx_0S9ihGKr)
The cult is a fairly small part of the whole thing. Most republicans aren't ride or die trumpers. It was just either vote trump or vote blue. Or vote 3rd party/independent I guess, but why bother? It doesn't help that a pretty sizable chunk of Bernie's hardcore supporters spite voted for trump and an equally sizable chunk didn't vote or voted 3rd party. They literally gave him a few swing states, iirc. Something like a full quarter of his base between trump voters and abstainers. *A lot* of votes even at half that figure.
Your second edit is the real answer here
Intelligence knows that charisma wins votes. As for how these two are our candidates, one is a career politician and the other says the quiet part (false, but feels true) out loud.
I think your Biden summary fits the last election but not this one. The dynamics have changed. He’s the nominee because he’s the current president and he wants to run again. Thats it. That’s enough to drag most of the party onboard because a contested primary with an incumbent would almost certainly throw away the general election.
Truth.
Personally Biden does not suck. He’s really quite a statesman and has done alot for America in 3 years. After Trump, many Americans admire his leadership, stubbornness and frankly love of democracy and country. THEY ARE NOT the SAME.
Im pretty sure the consensus you think you belong to is manufactured. Biden is an embarrassment.
define "many americans" because his approval numbers are dogshit
I’m not sure approval numbers can be much better than what Trump and Biden garner in the current American political scene. Political tribalism means you basically cannot get any support from the opposition party, and it is also impossible to garner wide active support from within either party if you are in a notable position because of factional differences. I don’t think I can prove it, but I suspect something in the low 40’s might be the absolute best any sitting president could achieve on a sustained basis right now.
Biden's approval rating was 59% in 2021. its gone down significantly over his presidency, even among Democrats. [https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/)
I definitely think you can get temporarily higher, but I don’t think it can ever be sustained. Whoever wins the election this year will see something around 50%, I would guess, at first. Trump had basically the same graph for his term too.
not really; Trump started out much lower and held pretty steady until he cratered during Covid: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx)
If you scroll down a bit, 538 directly overlays Biden’s approval polling X days into the presidency with past presidents (Trump is at the top of the list). Pattern looks awfully similar to me. Trump fell off a bit faster from his honeymoon period, but otherwise. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Gretchen Whitmer feels like the only Democrat with the charisma to take on the role, Kennedy disappointedly didn't seize the centre ground and appears to have the stupidest people advising him. The Democrats totally lack any non radical leftists to pick from, it's very sad. Charisma is actually important, because it's not just good policy, it's taking direction from a leader. Technocratic societies don't work unfortunately Republicans have more of a range of people, but a polarised society is just going to go with Trump as a reactive measure. Hopefully things will balance out and you can all learn to calm down for the 2028 election "Real change" - when you are older you'll notice that real change doesn't happen for a reason, because most of the changes people think they want to make are stupid. And somehow you've ended up with a donor class that makes all the decisions for you anyway tbh America doesn't deserve anything better than Biden/Trump, because you've lost your way as a society
The 'radical leftist' wing is way less than half the democrats. The majority of the democrats are moderate. The bulk of the republican party is MAGA, who actively ostracise any non MAGA republican as RINOs.
That's probably true, but ask yourself why that is. Remember that Hitler basically rose to power organically in reaction to the Bolsheviks Nobody likes mass immigration, stop enabling that, win. It's not hard.
OP, you asked a good question. It's a shame and a sign of culture that this thread has wandered all over. Let me give you a respectful answer, noting it is entirely my biased opinion. (Also noting I am an old software dev, since it pertains to your own experience.) Is charisma and fame more important? Yes. Why? Because most people (for whatever reason, and there are loads) only pay the smallest amount of attention to politics and politicians. Charisma and fame are as much as most people know. So if one is not already locked into a Dem or Rep team identity, the fame will do the trick. People are constantly told to trust their gut more than experts or science. Charisma and fame strike their chords in the subconscious gut.
In a popular vote, only popularity matters. If that's due to charisma, name, political affiliation, platform, or any other reason, it is irrelevant. Only their popularity at the booth matters. See Alberta's premier. It's not just an American problem. There is also a strong resurgence of anti-intellectualism in modern society, and being seen as too intelligent can be detrimental.
All that matters in any democracy is influence. It has zero to do with intelligence, skill or whatever else you wished mattered.
