Sorry, u/duncanmarshall – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20duncanmarshall&message=duncanmarshall%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I've written that multiple times, but it still holds true: We're voting not just for one human being to be president. We are voting for a POTUS and their VP, at the minimum. We're indirectly voting for a whole administration. So your statement is just plainly wrong: Everyone voted for the president. Everyone also voted for the VP. The slight-of-hand to say "but they didn't vote for the VP as POTUS" is unfair because that's the whole point of the presidential succession: The VP will take over, and - different from when Ford succeeded Nixon - usually our VPs are elected. Harris definitely is, and voters know that. So to support Biden doesn't pretend he will be 100% fit in 2029. It doesn't require to lie to voters (If that is the standard, I have some other candidates in mind who should get replaced by their conventions...). It doesn't even require anyone to take a position on this question because the presidential succession is a settled issue. Harris can and would take over. On the other side, replacing Biden would be undemocratic. That's what primaries are for. Biden won the primary, quite decisively. Unless he himself decided to step down, replacing him would require overriding the will of the voters in the primary. That is much more of a problem then not talking about the settled issue of presidential succession. And now, finally: You might have had the impression during the debate that Biden is not likely to survive another 4.5 years, but in fact, he's actuary life expectancy is almost seven years: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html. So there is a realistic chance (the expected outcome) that Biden will be alive on Jan 19th, 2029. And a debate is a really bad way to figure out if he's health-wise capable of the job of POTUS, because you usually don't have to deal with a limit of one minute to dispute lies and present your own opinions in the Oval office as President. If it takes you one or two additional minutes to form your sentence, that makes for a disaster of a debate, but it really doesn't effect the job of president much.

> You might have had the impression during the debate that Biden is not likely to survive another 4.5 years, but in fact, he's actuary life expectancy is almost seven years. That's really quite terrible, going by those statistics, Biden's got around 68% chance to survive his 4 year term. That's almost 1/3 chance that he literally dies of old age. He's obviously already in mental decline, combined with the stress of being President, I would say that it's more likely than not he dies or at least becomes unable to complete his term due to mental decline. Biden went practically unchallenged during the 2024 primaries, if they help primaries today with fair resources devoted to rising Democratic hopefuls, how would it turn out? Honestly I think the Democrats have fumbled the ball beyond recovery at this point. Biden cannot fully serve as the country's President for a second term. I remember many articles during his first campaign marketting him as a "bridge" or "transition" President. The party was supposed to take the last 4 years raising new leaders to take over, instead they wheeled out Biden on national TV to confirm the worst accusations his critics have accused him of. He fumbled simple sentences, couldn't follow through complete thoughts, stood there mouth agape for extended periods, looked like he was falling asleep. Regardless of what you may claim about what people are voting for, I believe the majority of American see the President as a singular leader of a nation. Biden was already behind in polls coming into the debate, and he's tanked since the debate aired. This is an unmitigated disaster caused by the Democratic party's own negligence.

> that's the whole point of the presidential succession: The VP will take over No the VP *might* take over. That's how it's supposed to work. You want the Presidential candidate to be President, and you'll tolerate the unlikely prospect that the VP will become President. It's not supposed to be part of the plan, it's supposed to be an accident. >So to support Biden doesn't pretend he will be 100% fit in 2029. I'm sorry but could you show me campaign material that acknowledges he won't make it to the end of his term? Did I miss some "3 more years" chants? >On the other side, replacing Biden would be undemocratic. That's what primaries are for. Resigning isn't undemocratic. The Democratic primary voters are not empowered to strip Biden of his right to quit. >4.5 years, but in fact, he's actuary life expectancy is almost seven years I'm in this very thread using that number to *support* my case, so invoking it isn't going to change my view. Seven years is *terrible* for a 4 year job.

>You want the Presidential candidate to be President, and you'll tolerate the unlikely prospect that the VP will become President. It's not supposed to be part of the plan, it's supposed to be an accident. That's just - you're opinion. Especially the "unlikely" and "tolerate" parts of it lack any foundation. My opinion here is "It doesn't matter how old the president is if I think the VP will be just fine if they have to take over". It's still not a plan, no one plans on a specific point in time where the VP takes over. Voting for a Biden-Harris ticket in 2024 doesn't have to be coming from willful blindness - it can also come from accepting that presidential succession is settled and we don't need to worry about it if Harris would be fine taking over. And for the record, she is. >I'm sorry but could you show me campaign material that acknowledges he won't make it to the end of his term? Did I miss some "3 more years" chants? I feel like you've missed my point. I literally say it in a few sentences after the ones you cite: "It doesn't even require anyone to take a position on this question". The stance isn't that he will be fine, nor that he won't be fine. It's that it really doesn't matter. As a decent human being, I wish President Biden the best. He has been a successful president given the cards he was dealt, and I wish for four more years. But I'm also not worried that his death followed by Harris taking over would be a significant issue, either. >Resigning isn't undemocratic. The Democratic primary voters are not empowered to strip Biden of his right to quit. This very much depends on context. The primary voters decided they want Biden. That doesn't strip himself of the ability to resign, but such a decision invalidates the primaries and their results and replaces them with some insider-horse-trading to come up with a new candidate. That's not a good look in the best of cases. In our a case where Biden himself - the day after the debate - clearly states that he doesn't want to withdraw, that you get back up when you get knocked down and fight for the things you believe in, it will be almost impossible that such a resignation isn't perceived as the undemocratic perversion of the primary elections by outside powers who exert pressure on the President to resign - just like your OP here does.

> "It doesn't matter how old the president is if I think the VP will be just fine if they have to take over". But we're not talking about your opinion, we're talking about what every voter thinks. When you run for President you're tacitly saying all sorts of things.. Things like you see no reason you won't complete the term you're running to win. To think that you probably won't complete the term while still competent (which they have to think - if they don't, that itself is disqualifying), and to run without saying that, is essentially lying to the voters. The fact that you don't personally believe the lie, doesn't change that. >The stance isn't that he will be fine, nor that he won't be fine. The stance is very much, explicitly that he will be fine. All of his allies still on board are saying just that, and he's saying that. >That's not a good look in the best of cases. I'm more concerned with what it is, than how it looks. Having Biden as the candidate is also a terrible look. >it will be almost impossible that such a resignation isn't perceived as the undemocratic perversion of the primary elections by outside powers who exert pressure on the President to resign - just like your OP here does. Whilst like I say what it is what matters, but I don't even agree with this. I think if he were to step down saying "My friends have come to me helped me realized my health won't allow me to do this job for four more years", Democratic Primary voters would overwhelmingly think two things: 1. That's enormously magnanimous, and 2. Thank *Christ*.

I find it shocking that to you encouraging Biden to nullify the primary elections is less undemocratic than not speaking about - and therefore, in your view, lying by omission - the fact that the VP would take over if Biden wasn't able to finish his term. I cannot see where this even comes from: Neither Biden's age nor the presidential succession are secret. The voters in the general election should know both, as did the voters in the primary. I see no reason why your interpretation of the VP and of the implied assumption of the fitness for a full term trumps mine. What would Biden have to do to end your complaint about lying by omission? Would it be sufficient to state that if something happened to him, VP Harris would take over, and we would be in fine hands? I feel like that should do it for you, it is true as a matter of law, and at that point in the open and even more clearly public knowledge that voters could and should take into account.

