Because nobody tells someone at that power level what to do.
They can choose, on their own, not to run like Johnson did in 1968. But no outside influence can or should tell a President they can’t run.
I thought the whole point of having a democracy was people got to choose their leaders.
If you’re saying leaders become too powerful to reject, that’s troubling.
The people had the opportunity to choose during the primary whether they wanted to vote for someone else who holds mostly similar views (e.g. the same political party) to their own, or the person currently doing the job. There weren’t a lot of people from the same political party that offered themselves up as challengers to the person currently doing the job, for a variety of reasons. Our system heavily favors the person currently doing the job in our primary elections, but challenges have been made before, just not this time.
You get to choose, between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee.
If you vote Libertarian, you are helping Biden by taking away a Trump vote.
If you vote Green, you are helping Trump by taking away a Biden vote.
To clarify, the above wasn’t some kind of rhetorical question. I’m not American and am not asking for voting guidance.
You seemed to be saying that once a politician gets to a position of power, voters are no longer allowed to try to influence their decisions around whether to run, be the nominee etc.
That seems problematic to me, and against the basic principles of democracy, so I’m querying it.
If you think no one tells Joe Biden what he should be doing on the daily you might be more demented than he is.
Well… they also do that.
Also, even taking that statement as literal - is that supposed to be a good thing? “Despite his staff and advisors urging him to not run again, in a bid for power he is again!”
