this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
42 points (80.9% liked)

BrainWorms

1219 readers
44 users here now

Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.

This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
DeadWorld@lemm.ee
42
Disney heiress, wealthy Democratic donors say they won't finance the party until Joe Biden drops out (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 4 months ago by DeadWorld@lemm.ee to c/brainworms@lemm.ee
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17237851

Abigail Disney, the granddaughter to Roy O. Disney, who cofounded The Walt Disney Company, told CNBC on Thursday that she plans to withhold donations to the party she has funded for years until Biden drops out. The president has said he has no plans to withdraw from the race, despite calls for him to do so.

“I intend to stop any contributions to the party unless and until they replace Biden at the top of the ticket. This is realism, not disrespect. Biden is a good man and has served his country admirably, but the stakes are far too high,” Abigail Disney said in a lengthy statement to CNBC. “If Biden does not step down the Democrats will lose. Of that I am absolutely certain. The consequences for the loss will be genuinely dire.”

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 36 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Why is it that none of these frantic calls for him to quit offer any plans of who to replace him as candidate, but how to make that new person palatable to any of the voters that aren't guaranteed to vote democrat no matter what?

Seriously, if they're thinking they can just throw the current VP into the candidacy and piddle fart around picking a new VP candidate, they're idiots. Won't work. She's simply not going to pull enough support.

And there's nobody else even close to ready to jump into the middle of an election cycle like this.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Heard rumors that reason we are suddenly hearing more about Hillary Clinton is because they plan to place her as the candidate at the convention. Think be dumbest thing they could do but wouldn't put it past them to do.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Because that worked so well before.

I don't hate Hillary at all. Would have been acceptable as the least bad option since I can't ever have a candidate that's firmly in the breadth of my wishes. Even Obama, who was the first president in my adult life I voted for, didn't really match my beliefs and wishes for the country, but I thought he would make more waves than he did, even on the second term.

But damn, Hillary? She's creeping up in age herself. That's like saying Bernie should get the nod. If the point is to have someone with the energy that Biden doesn't have, Hillary is a joke of a choice. And, again, while she doesn't represent me as a voter, I respect her efforts within her belief system. But they'd be crazy to try it

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’d vote for Bernie Sanders

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Putting Bernie in would help Democrats in an area where they're weakest, so they'd never do that.

Realistically, I'm pretty sure even Bernie has said he's too old to be president (could have been propaganda). Not a lot better, but i'd still probably vote for Elizabeth Warren if she was on the ticket. I did always feel like a lot of her ideas were either piggybacked from Bernie or kind of lacking in substance but that could be personal bias somewhere on my part or just the way the media portrayed her. Even then, it did always feel like she was headed to a good place.

Warren isn't an option either though, the real reason is that the party wants an establishment candidate that won't jeopardize the way things are run. They'll never let anyone progressive run on the ticket again.

[–] Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's improbable enough for me to interpret those rumors as entirely made up.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I sure hope so it be fucking stupid I wish she fuck off and never be seen again.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Kamala is doing better than joe against trump in several polls at this point

(https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4752020-vice-president-harris-trump-biden-poll/)

Biden has also been losing support for months now. Biden only firm base at this point is older liberals. Everyone else in the "democratic coalition" was only going to vote for Biden because of the alternative. Biden and the Democratic elite have been operating a genocide that has basically challenged people to stay home.

Bidens age also didn't just become a problem. Many have been talking about it for ages. We were told that we were over exaggerating.

The best way to handle replacing Biden would be to have a primary, but the dem establishment also just decided, "were not doing that this time."

Generic dem still beats both Joe and Trump in the polls. I'd rather get a non genocide supporting person that will hold up democracy then be forced to support genocide joe.

Im forced to vote blue no matter what out of fear of Project 2025, but I dont get why the dems want to make it so hard.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Im forced to vote blue no matter what out of fear of Project 2025, but I dont get why the dems want to make it so hard.

Because they think that they'll be successful pushing unlikeable options due to the severity of the ramifications from not voting their way.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A replacement candidate wouldn't have been an issue if they held a primary, which didn't happen because Biden decided to go along and try and be president until he is 86

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Which isn't exactly something new. Sitting presidents haven't often had primaries challenging them.

And that's when it should have been done. If everyone was so worried about his age and health, that was a good ways back at this point.

It's jist stupidity, the same love of stupidity that has plagued the democrats leadership for my lifetime. Occasional successes, but vast stretches of horrible decisions.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why is it that none of these frantic calls for him to quit offer any plans of who to replace him as candidate

She does exactly that in the article.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not really

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Disney pointed to Vice President Kamala Harris as a solid alternative to Biden, arguing she’d be able to defeat Trump.