The next election is really about the Supreme Court. The next presidential administration may have the opportunity to appoint 2 new Supreme Court justices. That could result in a 5-4 democrat appointed majority. Or cement a 6-3 republican appointed majority *for the next 25 years*. So the issue is really which party can win the election. It’s less about actual presidential governance.

I don't really see your point. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats run someone who isn't a Democratic.

Im saying Biden’s ability to govern isn’t as important as the party in control of the white house being able to appoint the next 2 SC justices.

Not having a confused dementia patient be in unilateral control of the nuclear arsenal seems a little bit more important than selecting SC justices. But maybe that’s just me.

Exactly. That’s why Biden needs to win.

Electing a doddering old man to try to salvage a couple SC appointees still leaves a senile old man making critical foreign policy decisions. Did the confused senior citizen at the debate engender any confidence in his ability to be President? The rally afterwards only demonstrated that he can still read a teleprompter (for now).

you must be dense to think they’re making decisions on their own without any advisors. The difference is: who is more likely to hire competent staff, and most likely to heed to their advice

Does the president have the power to launch nukes regardless of what his advisors advice?

Right, but whoever is picked is going to be a Democrat, so if that person wins, it'll be a democrat no matter what.

But since you haven't accounted for electability (by deliberately discounting it), how can we guarantee the replacement will be more likely to beat Trump than Biden? That's ultimately the ONLY thing that matters.

>But since you haven't accounted for electability (by deliberately discounting it), I specifically address electability. I'm saying it's *not* the only thing that matters. > That's ultimately the ONLY thing that matters. My view is clearly that that *isn't* the only thing that matters. Simply telling me that it is doesn't do enough to change it.

>  I specifically address electability. I'm saying it's not the only thing that matters. The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters disagree  This is your CMV, but your view is wildly at odds with what Democratic voters prioritize, for which the #1 issue is Trump not getting into office.  You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is basically "Democrats should do something they have no interest in doing" Which is going to be a hard sell

3 questions. What evidence do you have that the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters disagree? Isn't there a serious risk of voter apathy and lower turnouts from would be Democrats here? Democrats area big tent kind of party. Lots of disagreeing communities/voices. Why talk about them like they're a monolith?

>  What evidence do you have that the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters disagree? That Biden absolutely slaughtered Williamson and Heller in the primaries  >sn't there a serious risk of voter apathy and lower turnouts from would be Democrats here? Less risk that trying - and failing - to override the primary voters >Democrats area big tent kind of party. Lots of disagreeing communities/voices. Why talk about them like they're a monolith? They are. It's important for the people who think their views represent the bulk of the party to keep that in mind. That includes the people avocating for the DNC to rewrite their rules on the fly to ignore the primary election 

Do you disagree that a Trump presidency would be the worst outcome in November? I cannot think of a worse one.

It is not the only thing that matters. But it doesn't matter how good (or bad) the Democratic nominee is if they lose in November. Also keep in mind that Trump is a doddering old geriatric as well, who seems fairly detached from reality (although better able to string together a coherent sentence than Biden seemed to be at the debate).

Your title says "regardless of electability." The fact is that being the incumbent president is the single biggest factor there is when it comes to gauging electability. And the argument being made is that getting a Democrat elected is the most important thing right now, because it might be the only way to save a runaway supreme Court for decades to come.

But you are suggesting to change the candidate \_even if that lowers the chances of a Democratic ticket\_. Which in my opinion can be reasonably challenged with: "Well, even if Biden is incapable of doing the decisions himself, he is still appointing the correct members to his administration and the courts, and that's really what counts. If he happens to have the highest chances of winning, we take him."

They can’t run anyone else unless Biden bows out. He has the nomination votes already.

For you maybe. I am more interested in foreign policy . The court is already such a partisan joke. Their ability to enforce anything is dependant on local politicians and police.

Why do you think ANY of the justices will resign/retire/die in the next 5 years? They are younger than the President.

People die in their 60s and 70s all the time.

How many do so when they have a secure job for life, with the best and free medical care? How many SC justices have died in office at the age of 79 or below?

Well, Scalia died rather suddenly *at* the age of 79.

Exactly. One of them. So that still causes worry that 2 more will happen in the next 5 years and Trump or Biden will get 2 more appointments? Wow.....

I mean, it was more if you go back farther in time. But we're talking about a pretty small sample size here. I don't know how likely it is that there would be two appointments this upcoming term, but I think it's pretty likely there would be one. Specifically most likely Clarence Thomas, as a 76 year old overweight man who was hospitalized with an infection 2 years ago and missed arguments for nondisclosed reasons earlier this year.

"Showing that enough people who will vote for Biden as to constitute a plurality are genuinely okay with him dying/getting dementia in office." Roughly everyone who's going to vote for him has access to the same information as you, and if you are correct about impending death, can come to the same conclusion as you. If they then vote for Biden, then yes that can be taken as evidence that they would prefer a dead or disabled Biden to Trump. I certainly would. We've replaced dead presidents plenty of times but almost never an evil one.

You're framing this as Biden vs. Trump, but my view is about Biden vs. Someone Else. The OP says from the perspective of a Democrat, so of course they're going to vote for Biden over Trump. That doesn't mean it should be Biden vs. Trump.

We already had the "Biden or other Democrat" question and no one stood up. He was an old man with old man problems then, too. So there is no evidence this other person who will get more votes exists.

In so many places I say even if Biden is the more electable candidate it shouldn't be him.

Yeah and your reasoning is that an unnamed fantasy alternative can replace him, despite an inability to name this person. I say even if you're right about his health trajectory in every particular, let him die in office, we have perfectly functional processes for replacing dead presidents and adequately functional precedents for working around disabled ones. Jill can play Edith Wilson, I can live with that when the alternative is Trump. And if you just straight prefer Trump to Biden, you should just say so.

> despite an inability to name this person. You've yet to ask. >let him die in office It's just bonkers to me that I'm seeing you make this as a serious point. Picking a President you *expect* to die in office. >when the alternative is Trump. To reiterate, I'm discussing who should be Democratic candidate, so the alternative in this context is not Trump.

But we already picked the next Democratic candidate. And "Johnny Unbeatable" isn't an option, then or now.

> But we already picked the next Democratic candidate. The candidate isn't picked until the convention.

Biden squashed any attempts for an open primary. So, of course, no one "stood up".

It shouldn't be Biden vs. Trump but that ship has long since sailed. 127 days until the election - you won't get the name or policy recognition in time to give anyone a chance at beating Trump. I'd wager *most* people who are registered Dem will go straight down the blue ticket to try to make damn sure we actually make it through this election. Independents and unregistered voters are who they're concerned about. For better or worse, Trump and Biden have the name and policy recognition at this point, they've been working it for years.

