President Joe Biden hosted a small group of scholars and historians for lunch on Wednesday as he gears up for a speech framing the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s democracy.
The discussion revolved around “ongoing threats to democracy and democratic institutions both here in America and around the world, as well as the opportunities we face as a nation,” the White House said in a statement.
Princeton’s Eddie Glaude Jr. and Sean Wilentz, Harvard’s Annette Gordon-Reed, Yale’s Beverly Gage and Boston College’s Heather Cox Richardson were among the attendees, as well as presidential biographer — and occasional Biden speech writer — Jon Meacham.
Attendees were tight-lipped about what was discussed at the gathering. One would only go so far as to say they “talked about American history and its bearing on the present — a lively exchange of ideas.”
Another person in the room, who like the others was not authorized to speak publicly about a private meeting, said the historians urged the president “to call out the moment for what it is.” In blunt terms, the academics discussed looming threats to the nation’s democracy and warned about the slow crawl of authoritarianism around the globe.
“genocidin Biden”? No wonder you’re not voting, you sound like you’re 12. Go to your room and think about what you just said, young human. It’s not as deep as you think it is.
The situation in Gaza is tragic, and can’t be solved with a soundbite. But anyone who thinks outcomes will be better with Trump in office is delusional. Trump has proven that he doesn’t really care about human rights, he cares about enriching himself. The Palestinians will be sold to the highest bidder. Is that what you want?
Browbeating is satisfying, and is less work than addressing the issue and trying to make progress toward a resolution. Do you suppose that your response made it more likely that the person you responded to will behave in the way you want?
Dismissiveness indicates an aversion to introspection.
I am not averse to introspection, I did a lot of it before I made my decision.
Morally, I can not support someone who wants to kill Gazans so badly that he did a run around around congress, twice.
He even confirms that he is not concerned about it, just the optics on israel.
I didn’t say you were. I was referring to your interlocutor.
Ah, my apologies then.
Dismissiveness also comes from fatigue, which we have in spades right now
Yes, people who aren’t as supportive of genocide as you’d prefer are certainly fatiguing.
Since when has what I wanted been a factor in an election?
Also, my bad, it should be Genocidin’ Biden with a capital g and an apostrophe for proprieties sake
I’m 37 and voted blue from 18.
The party is officials are ignoring my concerns therefore, I no longer support them.
Feel free to do so if you’d like, I don’t intend on standing in your way.
You did not have my back, and now I won’t have yours
Cool, so you’re just a fucking idiot then, got it
Loyalty is a 2 way street. I fronted the party some and they fucked me when it came time to pay it back.
I’ll give you some good life advice, never give your loyalty to someone who ignores you.
I’ll tell you what, maybe you can go bypass congressional oversight to do what you want.
Maybe you can give unlimited support to him, but I won’t help a bad person.
We’re talking about voting, not loyalty.
Of course you will. Choosing to throw away your vote is a choice nonetheless.
I mean, if I really disagreed that much I could just vote for the other guy out of spite.
I support the rest of what y’all stand for enough not to help the enemy, I just can’t stand the thought of standing next to you anymore.
I like it more than genocide Joe, hell at least I still capitalize his name.