• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Wealth inequality has fuck all to do with a reader’s assessment of election candidacy, especially when the primary source (the candidate) is emphatic about their intent to run.

    By all available signal, Biden fully intended to run until after the debate, where the cracks formed, other candidates were discussed, and Harris stepped up.

    To suggest otherwise could only be arrived at by wish, or reliance on a more distant, less direct source, which is a worse bet.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Idk, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t accept Biden’s words. So, it’s wild, to me, that an informed citizen would simply accept things the way they’re told they are. Maybe this isn’t about “sources” and more about pundits and narrative-makers/builders - the ones that decide who is “electable”. Not everyone accepted the narrative that Biden wouldn’t step down. Some even had the narrative that he must step down and apparently they were “right” - for lack of a better word (sorry for any poor communication)

      That said, you’ve clearly made up your mind and you don’t really seem interested in entertaining this idea, so we really don’t have to keep going