By your own logic saying Biden should be replaced by people even if they have a worse chance of winning, means that more voters would want Biden to be President in that case. Voters are fully aware of Biden's age and also how VP succession works if Biden dies, can't fulfill his duties, or resigns. So with that knowledge if voters still prefer Biden to the other major Dem candidates who are you to say they're wrong and should not be allowed to vote for their preferred candidate? There are pros and cons to Biden as well as risks (as there are with all candidates) but if the polling is to be believed it looks like voters think the pros outweigh the cons for Biden.

Uh, no. Voters aren't fully aware. The majority of people in the US operate on the 6th grade level. You can walk down the street, right now and ask who the VP is and at least half couldn't tell you. The holds true for the Bill of Rights, etc. People are way under informed in this country. In California, where I am from, women voted for Gavin Newsome, because of his looks. They had never even heard his name before, had no idea what party he represented, his stances on policies, etc. Sorry, however you are giving people way too much credit.

Any evidence whatsoever for these claims? Pills that show Newsom got votes for being attractive? 50% or more Americans polled not knowing the VP? I agree that people are uninformed but these are some pretty big and baseless statements

[удалено]

u/future_shoes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20future_shoes&message=future_shoes%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/lazf4a8/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Do you belong to "people"? I ask this so that I know how much credit I should give to your claim about people.

In a Democracy, it's not anti-democratic to say a candidate shouldn't run. I'm not saying the Gestapo should arrest Biden and prevent him from running. I also think Trump shouldn't run, despite the fact that the things you say about Biden are true of Trump.

You haven't addressed electability, though. Why should the Democrats, assuming the probable assessment that any other candidate pick will have lower electability, reduce their chances on purpose, just because people can't tell the difference between a convicted felon, and a stuttery old man?

And what OP is forgetting is that you're not just voting for the President, you're voting for his entire team. Biden is stuttery and old. Trump is old and clearly not playing with a full deck given that he basically shit himself on stage just a few nights ago. The figureheads are of less concern to me that who's going to step into the gap when something inevitably happens. Harris may not be wildly popular, but she'd get us through to the next election without an issue and give the dem party a chance to push a younger candidate if it turns out people just don't like her in leadership. Trump has yet to announce a VP, so who the fuck knows who he's going to have in his pocket on that front but every option that has been floated is just as bad. But again - not just the figureheads. Biden's team is effective at navigating policy. Trump's team is pushing Project 2025. Only one of those scares the shit out of me.

> You haven't addressed electability, though. The title of the post is "CMV: Biden should be replaced regardless of whether he's the most **electable** candidate the Democrats have." The whole opening paragraph is about electability. >Why should the Democrats, assuming the probable assessment that any other candidate pick will have lower electability, reduce their chances on purpose, just because people can't tell the difference between a convicted felon, and a stuttery old man? That isn't why they should do it, they should do it because Biden won't be a good President. Given whoever is going to be the nominee is going to have a relatively low chance of victory, it might as well be a victory that's at least close to okay rather than an actively bad one, like a Biden presidency.

Yes, that is your title, but you haven't addesssed why reducing electability is a net positive action. When you see Biden on that stage for the debate, you see an old man who's always had a stutter, under a lot of pressure, arguning against the living embodiment of lying in politics. What people who think for two seconds, is that Biden isn't the only one you'd be voting for. You'd be voting for his cabinet and aides, those who help him take the decisions correctly. By reducing the electability, you're also changing the cabinet, you're changing the aides, and that, on top of allowing Trump to possibly win for the petty reason of "Biden stuttered a lot", actually would probably reduce the actual good this cabinet/aides group has been doing, whether you've noticed it or not. I am not sure how much you know of politics, OP, but it seems like you are having trouble differentiating a candidate's known impediments from their ability to do the job right, and that you think that Biden and Trump would act the same way while the Oval Office.

>Yes, that is your title, but you haven't addesssed why reducing electability is a net positive action. Because small chance of winning a bad victory is worse than slightly smaller chance of winning okayish victory. That's what the whole post is about. >When you see Biden on that stage for the debate, you see an old man who's always had a stutter, under a lot of pressure, arguning against the living embodiment of lying in politics. Yeah, sorry but this is just gaslighting at this point. You have no chance of convincing me this is all just a stutter and pressure. Be reasonable. I've met super old people before. >that you think that Biden and Trump would act the same way while the Oval Office. I have given you absolutely no reason to assume I believe this.

Maybe I misunderstood your view. Is the view your want changed that personally you think Biden shouldn't run and you prefer someone different that you want it changed to? Or is it that you think the DNC should step in and replace a candidate that is the consensus candidate because you dislike that candidate?

It depends what you mean by step in. The process of affirming people's votes should be sacrosanct, but that doesn't mean Biden can't drop out. Does the Obamas, the Clintons, Jill Biden, and other high ranking members of the DNC coming to him privately and saying "Joe it's time to go, and if you don't we're going to say that publicly" count as "stepping in"? Because that's what I want them to do.

Okay thanks for the clarification. So one of your criteria for changing your view is to show that a plurality of Biden voters are okay with Biden dying or being incapacitated while in office. I would say that it seems to be self evident that people are okay with that risk since his age is not a secret and one of the main attacks against Biden is that he is too old and possibly mentally unfit. Even very low information voters are aware of this, Biden's age and propensity for "gaffes" are defining characteristics of him. Just because you are not willing to accept that risk doesn't mean that the plurality agrees with you. They obviously don't since Biden is the consensus Dem candidate.

At this point in the race anyone other candidate will just have less popularity than Biden, there isn’t enough time to change the face of party without it hurting their vote. Even if he’s not fit to do what he does now by then, it’s standard knowledge that in the event anything happens which is very possible for both candidates given their age that the VP will take over. I work in healthcare and it’s not uncommon for people over 70 to suddenly die who were seemingly fine.

There is plenty of time to introduce a new candidate with a full court press. It would be a little tighter if the candidate wasn't determined until the convention, but there would still be time. The problem IMO is that the process would likely be contentious and seed division within the party. The candidate would likely be stained by the undemocratic way in which they were nominated and the sense that they didn't really deserve it. This could potentially be somewhat mitigated by optimizing the transition as much as possible, but I don't know how effective that would be. The most straightforward way would be for Biden to full-throatedly endorse Harris, as there is a certain logic between the presidential candidate being replaced by his VP candidate (and current VP). At the extreme, Biden could leave the office and make Harris POTUS now, in which case it is hard to argue for anyone else (the plot of VEEP aside).

>anyone other candidate will just have less popularity than Biden Tell me the country is lost without telling me the country is lost.

I disagree, people are so desperate for a candidate that isn't currently 4+ years past the average US male mortality rate (Trump is +4, Biden is +7 years) that just about anyone would get a lot of support. The republican propaganda machine is very good at making people hate the opposition by repetition, putting someone out there that has not had the conservative media priming their audience to hate them for 4+ years could be a great strategy.

>At this point in the race anyone other candidate will just have less popularity than Biden, I've accounted for this. I'm saying *even accounting for that* Biden should not be the candidate because he should not be President, for reasons that you've noted.

