• GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They should be, they need to be held accountable for their first 4 years to check if they are worthy of another 4.

      • ME5SENGER_24
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hate how when someone gets elected for their first term, the first thing out of everyone’s mouth is: re-election. Bitch, how about you bust your ass for 4 years and everyone will be begging you to stay. Instead its, get elected, work on re-election campaign, build a library. It would be amazing to see my country finally live up to this whole American dream BS that’s been shoved down my throat since birth, yet the only people actually getting richer were already rich to begin with. We talk about $100k salaries like they’re gold yet Elon, Bezos and Bill Gates wipe their asses with larger bills than that. We need a government for the people of the people. Not a bunch of 1%ers mooching off us Poors and writing policies to their benefit distancing themselves and their families from further from the people they claim to represent

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          They need to earn their position, if they haven’t spent the prior 4 years earning it they shouldn’t be reelected.

              • knotthatone@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                OP’s not asking about what the incumbent expects. Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?

                • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?

                  Because thats how democracy is supposed to work. Candidates need to earn everyone’s vote every time theres an election. The purpose of an election is to give the population a chance to approve their reelection, it also holds them accountable. To just assume they are entitled to the full 8 years with no question or accountability is authoritarian.

          • hansl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a “the system is broken but we have to play with the rules” thing. We can protest/protest/canvas for new voting rules to get third parties more chance to be in congress, but I can’t see the presidency ever changing in a regular setting.

            • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They designed a system that’s broken for us, works perfectly for them and demand we participate in it

                • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Then democrats better start earning votes instead of demanding them. "We are not them’ isnt good enough.

                  • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In a democracy the citizens aren’t customers that need to be courted (though they often behave that way, to their own detriment). Rather, the citizens are participants. Sometimes, maybe usually, the whole process isn’t fun and enjoyable. Sometimes elections are like root canals: undesirable, but the alternative is a lot more pain and problems down the road.

      • HWK_290@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but the Biden administration is definitely using the debate to put forward their own talking points (“watch it jack, we’re bringing roe back,” a new plan to cap student loan debt, new climate investments) so it’s not like we’re getting no taste of what the administration’s priorities will be in the next 4 years

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, but the Biden administration is definitely using the debate to put forward their own talking points (“watch it jack, we’re bringing roe back,” a new plan to cap student loan debt, new climate investments) so it’s not like we’re getting no taste of what the administration’s priorities will be in the next 4 years

          Good, and they should be. I’d like to see some Democratic with the candidates who obviously won’t be getting the nod, simply because its an opportunity to hold people accountable. How about the failure by the Biden administration on student loans? How about we have some debate questions about the supreme court and how its basically been captured by the conservative movement, and apparently, open to bribery? We have so few opportunities to actually engage in politics. We can’t give up the debates simply because of decorum or that the contenders won’t win. Its literally the only time we ever get the chance to drive the party in the direction of the will of the people.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What is Biden supposed to do about the Supreme Court except nominate new justices? The problem is that you need Congress to do something.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lets here what he proposes as a solution. Its his answer to have not mine, and as President, he sure as fucking shit better have a plan, or he’s not qualified for the job. The argument here is in support of debates. Without debates, we don’t get answers to these kinds of questions.

              I sure as shit want to know what Biden’s plan is to deal with a congress that wont play ball. He needs to have one.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lets here what he proposes as a solution. Its his answer to have not mine

                It isn’t his job, unless you make the Supreme Court a Presidential appointment alone and that they can fire justices on their own whim.

                The power to deal with a corrupt Supreme Court has been clearly vested in Congress, not the President.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It isn’t his job, unless you make the Supreme Court a Presidential appointment alone and that they can fire justices on their own whim.

                  It sure as fuck is the Presidents job to navigate the halls of power and deliver on things they campaign on.

                  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    To a point, but the President has not been given the power to be a dictator.

                    If the President’s agenda doesn’t get past Congress, what is the President supposed to do? Do you expect the President to start arresting members of Congress until the Presidents’ bills get passed?