Donald Trump has taken his obsession with crafting falsehoods about Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to the next level, penning his own fan fiction on Tuesday about the vice president.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    He won once, after all

    Against an incumbent trump… People weren’t voting for Biden, they were voting against trump.

    40 years after his first attempt at running for president.

    If the people wanted Biden as president, it would have been back in the 80s when he was at his peak. He’d have probably been a good president back then.

    Unfortunately his personality got in the way and screaming at reporters that he had a higher IQ and it didn’t matter that he plagiarized campaign speeches or his classwork in lawschool torpedoed that campaign.

    It just seems like the people who defend Biden the most, don’t know anything about him besides that he was Obama’s VP.

    He was rejected by the American public over and over again for decades. It wasn’t until the only other alternative was four more years of trump, and he just barely beat Trump by the skin of his teeth.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I view it a bit differently. I like the job Biden has done, and think he made a good President. But Biden has always had some key liabilities which limited his ability to win a national election. He has a long history of saying stupid stuff, and he has had a history of “heavily borrowing” from other sources in his speeches. There’s a reason why his campaigns in the 80s usually ended by Super Tuesday.

      But all of those liabilities didn’t matter once he ran against Donald Trump. Trump said 10x more stupid stuff, told 10x more lies, and trigged Biden to fight 10x more fiercely. It is very possible that Donald Trump is the only candidate Joe Biden could ever have beaten in a national election.

      That doesn’t mean that people were voting against Trump, but it does mean that Biden’s strengths were most apparent when running against Trump. And it also explains why his campaign floundered this time: there was a demonstrated lack of energy due to his age that he couldn’t overcome.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think what it comes to really is that Biden was, all things considered, a pretty damn good president, and a terrible candidate.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      If the people wanted Biden as president, it would have been back in the 80s when he was at his peak. He’d have probably been a good president back then.

      Strange to see you, of all people, saying that. Biden of the '80s would have been much more corporatist and neoliberal than Biden of the 2020s, and therefore way worse despite being in his prime, age-wise.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Saying what?

        He’d have probably been a good president back then.

        Isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

        But back in the 80s it wasn’t even debatable, Biden was the best public speaker of his generation.

        And yeah, he was/is a neoliberal, but he’d have been pretty indistinguishable from Bill. And back then his whole “work with Republicans, not against them” schtick had a chance of working.

        Bidens time was decades ago. Doesn’t mean he was perfect back then. But I don’t think he’s changed much, you seem to think he has.

        • glizzard@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          A Biden presidency probably would have been better than a Reagan one.

          Random, but when was Hillary’s time?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            When she’d have had her best bet?

            Right after Bill’s second term.

            You might not remember, but they ran as a “two for one”. He had the charisma and she (supposedly) was the policy expert.

            So logically her best shot was right after him, and she probably would have ran if not for the Lewinsky stuff. I think that’s what made her pause, then didn’t want to run against GW after 9/11.

            So she got bumped all the way to 08, Obama happened, so we got stuck with her clogging shit up they the 2016 election.

            • glizzard@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Honestly probably the best answer. I was JAQing off, but kinda wanted your opinion if you were legit. And yeah I think I’d have to agree, although you’re also right in that I can only gleam those facts from reading

    • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      I made a few conservatives mad for saying that Trump was the only person who could have lost to Biden in 2020, they really didnt like it phrased like that.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure but he was rejected in lieu of better candidates. You could say exactly the same about trump. He ran when Kerry was getting elected too and lost badly in the primaries.