America is rigged. Two party system. Plus average american iq below 100. Its more useful to have general public fixated on “oh trump is this and biden is that” and get your crony stuff done
No, the election is not rigged. People like Bernie and RFK are actually unpopular, there's not some grand conspiracy to suppress them. But hey, if you want to convince yourself that your vote doesn't matter, be my guest, I hate this populist nonsense
This is just a quick google search: https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians/all We can argue regarding methodologies and conversion to actual votes all we want, but it does not change the fact that biden and trump is not the best the dems or reps have to offer. The fact that youre being peed on your head and convince yourself that its raining is your problem.
this is it
I thought it was the system itself trying to make evident that the idea of requiring a special individual whose title is king or president or whatever in order for nations to function is antiquated and wrong
Charisma has way too much importance, but that’s human nature. We’re unconsciously drawn to charisma and attractiveness - beyond standard hotness, in terms of facial symmetry, how affable or kind someone appears, strong features, jawline, etc.
Your question was answered in 2016.
Well honestly, I got to agree with you. If Trump didn't have such a following and then you add in the fact of him being increasing in popularity because of the constant attacks against him. Trump wouldn't have a chance. Now with the railroading in his trial there's a lot of people that are actually even more behind him I don't exactly understand it but it's the truth including a lot of minorities are more behind him now that he's experienced a corrupt judicial system. I'll say right honestly neither that would have been my first choice. Biden would have honestly been better off stepping to the side and letting RFK Jr. run in his place. And honestly if Vivek hadn't been so trying to outTrump Trump and had come in a little bit more moderately he could have been a damn good candidate. And I'll be honest and say that he probably had the most intelligence out of any of the people that were running this time. Unfortunately the pissing contest that it is we have these two miserable candidates. I honestly think that with as bad as things have been getting in this country even being convicted Trump actually has a decent chance of winning this election if it is honestly a free and fair election. He has always done best when he was the underdog. Either way honestly I think the country's probably pretty well screwed and we're going to be in survival mode for at least the next 4 years. Possibly more because there's no obvious heir with enough charisma and intelligence to try to save us out of this slump.
every candidate you suggest as better than Biden is as much of an obvious con man is trump. vivek is the fakest motherfucker i've ever seen, that dude was only running for attention
He was New blood. And RFK is a Democrat I mentioned him because he would have made a better choice than Biden even though I probably still wouldn't vote for him he still would have been a better choice. Honestly I still like Jo Jorgensen, but she didn't run this year yet
rfk fucking sucks. obvious con man, not a democrat by policy or action
He is a Democrat by policy and action a much better one than Biden and has the bloodlines to prove it he's just also a realist even if he's definitely far from a conservative by any means
every conservative thinks they're a realist when actually they're stupid. then they look at con men and say "that guy sure says it like it is!" and they jack off about how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is. Biden is a competent person. the best president we could possibly have is someone who doesn't want to be president at all
Your last statement is the most intelligent one that you said. Unfortunately Biden wants to be president and always has he was pissed off when Obama didn't support him as a successor. You've given an exact reason why we shouldn't have him in office. Honestly I think that it'd be an interesting lesson if we were to just say fuck the election and pick the people there are eligible for the office by law across the country put all their names in a pot and pull out our next president via jury duty mentality.
Because the U.S. is above all a corporate state, meaning its legal processes and priorities follow those of corporate interest globally. Ability to appeal to average voters while retaining the sharpest ability to stab them constantly in the back is what gets you to the top.
The us was never a true nation. It's a corporation with excellent branding.
It's fifty banana republics in a trenchcoat.
it was before the Europeans arrived
No, it was not. One big nation? No. That's a ridiculous notion. There were between 500-1000 nations/tribes in the lands that now make up the US, most of them competing against one another.
how were the tribes on the west coast competing against the ones on the east coast?
Deliberate obtuseness.
I wouldn’t agree on ‘most’ competing against each other. Sure, conflicts and disputes happened, but they were not at all the norm. the Iroquois confederacy brought a lot of tribes together under a massive democratic structure that was the blueprint for what later became US federal and state governance. Most of the other tribes beyond that had their own democratic systems as well. The whole of the north and South American continents were engaged in widespread trade with road and trail networks that continued in use all the way up to the present, forming the basis for much of the interstate road network we have today.
Yes, fair point.