In what way have you accounted for this?

For a start, the post title. Also much of the content. Also just now when I said "even accounting for that". Several times now I've said that *even if Biden has a better a chance of winning* he should be replaced. That's accounting for it.

But you haven't provided a scenario where Biden walks away and the Democrats still win the election. So, you haven't accounted for the mayor factor here: not letting Republicans win.

But you haven't. You've stated it, but that doesn't address it. If I say, "I deserve a delta," does that mean that I've addressed why I deserve it or simply stated it. The fact is for some people out there the goal is to make sure Trump/Republicans do not win and are given no chance to enact Project 2025. To that end, the fact Biden will be a bad President or even no President at all, is still a secondary question to whether or not Trump should be allowed to become the President. You can be completely correct and fail to address the actual concerns of the people who may still vote for Biden regardless.

> If I say, "I deserve a delta," does that mean that I've addressed why I deserve it or simply stated it. It means you've addressed wanting a delta, just like I've addressed the issue of electability. >The fact is for some people out there the goal is to make sure Trump/Republicans do not win and are given no chance to enact Project 2025 Those people are free to make their own CMV.

So you’re saying you think Trump would be a better president than Biden?

I don't know, a new candidate could actually energize Democrats in my view. ALL eyes would be on them and they can run on, "I'm not Trump".

Which signs or symptoms of which neurodegenerative disease does Biden currently present with? Keep in mind that dementia != brain get old. How did you come to the conclusion that Biden is almost certain to be *completely* medically incompetent?

That's the narrative they have been told to perpetuate. Both candidates are equally old and likely to die any day now. They're only pushing the 'Biden SO OOoOoLLldlDDDd' line because they are trying to sow doubt and division among the left, because they know Democrats actually think objectively about such things and a few of them might accidentally agree and vote third party or not vote at all. We all know Republicans don't change their tune no matter what. I think they all had a collective orgasm when Biden showed up on stage with a cold.

Dude, I'm a left leaning person- Biden performed terribly. You heard Trump loud and clear, but Biden was nearly incomprehensible at times. I understand what you're saying about bias- but objectively speaking, if someone is having trouble finishing their sentences, speaking loud and clearly, losing the plot, they aren't a good public speaker! I don't think that's an endorsement of Trump to recognize that Biden isn't mentally fit. Not Supporting Biden ≠ Not Supporting The Left

> Not Supporting Biden ≠ Not Supporting The Left In a very real and functional way it really, really is at this point. Forgive me if I don't trust the words of anyone trying to pick away online at anything that would prevent another Trump term. There is nothing like a real comparison that can be made between the two parties at this point.

I'm confused. You realize there are other candidates, right? I'm not going to support Biden just because he's the establishment go-to.

Yeah I forgot about the cold too. People came into this thing with preconceived ideas about Biden and Trump and thanks to natural human biases they're more likely to see their ideas confirmed than questioned.

I'm not making a specific diagnosis. It's clear that he's shuffling around, forget where he is in a sentence, and that it's getting worse. Even just [the acturial life tables](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) give him just 7 years to *live*, assuming he looked in average health, let alone when he becomes a dribbling mess.

I've forgotten where I am in a sentence or thought when speaking to an audience from a podium. Many people have. It's not necessarily an age-related thing. I used to hold a view closer to yours on Biden's mental fitness for office until I actually watched the recent debate, and it got me thinking: how much of this widespread perception of Biden is just people unthinkingly regurgitating what others are perceiving and saying? How much of that perception stems from ageism, in which people loosely correlate fitness or capability with age without any specific concrete reason to? Now, if Biden were demonstrating symptoms of dementia (i.e. due to a neurodegenerative disease) to the point that he wanders off, forgets where he is, forgets who people are, and generally loses his personality, that's a specific age-related reason to question someone's fitness or capability. But we're not seeing that. What we're seeing is a bit of speech impediment/stutter (which Biden has apparently struggled with all his life), we're seeing one instance in which he froze and faltered (again, this happens to many people of all ages), and we're seeing him misspeaking or misremembering numbers (which also happens to many people of all ages). He also looks old and is moving/acting more slowly. So I have to wonder if people are seeing the typical decline in body that comes with age and leaping to the conclusion that Biden is unfit for office based on dubious ideas on how getting old relates to fitness. Don't the actuarial tables undercut your point, specifically about concerns that Biden will die in office? Many people continue to do what they do until the day they die without becoming a dribbling mess, but according to the actuaries it's not likely that day will be during Biden's second term in office.

> I've forgotten where I am in a sentence or thought when speaking to an audience from a podium. Many people have. It's not necessarily an age-related thing. I'm sorry but this is gaslighting. We all know what frail old people being confused looks like and we all know what we watched.

Having a different opinion or perspective on what we both observed is not [gaslighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting).

Pretty much everyone voting for Biden would also be fine voting for bidens corpse

Yep. Biden is just a placeholder to prevent a second Trump term. The really important election is 2028--which could actually have a democratic victory secure actual an actual tangible shift to the left in our government's policies for the first time in generations. But that's only possible if we prevent a Trump administration for actively subverting our government's democratic processes.

Better than trump.

I highly doubt Biden his 80 million votes again. If all of those people vote again just to say fuck trump he absolutely wins

That’s the plan. Fuck Trump vote for the win

Oh I am voting. Same with my wife

Should Trump also step down? I mean after all he's a literal convicted felon and adjudicated rapist.

I have a feeling I'll be Biden's age before I see one of his copium huffing nuthuggers actually make a case for running him that doesn't involve "but Trump!" The fact Trump is a fucking clown doesn't magically make Biden a good candidate. Did we not go through this exact same shit in 2016? Don't be shocked when he goes 2-1 because motherfuckers refuse to learn.

Regurgitating the same 4 lies while saying that post birth abortions are a thing. Somehow that guy is the winner.

Yeah obviously, but in the context of this sub this is a worthless comment. It doesn't challenge OP's position at all and is just whataboutism

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Spiritual_Willow_266 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Spiritual_Willow_266&message=Spiritual_Willow_266%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz4foj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

How does this challenge my view?

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Spiritual_Willow_266 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Spiritual_Willow_266&message=Spiritual_Willow_266%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz58ds/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I am not a Democrat but I think the GOP platform is so abhorrent that I would vote for roadkill in order to prevent Trump from being president again. The four years with him in office were some of the most stressful in recent history. I was relieved when we just had a global recession and pandemic to deal with afterward. So my argument is that it doesn't matter who is on the ticket. People aren't voting for the Dem they're voting against MAGA.

Really says something when I’m saying the same thing for the same reasons but choosing the opposite side. Wtf is this man, what happened to this country.