“We have an excellent Vice President.  If Democrats would tolerate any of her perceived shortcomings even one tenth as much as they have tolerated Biden’s (and let’s not kid ourselves about where race and gender figure in that inequity) and if Democrats can find a way to stop quibbling and rally around her, we can win this election by a lot,” Disney said.

I'm not saying I agree with the choice, but she absolutely gives a recommendation, and elaborates on her reasoning.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

I mean, I covered that in the comment. I wasn't only saying it about this link and this quote.

I still say that Harris doesn't have the chops for the job, and my vote would be against trump, not for her. She's a slimy careerist. Maybe she would surprise me, and I would be happy as horsesjit to have a woman in the seat, I just don't think she's the one that should be in it at all.

Biden, and I'm not a Biden fan either, at least has a pretty good ability to delegate and that's all he needs to do for the next four. Pick good people, maintain the presidency's legitimacy, and not fuck things up.

And I genuinely believe that she would get otherwise lazy voters out for trump. You can't underestimate the christo-fascist hatred of women and allowing one in office would pull some of them out of the woodwork that would otherwise feel safe.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The people who aren't guarunteed to vote democrat not matter what fall into two major categories 1) anti-genocide center left. These people want to be able to vote democrat, but simply can't compromise so far to the right as Biden has gone. Pressing the brakes on Israel support is not a super high bar, this group is looking for any sign that the Democrats are capable of listening 2) people who saw the debate performance and think Biden is too old.

Neither of these groups are hard to capture, and the reason most people aren't strongly calling for any specific candidate is probably because everyone understands it would foster divisiveness and be pointless. The most logical choice would be Harris; she would get access to Biden campaign funds, she's been in the whitehouse, she's a woman when abortion is on the ballot, she's responsible for Biden's support by black voters and she has distanced herself from Biden's braindead support of Israel. And, of course, she's not ancient.

So if I was speculating I would say it would be her who would quickly move to the front of whatever convention process might happen if Biden stepped down, but more importantly I think people are being unspecific because they don't need a specific person, they need "Not Biden" because at this point Biden is a surrogate for a Trump win. So think of it as "Not Trump".

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The first group there is exceptionally stupid because of how Trump would be far and away more supportive of Israel. So letting him in goes against their purported goals.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I disagree, being complicit in genocide and pretending you can still stand for something is exceptionally stupid.

Regardless, you can't win an election without the anti-genocide contingent, so you should instead focus your criticisms on those committing the genocide and trying to extort voters into supporting it.

Luckily the anti-genocide demographic of the party hasn't backed down and the pressure they helped create might actually get Biden to step down at this point. It wouldn't have been a possibility if people caved on genocide like you think they should've. Democratic conservatives know they've over-extended themselves thinking theu could still do the same old "lesser evil" schtick and now they're scrambling to do their job.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Continuing to supply and cover for the genocide hurts support. Why must people "get over" supporting genocide to protect supposed american democracy. Why can't the party who claim to support democracy, stop providing weapons to countries that are found to likely be committing war crimes.

One ask seems easier than the other.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden and the Democrats are not waging a genocidal war, that is Israel. The USA is not the only country that continues to provide aid and weapons to Israel.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Funding a genocide and providing the literal bombs and bullets to carry it out is complicity. Other countries doing it is utterly irrelevant.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

My point is that Biden isn't explicitly funding it, or supporting it. He just didn't cease already established aid to Israel when they crossed the line against the Hamas, just like most of their other allies didn't either. Representing Biden as directly responsible for the genocide against Palestine is a major and ongoing propaganda campaign by the far-right, because it potentially stops people from voting for Biden, which helps trump. He has not taken severe action against Israel, that's true, but that's not the same as committing genocide. There are many other considerations the USA has to weigh in that decision. Biden isn't the only politician involved in that decision.

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Group 1 unfortunately has a tremendous amount of overlap with groups who typically are unlikely to vote, I think it's why the concern there hasn't even escalated beyond stern words when the cameras are on. Some of the strongest swing groups also tend to be a bit biased against Harris, I think that's why they're hesitant to choose her.

tl;dr: Democrats have decided that young people are going to continue to find a reason to not vote and swing voters trend towards being at least mildly racist/sexist old people.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Seriously, if they're thinking they can just throw the current VP into the candidacy and piddle fart around picking a new VP candidate, they're idiots.

Some people think that was always their objective.

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Lol Brianworms Group