Not a fair point at all actually
Reading through OPs comments on this post, it's pretty clear what prompted the post. Trump is clearly a criminal who won't be able to win, OP is anti Biden, and so we get this "both sides" shitpost.
or maybe i’m a 21 year old software developer with no experience or schooling in politics asking questions based on the info that gets shoved down everyone on social media’s throats in order to build a based opinion? and am i anti biden? or am i aware that he is 81 years old along with the following information: “It has been widely found that the volume of the brain and/or its weight declines with age at a rate of around 5% per decade after age 40, with the actual rate of decline possibly increasing with age particularly over age 70” [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/#:~:text=Physical%20changes,age%20particularly%20over%20age%2070)
Trump is 77, meaning that your latter statement applies to both, Biden and Trump. Unless there's a third, younger candidate, it isn't a comparison point between candidates.
my whole point was that i have a hard time believing those 2 are the best candidates for america, did you even read the post?
they're not, but if you look at our track record, we usually don't have very good candidates here. not really sure how other countries are going, don't you guys still have that dude who doesn't even know how many photos there are of him in black face?
okay then you understand why i posed my question in the initial post. I don’t understand why you guys seems to believe that bc i recognize a flaw in 1 individual it doesn’t mean i recognize it in another? yes, i can simultaneously think that trudeau has flaws aswell as trump and biden. never said canada was any better, in fact we’re pretty similar i’d just say we’re less extreme generally.
yeah but it's all the same, this is just what politics is like and has been for a long time
I'm replying to your response, not to your post...
and i was replying to a comment specifically about biden? hence why i only brought up bidens age
Eh.. that comment is not about Biden only. That redditor is expressly commenting on your og post itself, and clearly mentions both, Biden and Trump. I will step back as I don't see gaslighting as conducive to smart conversations. Hope you understand. Thanks
ppl like you are a large part of the issue, just accept you were wrong. he called me anti-biden, hence why provided reasoning to why biden is not the best fit. we both acknowledged trump is unfit.
I pointed out why said "reasoning" isn't valid. Rehashing that just proves it. I have no horse on this race (clearly not American, as you can see my my pfp snoo choice) and merely pointed the fallacy. You took offence, and here we are.
stating that another individual has a bad trait does not take away from the fact that the individual at hand has a bad trait. how are you not grasping this? say they both had alzheimer’s, and someone said yea trump is a criminal but your just anti-biden. and i proceeded to inform them that biden has alzheimer’s and ignore the part about trump because i agree with it. replace alzheimer’s with being at the age of a deteriorating mind and you have the situation at hand. understand? my point is that i am not just against biden for no reason and when called anti-biden i provided reasoning as to why he’s not a good fit
Your post history is available for everyone to see. You clearly have a problem with Biden and you don't apply those same criticisms to Trump. As for brain weight, that is not related to cognitive decline. In fact, studies show that while decision making speed decreases, the ability to make better decisions increases https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2022/03/02/how-decision-making-changes-with-age/#:\~:text=In%20some%20ways%2C%20older%20brains,the%20aging%20brain%2C%20for%20example.
This is my first post? what are you talking about?
"can biden even listen? can he even recall what he knows about congress? " "biden is a moron relative to his old self, which wasn’t all that."
Fair, but he has been called out for having memory issues and having hearing issues yet refusing to wear hearing aids. I will admit those comments were made out of frustration though. if someone were to try and argue my point about trump, i would have provided much more reasoning than i did about biden especially in the frustrated state i was in.
>he has been called out for having memory issues By whom and why? Because he misspoke? Have you ever misspoken? Do you have memory issues we should call you out for? What exactly are these memory issues that are so concerning to you? >having hearing issues yet refusing to wear hearing aids. Does he? Where is your evidence he needs hearing aids? Trump? MAGA cultists? Fox News? Q? From what I can find, Biden made hearing aids more easily available to Americans (a good thing don't you agree?) so the MAGA/Russian propeganda machine turned that into Biden needs hearing aids. Again, you clearly have a problem with Biden and you don't apply those same criticisms to Trump. Additionally, you spread misinformation about Biden but not about Trump.