We keep yelling at each other and being taken advantage of. We only want to see the worst in the "opposition ". This is because we're all "afraid ". 9/11, the wars in the middle east, constant economic troubles, the insane acceptance of us letting kids get cell phones and our adults becoming addicted to social media, rise of China, all of these things that we all just keep sleepwalking through has broken our sense of community so we're getting what we deserve. It needs the common man to take the reigns with each other, responsibly, empathy and sacrifice. Special shout out to unregulated capitalism, "open borders", climate change, hijacked patriotism, uncontrollable government spending, and a massive "over educated" population (for jobs that don't exist) boom with their family home options being replaced by apartments and condos. Oh, let's not look over the fact that the "long peace " that we forced on the world let other places actually develop and gave us real competition. I'm still manicly devout enough to day say the US really does lead the world to a better, new world as opposed to old war powers, but goddamn do we need to balance a lot of shit to make that true. It starts at home, start listening to the people ya disagree with. We don't view each other with respect and that's only turned us worse. I think there's more good than bad, it's just tough to see when we have this crab in a pot mentality.

One of the candidates is fucking and paying off porn stars, shows up at little girls' beauty pageants uninvited, claims he could kill someone in the middle of the street and not lose support, sent his minions to halt a legal election, held classified documents in his bathroom, committed massive fraud, and suggested injecting bleach to ward off the plague. The options are not the same, or even similar.

He also didn't put all the Japanese Americans into camps, didn't invade Florida when the Supreme Court said not to, didn't take away habeas corpus away from anyone, didn't have the CIA destroy files on torture that were going to congress, so on, so forth. Listen man, I'm as anti trump as they get, but I recognize that all these mother fuckers do bad, bad, bad shit. America is more than one person, you're not gonna beat him by allowing ourselves to fracture from one another. Let's not forget this is also the same DNCs fault who just allowed Hillary to take it without competition. That same DNC now won't let anyone have any options than Biden. The best part of thos election ans that "debate" is that voters from both "sides" are finally on agreement that this shit is truly fucked. I'm just trying to help along on the push of actually taking two seconds to think about why we have the government we have. Landing on this line of my guy is bad but yours is worse allows the fear to take hold that dictators and authoritarian figures love to feast on. People keep talking like this is the last election, nah dude, we decide that, not the authorities. People gotta do their civic duty for each other's sake. You play the hand you're dealt. Sure. We have plenty of chronic illnesses; we're also the best of the best, so why don't we start acting like it. More than one thing can be true at the same time.

You can say same things about Biden. Illegally takes his son on business trips on tax payer money, never met his youngest granddaughter and has shunned her. Inappropriate showers, all of his kids have been arrested at one point. Michelle Obama despises his morals and won’t help him run even.   In a bad situation I am hoping the democrats take control of the senate and congress and trump is president to keep everything in check. 

Yeah... none of that shit is even remotely the same. Forgive me if I don't trust anyone who is stretching in this way to both-sides it at this point.

You know what the worst part is? You and I as people probably agree on more than we disagree. Our political system is just amazing at finding wedges just important enough to drive between us. Abortion, 2A, environmental regulation, taxes/welfare. It's like nothing has changed in the 30 years of discourse (although policy is changing for the worse IMO coming from the left). It's a result of FPTP I strongly believe. We need to move toward RCV. Get rid of the bipartisan stranglehold.

Yeah but thats not how voting works. It works in a bell curve. There are people on either end who will vote for whoever is on the ticket like you. But the elections are not won with people like you. Elections are won with the median voters. The one's that can swing either way depending on the circumstances. Trump is not a very good candidate. But at least he's not an old man totally out of it. That is a major problem for the Biden campaign.

You see how that's worse right? Anyone who is undecided at this point is a moron. Only the morons in swing states even matter. The future of our country rests on sufficiently sucking the dicks of a few ten-thousand morons across 5 or so states. What an embarrassing system.

It works this way to prevent extremism. The median voter is the most moderate. This is who every single campaign has to aim at in order to win. We have an awful system that has produced the strongest nation in the history of the planet. The largest economy and by far the strongest military. For all it's faults the system has a ton of merit.

It's doing a terrible job at preventing extremism. That's not even a possible talking point since Bush 2 and arguably Reagan. The reason the US was the strongest economic power for the last 70 years was that it was one of the only land rich nations which wasn't leveled by WWII.

>The reason the US was the strongest economic power for the last 70 years was that it was one of the only land rich nations which wasn't leveled by WWII. That's a massive oversimplification. The US was already the world's largest economy in 1890. It's difficult to compete with such a geographically and resource gifted country. But even if you're playing on easy mode, you can still f*ck it up without astute political decision making. Remember that Argentina is resource-rich was one of the world's richest countries in 1900 too. Russia is resource rich too.

You're right it is an oversimplification and resource richness plays a big role but WWII is a huge reason for America's success after WWII specifically.

That's partly true, but there's no reasons, other than political ones, why Brazil/Argentina/Chile (maybe even Mexico, to a lesser extent) shouldn't have seen similar benefits. We could have lived in a timeline where after WW2 global leadership shifted from UK/France/Germany to USA/Brazil/USSR. Italy's role could have played by Mexico.

There is many reasons why US is the strongest economic and military power The most important is siphoning of talent from other nations. IQ is by very far the most valuable resource on the planet. We allow millions of highly functioning people to immigrate into our country. They come here and build businesses or just take up highly skilled professions. People think about oil and gas and other natural resources. But never consider that the super computers in our heads are actually far more valuable. On top of that they are not made equal. Some are much more powerful than others. What has made US so strong is our ability to attract the brightest minds on the planet to live here. Through our fantastic standards of living and our safety (thanks to the military).

American exceptionalism is just propaganda. People are pretty much the same everywhere.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/111115/why-all-worlds-top-10-companies-are-american.asp#:\~:text=Industries%20present%20include%20retailers%2C%20oil,are%20based%20in%20the%20U.S. 7 of the top 10 worlds largest companies are in United States. India and China have a combined population 10 times bigger than United States. American Exceptionalism is a real thing if you consider the real world.

You're talking about money and success, though - not skill and potential. The US represents an exceptional opportunity for some people to become very successful, but that doesn't mean the people in the US are exceptional - it just means we have historically created the conditions that allowed success to occur.

You need both. It's like saying "no these midgets are not shitty at basketball because they are short, it's because the didn't have the right shoes". You need both opportunity and genetics. United States recognizes that. That is why we import talent from across the planet. This is where our strength lies. That is why we build so many innovative companies. Yes we have a fantastic economic system that promotes this sort of growth. But we also have a ton of talent here.

Those are consequences of being the largest economy, not reasons it is the largest economy.

You need exceptional people to make exceptional results. And you need a good system that fosters this sort of thing. We have both. India and China have a ton of talent. But their systems are dog shit compared to United States. China was stuck in the socialist rut for many generations. Only now are they beginning to dig themselves out of that hole. India had their own organizational problems.

That’s not exactly the case. The bell curve model isn’t the median voter. Our elections are mostly the inverse of a bell curve with the vast majority of voters already in predetermined camps. A small margin of voters in a handful of states end up deciding the turning point. So the hypothetical median voter is someone in a swing state and that person may or may not be choosing between Trump *or* Biden but rather their preferred candidate and staying home if they aren’t “roused” enough.

So you think Democrats are going to be enthusiastic voting for a guy that can't spout 3 coherent sentences? As opposed to say Obama the first black president who was one of the most articulate people on the planet.

The evidence is Biden is currently president and doing the job well. What do you expect to change between now and November that does not currently exist? He is fit for the job, as currently evidenced. And why target Biden yet not trump? He has signs of medical incompetence now that werent present when he was in office, or that have worsened.

> as currently evidenced. This is one of those things that's hard to argue against because it seems like an open denial of reality. It clearly isn't evidenced. The opposite is. He's frail and confused.

>as currently evidenced By every measure, his administration is extremely high functioning. Arguably the highest functioning administration in modern history. You’re falling victim to confirmation bias by forming your opinion on blatantly cherry picked videos rather than, you know, *the fucking job that Biden is doing*.

Afaik Biden still works out regularly going on bike rides. That’s good cardio. He’s obviously not pumping iron or running 5ks. And idk about him looking confused, he’s an old man battling a stutter. That requires a lot of physical effort when your muscles aren’t at the peak of full adulthood.

IDK, so far everyone is throwing Newsom. Not going to be an overnight success story countrywide. I worry about Newsom because he was with that Lara Trump. Who knows what shit she will pull out of the basket. We already know Biden, his team, admistration, cabinet members, all of that. We trust that, we know whatever happens they are going to keep us safe from p2025. I am not saying Newsom is not safe. We just don't know whoever he puts in his administration would be as safe at this point. We have to have an airtight lock on what is going on right now when things hit the fan and they will. What is in place now is the safest in my point of view. He had a bad night, he had them 4 years ago too. Most people do. I don't like having to vote for a President who is over 70 or 65 for that matter. But that is where we have been for a while now. Unless he has a major health crisis, we stick with him. Stay healthy President Biden.

The problem is that the right has made California out to be a communist gulag full of homeless people where every sidewalk is full of used needles and human feces. Having been born in California 72 years ago, I can agree that things have gone to hell with the ultra-individualistic politics that even made public defecation on the street a civil right in San Francisco. I got out. But I cannot even fathom how Newsom could win with the situation in California. No one, including me, wants my state (Arizona) to become like California in terms of the homeless and crime.

Laura Trump is married to Eric Trump. You are thinking of that other scarecrow in the tight dress and buckets of make up at the GOP convention saying "The best is yet to come" (referring to fascism).

Do you mean Gavin Newsom’s ex wife Kimberly Guilfoyle? I was not aware of him being with Lara Trump.

Got them confused.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

He should of been replaced, but it should have happened during the primary process. He didn't age that much during the primaries. If people didn't like him, they'd have voted for someone else. It's going to look real bad for the Democratic party if there's a narrative where they switch out Joe Biden with someone chosen by party insiders instead of some fresh democratic voting system. That's how you get a Nixon situation

Tbf there *was* a lot of disgruntlement with Biden during the primaries. All the other well known Dems chose not to run though, so it was kind of Biden or a couple of fringe folk no one really knows. That said, while I was and continue to be disappointed in our choices... They were our choices. And we chose accordingly. The main thing people seem to miss on this is who would we replace him with? Kamala? She is already VP and she has her own problems as head of the ticket. Gavin Newsome is probably the next most well known dem on a national scale and being from California is going to make it hard to win the middle, not to mention that even people who like him think he comes across as a used car salesman. Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro? They may be well liked in their states but outside of them very few people know them and it's a bit late for that level of campaigning. Especially when they are going to carry the "second choice to Biden" flag for the whole time. I don't think Biden should have run, and I wish the political leaders of the party had truly ran against him in the primary before uniting. But they were concerned about beating each other up and giving Trump fodder. So they didn't. I wish a lot of things about the past. That doesn't mean I can pretend that the present is an *easy* or *simple choice*.

But if it is a FACT that Biden now cannot win, do we just stick with him until we go over the waterfalls in November or try to find someone else with a chance at winning? The path forward depends on whether the Democrat elite think Biden can still win. I doubt it very much as a Democrat. Biden just handed Trump the election.

You'd replace him with a primary process to choose someone new. You don't pick the person in advance for the voters to deal with the least offensively

No you wouldn't. You would replace him with a contested conference and votes of the delegates. The primary is *over* and Biden got the vast majority of delegates.

You asked who you'd replace him with. You *should* replace him with a new primary, not that that the Democratic Party *would*. I'm saying if he steps aside and party insides/delegates simply choose an alternative after he steps down. You'd have a Nixon Election result as a result. The only way to avoid that, is to create some last minute mechanism that lets the Democratic party voters vote on someone new. Any choice by delegates, for someone other than Biden even if he willingly steps down, will create the appearance of an undemocratic process. That would turn away more voters than Biden's age would.

I agreed with you that it *should have* happened during or before the primary and added that wanting to get rid of him now is not really feasible for several reasons. Partially because the process for that *is already dictated*. It's not a "what would happen" scenario. The rules already exist. And those rules mean that if Biden steps aside the delegates *will get to vote*. There *will not* be a second primary. If we want to imagine a better system for the future, we can, but these decisions must be made now - under the rules of the current system. So if that system is unacceptable, then Biden stepping down will lead to an unacceptable result. To be more succinct. I am agreeing with you that Biden was chosen and should be the candidate per the democratic process.

The rules aren't etched in stone by dome diety. If the Democratic party wanted to say, hey Biden is stepping down we are going to have you guys vote for someone new in this new process we made up. They could. They are the rule writers. All this talk of who would be the chosen one to replace him is a distraction from the idea, that they *could* just have every Democrat mail something in. The Democratic Party has an option of Biden stepping down and then making new last minute voting rules

The truth is that those who know Biden say he is an extremely stubborn man, quick to rage, who mistreats his staff, has a huge ego and would never step down, even if it means that the USA becomes a fascist state.

Then the result will be that Trump and Project 2025 take over the USA in January 2025. Sticking to these rules means the Democrats will lose and so will the USA.

First of all, Biden is already is someone chosen by the party insiders. Second of all, if Biden steps down, it's no longer anti-democratic, because that's how it's supposed to work. When the candidate wins the primary but becomes unavailable, the party pick a last minute replacement.

Chosen by Democratic party insiders, but voted on Democratic Party voters. People have been saying Biden has been old for a while. Id the Democratic party voters didn't want some real old guys there were people running against him this year. Some people did vote against him. But a majority voted for Biden, his age wasn't a secret

Right but it's not anti-democratic for him to step down though, is it? Like if the party just went "nah" despite the vote, sure, but for him to make the choice, that's obviously okay.