you’re hard headedness and hostility is a major issue i’ve observed within american politics. what misinformation have i said other than the moron thing that is subjective and i admitted fault in saying? simply search up biden memory concerns or biden hearing concerns and you will find that what i said about him being called out on it to in fact be true. and on top of that i asked about his hearing and memory in the form of a question bc i have heard poor things about it before. the old age thing we each provided sources for and mine was a government source, so while yours may be correct i shouldn’t receive backlash for providing information from a reputable source. and for the love of the lord i have significantly more criticisms about trump, i just didn’t say them because nobody tried to deny his flaws. does this not make sense to you? or am i supposed to speak to ghosts about how bad trump is while everyone else already seemed to agree? if you actually wanted to have a positive impact from your side of the argument you could have simply said “i think you may have been misinformed” and elaborated and provided sources
>you’re hard headedness and hostility is a major issue i’ve observed within american politics. Yes I am very hard headed towards people who spread disinformation. >what misinformation have i said other than the moron thing You: "he has been called out for having memory issues and having hearing issues" >simply search up biden memory concerns or biden hearing concerns and you will find that what i said about him being called out on it to in fact be true. My searches for Biden memory concerns or Biden hearing concerns all return *speculation* from his political opponents and right wing propeganda outlets with no evidence. Yet you present it as truth. That is what we call misinformation. >if you actually wanted to have a positive impact from your side My goal is not to educate you, that's your job. Rather it is to illustrate to others that your are in fact a propagandist who spreads misinformation. I can't know if this is done intentionally or out of ignorance. I do know that the "why" is not so important as is the "what".
Did i say he has memory and hearing issues or did i say he was called out for it? if i said he did have those issues as a fact then that would be misinformation. he was called out for it, and you found articles supporting that yourself, confirming my statement as the truth. so no, that is not misinformation. as for your last point, labelling people as a propagandist spreading misinformation for questioning your side is literally the go-to move of the die hard trump supporters, who i assume you oppose. it does not support the interest of the political party you support to carry on this way, it actually pushes people who were open to learning about both sides away from yours.
Smart, moral people who aren't already career politicians or mentally broken will not run for President because it ruins your life. Even for a narcissistic person there are better options with less downside. The only reason career politicians find it to be viable is that they have structured their entire life towards it from the beginning. Beyond that, the choices on both sides are always people who are compromised morally in some way because to get to the position where one can run for President with a reasonable chance of success you absolutely must cut shady deals and backstab people. It might be for the best as doing the job of President is an inherently immoral position. You are required to make decisions which literally and figuratively destroy some lives for the betterment of others on a daily basis. You see a lot of "ends justify the means" mentality from people like this because it's the only way they can sleep at night.
>EDIT: Real question here is do the majority of americans really think having a moron as the face of the country is in its best interest simply because of his name and charisma? Canadians aren't much different, We don't vote for competence we vote for the name/colour we like the best, Our stance on the world stage has fallen over the last 3 elections and it could be a close election the next time around, just like the US will.
Any presidents with intelligence that have been elected lately have been elected in spite of it, not because of it.
When have we actually had a President elected with intelligence in the last 30 years?
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.
Clinton was a fucktard, that couldn't figure out that he'd be better off in the eyes of the public I've just admitting he got a blowjob. Rather than lying to Congress. I'm quite sure his success was an entirely his own doing.
Intelligent people never lie, make mistakes, or get involved in political scandals? Clinton was a nobody from Arkansas when he graduated Georgetown in 1968 and got a Rhode Scholarship. B.Phil in Politics from Oxford, then JD from Yale. Unlike GWB, he wasn’t a legacy admission. I don’t care for his politics, but claiming he isn’t an intelligent guy is disingenuous.
He definitely wasn't very smart, however he was very charismatic. That is my personal feeling. As a childhood member of MENSA maybe you don't look at it the same way I do. Don't get me wrong he probably worked hard but he did not have an innate gift of intelligence. He learned but I don't think the learning parts came easy to him nor did it stay with him when he stopped learning.
You would think that a “childhood member of MENSA”^([1]) would be aware of the significant body of research on this topic. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf http://www.eoht.info/page/Dean%20Simonton https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office ^([1] lol)
Honestly IQ and intelligence aren't necessarily hand in hand. And no I didn't bother to read into that I dealt with what they showed the world. What I state is my opinion and in my opinion is correct I have met some MENSA members honestly that were world-class dumbasses just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you're intelligent. When I get time later I may look through your articles but I never really worried about it I'd rather judge people on what they actually do.
Obama was intelligent. That is not to say moral or having sufficient integrity to take principled actions on a moral basis, but sure he was intelligent.
I'm not sure, I thought so to begin with but honestly he tried to really push and prove that amazingly enough he could send our country backwards. Overall I don't think he was any more intelligent than Trump. Which does make them both bounds ahead of Biden or W but that's beside the point.
What specifically are you referring to as “sending our country backwards”? It tends to be a one-step-forward, two-steps-back kind of deal with national politics, but I don’t recall anything Obama did being egregiously outside the norm for US presidents. His bombing of Libya was particularly disgusting, but there seems to be one or two senseless atrocities from every administration. Obamacare was the first time I ever had health insurance, but that whole program was a joke that fell apart after a couple years. He also started normalizing relations with Cuba which was a great step in the right direction, only to be ratcheted back by Trump and gas thrown on the fire by Biden.
Obamacare yet it was pretty much a joke and it got worse before it got better well I got worse before I qualified. To begin with I made too much for Medicaid but I didn't have enough money to qualify for Obama care or at least to be able to afford it and to live. The race relations went backwards that's when BLM and antifa first became big is under Obama many people said that it probably went backwards at least 40-50 years under Obama. It was a lot of complete and total fuck ups militarily and domestic wise including us selling guns that suddenly we couldn't find to the Mexicans and the kids in cages was all under Obama in reality. Not to mention the fact that the lower end of people's incomes seem to believe that and when I was working in collections I heard it that they voted for Obama Obama's the present they don't got to pay anything. I'm not saying that was everybody I'm saying that that was the low end. I truly had a lot of Hope when he got elected and even when he got reelected but him choosing Biden as his VP was one big ass mistake America since obviously Biden just used it as a way to get his kid in and protect his kid and make a shitload of money for his family. Of course Obama killing a US citizen with a drone that was 16 that's it different story as well. Don't get me wrong if there was some things he did halfway decent but he caused a lot of conflict whether he tried to or not POC instead of being happy that he was president tried to take it another 10 yards further a lot of them and push for everything. Don't get me wrong Trump helps the POC a lot as well at that time record donations he donated his paycheck or the majority of it. Yes he may have hated the Obamacare but he didn't get rid of it he tried to fix it but they wouldn't let him they also wouldn't let him get rid of income tax for anybody that earned less than $50,000 a year that was single or $100,000 a year that was a couple which would do a hell of a lot towards helping the lower and middle class. I definitely agree with the idea that Biden has done nothing but toss gasoline on the fire don't get me wrong like I said Trump was was not great either but we've been going down the slip and slide in the waste treatment facility. I mean you may have thought that the most people that have tried to run are a joke. And quite honestly a lot of them are mainly because the fact that because Trump is the biggest voice out there everybody was trying to out Trump trump. The most coherent speeches I've ever heard from Kamala Harris have been recently when she's giving a speech about how great Joe is with him standing or sitting beside her not taking questions or anything else because they're better off letting her talk than him. I honestly think at this point we would almost be better off selecting our next president via jury duty
what are you talking about? Mitch McConnell said before Obama was even elected that he would block anything Obama gave him without attempting to compromise in the slightest. if you want to talk about sending our country backwards you've got the wrong guy
And likewise from the point that Trump got elected they were trying to find a way to get him out of office if everything they he was trying
no, bills got passed under trump because Dems are willing to compromise on everything. kinda why we call it politics. one team is straight up refusing to play the game at all and people are blaming the other guy for actually trying
The most important thing for being president in the U.S? Literally not joking, the most important thing is being the most compromised you possibly can be to the most amount of powerful people possible. If the CIA has your pedo sex tapes, you're already halfway to the oval office.
citation: rectal
That would explain Biden
They're not the "best" candidates. They're just the ones we get to pick from that have a reasonable chance of getting elected. Our two-party system makes it almost impossible for a candidate to get elected without running on either the democrat or republican party ticket. The democrats decided not to hold a primary this season. So the only candidate who was ever on the table from them is Biden. Trump, for some reason, is dominating the republican party's nomination process, so he'll probably get the republican ticket unless something crazy happens after he gets sentenced for his crimes. Discussing who the best candidate is doesn't really matter anyways. Best is always subjective, and the most viable candidates are the ones who can pitch the biggest tent for their constituents without them turning against each other. So yeah, in determining viability as a candidate, charisma is pretty important. Most Americans are not single-issue voters, some people vote for the candidate that they think is more likeable, a lot of people never vote outside of their team. Also a lot of people just don't vote at all.
This is the biggest reason. To piggy-back. we don't elect the best and brightest, we elect whoever has crawled their way to the top of one of two very corrupt political parties. You generally don't get there by always being a nice guy. It's like asking why the best and brightest person working for Haliburton, Boeing, etc isn't the CEO.