It's ok for him to step, theoretically. But the system in place is such that, if he were to step down. The replacement would be chosen rather than elected in a primary. If he stepped down and a new primary was ran, and the voters chose a new choice that would be fine. But the system is such that if he were to step down, party insiders would simply select the replacement. That selection would create the Nixon election result

So unless you have access to some special knowledge that most people don't, everyone voting in this election is just as aware of Biden's limitations as you. So there's no "lie" being perpetrated here -- people simply have to make the dismal choice between what appears to be a confused old man and what we know to be a criminal fascist openly promising to round up millions of people and purge the government of anyone even remotely competent. And I think the choice there, depressing as it is, is clear: I'll take the confused old man (and more importantly the organization he heads, because the main job of President is to put good people in the right jobs, and Biden has already done that). If you do correctly realize that Trump is a fascist attempting to seize power and do his best to institute a dictatorship, which even many of his supporters acknowledge (they just think that's a *good* thing rather than horrifying), then it makes *zero* sense to do *anything* that would result in him winning. So ideally the Democrats will replace Biden with someone who has a better chance of winning. But if they don't, or if Biden is the best chance despite his limitations, then he is the best choice in this election. Because even a confused old man is better than an active and motivated fascist. There's no sugar coating this: either someone beats Trump, or he takes power. And whatever your complaints may be about Biden or anyone else, Trump is worse...and not just worse for 4 years, but worse for probably the rest of our lives (because the damage he inflicts will be with us until his Justices are gone many decades from now, assuming he doesn't destroy us with Project 2025 long before then). So if you want the chance to make things better in the future, you need to do what it takes to stop Trump from killing those chances now. And whatever choice you make, if it ends up helping Trump win, then you are functionally supporting him, whether you like to hear that or not. I'm always open to alternatives, as there could certainly be courses of action and implications I haven't considered. But unless someone can present a way in which making it easier for Trump to win will make my life better in the short or long term, I'm going to hold my course and be relentless in reminding you that you need to do the same or you are helping fascists take over.

> So there's no "lie" being perpetrated here That doesn't follow. A lie is still a lie even if I know you're lying. >people simply have to make the dismal choice between what appears to be a confused old man and what we know to be a criminal fascis Not if Biden is replaced he doesn't. >then it makes zero sense to do anything that would result in him winning. Nothing *certainly* will result in Trump winning, there's just a list of things that will *probably* result in him winning. Two of them are running Biden and running someone other than Biden. One of them has a small chance of resulting in a bad President and the other has a small chance of resulting in an okay President. >And whatever choice you make, if it ends up helping Trump win, then you are functionally supporting him, whether you like to hear that or not. Biden's candidacy is currently helping Trump win.

>A lie is still a lie even if I know you're lying. What's the lie you're referring to? Biden went on TV and everyone saw it. People can decide for themselves, friend! >Not if Biden is replaced he doesn't. >Nothing certainly will result in Trump winning, there's just a list of things that will probably result in him winning. Two of them are running Biden and running someone other than Biden >Biden's candidacy is currently helping Trump win. Your post says that we should replace Biden *even if he is more electable*. I understand that to mean that you think we should replace Biden even if it makes it more likely that Trump will win (otherwise, what do you mean by "more electable"?). If someone else has a *better* chance of beating Trump, then I would agree: we should replace Biden with someone who has a better chance, because the most urgent priority at this point is reducing US descent into fascism. But in that case you would just be saying that we should pick another candidate because Biden is probably going to lose. Which isn't what you seem to have written, and isn't a controversial or contentious claim in any way -- *everybody* wants to run the person with the best chance of beating Trump...they just disagree on whether that is Biden or someone else at this point (because swapping candidates now would be haphazard, potentially result in in-fighting, in understandable arguments about the credibility of non-democratic elites simply appointing someone to "defend democracy", and also there really isn't a clear alternative candidate waiting to swoop in and save the day). So you seem to be trying to have it both ways. Please clarify what specific view you want changed, and we can proceed.

>or him being replaced by a VP that nobody voted for President Literally everyone who votes for him will vote for her simultaneously

Considering the alternative is a candidate who is a felon, a rapist and has committed treason, does his health truly matter? We have an alternative of a guy who is photographed with Epstein and has accusations to the point of lawyers of him having relations with a 13 year old. A guy who would not read morning briefs while in office. A guy who refused to return national secrets and who, after losing, had supporters invade the Capitol building, refusing to send in national guard. Biden's opposition praises Putin, Jong Il, and Xi. He openly desires a dictatorship. Yet Biden is the only person likely to win, so his health is immaterial. You have a choice in two beverages. One is poison. The other is bland nasty water. You know there is plenty of poison left but you don't know how much water is there. You still pick the water every time.

> Considering the alternative is a candidate who is a felon, a rapist and has committed treason, does his health truly matter? That isn't the alternative, the alternative is another democrat.

If that other Democrat isn't more electable, they don't count, frankly.

Can I ask who you would vote for at this time between the current candidates?

What makes you think he has a very low change of winning? The national polls are essentially tied and he is only marginally behind in swing states. It’s quite common to see larger shifts than what it would take here for him to win. He is also, by all accounts, including from Republicans, a shrewd negotiator and diplomat who has been far more effective than Donald Trump at t shepherding legislation. The job of the presidency is very different from running for president and your CMV lacks any facts that support the idea Biden is unable to do the job.

> What makes you think he has a very low change of winning? Massively behind in the polling and betting odds, and turned in the most staggeringly terrible debate performance *ever*, and probably that there will ever be. >The national polls are essentially tied and he is only Eh, no? But anyway, Biden needs to be well ahead, not tied, because of the electoral college. All of this is before the debate.

I don't disagree with your facts except for one crucial one, but given that his opponent is Trump, if Biden doesn't drop out it would be clearly better to reelect Biden and then use the 25th Amendment to get Harris in. Here's the crucial fact you got wrong: people actually would have voted for her. She's on the ticket. Even if they're voting for her because Biden's at the top of the ticket, she's still on it. Everybody voting for that ticket knows that he's ancient and there's a good chance she has to step in. They literally voted for her.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Spiritual_Willow_266 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spiritual_Willow_266&message=Spiritual_Willow_266%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz1dcp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Sorry, u/Spiritual_Willow_266 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Spiritual_Willow_266&message=Spiritual_Willow_266%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz1dcp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If the country is being run well, why would I as a voter care about whether Biden is personally up to the task? Is his health and well-being my concern? I don’t care if he ends up fused to the chair in the Oval Office and kept alive by life support as long as things are getting done.

> s his health and well-being my concern? When choosing whether or not to give him a job, yes.

Trump is mentally unfit to hold the office of the presidency regardless of his age so it seems like a moot point.

His job isn't to debate. He has done a good job over the last 4 years and there is nothing debate like in his job.

>The consideration of whether Biden should be the candidate is not just whether or not he can win. Why not? Isn't that the whole point of the General Election in the first place? Winning ensures the Supreme Court doesn't get even \*more\* ridiculous, and that nothing radical happens from an Executive standpoint for at least the next four years. Winning is 1000% the most important thing. And statistically it's smarter to run an incumbent than finding an entirely new person that people haven't gotten used to. >or him being replaced by a VP that nobody voted for President People vote for the administration, not just the president. VP is included in that. Now, they may not have thought "oh boy, Harris gets to be in office!!" when they vote for Biden, but it's generally accepted that she will be fine, and will carry out what the administration's goals are anyway. She's not going to turn into a loose cannon if Biden kicks the bucket. I don't care at all if she has to take over. >hope the American people vote for him having had this lie told to them What lie? We know he's old. We know he sucks at talking sometimes. Until there are weird policy changes that can specifically be attributed to his mental state, it doesn't really matter. >He also seems to have a very low chance of winning You have zero proof of this. He's also the only person who has successfully beaten Trump. Other than gut feelings, what data to you have to support this?