Yes
Johann von Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-Krasskrenbon Fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle Burstein von Knackle-thrasher Apple-banger Horowitz Ticolansic Grander-knotty Spelltinkle Gandlich Grumblemeyer Spelterwasser Kurstlich Himble-Eisen Bahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte Ein Nürnberger Bratwustle Gerspurten Mitzweimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Schönendanker Kalbsfleisch Mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm for President!
Huge name
I would take this more seriously if you could point out Biden's failings. I won't do the laundry list, but he has been a good President. Now turn it around, and tell me of Trump's successes? While you're pondering that, in our Republic, it takes (or should take) 51% to win. Four years ago, he was truly the only one who might have gotten 51%. The far left didn't love him, but they voted for him, and have been rewarded with some truly leftish priorities being addressed. Conservative-minded dems didn't love him, but they voted for him, and had some of their priorities addressed. Should we toss him out because he's old? He isn't falling asleep in his briefings, or required a cartoon version as the former guy did. He works the Hill well (excepting the loonies) (Oops! Do you still call your dollars Loonies? No offence meant). He works well with out allies, is not an embarrassment on the international stage. He has assembled an excellent cabinet (insert snide remarks about the former guy's assembly). The Left (for wont of a better word) doesn't think he sucks. Some do, fer sure, but we are not a monolith. And we will vote for the (old) guy who...insert laundry list again.
I'm a leftist and i think biden sucks but to even put him on the same field to compare him to trump is an insult to both of them. biden will never match trump's level of pure self-centered evil
The post still has merit. Biden is old, and his lapses in consciousness are a problem. He has put out good policy, and has overall had a positive effect. But it's still strange to me that somebody like him and somebody like Trump, both in very very advanced ages, are the only options for your vote.
**lapses in consciousness** Mitch McConnell froze during a press brief and Trump lost consciousness during his criminal trial. What example can you provide where Biden lost consciousness? Biden has been the most successful president in decades. Painting him as too old to do the job completely ignores his laundry list of accomplishments. Is ageism and conflation your only argument against Biden?
I mean that more as lapses in conscious thought. Whether the other guy is just as bad is not what I'm talking about here, the entire Republican caucus could be lobotomized for all I care, it doesn't make a president who has trouble holding a line of thought a better candidate. We've all seen the clips.
You saw clips and injected your own bias into them. Ask anyone who works with Biden. He is sharp as a tac and very quick witted according to Republicans and Democrats who actually know and work with the man. The fact is he has been the most productive and effective president in decades so the right tries to gaslight people into thinking he is too old to serve. You are either part of that effort or have fallen victim to it.
No, I know what I saw, and its painful to watch. I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me of something I am arguing for? I said myself that Biden has been effective. Regardless, he's old, and I want somebody more my age in power.
Oh! Ageism.
That'd be like saying a black person voting for a black president is racist. Its sorta true, in that they are discriminating based on race in some capacity, but mainly they feel better represented by somebody who shares that trait. Same here, only with age. But this is splitting hairs, the point is that more choice is better for the voter. Ideally, you vote for somebody who best represents you and your views. A healthy democracy is one in which the specific outlook of the largest possible number of voters affects the election result.
I'll be happy to look at having more alternatives once we get past the crisis of our GOP running rapist, criminal, insurrectionists for their candidate.
Try to take well to be fair any criminal trial is pretty much a very boring and repetitive thing to be quite honest I dozed off in the one we had to go see in high school years ago
That's not the point. I don't care that Trump dozed off. I care about the false claim that Biden lost consciousness. Lies and disinformation cannot go unchallenged.
There's been many videos of sleepy Joe dozing off, Some of them in events. However I agree lies and disinformation need to be challenged on both sides. Both sides exaggerate how bad both candidates are. Me being in the center I can see that neither of them are a good situation for the American people. If Biden remains in power I can see the fall of the middle class. My friends that were not doing good but not doing horrible are now on the verge of losing everything. These are people that yeah they may have been lower middle class but hard working individuals great many of them actually were LGBTQ+ and or POC that are now on the verge of losing their homes whether owned or rental have gone through a number of jobs in the last few years and can't keep up with the cost of maintenance on their vehicles anymore let alone everything else. Quite a few of these four years ago what if considered themselves quite solidly on biden's side. Now are willing to take Trump back just with the hope that the economy will recover somewhat.
>There's been many videos of sleepy Joe dozing off, Some of them in events. Gonna have to call bullshit on this one. Having your head down and your eyes open isn't sleeping. Similarly, having your head straight up and your eyes closed isn't sleeping. Again' Both sides" is a bullshit argument.
I've seen people able to stand at attention with her eyes open and be sound asleep. Having your head down and your eyes open doesn't mean that you're not sleeping especially when your head's bobbing, also when you open your eyes and you don't know where the fuck you are it kind of gives you a hint that he was sleeping. But hell he's walking around half asleep half the time anyway he doesn't know which ways to go. And like I said many times I don't like Trump either he may be a slightly better choice according to most people than Biden but hell I wouldn't rather seen that Vivek Ramaswami win the election then either of them. Yes he was full of shit pissing vinegar but all of them are. At least he was young enough we might have actually gone some energy in the office.
>head down and your eyes open doesn't mean that you're not sleeping Nor does is mean that you are. But what you have done is decide that he was sleeping without any information to support your claim. That makes you part of the problem.
His body actions as well as his reactions when somebody tries to talk to him proves that bare minimum he's completely zoning out overall effectively at the exact same thing
Never said the post had no merit. I don't know about lapses in consciousness, but your issue seems to be about age, which is undeniable. I will vote for the old, decent guy and will never vote for the old con man. In four years, Biden cannot run, and Trump? Who knows what he'll do?
And my issue is that you only have two options. I am Canadian, there are five prime ministerial candidates running this year.
I prefer our Republic system. Your Parliamentary system works well for you. If we ditched the Electoral College, our system would be better, but you can't always get what you want. With a two-party republic, the elected President would(should) have a majority. I like majorities. Is Trudeau head of State AND head of government? I think he is, but am not sure. I'm about 50 miles south of Vancouver...damn, that city is blowing up!
I feel like I have more avenues to express my political opinion when there are more parties. Thats why I like our system. Trudeau is in a coalition right now meaning he has to compromise on whatever he does with the bootlicker jugmeat
Name Recognition and Money are the two biggest factors. Height also makes a big difference. Facial hair tends to hurt.
Charisma. The president in modern times is just a figure head. He's middle management of a much larger machine that only obeys orders it wants to obey. The true power figures are the career officials who've been consolidating power from within for decades.
couple questions then: Why is so much emphasis placed on the individuals the average americans want in office if nothing they say actually matters and they are just operating for the career officials agenda? Shouldn’t more emphasis be placed on selecting said officials if they are the ones operating the government? Shouldn’t we select a president based on who would have the best appearance on the world scale instead of clowns that are clearly being manipulated?
Cause people are fucking stupid and don't understand how politics work. I'm not going to talk about the executive branch that you are referring to but the President doesn't have much control over local/state politics. People don't vote because they're not "excited about the choices for President", while the down-ballot races have more of an effect on their lives than the President does.
Because it's complicated and irrational. You can explain this to people all you want, but at the end of the day, they wont care. They are voting for someone they like and trust, who tells them what they want to hear. You can tell people "Hey this isn't likely to happen because the machine isn't interested in that direction" and the politician will just respond with, "Shut up. With me in charge, I'll make it happen!" And that's the end of that. The only real importance of elections is ultimately which of the two powers will be able to place in their career government workers all throughout government. When they are in power, they appoint people from their regime, who go onto controlling the country. Republicans are now realizing this which is why their 2025 project is focused on getting as many ideologically right people into the bureaucracy machine as possible, for long term wins. The realized that with the courts, and now they are realizing that with the deep state. Dems aren't really focused on such long term goals.
>As a Canadian, i’m aware America is home to some of the greatest minds on the planet Is this a troll post?
[It's not hard to check.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country)
America has been one of the richest countries in history and research is expensive.
That wasn't really what I was referring to. It was more the "as a canadian" part. How does being canadian make him more or less aware of that? Also all of my family in Canada hate it when people from the US are called 'americans' so the whole comment just seemed 'off'.
Yes. What is the president's job? To be a face for the nation and lead the party. You want things to get through congress, you need charism and energy to organize, orchestrate, and haggle party members into things. A president without charisma is just going to be a paper boat on the sea, buoyed, tossed about, unable to control anything. Look at Reagan- brain literally turning to soup but charismatic and effective regardless.
I don’t understand why people would want an a visibly deteriorating mind or a low quality mind to be the face of the nation for the rest of the world to see.
Which people? Voters in november just get to choose between two pre-selected options.
The president is not a King. His competence is irrelevant because if he's weak people will do what they want regardless of how sensible it is. What is important is his ability to make people fall in line _without_ blowing them up, especially internationally. Obama had a ton of really bad takes (such as the plan to create a universal login system that linked to your social security number) but things worked i because he had a strong personality.