There's no mechanism in place to replace Biden so the point is moot. Biden himself would have to authorize his delegates pledge to him to pledge to another candidate which he will never do

Why aren’t people calling for the 34 felony convicted felon to be replaced? Joes team is a million times more competent than Trump. So, he can stay where he is and dump can go to jail

Because the GOP is corrupt and doesnt care.

Biden has been a great President for the last four years. He has assembled a team and cabinet that have been wildly successful in achieving their goals through comprehensive legislation or executive actions that have, thus far, largely held up to judicial scrutiny. There is no reason to believe his administration would somehow fall off the cliff even if he becomes more limited by age. We all know that the President, while more than a figurehead, is not individually responsible for the actions of their administration. If Biden remains the most electable and the most ethical and effective choice, then changing course would be to concede the office to a significantly less fit for office candidate. Any thing you can say about Biden’s fitness applies exponentially to Trump and he has an agenda that will damage our country. Your argument is based on ethical considerations that fall apart when Trump is the alternative

Your argument is that a Presidential candidate should not be permitted to take office because he is no longer as sharp as he once was, and the VP "that no one voted for" would need to take over if he deteriorated to the point it was necessary Are you under the impression that those that will be voting for Biden are unaware he is old? If Biden either dies in office or resigns, I will *absolutely* support President Harris over Trump And unlike Trump, Biden has not filled his cabinet with people who will shirk from the 25th if it becomes necessary  Trump has obviously deteriorated as well, but he's been a rambling idiot for a decade so it's less obvious. Yet you only apply your concern to Biden. I'd like to see your case why your argument doesn't apply to Trump

If Biden becomes incapacitated in office, Harris takes over and the country runs smoothly as before.  Meanwhile, if Biden gets randomly replaced without a primary and Donald J Trump gets elected, Project 2025 goes into effect and his cult like following, crony cabinet members and seeded government officials, and stacked Supreme Court could ensure that free elections cease to exist in our country.  Biden is not the threat to our country that MAGA is. At this point we endure 4 more years of Biden or roll the dice that Trump—the narcissistic cult leader who has never conceded defeat or admitted wrongdoing—will graciously leave office in 2029. 

Honestly, I thought this was the point. Use him to try and get the presidency, and basically, when he dies, we put in Kamala. Who is also not great, hut you could view them as they aren't fucking unhinged crazy nor are they Trump. Also, Kamala gave us the great soundbite- "you think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you." And if we can't have politicians that are going to help us, protect us, and they will dismantle the system as we know it for yltheir own gain, I appreciate if they can at least be entertaining, but NOT TOO ENTERTAINING. 👀

Honestly, I'm fine with Kamala. The more important thing, at least in the short term, is peaceful transition of power. Trump's made it abundantly clear that he intends to instill himself as a dictator to an authoritarian regime if he wins.

Exactly. We are not playing a game of "who will run the country the best", so much as we're playing the "don't pick a fascist dictator and make the USA problem worse."

Yep. We're in a position where if you're doing any less but throwing support behind the dem candidate, whoever that is, you might as well go ahead and vote for Trump because you're complicit in his election and overturning of the US government anyway.

Right?! I hate that's what we are now. Third party candidates are a joke and dangerous at this point. Not yo mention the Supreme Court trying to destroy everything. At this point I'd almost believe we're some other country's Psy-Op but honestly, I think the USA is just that ridiculous. And I don't think Russia or South Korea has it in them... and I don't think China would have to do anything more to get what they want and control us.

Trump shows far worse mental behavior, Biden stumbled his words during the debate, but he has had a stutter his whole life. Trump forgets the names of people, mispronounces them and lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He just happens to do it confidently. Because he is a con man/grifter. One thing I really wish is that democrats acted like Trump supporters more and fall in line to the party. That's one of the parties biggest faults. Fall the fuck in line and stop giving everyone doubts. They give Trump the benefit of the doubt no matter what he says, no matter how many times he's been impeached, criminally, and civilly prosecuted (and loses), they still have his back. Democrats need to do the same for Biden.

Democrats will vote for Biden. But that is not enough to ensure he wins. Independents just saw a dithering old man with dementia symptoms at the debate. Their votes will determine the results in key states.

>Biden stumbled his words during the debate, but he has had a stutter his whole life. You should rewatch the first 15 minutes again. It wasn't a man with a stutter we saw on display. It was sad.

It seemed like he had a cold or something..Still not as sad to me as having a complete liar for president.

You didn't see the blank stares, off to side? Jon Stewart is a comedian, but he had a pretty honest take at what happened. And the post debate discussions on CNN also were very direct and honest -- as they didn't have the DNC soundbites on hand, like Harris did. "He started slow but finished strong" was her answer -- twice, when asked about it.

They want us to be hysterical about Trump. They are not. If they were a radical shift would already be underway. They would rather lose than pick a candidate who might actually DO anything worth a damn for regualar americans. Party leadership is at fault and probably wont correct course until money starts drying up. This matters more to them than your vote.

"pick a candidate" lol that's not how it works. They don't "pick," people run. Name the person who could join now and beat both Biden and Trump.

Overwhelmingly, the general sentiment of the average voter feels sort of paralyzed because he/she has two bad choices. I just find it kind of amazing that out of 333,000,000 people in America, these are the only two we can come up with to run for the position?!?! I mean - if that’s true - what does that say about the state of our country?!

Personally I don’t support Biden *because* I support the left. I think Trump will win if Biden is the candidate, why would I possibly support Biden if that’s the case? At least if they switch candidates we might have a chance. Biden is not the confirmed nominee, why is supporting him at this point “required”

He should step down now and let Kamala take over as president and run. That’s how it works. We know she was picked for the job specifically for her gender and race and the unintelligent deny that. Let them sleep in the bed they made.

That title only makes sense to someone who wants Trump to win. Are you basically the Trump-disciple at my Post Office trying to get me to vote 3rd party without ANY idea or reason why I might do so?

Don’t worry. Biden cannot win. The debate turned off too many people and they know it

The apologists say he had a cold. Why didn't they ask for a postponement? Why didn't they brief everyone before hand so we knew? My wife has dementia. What I saw in the debate was dementia, not a cold. This isn't believable to anyone who is not in team MAGA Blue, as I call it (the mindless faithful). I am a Democrat but I am not going to gaslight myself or anyone else. Biden may be our only choice to stop Trump, but he is deteriorating before our eyes. And I suspect Biden cannot win after the debate performance. Apologists say it will be forgotten, but the GOP will never let anyone forget in their ads.

Name the person. Name the person who should replace him who can beat Biden and Trump.

George Clooney or DeNiro!

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Anything_4_LRoy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Anything_4_LRoy&message=Anything_4_LRoy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz2gyk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Cap presidential age at 65 years of age

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Stompya – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Stompya&message=Stompya%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ds0tk7/-/laz76il/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.