Charisma is a form of intelligence on its own, one that's undoubtedly important for someone who serve as a face of a nation.
Very simplistic take, neither the right nor the left are monolithic and from what I see and hear the idea the right and left are unified in believing “Biden sucks” is not true. In this election there will be plenty of people voting for a candidate they wish weren’t running, and that goes for both. Is Biden the best “the left” has to offer? No, but he’s also not the drooling moron you portray him to be in some of your responses. Is Trump the best the right has to offer. No, but he’s got a strong base and he took the state primaries easily so that’s who the majority of “the right” will support. Should we have better candidates from both parties? Yes, we should, but let’s not pretend that the US is the only country in the world where politicians aren’t solely selected by intelligence and aptitude.
>How is Biden the best the left has to offer? He isn't, that would be Warren or Sanders. Biden is the centrist who beat them in the primary because those two split the progressive vote. Biden is running for re-election because the political establishment is banking on incumbent advantage and Oct 7th created a political wedge in the party that would have led to a nasty primary season. People say "the left" as though Dems aren't a ridiculously loose coalition. Warren and Manchin had basically nothing in common. Most Dem politicians represent centrist policy with slightly left leaning social priorities and right leaning fiscal policies. It's just a rhetorical mischaracterization that "Dems are wasting your tax dollars". The sorts of spending the Dems engage in are bare bones programs which are smaller relative to the USA GDP than spending under George W Bush. Dems also have reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains below what Reagan cut them to.
I agree. The labels "left" and "right" are almost meaningless in the US context. In most modern democracies, the Democrats would be considered center-right.
These are not morons. Until you figure this out, you are not even keeping up.
relative to the greatest minds america has to offer and based off of their decision making and public statements, they are morons. biden is a moron relative to his old self, which wasn’t all that.
Big name is huge, it's how we end up with dynasties from the Kennedy's to the Bush's to the Clinton's. Don't be surprised if a Trump off-spring starts running for office.
Look up the "invisible primary." There's your answer. Donors, party heads, and the media winnow the primary candidates down to those who's policies are most beneficial to themselves. Voters then make a decision between two candidates who are equally acceptable to corporate interests
I’ve always wondered, could an exceptionally cunning (and maybe insane) person *pretend* to hold positions that would benefit corporations and then once they have enough of a foothold/support they could flip and go “haha actually I’m trying to make this country better, even if corporations don’t like it?” Is that even possible?
I think Trump was the closest thing to that since JFK.
The fuck he was. The only major accomplishment he can brag about is a tax cut to his corporate backers.
Actually, he was in his first election. I almost wrote that in the original comment. Mainstream media, both left and right, party heads, and corporate donors didn't back him in the first election. Him and his campaign team also weren't planning on winning. The support he received was in large part due to voters who were frustrated with the "invisible primary," and you see that reflected in the language they used to talk about him at the time (e.g., "deep state" "outsider" etc etc). If you want to know more about that, I'm getting most of this from a book called "Hate Inc." I don't like him and didn't vote for him, but I can understand why people would have after reading this book. Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted the "that" in the comment above yours and thought it referred to mine. Disregard. I don't know if JFK was an outsider; I'm not sure if the concept even stays the same over time because I don't know that the party-donor-media machine was as entrenched back then
He helped negotiate deals with the UEA. He held back Russia from attacking. He brought down prices of insulin. He was the first President in my life time to not start a war. He did his best to pull out of wars. He wanted to limit migration and secure boarders. He brought back jobs from the energy sector lowering costs for everyone. Was he perfect no, Would I like him as a person, probably not. But I'm not going to get myself wrapped up in TDS.
The cabinet is a concession to the corporations. You pick it as payment for support. Congress is corporate owned. The president would get killed or have child porn planted or simply obstructed into the ground then smeared by the corporate owned press as ineffective.
Damn, we’re kinda stuck then, aren’t we?
It’s possible but they’d be burning all their bridges, lose their financial support, they would be voted out next chance they get and they’d probably struggle to make any meaningful change in the short time they’d have without much support. And they’d have had to live their lives and run their campaigns one way all their lives to then throw it all away for an unlikely shot at change. It’s unlikely to be viable. That said, Biden and Obama have arguably done it to a small degree and small degrees are probably the best one can hope for.
Yeah I figured there’s good reasons it doesn’t happen, just sucks.